busmaster11
Platinum Member
- Mar 4, 2000
- 2,875
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: BigJ
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: Mookow
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: Mookow
When they develop a tazer that will allow me multiple shots in very quick succession (multiple shots being defined as ~6; quick succession being defined as sub 1/4 second) that will also incapacitate someone with one hit (and that doesnt require a pause after that hit), I'll consider it. Also, it will need an effective range of 0-50 feet. Until then, it doesnt perform as well as the alternatives. I have yet to see a tazer that would fulfill those specs. If they exist, I would like a link so as to expand my horizons. However, if such a tazer is ever developed I highly doubt it will ever become legal for civilians to own at a price point comparable to a 357 revolver.
Now, you may think that there are some tazers out there that come close, or fulfill some of the above specs, and are thus "good enough". "Close" is not, and has never been, good enough. There are no rewards for finishing second place in a situation that warrants the use of a firearm.
Enough is enough. Where do you draw the line? When technology comes out that allows people to possess portable nukes, and if you indeed have twenty dozen people wanting to kill you, what keeps you from demanding the right to own one - under your rationale?
To me, anything above a guy owning a handgun and leaving it in the home crosses the boundary of possible risk to my rights and freedoms and safties, whether its the owner using it or the owner being careless with it and leaving it for someone else.
Under my rationale, sometimes referred to as the "Second Amendment", the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The key word there is "arms". If the Second Amendment was meant to allow tanks, fighter planes, attack helos, nukes, etc., it would have read "arms and ordnance". Which clearly it does not.
However, your original quoted post saidMy post hinted that tazers are not as effective as guns, and thus they are not likely to replace them. Your response did not attempt to rebut my statements as to how tazers are not equally as effective as guns. So, either your initial post should have been condensed to "I have no idea what I am talking about regarding weapons, but I know they scare me, and I think people that own them do it for the power trip", or you simply forgot to present relevant facts. Please let us know which it is.But for many people, American or not, they're just rednecks on a power trip. If this statement makes you mad, ask yourself why stun guns or tazors haven't phased out the majority of guns used for self-defense. And yes, the technology is there to make these weapons very usuable.
In America, and every place they can afford it, its ALL about the ego.
You want facts? The bulk of Tasers (95%) are sold to law enforcement. If its good enough for the pros, I fail to see how its not good enough for you... oh, yeah... because you're on one of those power trips.
Two hundred years ago, a community of people carrying their own firearms united in a militia may stand a chance against a young government. Please don't tell me that you believe that is still the case, with the technology available. I don't blame you though - most of you power trippers hide behind the 2nd.
I do concede that the vast majority of people who CCW are law abiding citizens. However, if you manage to upset one of those aforementioned citizens and upset them, they may cease to be so law-abiding. Arm them with something that can kill, and they get their way whether they're right or wrong.
Guess what buddy, it is illegal to carry tasers and pepper spray in quite a few states, yet possible to own a handgun and obtain a CCW. Not to mention when they are legal, the stuff that is sold to the public is not nearly as effective as what is sold to LEA.
Not to mention, many departments are reviewing the use of stunninng-variant weapons because in some cases it is proving to be lethal. What's to stop an average citizen with little to no training from going trigger happy with a taser. This is compared to a licensed and trained citizen with a CCW permit, where simply drawing a firearm, under circumstances that warrant it, can put an end to the situation. There's a huge difference in the type of people that carry the weapons.
So I guess you really don't have many facts at all?
EDIT: Also, there are many situations where a firearm is a much better solution to the problem. Example: You're being held up at knifepoint by 2 scumbags. They decide they want to have some fun with your wife. Would you rather have a handgun, a taser, or pepper spray in that situation?
Well, I see my points are being ignored and facts I bring up are being spun. Ok...
I'm not sure where I suggested that tasers be given out to just about any monkey on the street, but if you can find it, please show me so I can apologize for my foolishness..
What you're referring to is quite a likely scenario if your premise was correct, but I don't believe it is right either. The same procedure for owning a handgun should be in place for owning a taser.
As for your last point, if I had a taser and didn't use it, it would look like a gun. If I did have to use it, it would have the same effect of disarming the attacker as a gun would. I don't ever believe that someone else's life should be in my hands (though I'm sure if I was upset enough I would change my mind, but I would regret it later if I were to kill someone). I leave that up to the Lord.
Besides, if you shot it, missed, and hit your wife, which would you rather it be?