Your opinion of guns

[Thatguy71]

I suggested a taser slingshot... Do you think I'm serious!?

...Because that would so kick ass.



Hear hear. :thumbsup:

There are hundreds of different taser models, I have no idea if "slingshot" was just a model name, especially since you're in a different country.

 

[sremick]

And I do believe Sremick is liberal

Damn straight. A legalize-pot, save-the-environment, bring-the-troops-home, gay-rights liberal. Who's ready to defend his tree-hugging ass with a pistol if necessary.

I'm pretty sure guns have a large chance of killing someone if you get shot

Depends on where you aim. That's the magic of it. You have options.

Theyre just such a drastic step to take, and to then take someone elses life for stealing an item from your house is insane.

1) The idea is for it to be extremely drastic... so that it's a deterrent. Having your attacker know that you can easily take his life if he continues his threat.

2) No one is advocating killing someone for theft. The point is, one has a weapon as a theft-deterrent. And in the extreme case that it still has to be used, there are plenty of ways to use it that cause fear or injury, not death.

If you think that I wouldn't lose sleep over taking a life, and view it as a first step, you are sorely mistaken and are totally missing my points.

Brits feel safe without them

How they feel and and how they are are two different things. Read this.

 

[Frogger]

There are hundreds of different taser models, I have no idea if "slingshot" was just a model name, especially since you're in a different country.

The police aren't allowed to carry around tasers here either.

1) The effect is not immediate. You can easily still end up dead. Ideally you're looking at 2-3 minutes for a "fast" take-down.
2) The proper dose amount depends tremendously on the body mass (and adrenaline level) of the target. Too little, nothing happens. Too much, they die.
3) Tranquilizer drugs degrade pretty fast, making them useless as a reliable every-day weapon.
4) There aren't any repeating tranquilizer dart pistols. Unless you're an eagle-eye shot who can get it the first time, you're screwed. This reduces the deterrent factor a lot.

Take careful note of #2 if your concern is "OMG Think of the children!" The proper dose for a 200 lb attacker would kill a small child, making the tranquilizer pistol no less-lethal in a household with kids.

The idea that a tranquilizer dart will safely (non-lethally) and immediately bring down any attacker is Hollywood fiction.

I don't know anything about tranquilisers, or any sort of weapon really, I don't carry anything on me, but I don't live my life in fear. The thought of a gun being on anyone scares me, I'd seriously be more worried when I come home late and have to walk in the dark. I doubt you can whip out a gun if someone comes up behind you.

If you're attacked the chances are they only want to rob you, if you're one of the few that get beaten, then you're just incredibly unlucky, it's not a big enough number to let guns be introduced to spur these people on.

 

[Lewi T]

Here's a thought. If guns were more widely available, I believe that the number of minors having a gun would increase. Now you may say that this would be the parent's fault, but kids nowadays will always get their hands on things, no matter how good the parents are.

The more kids that get hold of guns means a lot more trouble and danger. If these guns weren't available for parents or whoever, then there wouldn't be more guns around for kids to get their hands on. I can say pretty confidently that if many families had guns in their houses in England, then many kids would end up getting control of that gun, and probably using it.

 

[Frogger]

Yeah, see our smoking laws suck, it's age 16, it should so be changed, and even 12 year olds can get hold of them damn easily. There's dumb adults that would do anything just because they would have wanted it.

 

[Lewi T]

Yeah, see our smoking laws suck, it's age 16, it should so be changed, and even 12 year olds can get hold of them damn easily. There's dumb adults that would do anything just because they would have wanted it.

I think it's 18 to buy nowadays. I don't know if I just made that up though. Anyone can get hold of ciggies though, the amount of kids that smoke is ridiculous.

 

[Thatguy71]

The police aren't allowed to carry around tasers here either.



I don't know anything about tranquilisers, or any sort of weapon really, I don't carry anything on me, but I don't live my life in fear. The thought of a gun being on anyone scares me, I'd seriously be more worried when I come home late and have to walk in the dark. I doubt you can whip out a gun if someone comes up behind you.

If you're attacked the chances are they only want to rob you, if you're one of the few that get beaten, then you're just incredibly unlucky, it's not a big enough number to let guns be introduced to spur these people on.

In an earlier post I had mention that I'm a fact guy, facts should be taken notice of before forming an oppinion thats where the phrase "a well informed oppinion" comes from as opposed to "stabbing in the dark". The great thing about having a concealed carry permit is that you (and others such as criminals) don't know or will never know that I'm carrying untill the time comes to defend myself. That gives me the advantage and you (and others) a chance to live. Part of being concealed is I am aware of my surroundings at all times, is it possible someone could come up behind me sure, is it improbable that they would get me by suprise, absolutley; part of being a concealed carry permit holder is to assess situations and decrease the probability of encountering an attack, it starts with prevention before it gets to protection. If an armed perp confronts me I am not a mind reader and do not want to place my life in thier hands. If my GF is with me a simple robbery could turn to a rape at the drop of the pants, I could never live with my self having not taken the proper precautions to stop an assailant and protect loved ones.

 

[sremick]

I prefer to not allow someone else's bad-parenting to restrict my ability to defend the property and lives of myself, my family, and those I care about and love. I believe that to be a human right that the government should not be able to take away in-return for blind-faith in limited and failure-prone (not to mention corrupt) "public resources".

I understand the UK has a different take on this. It's demonstrated by a contentment with what I would see as a "nanny" government that stomps all over civil liberties, rights, and privacy left and right (CCTV anyone?), with people becoming dependent on a castrated, de-clawed and virtually ineffective police force. How they manage to feel "safe" in an environment that clearly is nothing of the sort is a total mystery to me.

 

[nice_wii]

I think you should have the right to own a gun but you would have to go through rigorous testing to get it

 

[Thatguy71]

I think you should have the right to own a gun but you would have to go through rigorous testing to get it

Reasons I dissagree with you is that this can have unintended discrimination. Tranining of any kind cost the person who wants to be trained money. If someone is of a lower socioeconomic status and cannont afford both gun and traning, then they are by default being descriminated against. And essentially there would be the debate that "why do only the rich get to protect themselves when the poor does not." Especially since people who don't have a lot of money tend to live in high crime areas, to dissarm them would be irresponsible. Not to mention this would be an infringment of one's constitutional right to own a gun.

 

[sremick]

I think you should have the right to own a gun but you would have to go through rigorous testing to get it

I have no problem with that. My dad made me take hunter's safety which taught me a lot even though I don't hunt. The Boy Scouts [*] also taught me a lot:

http://www.scouting.org/HealthandSafety/GSS/gss08.aspx

Asinine restrictive gun laws are bone-headed, but training courses that prove you're not a dumbass and know which end of the gun is which, as well as how to properly handle, use, etc a gun would be a good idea.

Probably for computers too, but that's another thread. :lol:


[*] Despite their positive contribution to my childhood, I currently despise the Boy Scouts due to their close-minded, bigoted stance on homosexuals.

 

[sremick]

Reasons I dissagree with you is that this can have unintended discrimination. Tranining of any kind cost the person who wants to be trained money. If someone is of a lower socioeconomic status and cannont afford both gun and traning, then they are by default being descriminated against. And essentially there would be the debate that "why do only the rich get to protect themselves when the poor does not." Especially since people who don't have a lot of money tend to live in high crime areas, to dissarm them would be irresponsible. Not to mention this would be an infringment of one's constitutional right to own a gun.

What if the training were free, but you still had to pass?

You make excellent points and I don't inherently disagree with you.

 

[Thatguy71]

What if the training were free, but you still had to pass?

You make excellent points and I don't inherently disagree with you.

If training were free I might me more for it(that crossed my mind while I was typing the above). But then that would come out of our taxes and the governmet allready dumps too much into social welfare programs. I shudder at the thought to give them more opportunities to launder our tax money. I also don't really like the idea of the government knowing what kind and how many guns I have. If you took a government training course they would certainly have you regiseter everything so when the time comes to disarm the citizens they know who to start with. I allready feel this way about my concealed carry permit, but I would rather be able to defend myself legally. I would also wonder what this class entailed, if you are to get training before you can buy a gun then how do you train before coming to the class. If they supply a gun for the class to train with, then what if you were planning on using a tottaly different gun, then tranning would have been esentially useless because you would have to then retrain yourself to be famiular with that particular gun.

 

[sremick]

I doubt it'd be hard to find volunteers willing to run the course, since it's in everybody's best interest. But the volunteers would be certified to be able to conduct the course and issue licenses.

The license would simply need to be flashed in order to obtain the gun. No registration, no tracking. Just sort of like being carded to buy alcohol.

Likewise, if in the course of any other thing you were caught by police owning a gun without a "gun safety license", you could be fined (like owning alcohol under 21).

Perhaps still too-restrictive... I don't know. I'm just sort of playing devil's advocate a bit for the sake of compromise with those on the other end of the spectrum.

 

[Thatguy71]

I doubt it'd be hard to find volunteers willing to run the course, since it's in everybody's best interest. But the volunteers would be certified to be able to conduct the course and issue licenses.

The license would simply need to be flashed in order to obtain the gun. No registration, no tracking. Just sort of like being carded to buy alcohol.

Likewise, if in the course of any other thing you were caught by police owning a gun without a "gun safety license", you could be fined (like owning alcohol under 21).

Perhaps still too-restrictive... I don't know. I'm just sort of playing devil's advocate a bit for the sake of compromise with those on the other end of the spectrum.

These are all good points, but it's still in our consitution "the right to bear arms", any comprimise is comprimising our constituition. If we comprimise that amendment then what other ones are we willing to comprimise untill we become a socialist country? Some would argue that any and all restrictions are a violation of the second amendment, I am not one of them, there are some with mental health disorders that would be irresponsible of us to let have guns, I tend to agree with a violent felon not being allowed to have a gun, but less likely of one who became a felon due to $500 in property damage. Just having the permit (like a drivers license) lets the government know you have guns. Some people don't have problems with this because they are law abiding citizens, it just things like what happend in new orleans after katrina: http://youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4 that bothers me. This also happend in Greensburg KS after a tornado.