Why you american so obsess with guns??

[busmaster11]

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 said

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.

My 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.

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?

 

[oldman420]

Originally posted by: torpid
I don't know about everyone else, but I will be buying a gun because I'm tired of salespeople screwing me over by not telling me things I should already know. For example, my car dealer never told me I had to change the oil in my car. Just one example. I'm sure the OP can think of another good one.

and the time I bought a new microwave and tried to eat the free tic tacs in the little bags.
they tasted bad.

 

[s8v4o]

This is in response to busmaster11's post


[/quote]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
#1"Well, I see my points are being ignored and facts I bring up are being spun. Ok... "

Your "facts" are not being spun. Come to think of it where did you give one single FACT?


[/quote]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
#2"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..

You didn't suggest giving tasers to any monkey on the street but we're not suggesting giving guns to any monkey on the street either. Both items in the wrong hands can kill, accidental or not. You drive a car right? You drive a weapon everyday. How would you feel if you accidentally ran someone over and killed them? Yet you still drive everyday taking that risk right? If you want to decrease the deaths we have each year then make it harder to get a fvcking drivers license for Christ?s sake. In my state it's illegal to own a taser but not a gun. I believe its legal be a moron behind the wheel in every state!

[/quote]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
#3"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.
[/b]

The procedures are the same in some states. On average it's probably harder to LEGALLY get a taser than a gun.

[/quote]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
#4"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.
[/b]

Boy this one is all wrong. If you pull out anything that resembles a gun you better be very careful as to no get yourself shot. You might as well be waving a water pistol in his/her face. When you pull out your fake gun and you can't shoot your likely to get shot yourself. Fake guns are a bad idea, even if it is a taser. You're better off with fake security stickers on your windows and $hit. You said "I don't ever believe that someone else's life should be in my hands" , well I guess you would want you and your wife?s (or husband) lives in the hands of the intruder? After all if you?re a "good" person god won't let you go right?

[/quote]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
#5"Besides, if you shot it, missed, and hit your wife, which would you rather it be?

That's highly unlikely and would be very unfortunate. I guess you would feel better watching your wife get raped and murdered instead of shooting him? Why does everyone always assume guns = death? You know if you wanted to be the good ?christian home defender? you could shoot the person in the legs or something. Or would you feel better stabbing him since it wouldn?t involve a gun? You know it could be worse, you could have killed him and saved you and your loved one, but hey life is over rated anyhow right?

 

[Lifted]

BigJ, let me explain something to you. This will be hard to hear so you better sit down.

You're just a bridge and tunnel goomba from Lawn Gawylend, therefore your opinion doesn't matter to anyone here, same as it doesn't matter to anyone in NY.

You might want to tell your boyz in the boiler room you probably work at the same. Ask them to stay away from the bidges and tunnels too please. The constant boom-boom from those SUV's with the big shinny rims and loud radios aren't impressing the ladies here, that's for sure. They are only eye sores and ear sores.

Cheers! :beer:

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: s8v4o


This is in response to busmaster11's post

Originally posted by: busmaster11
#1"Well, I see my points are being ignored and facts I bring up are being spun. Ok... "

Your "facts" are not being spun. Come to think of it where did you give one single FACT?

It's spinning when someone argues against giving a taser to just about anyone, when it was never suggested. 95% of Tasers are sold to law enforcement = FACT.

Thanks for playing.

Originally posted by: busmaster11
#2"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..

You didn't suggest giving tasers to any monkey on the street but we're not suggesting giving guns to any monkey on the street either. Both items in the wrong hands can kill, accidental or not. You drive a car right? You drive a weapon everyday. How would you feel if you accidentally ran someone over and killed them? Yet you still drive everyday taking that risk right? If you want to decrease the deaths we have each year then make it harder to get a fvcking drivers license for Christ?s sake. In my state it's illegal to own a taser but not a gun. I believe its legal be a moron behind the wheel in every state!

If I ran over someone, I would feel remorse, much more so if it was my fault, or if it was a child. Perhaps I can agree to CCW if the process of evaluating the candidate was much more stringent, and they worked harder to close loopholes. But I stand by my assertion that anyone who desires to carry anything more powerful than a handgun is out on a power trip.

If there was any merit to the argument that tasers are not practical, they seem to be raised by people like yourself who make the argument that anyone you shoot deserves what they get. That in itself is a power trip. No - a weapon is used for incapacitation only - it is a defensive tool. As such, Tasers work just as well.

Originally posted by: busmaster11
#4"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.
[/b]

Boy this one is all wrong. If you pull out anything that resembles a gun you better be very careful as to no get yourself shot. You might as well be waving a water pistol in his/her face. When you pull out your fake gun and you can't shoot your likely to get shot yourself. Fake guns are a bad idea, even if it is a taser. You're better off with fake security stickers on your windows and $hit. You said "I don't ever believe that someone else's life should be in my hands" , well I guess you would want you and your wife?s (or husband) lives in the hands of the intruder? After all if you?re a "good" person god won't let you go right?

Since you brought it up, I don't feel you have any real direct control over your destiny no matter what your ego might tell you otherwise. While I don't believe God heals and protects only the "good" as you call it, I do believe God seeks humility and faith in all of us. If you possess a Taser, the notion that my family's lives are in the intruder's hands is mitigated, and so is the reverse. As you say, if you cannot shot the gun, you would be equally dead.

Originally posted by: busmaster11
#5"Besides, if you shot it, missed, and hit your wife, which would you rather it be?

That's highly unlikely and would be very unfortunate. I guess you would feel better watching your wife get raped and murdered instead of shooting him? Why does everyone always assume guns = death? You know if you wanted to be the good ?christian home defender? you could shoot the person in the legs or something. Or would you feel better stabbing him since it wouldn?t involve a gun? You know it could be worse, you could have killed him and saved you and your loved one, but hey life is over rated anyhow right?

[/quote]

Again, you blindly limit yourself to convenient options to make it sound as if you made sense. Face it, it is the only way you can win. No, if I had a taser I would use it before seeing anything happen to my wife. If I was uncomfortable with the properties of the Taser I would get a handgun and leave it in the home.

How convenient as well, that you ranted on and on without answering the question.

 

[Childs]

Its a proven fact that when you have a gun in your hand your penis increases 72%.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Lifted
BigJ, let me explain something to you. This will be hard to hear so you better sit down.

You're just a bridge and tunnel goomba from Lawn Gawylend, therefore your opinion doesn't matter to anyone here, same as it doesn't matter to anyone in NY.

You might want to tell your boyz in the boiler room you probably work at the same. Ask them to stay away from the bidges and tunnels too please. The constant boom-boom from those SUV's with the big shinny rims and loud radios aren't impressing the ladies here, that's for sure. They are only eye sores and ear sores.

Cheers! :beer:

So instead of rebutting any of the arguments in this thread since your last post, you resort to personal attacks. I see you've won this one

 

[Lifted]

Originally posted by: BigJ
Well it's safe to say Lifted was summarily owned in this thread, and I'll doubt he'll be coming back. Another voice of reason like yours is always welcome. :beer:

Yeah, you sure made some great points there. All you did was sitck your little dong up Scotty's butt while whispering sweet little nothings into his ear.

You might want to at the very least hold back the childish comments for when YOU make an attempt to reply to one of my posts, not when somebody else manages to. Do you really think that first sentence is conrtibuting to the discussion? It's childish bullshit only a SUV driving goomba could come up with. Stop taking steriods Johnny V and try working out the muscle between your ears for once. Yes, you will fall flat on your face quite a few times at first, but eventually you may be a productive member of a future conversation.

Until then.... Ay Oh - Oh Ay! You talkin ta me?

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: s8v4o


This is in response to busmaster11's post

Originally posted by: busmaster11
#1"Well, I see my points are being ignored and facts I bring up are being spun. Ok... "

Your "facts" are not being spun. Come to think of it where did you give one single FACT?

It's spinning when someone argues against giving a taser to just about anyone, when it was never suggested. 95% of Tasers are sold to law enforcement = FACT.

Thanks for playing.

Originally posted by: busmaster11
#2"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..

You didn't suggest giving tasers to any monkey on the street but we're not suggesting giving guns to any monkey on the street either. Both items in the wrong hands can kill, accidental or not. You drive a car right? You drive a weapon everyday. How would you feel if you accidentally ran someone over and killed them? Yet you still drive everyday taking that risk right? If you want to decrease the deaths we have each year then make it harder to get a fvcking drivers license for Christ?s sake. In my state it's illegal to own a taser but not a gun. I believe its legal be a moron behind the wheel in every state!

If I ran over someone, I would feel remorse, much more so if it was my fault, or if it was a child. Perhaps I can agree to CCW if the process of evaluating the candidate was much more stringent, and they worked harder to close loopholes. But I stand by my assertion that anyone who desires to carry anything more powerful than a handgun is out on a power trip.

If there was any merit to the argument that tasers are not practical, they seem to be raised by people like yourself who make the argument that anyone you shoot deserves what they get. That in itself is a power trip. No - a weapon is used for incapacitation only - it is a defensive tool. As such, Tasers work just as well.

Originally posted by: busmaster11
#4"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.
[/b]

Boy this one is all wrong. If you pull out anything that resembles a gun you better be very careful as to no get yourself shot. You might as well be waving a water pistol in his/her face. When you pull out your fake gun and you can't shoot your likely to get shot yourself. Fake guns are a bad idea, even if it is a taser. You're better off with fake security stickers on your windows and $hit. You said "I don't ever believe that someone else's life should be in my hands" , well I guess you would want you and your wife?s (or husband) lives in the hands of the intruder? After all if you?re a "good" person god won't let you go right?

Since you brought it up, I don't feel you have any real direct control over your destiny no matter what your ego might tell you otherwise. While I don't believe God heals and protects only the "good" as you call it, I do believe God seeks humility and faith in all of us. If you possess a Taser, the notion that my family's lives are in the intruder's hands is mitigated, and so is the reverse. As you say, if you cannot shot the gun, you would be equally dead.

Originally posted by: busmaster11
#5"Besides, if you shot it, missed, and hit your wife, which would you rather it be?

That's highly unlikely and would be very unfortunate. I guess you would feel better watching your wife get raped and murdered instead of shooting him? Why does everyone always assume guns = death? You know if you wanted to be the good ?christian home defender? you could shoot the person in the legs or something. Or would you feel better stabbing him since it wouldn?t involve a gun? You know it could be worse, you could have killed him and saved you and your loved one, but hey life is over rated anyhow right?

Again, you blindly limit yourself to convenient options to make it sound as if you made sense. Face it, it is the only way you can win. No, if I had a taser I would use it before seeing anything happen to my wife. If I was uncomfortable with the properties of the Taser I would get a handgun and leave it in the home.

How convenient as well, that you ranted on and on without answering the question.[/quote]

If you pull a gun on an officer and plan to get hit with a taser, think again. You're going to be shot with a real gun. You say that if they're good enough for law enforcement that they should be good enough for civilian carry -- but you don't see too many officers without firearms, do you?

Ever think about how well a taser will work against someone with a leather jacket..heavy coat..etc?

How about another situation. You have a taser. You miss and hit your wife. She's knocked out. The bad guys are pissed. You're beaten to death, and your wife is raped and murdered.

I'll stick to the real thing..thanks.

 

[CHfan4ever]

EDITED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THIS THREAD....

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: s8v4o


This is in response to busmaster11's post

Originally posted by: busmaster11
#1"Well, I see my points are being ignored and facts I bring up are being spun. Ok... "

Your "facts" are not being spun. Come to think of it where did you give one single FACT?

It's spinning when someone argues against giving a taser to just about anyone, when it was never suggested. 95% of Tasers are sold to law enforcement = FACT.

Thanks for playing.

As it currently stands in many states where Tasers are legal, ANYONE can buy one and carry one. There are basically no restrictions on their purchase. Same goes for pepper spray. So anyone and their mother can carry, as opposed to a rather strict process in getting one's CCW permit.

Originally posted by: busmaster11
#2"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..

You didn't suggest giving tasers to any monkey on the street but we're not suggesting giving guns to any monkey on the street either. Both items in the wrong hands can kill, accidental or not. You drive a car right? You drive a weapon everyday. How would you feel if you accidentally ran someone over and killed them? Yet you still drive everyday taking that risk right? If you want to decrease the deaths we have each year then make it harder to get a fvcking drivers license for Christ?s sake. In my state it's illegal to own a taser but not a gun. I believe its legal be a moron behind the wheel in every state!

If I ran over someone, I would feel remorse, much more so if it was my fault, or if it was a child. Perhaps I can agree to CCW if the process of evaluating the candidate was much more stringent, and they worked harder to close loopholes. But I stand by my assertion that anyone who desires to carry anything more powerful than a handgun is out on a power trip.

Who is suggesting carrying more than a handgun for personal protection on the streets? Or are you talking about that in general, rifles and shotguns should not be owned?

As it is in many states, it quite a process to get a CCW, and all but impossible in some unless you have connections.

If there was any merit to the argument that tasers are not practical, they seem to be raised by people like yourself who make the argument that anyone you shoot deserves what they get. That in itself is a power trip. No - a weapon is used for incapacitation only - it is a defensive tool. As such, Tasers work just as well.

Tasers and pepper spray sold to the general public do not work well. Tasers bring up many issues you have to deal with that are not of concern when you have a firearm. You do not have stopping power from a distance, you do not have nearly as much control over the situation, and since you have to be so close to use a taser, anything can happen. There's a far different mindset a criminal has when they see someone with a taser that may leave a nasty sting that'll go away, versus someone with a handgun that can permanently end their existance.

Pepper spray brings its own problems to the taser as well. Many people can still fight through being sprayed, and you have to worry about factors such as the wind. Also, it is far quicker to unholster your firearm, then to fumble with a can of pepper spray. If the wind kicks up, you very well may wind up incapacatating yourself.

Originally posted by: busmaster11
#4"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.
[/b]

Boy this one is all wrong. If you pull out anything that resembles a gun you better be very careful as to no get yourself shot. You might as well be waving a water pistol in his/her face. When you pull out your fake gun and you can't shoot your likely to get shot yourself. Fake guns are a bad idea, even if it is a taser. You're better off with fake security stickers on your windows and $hit. You said "I don't ever believe that someone else's life should be in my hands" , well I guess you would want you and your wife?s (or husband) lives in the hands of the intruder? After all if you?re a "good" person god won't let you go right?

Since you brought it up, I don't feel you have any real direct control over your destiny no matter what your ego might tell you otherwise. While I don't believe God heals and protects only the "good" as you call it, I do believe God seeks humility and faith in all of us. If you possess a Taser, the notion that my family's lives are in the intruder's hands is mitigated, and so is the reverse. As you say, if you cannot shot the gun, you would be equally dead.

I'm not going to start debating religion here, but safe to say if I'm in a situation where I need to use a firearm, I will.

Originally posted by: busmaster11
#5"Besides, if you shot it, missed, and hit your wife, which would you rather it be?

That's highly unlikely and would be very unfortunate. I guess you would feel better watching your wife get raped and murdered instead of shooting him? Why does everyone always assume guns = death? You know if you wanted to be the good ?christian home defender? you could shoot the person in the legs or something. Or would you feel better stabbing him since it wouldn?t involve a gun? You know it could be worse, you could have killed him and saved you and your loved one, but hey life is over rated anyhow right?

Again, you blindly limit yourself to convenient options to make it sound as if you made sense. Face it, it is the only way you can win. No, if I had a taser I would use it before seeing anything happen to my wife. If I was uncomfortable with the properties of the Taser I would get a handgun and leave it in the home.

How convenient as well, that you ranted on and on without answering the question.

So let me get this straight. You're going to taser the guy that's guarding you. Then you're going to sprint over to the guy (or guys) whos raping your wife, taser all of them, and save the day without being stabbed or beaten. Yes, thats really going to work. Guess what buddy, you just guaranteed your wife getting her throat slit, and you're probably next.

This is opposed to quickly deholstering, and emptying your clip in a matter of seconds, aiming for central mass like you're instructed to do.

Alright, so you say you'll take pre-emptive measures. You stun the first guy guarding you before he has a chance to rape your wife, but she's still at knife point. The guy takes her, holds a knife to her throat. You now have put yourself in an even worse situation than before.

In a life or death situation, I want the thing that is going to give me the greatest chance for survival. Bar none, that is a concealed handgun.

 

[busmaster11]

If you pull a gun on an officer and plan to get hit with a taser, think again. You're going to be shot with a real gun. You say that if they're good enough for law enforcement that they should be good enough for civilian carry -- but you don't see too many officers without firearms, do you?

Ever think about how well a taser will work against someone with a leather jacket..heavy coat..etc?

How about another situation. You have a taser. You miss and hit your wife. She's knocked out. The bad guys are pissed. You're beaten to death, and your wife is raped and murdered.

I'll stick to the real thing..thanks.[/quote]

If in your world pulling a gun on an officer is reasonable enough to consider, even for purpose of argument, I'm going to step back and let you win. It will be an empty victory - because I will never consider resisting arrest, much less what you brought up.

Also, according to Taser's web site, just about the only thing that will stop the flow of electrons are *some* bulletproof vests.

As for your last scenario, you do not shoot unless you are immediately threatened and have no alternative. If that is the case, I still fail to see how it would play out any worse than you shooting your own wife with a gun.

So, you can probably say, worse case scenario things are even... Hope that wasn't your best shot.

Getting harder and harder to defend that power trip huh?

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Lifted

Originally posted by: BigJ
Well it's safe to say Lifted was summarily owned in this thread, and I'll doubt he'll be coming back. Another voice of reason like yours is always welcome. :beer:

Yeah, you sure made some great points there. All you did was sitck your little dong up Scotty's butt while whispering sweet little nothings into his ear.

You might want to at the very least hold back the childish comments for when YOU make an attempt to reply to one of my posts, not when somebody else manages to. Do you really think that first sentence is conrtibuting to the discussion? It's childish bullshit only a SUV driving goomba could come up with. Stop taking steriods Johnny V and try working out the muscle between your ears for once. Yes, you will fall flat on your face quite a few times at first, but eventually you may be a productive member of a future conversation.

Until then.... Ay Oh - Oh Ay! You talkin ta me?

So let me get this straight. Since I live on Long Island, I take steroids, I drive an SUV, I'm Italian, and I'm homosexual.

Yay for generalizations and stereotypes?

And I'm the childish one?

How was what I said a personal attack? Unless you answer what I, Vic, mwtgg, Jules, Mookow or anyone else has posted recently, you were shown how silly your position is. How hard is that to comprehend?

 

[Lifted]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Lifted

Originally posted by: BigJ
Well it's safe to say Lifted was summarily owned in this thread, and I'll doubt he'll be coming back. Another voice of reason like yours is always welcome. :beer:

Yeah, you sure made some great points there. All you did was sitck your little dong up Scotty's butt while whispering sweet little nothings into his ear.

You might want to at the very least hold back the childish comments for when YOU make an attempt to reply to one of my posts, not when somebody else manages to. Do you really think that first sentence is conrtibuting to the discussion? It's childish bullshit only a SUV driving goomba could come up with. Stop taking steriods Johnny V and try working out the muscle between your ears for once. Yes, you will fall flat on your face quite a few times at first, but eventually you may be a productive member of a future conversation.

Until then.... Ay Oh - Oh Ay! You talkin ta me?

So let me get this straight. Since I live on Long Island, I take steroids, I drive an SUV, I'm Italian, and I'm homosexual.

Yay for generalizations and stereotypes?

How was what I said a personal attack? Unless you answer what I, Vic, mwtgg, Jules, Mookow or anyone else has posted recently, you were shown how silly your position is. How hard is that to comprehend?

You are joking, right?

Unless I answer, blah blah blah...

Sorry about the attacks, but this thread should have died many pages ago. How about we agree to disagree?

I'm going to let you in on a little secret.

We will not agree with one another on this subject.

This thread has gone on for 24 pages, and you think me responding to the last few posts will resolve all of this? I'm afraid not. All that had to be said was repeated verbatim.

Let's save our energy for when we meet again in another, hopefully a much shorter and less hostile/childish thread.

Cheers! :beer:

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
If you pull a gun on an officer and plan to get hit with a taser, think again. You're going to be shot with a real gun. You say that if they're good enough for law enforcement that they should be good enough for civilian carry -- but you don't see too many officers without firearms, do you?

Ever think about how well a taser will work against someone with a leather jacket..heavy coat..etc?

How about another situation. You have a taser. You miss and hit your wife. She's knocked out. The bad guys are pissed. You're beaten to death, and your wife is raped and murdered.

I'll stick to the real thing..thanks.

If in your world pulling a gun on an officer is reasonable enough to consider, even for purpose of argument, I'm going to step back and let you win. It will be an empty victory - because I will never consider resisting arrest, much less what you brought up.
How does this have anything to do with your argument? Officers carry firearms. The use of a firearm is DEADLY FORCE, even if you do not fire.

Example: You are authorized (I am authorized, LEOs are authorized, etc) to use deadly force to stop/prevent serious bodily injury and/or death.
I doubt you'll find a LEO who will choose a taser over a firearm in a situation that warrants the use of deadly force. Why should I do any less? Your 'if it's good enough for LEOs' argument doesn't fit this situation, since LEOs DO NOT USE TASERS INSTEAD OF FIREARMS IN SITUATIONS THAT REQUIRE DEADLY FORCE. If we're not talking about deadly force issues, a CCW holder wouldn't be drawing anyway.

Also, according to Taser's web site, just about the only thing that will stop the flow of electrons are *some* bulletproof vests.
If both prongs are not within two inches from the body, it won't work properly. Also, you have a 15 foot range. 15 feet is pathetic.


As for your last scenario, you do not shoot unless you are immediately threatened and have no alternative. If that is the case, I still fail to see how it would play out any worse than you shooting your own wife with a gun.

So, you can probably say, worse case scenario things are even... Hope that wasn't your best shot.
Let's make it your way. You have a taser. You're 30 feet away from the guys raping your wife. You taser-ize your guard. Now what? You're going to hit the guys (out of range) before they do something even nastier to your wife and yourself? Incidentally, the 'deadly range' for someone with a knife vs an individual with a holstered firearm is 21 feet. If someone is 21 feet or closer with a drawn knife, and you have a holstered firearm, you're probably getting stabbed..so back up and draw. Can you hit someone with a taser from 21 feet? I just read something on a small (cell phone sized) taser with a 12ft range..that's well within knife distance.


Getting harder and harder to defend that power trip huh?

Since when am I on a power trip? Quote me.[/quote]

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: BigJ

snip

I've never supported issuing either weapon without stringent background checks and mental reviews... I don't think anyone should be able to carry either with any history of violent crimes.

As for your final scenario, this is the difference between you and I. My philosophy is that I may be able to even the odds if none of the weapons ever discharge, because I know that no matter what I have, the odds in my favor plummet if weapons ever go off.

If they have bulletproof vests, your handgun won't do much anyway. Besides, in most light conditions, you won't be tell its a Taser, and as long as my chances of incapacitating the attacker are no worse with a hit than with a gun, Thats all I can expect.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: BigJ

snip

I've never supported issuing either weapon without stringent background checks and mental reviews... I don't think anyone should be able to carry either with any history of violent crimes.

As for your final scenario, this is the difference between you and I. My philosophy is that I may be able to even the odds if none of the weapons ever discharge, because I know that no matter what I have, the odds in my favor plummet if weapons ever go off.

If they have bulletproof vests, your handgun won't do much anyway. Besides, in most light conditions, you won't be tell its a Taser, and as long as my chances of incapacitating the attacker are no worse with a hit than with a gun, Thats all I can expect.

Your everyday criminal doesn't wear a bulletproof vest. Incidentally, it's a(n) (additional) felony to wear one in the commission of a crime.

I would think that the chances of incapacitating someone are worse with a taser, especially when faced with multiple opponents.

Edit: I just looked up the range of tasers (M18 from tbotech.com). 7-10 feet is optimal..15 feet max. There's NO FREAKIN' WAY I'd want to wait for someone to get that close to me before I could stop them.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: BigJ

snip

I've never supported issuing either weapon without stringent background checks and mental reviews... I don't think anyone should be able to carry either with any history of violent crimes.

-Well in that case, I can see where you're going, although I still disagree.

As for your final scenario, this is the difference between you and I. My philosophy is that I may be able to even the odds if none of the weapons ever discharge, because I know that no matter what I have, the odds in my favor plummet if weapons ever go off.

If they have bulletproof vests, your handgun won't do much anyway. Besides, in most light conditions, you won't be tell its a Taser, and as long as my chances of incapacitating the attacker are no worse with a hit than with a gun, Thats all I can expect.

-The odds of being put in the situation I described are slim, but the odds of them having a bulletproof vest are exponentially slimmer. If they could've acquired a bulletproof vest, you better believe they could've acquired a weapon other than a knife. And if they're packing, thats a very, very different story.

-That said, I respect your stance. Owning and operating a firearm is not for everybody. I'd like to believe that everything could be resolved without someone getting hurt, but that's simply not the case for most. And when push comes to shove, I'd like to have as much of the advantage as possible in the situation I'm in.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: CadetLee
How does this have anything to do with your argument? Officers carry firearms. The use of a firearm is DEADLY FORCE, even if you do not fire.

Example: You are authorized (I am authorized, LEOs are authorized, etc) to use deadly force to stop/prevent serious bodily injury and/or death.
I doubt you'll find a LEO who will choose a taser over a firearm in a situation that warrants the use of deadly force. Why should I do any less? Your 'if it's good enough for LEOs' argument doesn't fit this situation, since LEOs DO NOT USE TASERS INSTEAD OF FIREARMS IN SITUATIONS THAT REQUIRE DEADLY FORCE. If we're not talking about deadly force issues, a CCW holder wouldn't be drawing anyway.

If you believe that deadly force is ever justified outside of war and the electric chair, then we have the underlying discrepancy - because I do not. One should not have the right in a split second to decide between life or death when incapacitation is an option. What if you were wrong? It is not a choice I believe we are entrusted to make. So possessing that deadly power in your hand, to me, is that aforementioned power trip.

Let's make it your way. You have a taser. You're 30 feet away from the guys raping your wife. You taser-ize your guard. Now what? You're going to hit the guys (out of range) before they do something even nastier to your wife and yourself? Incidentally, the 'deadly range' for someone with a knife vs an individual with a holstered firearm is 21 feet. If someone is 21 feet or closer with a drawn knife, and you have a holstered firearm, you're probably getting stabbed..so back up and draw. Can you hit someone with a taser from 21 feet? I just read something on a small (cell phone sized) taser with a 12ft range..that's well within knife distance.

Tasers don't work from 30 ft away. Even if you had a handgun, would you risk shooting from 30 ft away when the attacker is surely using your wife as a human shield?

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
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.

It's good enough for the pros to use as another option. But that's it. How many actual cops do you see packing a tazer instead of a pistol? I'm not talking rent-a-cops, but actual beat cops carrying nothing more potent than a tazer. Personally, I've never seen any packing a tazer without a pistol too. Police officers can carry openly, on their belts. They have at least two (though I've seen up to four) tools to choose from when considering how to incapacitate someone. At a minimum, they have their baton, and they have a pistol. Many officers are now carrying pepper spray. Some pack tazers. I, as a private citizen, am not allowed to carry a wide variety of weapons on my belt. I have to pick something that will stay concealed... packing several levels of force is not an option. If I ever do draw a weapon in public, it will be because either my life or someone else's life is in the line. In such a situation, I do not want a baton. Not effective enough. I dont want pepper spray, as it will not disable everyone quickly, if it affects them at all (yes, there are people who are basically immune to the stuff). It is also range limited and affected by wind. Now, on to the subject of contention; tazers. I live in Ohio, and it is winter. Heavy winter clothing will mitigate if not outright block the effect of a tazer. Furthermore, they are generally single shot and slow to reload. Additionally, if you shoot at someone who is too far away, you will only be able to hit with one electrode (which means you'd have betten results unzipping and trying to pee on them). If they are too close, the electrodes will impact too closely to one another, which means the shock will be less effective. Now, again, I remind you of the type of situation in which I would use a concealed weapon. I'm not going to whip it out if I see a purse-snatching or a pickpocketing. If I use a weapon I have concealed on my person, it will be in a situation in which the target dying is an acceptable outcome. Not necessarily a desired outcome, but acceptable; if it wasnt an acceptable outcome, I would not be pulling my weapon, even if I was carrying a tazer. In such a situation, disabling the target as quickly as possible while being as unfair as possible is my goal. I'm not looking to fight fair, nor do I wish to be a wounded hero, I'm looking to stop the target(s) ASAP because they are threatening innocent life, either mine or someone else's. Given all of that, a pistol is still the best option, because it works if the target is a foot away, it works if they are 50 feet away, it works if they have on a heavy coat... it just plain works everytime. And that is precisely what it is supposed to do.

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.

That's why the US Armed Forces have successfully pacified Iraq and are now home, huh? Oh, they haven't, and the oppostion is pretty much limited to only light infantry weapons? Hmmmmmmm....

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.

The problem with your above argument is that if you look at the stats, it just does not happen often enough to even come close to outweighing the good done when people have a CCW.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: CadetLee
How does this have anything to do with your argument? Officers carry firearms. The use of a firearm is DEADLY FORCE, even if you do not fire.

Example: You are authorized (I am authorized, LEOs are authorized, etc) to use deadly force to stop/prevent serious bodily injury and/or death.
I doubt you'll find a LEO who will choose a taser over a firearm in a situation that warrants the use of deadly force. Why should I do any less? Your 'if it's good enough for LEOs' argument doesn't fit this situation, since LEOs DO NOT USE TASERS INSTEAD OF FIREARMS IN SITUATIONS THAT REQUIRE DEADLY FORCE. If we're not talking about deadly force issues, a CCW holder wouldn't be drawing anyway.

If you believe that deadly force is ever justified outside of war and the electric chair, then we have the underlying discrepancy - because I do not. One should not have the right in a split second to decide between life or death when incapacitation is an option. What if you were wrong? It is not a choice I believe we are entrusted to make. So possessing that deadly power in your hand, to me, is that aforementioned power trip.

Let's make it your way. You have a taser. You're 30 feet away from the guys raping your wife. You taser-ize your guard. Now what? You're going to hit the guys (out of range) before they do something even nastier to your wife and yourself? Incidentally, the 'deadly range' for someone with a knife vs an individual with a holstered firearm is 21 feet. If someone is 21 feet or closer with a drawn knife, and you have a holstered firearm, you're probably getting stabbed..so back up and draw. Can you hit someone with a taser from 21 feet? I just read something on a small (cell phone sized) taser with a 12ft range..that's well within knife distance.

Tasers don't work from 30 ft away. Even if you had a handgun, would you risk shooting from 30 ft away when the attacker is surely using your wife as a human shield?

Even if you had a taser, would you risk shooting from 30 feet away when the attacker is surely using your wife as a human shield?

You're running in circles. With a firearm, and the ability to use it, you wouldn't be in the situation above. Let's take a step back..four guys approach from front/sides -- you feel uncomfortable...one starts to pull a knife from 30 feet away. You draw a handgun (or taser). If they leave, great. If they don't, you don't need to wait for them to be within 15 feet. 15 feet is not a long distance at all...and I'd rather have four guys at bay from 30 feet away than pray that my taser is fast enough to knock out four from 12 feet...

Neither situation is good, but you can't deny the practicality of a firearm. In the above situation, a properly trained individual with a firearm would be much better off than someone with a taser. It's undeniable.

As Mookow said, how many LEOs do you see without firearms? Not many..

 

[aplefka]

Why is this thread still here?

 

[jlee]

One should not have the right in a split second to decide between life or death when incapacitation is an option.

One does not have the right to put the lives of my family and I in jepoardy.

I have a God-given right to protect my life and those of people around me. If someone is willing to threaten or take a life, their life is forfeit. I'm not saying that their life is 'worthless', per se -- but by their actions, they condemn themselves.

</thread>

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
Well, I see my points are being ignored and facts I bring up are being spun. Ok...

Facts? Plural? All I've seen was one alleged fact (95% of tazers sold are to LEAs), and some opinions, such as "tazers are good alternative" and "people only carry pistols for the power trip".

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.

My city passed a ban on tazers a year or two ago. But I can legally carry a pistol with a CCW. Go figure.

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.

People that bring out a weapon without having the will to use it rarely improve the situation. Intimidation with nothing to back it up is not a good game plan. And that tazer will only have the same effect on a target if they arent wearing heavy clothing, if they aren't too close, if they arent too far away, if you manage to hit with both electrodes, etc. That's a lot of "if"s.

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.

Again, in the limited set of circumstances that I would use my concealed weapon in:
-I'd much, much rather be in a position to change the situation
-and if I did end up killing someone that was threatening my life or that of my loved ones, I'd sleep just fine.
Some people believe in karma or that somehow their diety will balance the scales if someone were to harm them or theirs with no justification. Personally, I do not have any faith in a theological "final reckoning", and if I can stop an incident such as the above from happening, I will act to do so with a clear conscience.

Besides, if you shot it, missed, and hit your wife, which would you rather it be?

Given that they would be raping her at knifepoint with two witnesses, I wouldnt put a lot of faith in us both living through the incident even if we followed instructions to the letter. Leaving a pair of witnesses behind isnt all that bright, and most criminals know this. Besides, I practice quite a bit so that I minimize the chance of me missing to be as small as possible. And missing with a tazer is hardly an improvement of the situation over missing with a pistol.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: busmaster11
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.

It's good enough for the pros to use as another option. But that's it. How many actual cops do you see packing a tazer instead of a pistol? I'm not talking rent-a-cops, but actual beat cops carrying nothing more potent than a tazer. Personally, I've never seen any packing a tazer without a pistol too. Police officers can carry openly, on their belts. They have at least two (though I've seen up to four) tools to choose from when considering how to incapacitate someone. At a minimum, they have their baton, and they have a pistol. Many officers are now carrying pepper spray. Some pack tazers. I, as a private citizen, am not allowed to carry a wide variety of weapons on my belt. I have to pick something that will stay concealed... packing several levels of force is not an option. If I ever do draw a weapon in public, it will be because either my life or someone else's life is in the line. In such a situation, I do not want a baton. Not effective enough. I dont want pepper spray, as it will not disable everyone quickly, if it affects them at all (yes, there are people who are basically immune to the stuff). It is also range limited and affected by wind. Now, on to the subject of contention; tazers. I live in Ohio, and it is winter. Heavy winter clothing will mitigate if not outright block the effect of a tazer. Furthermore, they are generally single shot and slow to reload. Additionally, if you shoot at someone who is too far away, you will only be able to hit with one electrode (which means you'd have betten results unzipping and trying to pee on them). If they are too close, the electrodes will impact too closely to one another, which means the shock will be less effective. Now, again, I remind you of the type of situation in which I would use a concealed weapon. I'm not going to whip it out if I see a purse-snatching or a pickpocketing. If I use a weapon I have concealed on my person, it will be in a situation in which the target dying is an acceptable outcome. Not necessarily a desired outcome, but acceptable; if it wasnt an acceptable outcome, I would not be pulling my weapon, even if I was carrying a tazer. In such a situation, disabling the target as quickly as possible while being as unfair as possible is my goal. I'm not looking to fight fair, nor do I wish to be a wounded hero, I'm looking to stop the target(s) ASAP because they are threatening innocent life, either mine or someone else's. Given all of that, a pistol is still the best option, because it works if the target is a foot away, it works if they are 50 feet away, it works if they have on a heavy coat... it just plain works everytime. And that is precisely what it is supposed to do.

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.

That's why the US Armed Forces have successfully pacified Iraq and are now home, huh? Oh, they haven't, and the oppostion is pretty much limited to only light infantry weapons? Hmmmmmmm....

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.

The problem with your above argument is that if you look at the stats, it just does not happen often enough to even come close to outweighing the good done when people have a CCW.

Many of your points are valid in favor of handguns, but a couple things... Show me evidence that heavy clothing affects the shock from a Taser.

Also... We have been largely unsuccessful in Iraq not because they all have handguns. But because they know how to make homemade bombs and have RPGs.