swingset

Why focus on governance and the tedious business of fiscal responsibility when you can grandstand and pander, and oh....ancillary benefit....chip away at civil liberties while you're at it?

Straight from the Tazer product literature....I'm seeing how you developed your self-defense knowledge, Magz. I know the difference between the two, but even the 30 second taze assumes you can land the probes correctly on your fist and only shot, and once those 30 seconds are up you've still got an unsecured, armed, violent and now very much more violent guy running around. What then? Maybe you got away, maybe you left him behind to kill the rest of the people who don't know what the fuck is going on. It's an alternative to a gun, it beats nothing at all, but really it's loaded with complications that few people are trained to cope with, especially under extreme duress. Gun brings the fight to an end, from a safer distance, without requiring a one-time perfect shot requiring an upclose shot or closing on the violent, armed target. A gun can also cope with more than one target. Two attackers? Have fun with that Tazer. Attacker with a heavy coat or a chest rig in the way? Gun doesn't care, Tazer does. Tazer is a secondary weapon, and a paltry self-defense tool. But guns are icky, I get it.

Have you trained for what to do after you've tazed someone? If you only land one probe and attempt to apply the drive taze? Cause it's not a tool of incapacitance - it's for submission and its effects can vary wildly even if deployed perfectly. You might knock someone stupid, or you might have a pissed off angry bull on your hands a millisecond after the zap is done. Who knows, and this assumes you can get close enough and hit both probes on target and the proper spread to do their job.....against a guy who might be shooting at you with better range? Yeah, good luck with that. Most self defense training rightly drills us to create distance, seek cover, fight your way to safety or a superior weapon. A tazer requires you to close on your threat. It's a damned difficult thing to ask LE to do, let alone a terrified parishioner with little use in applied force. It's an effective less-lethal tool, but requires a lot of training to effectively subdue and overcome an attacker by using. Not many people have a plan for "what now?" A gun is still the superior tool for bringing the fight to an end, and surer...without going hands-on when your charge is done. The death or permanent injury is a sad byproduct of someone who was unreasonable and violent in initiating the violence (see Trayvon)...but I'll still choose a gun as a more efficient tool than a Tazer, any day.

Common sense like that is dangerous. It should be kept in a locked safe, to keep it away from kids and scary people.

Some guns, by their design should not be dry fired. Many rimfires, particularly, can be problematic but most modern firearms do not suffer any ill effects whatsoever from dry-firing.

Yes, I can say that with complete honesty. If a thief steals my car while I have it idling in the driveway and mows down a toddler with it, it's not my responsibility. I did nothing wrong, showed no malice or negligence, and the thief did every criminal act. Same with if someone steals my kitchen knives out of my drawer that's not bolted and locked, and stabs a pregnant nun. Thieves bear 100% of the responsibiliy, and guns are not "special evil objects", Magz. I reject your mindset, your methods, your philosophy and your goofy morality. It's bent, and wrong, and very liberal.

I'm not out to solve that problem, you're confused. People will always steal and get what they need for crime. No stupid feel-good bandaid bullshit legislation is going to fix that. Hell, prisons are the most controlled place in our society and drugs, weapons and even guns can be had inside those walls. You think a law about safe storage is going to help? Focus on the criminal, and punish them, and allow the rest of us who are good guys to keep and carry our guns. THAT has a track record of protecting people and reducing violent crime. Now, off my soapbox that offends you so. I'm sorry my hateful rhetoric hurt your ears, Magz.

Lots of guns that are stolen were locked or secured, btw, even a vault can be opened or broken into. Are you guilty if you put a lock on your gun and a burglar steals it? BTW, locked guns are pretty fucking useless in home defense. So, readily-accessible equals criminally negligent. The antis are gonna fucking love that. This whole thing is again pushing blame away from people who harm, and putting special focus on an object and imagining that it is somehow more evil than another, even when in some cases it's responsible for far less death or used far less than other tools to commit harm. Guns aren't worthy of more regulation than a set of car keys, they're just not. Let's just hold criminals responsible for crime, and leave our civil liberties intact shall we?

Gun show sales (dealer to customer) are already regulated and require NICS check. The rest is just face to face private party sales - and to differentiate between a gun show and the parking lot, or between two people who arrange a sale in a newspaper, or on this board, or whatever is silly. I meet you in the gun show, you wanna buy my gun? If we can't do it in the show, we'll just arrange to meet at the McDonald's across the street. It's unworkable, and silly. There is no "gun show loophole". There are private party sales, and FFL sales. Period.

Don't you have a Noam Chomsky book to slobber into?

Is the lack of shooting time a big issue in Vermont? Untrained, unlicensed gun carriers killing people willy-nilly from missed shots or mishandling? Nope? Well, there you go. Let's just go with "bear arms" and "shall not be infringed" and let freedom work itself out.

Nice WWI era No1, even better that it's a pre-* conversion. Might try some of the collector's forums, early No1's are always sought after. Be sure to list maker (stamped on the wrist, BSA, LSA, etc.)

I vote space herpe.

It will be a mad house, the prices will be insane. I wouldn't go expecting anything worthwhile except to freak watch.

Holy fuck, JRMMii is probably going to have Google-tourettes in response to that. Magz and serpentracer are due any minute too...for a volley of "but guns are designed for killing". When it's all you have left, gotta use it I guess even if it's not relevant.

Clearly, only the police can be trusted with guns. Them and the military. No, scratch that. With muskets.

Anyone wanna take a bet that Utah will NOT be where the next spree shooting is?

Heller pretty much ruled out banning entire classes of guns, IIRC.

I'm not the smartest guy in the room, but I'm smarter than you. I have proof of it. I can see that if guns in greater numbers were the catalyst for more death, then it would be universal and there couldn't be areas like El Salvador with an extremely low gun rate and astronomical gun murder rate, and places like Switzerland where most households have guns yet gun murders are rare. It's not about you being a liberal anti-gunner, which you are. It's about common sense and you have none. Zero. Zilch. A child could figure this stuff out, but you're so drunk on googling stuff that asserts the absurd you won't see it. Afraid your worldview will crumble if you accept a simple, undeniable, and utterly obvious truth? That's pretty sad, man.

I read it, and it's horseshit. For the third time, explain Switzerland and Kennesaw Georgia. If one word of that study held up (and that study is directly contradicted by Lott's work), then Switzerland would be experiencing gun crime and violence, yet it's so statistically low to be insignificant...as in non-existent. It also contradicts other Harvard research, interestingly. That Georgia town would have had a murder, or 5, or 10. Stop dancing, and answer my fucking question. Stop googling bullshit and think. Use your own words. Use some of that impressive logic.

Oh, and it was mentioned earlier but factor out inner city violence involving drugs and crime....and our murder rate, violent crime rate, and most importantly firearm murder rate is very low. Is this an important argument? It is since the culture of violence and socio-economic problems of the inner city and drug war is disproportionately skewing the statistics and if you have no contact with that world then violence in this country looks markedly different. What's absurd is that white NRA members receive the derision of the liberals, yet the most ugly and numerous instances of violence is happening at the hands of minorities in the liberal cities. It's THEIR gun culture that's out of whack, not mine.

Again, that doesn't rebut anything I said. And, it doesn't actually support your own assertions that the prevalence or availability of guns increases the rate of homicide by firearms. If it does, then again explain Switzerland, or Kennesaw Georgia (with mandatory gun ownership and 25 years without a murder). Please, address this since your assertion is directly in question. Don't keep throwing up graphs that don't say anything.

I didn't say you did, just made the case that guns that are often viewed as "assault weapons" are not more deadly than others, and have utility and purpose that should protect them from people who think like you do. And, I'll offer another opinion. I believe if an assault weapons ban, or a magazine ban passes, you will be thrilled about that outcome. Am I wrong? I don't think so.

You can call and request to have those all stopped. I haven't gotten mailings for many years.