Firearms

There are actually multiple difficulties with tasers.

First as CloudSquallandZidane said, a taser won't always stop someone. However, the guy doesn't even have to be on drugs. When we went to our local jail for a school trip the officer there said anyone who signed a consent form could be tasered if they wished. He only let two of us do it.. so I didn't get a chance.

It connected the the shoulders rather then the cneter of the chest.. so it wasn't at it's strongest or anything. But really how likely are you to hit some one dead in the chest with a taser? Basically my freind kyle got it in the arm... no affect what so ever.. he didn't even twitch. We have other guys around here that can lift farmers electric fences up without major complications. They pick up the fence and let everyone else through.. the they crawl under or climb over. And while they are the minority.. there are still enough out there that our current tasers aren't a very good option.


However this isn't the only problem. Tasers only can shoot 15-20 or so feet.. and that may be military brand.. the brand on the market for citizens may be less. That is enough for most situations, but won't always help.. after all I believe even many of the weaker guns can easily out distant that.

What if you have two guys threatening you? With a normal firearm you at least have some what of a chance of disabling them.. but with a taser you don't.. they can only target one person. Even many rifles I have seen can shoot twice in a row... but not a taser.


Tasers are very limited, so are tranqs, and so are just about all the alternatives. There is a reason why Guns are considered the best defense. They can get the job done, though you need some training. Particually in hitting moving targets where you want to.


And for shoting someone stealing from me.. yeah I would .. but I would aim for the leg.

you see that is what i don't understand about american society. maim someone (blow a hole out of the guys leg bone and you will) for the sake of money? a few hundred dollars? to what purpose? venagence? greed?

vigilante violence (especially of a fleeing man) is not in the least part moral.

so is there any flaw in a single use weapon (6 rounds max)?

but the real prblem here is america's society. it is a catastrophic failure. and that is the only reason why so many people are shot for whatever reason.

So you're suggesting that if I were to take a few hundred bucks from you (let's assume that I have a weapon), you'd let me go because "it's just money"?
Where's the line between something worth fighting for or not? When someone goes after your relatives? Your car? Your tv?

is money worth a life? worth maiming someone for?

maybe this is why american soceity is so flawed. it values money above all else. leading to greed. and so leading to crime and ultimately death.

Here's the thing.

It's not actually about money or property. It's about dignity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

you see that is what i don't understand about american society. maim someone (blow a hole out of the guys leg bone and you will) for the sake of money? a few hundred dollars? to what purpose? venagence? greed?

vigilante violence (especially of a fleeing man) is not in the least part moral.

so is there any flaw in a single use weapon (6 rounds max)?

but the real prblem here is america's society. it is a catastrophic failure. and that is the only reason why so many people are shot for whatever reason.

---

If you mean that the law abiding citizen gets only six bullets, well here's why that won't work.

BLACK MARKETS.

The guy coming into your house will have far more than 6 bullets, and he has the advantage that he knows for a fact that you have only 6. So he really only needs to wait until you shoot at him 6 times and then he can kill you without worry about your gun.

Now I am not sure how likely a gun shot to the leg would permantly cripple someone.. but I am fairly certian it isn't the most likely thing. A freind of mine who has served in the millitary has suffered a bullet wound in his leg.. He walks and runs fine. I know a few other people who have been shot else where and are fine. In fact fatality rate of guns is fairly low is it not? As in the likelyhood of dieng or being maimed is quite low compared to how many are shot. So thus shooting someone who was breaking the law will likely leave them with a full recovery.. and at the same time you will hopefully aid in the lowering of crime.

Lets say anyone who steals doesn't have to worry about resistance.. I can tell you right now the crime rate would go up. Compared to how many crimes are commited how many people do we catch? How tough are our jails and prisons? None of this will deter or stop crimes. If however, you may get hurt stealing.. you may think twice. This here may actually work since many of the types of stealing we are talking about are premeditated.

Now why I feel this way.
1)letting them get away with it does not teach them it is wrong.

2)Gun wounds from what I know are generally unfatal and unmaiming.. though they may hurt for a while.

3)With the programs available stealing is not a neccesity.

4)It isn't right. I am not going to sit by and let wrongs be commited. Heck If I ended up maiming the fella.. I would be willing to pay/help pay for a prosthetic limb for him. But the point is you can't do something wrong and expect no retaliation.

I think the fatality rate depends on the bullet used. Round tip bullets are cheaper and penetrate the body leaving little damage. However expensive hollow point ones stay inside your body and expand heavily. You can shoot a jelliton or something like that it will show how deadly the shot is and most people who use round tips(cuz they are cheap) wont kill anyone whereas someone with a hollow point probably will if shot at teh body.

Thanks Lionx. I am afraid that in actual practice I am mostly clueless about guns. I only know what I have read about them.. and that is not as much as I should probably know. As it is now I would like to get some training in weapons so that I could actually have one... Not going to trust myself with something I don't know how to use.

Disallowing guns is about as effective as giving kids "sex education" where you just teach abstinence.

Obviously option 3 is the best. But even law abiding citizens can turn into a nutter if they have a gun at hand.

I remember an incident that happened here in England where a burgular broke into a farmer's house, & the farmer had a shotgun [I think it was a shotgun] & shot the burgular, but then instead of the violent burgular being arrested & sentenced, the farmer got a sentence for shooting him! I think that's appalling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TisWas

Obviously option 3 is the best. But even law abiding citizens can turn into a nutter if they have a gun at hand.

I remember an incident that happened here in England where a burgular broke into a farmer's house, & the farmer had a shotgun [I think it was a shotgun] & shot the burgular, but then instead of the violent burgular being arrested & sentenced, the farmer got a sentence for shooting him! I think that's appalling.

---

Jup. Tony Martin was defending his property from a couple of thuggish vandals and ended up in prison for it.

The castration of once-Great Britain continues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

is money worth a life? worth maiming someone for?

maybe this is why american soceity is so flawed. it values money above all else. leading to greed. and so leading to crime and ultimately death.

---

That's funny, considering that Europe is dying in an orgy of self-sacrifice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TisWas

I remember an incident that happened here in England where a burgular broke into a farmer's house, & the farmer had a shotgun [I think it was a shotgun] & shot the burgular, but then instead of the violent burgular being arrested & sentenced, the farmer got a sentence for shooting him! I think that's appalling.

---

Yeah, but that wouldn't happen if the laws were more clearly defined. In that case, the gun was used as it legally should be used - in self defense. In that instance, the farmer should not have been sentenced.

Then again, maybe this is why European society is so flawed. It values the collective above all else. Leading to lack of human (individual) dignity. And so leading to "political crimes" and ultimately death.

tony martin sat and hit under a table waiting for these guys and then coldly shot them in the back. it was not an act of self defence. it was vengence vigilantism and murder. his life was not in danger. he is a murderer plain and simple.

bullet wounds are actually rather fatal. a few million soliders and two world wars will tell you that they do have a habit of killing people. shooting in the leg risks severing major artery in the calf. blood loss sustained from an artery of that size will result in death with 15 minutes.

what a bullet does when it enters the body. the bullet is hot from air resistance and burns the skin and pierces it. if it hits bone it smashes through the bone forcing bone fragments around the area. bits of the bullet are liable to come off at this point and the bullet will mushroom. the bullet will force through the bone carrying with it debris that wll leave a huge exit wound. the tissue within the wound is burnt as the bullet was hot. fragments of bone and bullet can get into the bloodstream possibly moving towards the heart which will result in death.

hollow bullets (dum sum rounds) are meant to fragment massively when they enter the body and are illegal. pointed bullets are very accurate and have a very high speed. flat head bullets are slow and inaccurate but because they are flat cause a great of amount of trauma. round heads are a mixture of the two.

When were hollow points illegal? I dont remember them being illegal around my state but i expect republicans to come over and say they will be eventually...

So whats your point? That the farmer has go to up and say "HEY I AM OVER HERE!!!" in order to defend his property? I would stand there and shoot the guy behind his back and be SAFE rather and yelling my presence to protect my property. Thats ridiculous. It wasnt cold-blooded IMO, just smart.