reading all the gun debates going around an Idea struck me. Woman have something called pepper spray to neutralize an attacker for a long time. Animal catchers use a gun which injects something into the animal body and makes it unconscious for a large amount of time
I don't buy the dubious argument if they were no guns there would be knives to kill. A 2 year old could kill with a gun , and a teenager could kill 30+ people with a gun ,can he do it with a knife.
Besides knifes have many useful purposes . But the only purpose of a gun , only thing a gun can do is maim or kill a being. Saying it could serve as defence is no argument. The attacker would have been better trained in gunfare and has the huge advantage of suprise on you. Do you carry a gun along in your pocket everywhere you go ?.
And remember the anger issues if suddenly you become very angry compare the situation when there is a gun at hand to no gun at hand. Without a gun you mighjt come to blows ,at the worst may knife someone. But with a gun the propability of someone getting killed is huge.
Are there guns which can temporarily put an attacker out of action instantly without long-term damage like a tranquilzer etc. If there is not would it be so difficult to develop one?
That sort of gun can be called a defensive weapon for it can only be used for defence and cannot kill, maim humans, animals etc.
BB guns. guns with rubber bullets. compressed air guns(don't know this is the correct translation from my language). there are already alternatives. the problem is that they don't blow a trespasser to bits which is an absolute must for some rednecks. plus you must take into account the fact that "the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to the survival of democracy". (i read it somewhere in a redneck article and it sounded ridiculous then and more ridiculous now)
Originally posted by druidraviOne by one ...
reading all the gun debates going around an Idea struck me. Woman have something called pepper spray to neutralize an attacker for a long time. Animal catchers use a gun which injects something into the animal body and makes it unconscious for a large amount of time
I don't buy the dubious argument if they were no guns there would be knives to kill. ...[text shortened]... defensive weapon for it can only be used for defence and cannot kill, maim humans, animals etc.
Firstly, the idea that struck you isn't a new one .. it's only new to you.
Pepper spray won't always neutralize an attacker, neither will a tazer, often, a single bullet isn't enough to stop an attacker if not properly placed.
A 2 year old can kill you with a knife if you're not paying attention to where you leave the knives.
A teenager can only kill 30+ people with a gun if none of those 30+ are holding a gun of their own. He can kill to infinity with a knife if he catches them alone and attacks from behind.
Point being, if one is bent on killing, he/she can kill with impunity using his/her bare hands as weapons.
A gun serves as a damn good equalizer and in many cases will prevent a crime. You might think to harrass that American girl until she puts that little .22 under your chin. Then, your stupid little smirk becomes a frozen smile. "I was only funnin' lady, can I go home to my Mama now?"
Yes .. I sometime carry a gun in public. You'd never suspect it until it was too late. Your mistake, because if you make me "very angry" i'll shoot you.
Point being .. don't do anything to make me "very angry" or the probabilty of you getting killed is huge.
The guns that "temporarily" put someone out of action don't always work properly. They can't be counted on to do the job .. a .45 will. Maybe the guys a 350 pounder .. and on PCP. Spray or a tazer may simply piss him off, a .45 slug that hits anywhere on his body will stop him cold, hell, a ,22 if properly placed will do the job.
Originally posted by druidravisheesh, I get tired of hearing that the only things guns are for is to kill people. Where I grew up, Guns our a very big part of our culture, hunting, clay target competitions, me and my brother our big into that, and shooting competitions. In fact, I would say around here, that killing people with a gun is less then 1% of its use. Its so big in some of the western states that if the Feds ban them, some of the western states would probably leave the union, and like Fleet Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, Imperial Japanese Navy"Invasion of the United States is impossible. There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass." --
reading all the gun debates going around an Idea struck me. Woman have something called pepper spray to neutralize an attacker for a long time. Animal catchers use a gun which injects something into the animal body and makes it unconscious for a large amount of time
I don't buy the dubious argument if they were no guns there would be knives to kill. ...[text shortened]... defensive weapon for it can only be used for defence and cannot kill, maim humans, animals etc.
we do have a totally different perspective than the rest of the world. I think it comes from our heritage. We had to fight to become a sovereign nation and within 20 years of our separation from England, they came back to try again. We are accustomed to a heritage of self protection, whether or not we actually have to do it today. The other countries we're referencing have not had a major war with an invading ground force on their soil in hundreds of years. We have had three in the last 300 and in each one, armed citizens were instrumental in the outcome.
Hitler banned weapons right before he started wiping out the Jews..you know why? Because he knew they could fight back with guns....then sure enough he gassed them all to death...not only does these guns hold criminals back, but they also hold back our government if it ever comes to it. Our government educates us to challenge the government when it steps out of line and we might have to enforce it with guns. Also look at this, more guns means less crimes. If a criminal knows that almost everybody owns a gun..will he be breaking into your house we he KNOWS that its about a 90 percent chance that that house has a weapon? I dont think so. If this person at Virginia Tech really wanted to kill people there, trust me if guns were banned, you could EASILY find another gun to start shooting people with off underground markets and crap like that....its also like drugs, drugs are illegal but people still end up getting them anyways, guns are illegal people will get them anyways.
I also heard an anecdote about the gun ban in Australia that some towns completely ran out of 4" PVC piping for months around the time the ban was instituted. Small trenches appeared in back yards around the same time...
Alternatives? there will be none that replace gun, try telling police officers to use pepper spray when somone is shooting at them, I carry pepper spray every time I go hunting, and if you ever used it, you will find that it is not effective against humans with guns, in fact just a little wind in the wrong direction will get you it just as bad as the attacker.
Originally posted by druidraviThere are many people who hunt in this area to provide for their family. They don't do it to torture the animal, they do it so their family won't starve. Would you take guns away from them?
reading all the gun debates going around an Idea struck me. Woman have something called pepper spray to neutralize an attacker for a long time. Animal catchers use a gun which injects something into the animal body and makes it unconscious for a large amount of time
I don't buy the dubious argument if they were no guns there would be knives to kill. ...[text shortened]... defensive weapon for it can only be used for defence and cannot kill, maim humans, animals etc.
I won't address the gun's won't stop killings issue. Granted if a person wants to kill he might find ways to do it. But without the guns it reduces the propability a lot. Imagine if that shooter showed in the university with a kitchen knife or any sort of hand-weapon how many would he have killed, 1 at the most. And even that 1 taken to hospital immediately could be rescued.
I mentioned pepper spray just to indicate non-lethal defence. I am not asking people to face ak-47's with pepper sprays. There might be a better version of guns which stun or tranquilze the target rather than wound him/her. That would be legimitate defece.
I don't think local security forces should be stripped of ammunation. For a responsible and trained security force use rubber bullets, water cannons etc to face threats and killing maiming is last option. Providing guns within easy reach of all people helps the unstable , insecure people get them as a masculinity symbol and misuse it.
@ remora: I was commenting about the right to defence being quoted by people . I don't know about people hunting with guns for their food. I think a family which can afford gun / has enough empty area in vicinity for shooting animals can afford food obtained normally .
There is a difference between those isolated tribes which use bow/arrows for basic food needs and people living in developed/semi-developed communities.
"I was commenting about the right to defence being quoted by people . I don't know about people hunting with guns for their food. I think a family which can afford gun / has enough empty area in vicinity for shooting animals can afford food obtained normally ."
................
You're just flat wrong about that. A decent hunting rifle will pay for itself in no time at all .. like one good hunt. That's meat for an entire winter ... for an entire family.
Not to mention the varments kept at bay.
Originally posted by druidraviAll a person needs to do is go out into the woods. Very rarely people own the property they hunt on here. Plus, you can buy a rifle for a few hundred dollars. My family spends that much a week on groceries. So it pays for itself very quickly (especially if you have a bunch of kids).
@ remora: I was commenting about the right to defence being quoted by people . I don't know about people hunting with guns for their food. I think a family which can afford gun / has enough empty area in vicinity for shooting animals can afford food obtained normally .
There is a difference between those isolated tribes which use bow/arrows for basic food needs and people living in developed/semi-developed communities.
Originally posted by druidravihoping that this woin't turn into another pro/anti gun debate (we've got enough of them already) I'll try to answer about what I think you were getting at: non-lethal weaponry.
reading all the gun debates going around an Idea struck me. Woman have something called pepper spray to neutralize an attacker for a long time. Animal catchers use a gun which injects something into the animal body and makes it unconscious for a large amount of time
I don't buy the dubious argument if they were no guns there would be knives to kill. ...[text shortened]... defensive weapon for it can only be used for defence and cannot kill, maim humans, animals etc.
Non-lethal weaponry is something that a lot of time & money has gone into, but has so far yielded poor results for one of two reason - either they're not reliably effective or they are not actually non-lethal (or at least cause serious damage):
Plastic bullets can still kill
Tazers have been linked to heart attacks
Pepper sprays have (I'm stretching into memory now) been linked to perminant eye damage, and (has already been said) are not always effective at disabling an attacker.
Tear gas is still popular but has been linked to long lung damage
Vomit and blister chemical agents are available to military powers if they chose (easy to make) but are pretty nasty stuff, can cause perminant harm and can still be lethal
The main chemical weapon stockpiled by the Russians in the cold war was LSD - it didn't kill people, but they wouldn't be able to fight afterwards. What it does ot their minds longterm however...
Wide beam lazer weapons were invented that would temporarily blind soldiers for ~1 hour, but was quickly banned under the Geneva Convention as inhumane. Plus the battery packs required the weapon to be mounted on a large jeep. And the right sunglasses probably rendered it useless.
Some entertaining attempts that have been worked on recently by DERA (Defence Evaluation Research Agency) in the UK have been:
goo guns = cannons that spray out quick setting goo that sticks the targets (rioters, soldiers...) to the ground/themselves/each other, thus immobilising them. The idea is that you go around later in your own time with a solvent, freeing the targets after disarming them one by one. I don't know what the specific problems with this project are, but may well include the possibility of occluding a target's airway and them suffocating, and a limitation on range.
sonic (pant) blasters = directional speakers that emit sound waves, below our hearing range, at the same resonance frequancy as your bowels causing you to literally crap your pants. I'm not sure this actually works though...
Originally posted by belgianfreakhaha, I would have fun with this if I had one.
sonic (pant) blasters = directional speakers that emit sound waves, below our hearing range, at the same resonance frequancy as your bowels causing you to literally crap your pants. I'm not sure this actually works though...
Originally posted by flyUnityto say that guns are the only thing that stops hitler wannabes from destroying democracy is just plain idiocy.
sheesh, I get tired of hearing that the only things guns are for is to kill people. Where I grew up, Guns our a very big part of our culture, hunting, clay target competitions, me and my brother our big into that, and shooting competitions. In fact, I would say around here, that killing people with a gun is less then 1% of its use. Its so big in some of the ...[text shortened]... fact just a little wind in the wrong direction will get you it just as bad as the attacker.
Originally posted by ZahlanziDoes no-one else find it ironic that the country who loudest trumpets the benefits of democracy and how great its form of goverment is ... justifies gun ownership by using the 'need them to stop the govt from taking away our freedoms' reason?
to say that guns are the only thing that stops hitler wannabes from destroying democracy is just plain idiocy.
(Although, with what this administration has done and is doing, the reason makes a little more sense now)