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?

After tasing someone you run away, leaving the taser on the ground, still connected. The C2 has a 30 second cycle. Your criticisms are based upon the LE model with it's 5 second cycle.

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.

The taser comes with practice cartridges. It has a laser sight for the top dart and the lower dart hits one inch per foot lower. I've fired the supplied metallic target for training. Haven't hit a person but then I haven't sprayed, cut or shot anyone either.

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.

That's your problem. The people who ARE out to solve it are going to solve it with bans unless we meet them halfway.

Bullshit. We've been passing half-way "reasonable restrictions" since 1934, and what's been the answer? Ever more attempts to take it all and incrementalism enabled by people who think just like you.

Do you read my posts? I advocate quick-access safes when not in a holster on your person. I can get to either loaded pistol or semi-auto rifle within 10 seconds from any room in my house.

And those are not sturdy enough to stop any determined thief (I know, I own them) and still a personal choice that should not be mandated by law.

All gun owners have a moral duty to not allow their guns to wind up in the wrong hands.

Bullshit. You're making guns more "evil" than a set of car keys. The thief has a moral responsiblity not to take other people's belongings and harm with them. Thieves use cars to injure, even to kill, and commit felonies every day. Do you suggest locking up keys in a quick-access safe? No? Because you're thinking just like Magz. And, it's bullshit. They steal knives too, need a knife safe now too do we?

How you achieve that may be up to your own personal judgement and sense of responsibility... But that doesn't help when you see the stats on how many stolen gun wind up being used in crimes. How is storing your weapons, loaded, in a quick-access safe (when not on your person) a violation of your rights?

I don't care how many are stolen, that's the criminals fault. 100%. Not one iota of responsbility belongs to me once they break into my abode and start stealing...whether it was in a safe or gift wrapped on the kitchen counter with some cookies for their long trip back to crime land.

Lots of cars are stolen and used for crime, but I still consider it a violation of my individual liberties to store my personal belongings in a manner that YOU would dictate to stop the unlawful from gaining access to them. It transfers the culpability of crime to me, and that's wrong and absurd. How many times do you need to hear that before it cracks your skull? You're making ME to be the villain in a one-way crime, dude, and it's bullshit.

Care to explain why you think that?

I already did. You won't stop determined thieves, or even slow them down. War on drugs didn't stop drugs, and making me lock guns up won't stop gun thieves, it'll just change how they operate and hinder me and others.

Personal responsibility is a two-way street. You can't just say; "Bad guy took the gun I had propped up next to my TV while I went on vacation and shot up a school with it, therefore not my fault."

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.

That approach hasn't worked to date.

As opposed to what? Holding ME responsible for what someone takes from me and uses for harm? Are you nuts? I shouldn't have to forego my individual rights because of the actions of someone else who takes from me, and then does harm. That's fucking nuts, and scary, and a slippery slope that is worse than the scary freedom we started out with in this country.

We keep saying there is no one single solution, but then shoot down suggestions unless they fix everything.

The solution isn't punishing the law abiding, period. That's morally wrong, on top of being utterly non-effective.

Safe storage is a good idea, and responsible gun owners already store their weapons in a secure manner. Guns stolen from lawful owners wind up in criminal hands being used for crimes. Higher gun crimes result in more calls for gun control. It's like a dog licking it's own arsehole.

What is safe storage? Under so much lock and key that it's inaccessible when I need it? Fuck that. And, who decides what is appropriate and enough? If I break into your house, and torch your safe, are you still responsible? Why not? How is that different than the lock on the door? I just fucking hate your mindset on this. Guns are so reprehensible they need special care and super secure storage...fuck that.

Whether we do it by passing a law, or through a public education campaign, or some not-yet-suggested means, having guns stored safely will cut down on the number of new black market guns.

No it won't.

My safe allows me to access my guns in a couple of seconds. My carry piece is either is either in my holster or in my safe. I never leave any of my guns in a room I am not in unless they are locked up.

And those couple of seconds might mean your life. You have no clue, none, how fast you'll need them or your ability to bring them to bear...but that's another topic. It's not up to you to dictate how I store my belongings, what's important is that the person who uses them for harm is punished, not me.

Again with the rhetoric. This is a discussion, not a soap box. Tell me how you would solve the problem of lawfully held guns being stolen and winding up in the black market.

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?

Illegal firearm crime is insignificant against illegal drunk driving accidents/death. Why do we even give a damn about this' date=' at all? There are far graver dangers out there than guns. Why is this an issue to any of you? You're more likely to be killed coming home from work than you are to be attacked by a gunman.[/quote']

Because guns are vilified, feared and politicized. They're viewed as different from cars, because 600 years ago they were designed for war and thus all of them are imbued with evil spirits. They compel people to be violent when in their presence.

See: Magz

Would not be for private party sales as in face to face. I would suggest only gun show sales be regulated.

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.

doubt it because as gun lovers proclaim they're all "law abiding citizens".

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.

As a follow-up to this, apparently the shooter grabbed a cop's gun and did the shooting. Time to ban police from carrying guns.

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.

The Swiss has been researched and it's a myth that they're "gun nuts", but I can only provide the abstract of the academic research until it's released in Feb 2013:

Irrelevant, we're not talking about fervor and you know it. It's about availability and prevalence. BTW, I've been to Switzerland. You? My aunt is German/Swiss and I've seen their gun culture first hand. You? Don't take my word on it, here's a thorough beat down to that piece of journalistic stupidity:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1403121_Some_Notes_on_the_Swiss_Firearms_Experience__and_Some_5_56_NATO_Ammo_for_Sane_Gun_Policy_Advocates_.html

And Kennesaw GA is questionable, I can only get crime statistics for the county, and they're just one small town in that county (not even the county seat) -- even so, I figured, if Kennesaw was so great, that'd constantly appear on cities with the lowest crime index or "safest places to live" -- they don't. They only appear on gun blogs and pro gun sites.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/search/5027854/

That's just one link, there are more.

Irrelevant. If availability and prevelance increased murder rates, then 100% ownership would mean at least a single murder?

You haven't answered my question, you haven't debated it, you haven't even actually addressed it. If prevalence is more murder, then why can these places (among many many others) exist in clear defiance of your assertion and Harvard's study?

Ohh, you mean John Lott... the guy who was caught sockpuppeting as Mary Rosh (http://reason.com/archives/2003/05/01/the-mystery-of-mary-rosh) and who's research has been under fire by numerous academics who say his statistical model and use of econometrics was flawed? (http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm) The model that, since it was created, has been proven false by new data? That guy? Ok.

Alright, if you won't take Lott's study at face value how about Harvard:

www.law.harvard.edu/students/.../Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Pretty much contradicts the whole notion of gun ownership/prevalence and gun murder by looking at other similar nations.

That's the f*(king problem... people that think they're the smartest person in the room, and they're far from it. This is why research needs to be done to validate opinions. But no amount of statistics or analysis will convince you or Pokey about how it's just "liberal" number and you guys will go with your "gut feel" because "those are the facts" when they're far from it. That's the problem.

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.

Quoted myself again because Craig needs to try again to read. Even if you just read the very first bold line.

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/26/guns-kill-people-in-one-chilling-graph/

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

But yea, go ahead and keep f*(king that chicken. I'm "wrong, wrong, wrong" as are the researchers at Harvard who probably put a lot more effort into their research than you did.

Nothing posted contradicts me, you know that right? You said more guns equals more deaths. That's empirically untrue, either by total number of guns or by rate of ownership.

Stop moving the goal posts. You said it, and it was wrong, wrong, wrong.

I don't know where you get your numbers either... 9369 murders by guns? You just pull that out of thin air? Looks like it. Research is obviously not your strong suit.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

Even if my numbers are low, and they're not MY numbers, the total number of firearms committing murders related to numbers of guns is a tiny fraction of a percent. Period, end of story.

When Assault(homicide) makes Top 15 causes of death in the US, with the vast majority of homicides occurring with a firearm (11,493 out of all 16,799 total homicides in 2009)

So, aside from health problems and intentional self-harm of suicides... firearms account for the vast majority of non health related, NON-ACCIDENTAL death.

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.

Your logic isn't flawed, and you sit there and use broad brush terms like "as all anti-gunners do"

It was an opinion based on my observations, separate from my logic of guns or design.

1) You make the assumption I'm anti-gun, just because I'm open minded enough to see and understand an opposing viewpoint. I'm sorry you're incapable of fathoming that someone with opposing views may have some merit in their arguments.

You're demonstrating that my opinion is on the mark when you use Magz anti-gun arguments, the same ones I've seen all anti-gunners do. Why should I assume you're not anti-gun when you habitually opposing them and gun owners? Jesus.

2) I'm far from "emotionalizing" anything. Statistically and based on decades of case studies, more guns equal more deaths. Then you turn around and want to bust my balls about "emotionalizing" stuff "as all anti-gunners do" and you're the one talking about "intent" which is an emotional argument.

Bullshit. You are emotionalizing guns, and there are no statistics that prove that more guns equals more death. There are 300,000,000 guns in the United States, 9,369 murders by guns. That's .0003% of all guns used to murder. A microscopic percent of a percent. More guns do not equal more death. In the 1950's the gun ownership rate (with lax gun laws) was less than half of today's, but gun murder rates were nearly the same (per capita) as they are today.

More guns don't equal more death, murder and violence rates don't coincide with gun ownership or gun rates. Switzerland should be a great evidence of the fallacy of that childish assertion. And, there's a lot of other cities that have a nearly 100% gun ownership and almost zero murder rate.

You're wrong, wrong, wrong.

3) But, since you insist on using "intent" as your argument, it further solidifies mine. The vast majority of legal and responsible gun owners I couldn't care less about, but when someone's INTENTIONS are to harm people -- they aren't reaching for the keys to a Hayabusa or a Corolla.. they're getting access to guns. This is why no one has mandated a background check to buy cars or knives...

Nice sleight of hand, but you're changing the argument and trying to again say that guns are a more certain evil when there's that's entirely an emotional argument. I mentioned cars, I mentioned knives, I mentioned bombs. All of which have been used for mass murder, all of which are what people reach for (and there are multiple examples...do a fucking google search). The reason we have background checks on guns is because at one time someone politicized and emotionalized guns and viola. Before the GCA? There were no checks, and mass murders were rare. Maybe all this background checking is the culprit? Run with that.

Guns are not inherently evil, cars are inherently benign. YOU decide, that's intent. That you can't grasp this is all the proof I need you don't have any logic propelling you. None. You're proving, again and again, that you are deadlocked into the emotional and irrational view of guns as being imbued with harm or malice, Magz.

4) No where did I mention banning anything -- this was a debate about privacy, yet you're still stuck on this idea that this thread is another one about taking your precious guns away. I'm sorry that all this TALK is so scary for you Craig.

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.

incessant mailings from them trying to get you to give them more money. lololol

i think my membership is good for another couple years

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