What Did President Trump Do Now?

The Batlord · 02-24-2017, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

If this is the case than you really don't need a gun for protection to begin with.. or do you think it's okay to shoot someone robbing your house? I'm sure a lot of people actually do.

It's about being able to defend yourself, and a gun is going to be much more of a threat than anything not a gun. If someone's going to charge a taser then I imagine they may also be willing to charge a gun cause something is wrong with them, and I'd much rather have the stopping power of a gun. I'm not for laws that say that you can just shoot anyone in your house dead just cause they're breaking and entering, but I do think you should be able to have stopping power on your side if the situation calls for it.

**Frownland** · 02-24-2017, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

These are stupid arguments. Unless you kinda just get grazed in the leg (which probably wouldn't accomplish anything with a taser either) then you're probably out of the fight. We're not talking about Navy SEALs, who probably would be out of the fight with a gutshot anyway, we're talking about people who are functionally civilians, and would get taken down with a bullet pretty much any place in their body. We are also not talking about demons who will go through any amount of pain just to kill you, we're talking about people who just want your TV or whatever, and aren't looking for a fight to the death.

Those sound like movie gunshot wounds. I'm talking about the reality where you can be shot in 90% of your body depending on the gun caliber and still function. Top that off with adrenaline and it's not going to bring you down like you suggest.

The Batlord · 02-24-2017, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

Those sound like movie gunshot wounds. I'm talking about the reality where you can be shot in 90% of your body depending on the gun caliber and still function. Top that off with adrenaline and it's not going to bring you down like you suggest.

That sounds like movie gunshot wounds, where you get shot BUT GOD DAMNIT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO LET THAT STOP YOU FROM SAVING YOU GIRL!!! If someone gets shot in the arm, or the shoulder, or the foot, or whatever, I imagine they're not going to want to keep doing what they were just doing, and if they still do, then you have more bullets. I don't imagine anyone under any circumstances is going to keep threatening you if they have a full clip emptied into them. As opposed to not being able to taze them again cause you only have one shot.

**Frownland** · 02-24-2017, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

That sounds like movie gunshot wounds, where you get shot BUT GOD DAMNIT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO LET THAT STOP YOU FROM SAVING YOU GIRL!!!

Oddly enough the reality sits between these two extremes. Less oddly, you'll find it lands more on my side. Of course it all depends on the caliber of the gun, as I mentioned earlier.

Quote:

As opposed to not being able to taze them again cause you only have one shot.

False dichotomy and the threat of someone being able to handle a tazer is crazy small, no matter what you saw on (scripted) Cops.

The Batlord · 02-24-2017, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

Oddly enough the reality sits between these two extremes. Less oddly, you'll find it lands more on my side. Of course it all depends on the caliber of the gun, as I mentioned earlier.

No matter how right either of us are, the reality of clips with multiple bullets still makes you wrong.

Quote:

False dichotomy and the threat of someone being able to handle a tazer is crazy small, no matter what you saw on (scripted) Cops.

Yes, it is small, but not unheard of. I'm not arguing that tasers aren't effective, but that a gun is potentially more effective and should be a viable option.

**Frownland** · 02-24-2017, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

No matter how right either of us are, the reality of clips with multiple bullets still makes you wrong.

We're talking gun v tazer so it'd really only be one shot.

Quote:

Yes, it is small, but not unheard of. I'm not arguing that tasers aren't effective, but that a gun is potentially more effective and should be a viable option.

99.99999999999999999% efficacy is not only not enough, it's essentially ineffective.

The Batlord · 02-24-2017, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland

We're talking gun v tazer so it'd really only be one shot.

Unless it isn't. Giving someone more than one shot increases survivability. Pretty simple.

Quote:

99.99999999999999999% efficacy is not only not enough, it's essentially ineffective.

First of all, source. Secondly, regardless, I don't think the option should be closed. Oh yeah, and what if there's more than one robber/rapist/ninja? No matter how effective a taser is it still only works once.

Chula Vista · 02-24-2017, 08:18 PM

Who's talking banning here? I'm talking about sensible regulations. Background checks, waiting periods, being able to access a person's mental health records, eliminating all loopholes that allow dealers to avoid all of the above, eliminating the ability for a family member to transfer a firearm without any legality, etc.

All great stuff.

My handgun is in a small safe next to my bed. I can have it out and chambered in about 3 seconds. (yes, I DO NOT keep a round in the chamber - stupidest thing a person could ever do). Plus the sound of chambering a round is a deterrant in and of itself.

The Batlord · 02-24-2017, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

The problem is, and the reason it doesn't work, is where do you store the gun when you aren't using it for protection

If it's locked up or stored away gonna take you too long to get to it anyway in the best case scenario, in the worst the thief finds it first

If you carry it around you're always more likely to end up accidentally shooting yourself or someone else than you are to ever need it in a defense situation

But it gets even worse because just having a gun puts you at more risk all the time because you are more likely to elevate a confrontation into a violent situation

Yes, but that's none of your ****ing business, cause it's not your gun, any more than where I keep my TV is your business. If I want to be dumb and get shot by my own gun then that's not your concern.

Chula Vista · 02-24-2017, 08:47 PM

This suppose to be funny.....

02-24-2017, 08:18 PM	#2698 (permalink)
Chula Vista Toasted Poster Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: SoCal by way of Boston Posts: 11,332	Who's talking banning here? I'm talking about sensible regulations. Background checks, waiting periods, being able to access a person's mental health records, eliminating all loopholes that allow dealers to avoid all of the above, eliminating the ability for a family member to transfer a firearm without any legality, etc. All great stuff. My handgun is in a small safe next to my bed. I can have it out and chambered in about 3 seconds. (yes, I DO NOT keep a round in the chamber - stupidest thing a person could ever do). Plus the sound of chambering a round is a deterrant in and of itself. __________________ “The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

02-24-2017, 08:47 PM	#2700 (permalink)
Chula Vista Toasted Poster Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: SoCal by way of Boston Posts: 11,332	This suppose to be funny..... __________________ “The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”