General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

NRA once supported Gun Control!





Read the rest here.


http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/7_un...e_nras_become/

Why is that so surprising?
Some of the quotes in that Salon puff piece are taken out of context, but knowing the background on the issues those quotes are about shows that the NRA has no problem with laws that keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, crazies, or malcontents.
However, they do oppose prohibition of any class of weapon.
With regard to the Heller case quote at the end of the article, the NRA lawyer was saying that he would have lost the case if he had pushed for the level of freedom some NRA members want.
That was simply compromise to win.
Reagan was no friend of the 2nd amendment, and he was a hypocrite to boot. On the one hand he banned new machine gun sales to the public, while selling machine guns to the Contras. The guy was a neo-Con POS. He was also a racist as clearly the only reason he didn't want people carrying loaded weapons in public was because it was the Black Panthers doing it.
I don't see any quotes of him complaining about the KKK carrying loaded shotguns in the streets of Southern States during the civil strife of the 1960s.
Also, the NRA's position on carrying concealed is the same as it was in the 1800s.
They want law abiding persons to be able to get a permit and carry concealed. Again, Salon's little blog is misleading since they are taking the quotes out of context.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

And you completely dismiss any other way people can protect themselves. It's a gun or nothing.

That would be you putting words in my mouth. Self-defense is a multiple prong strategy. What I refuse to do is eliminate an option that

1) criminals have and will have.
2) that equalizes the opportunities for lesser folk to defend themselves.

Otherwise, that's quite a pile of swinging hyperbole you tossed there. Somalia... really. So ban them in the whole country, our border is utterly secure after all .... Did I say I normally carry a weapon? No, but I prefer the option is available, especially on my property.

Nice parlor psychology nonsense about "being afraid". Do you wear a seat belt because you're afraid? Or because you're prudent?

I will admit that Americans appear to be becoming more *stupid* over time - but that largely appears to be an artifact of media sensationalism.
But the statistics show that accidental gun deaths have been steadily declining for decades even with the decline in teaching gun safety and education.

Thanks for the body count but that's a red herring. By that argument, there are dozens of other things that should be banned that kill far more kids (or people) in the average household.

And seriously, people have tried to kill me. Are you claiming some special ninja skills?

[synaesthetic]

I've been in life-threatening situations multiple times. Three of them involved hostile attackers, one of which had a gun, two of which had knives.

The first time, I had no measure of defense and was robbed. When you aren't overflowing with cash, being robbed is a serious problem. I have to carry expensive pieces of technology to do my classwork and do the jobs that put food on my table. Fortunately I wasn't out on a job that time and only had $50 in cash and my phone, both of which were taken. The other two times, I had a weapon--and I was able to dissuade the would-be attackers from depriving me of the tools I need to make a living.

If someone robs me, takes my phone and my laptop, I can't do my job until I replace them. I can't put food on the table. I have to spend even more money, lose even more, to replace the missing items and hope I can make up the difference. I need these things to feed myself--my troubleshooting gig is the only job I can reliably make an income from thanks to the horrible state of the economy right now.

So no, I can't just always go out of my house without carrying over a thousand dollars worth of computer equipment. If I get robbed, if someone takes my phone and my laptop and my tools, I'm completely fucked. I don't have a thousand dollars laying around to replace it all. I will literally not be able to eat for weeks if someone robs me and takes them--because they are what I use to make my living.

If I had the same pistol I used to have in Oklahoma, and the legal right to carry it concealed, I would have a lot less to worry about if I were attacked by an assailant with the intent to rob me. I would be able to protect my livelihood.

You may have enough disposable income to replace over a thousand dollars worth of kit if someone holds you up, but I don't, and I depend on these things to FEED MYSELF. And because California's laws are fucking retarded, I have to walk around, defenseless, with all this equipment on me, because I don't own a car, either (I can't afford to own one with insurance and fuel so expensive right now).

So yeah. Even if the robber doesn't kill me and just takes my stuff, they're still causing me significant harm because I won't be able to buy food, pay bills or make rent until I can replace the missing equipment. Not to mention any jobs I might have scheduled will have to be postponed or canceled until I replace everything, which isn't exactly good for return business.

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

It's not about boosting my ego... it's about not being killed. I live in a shitty neighborhood because I'm poor. I can't afford to live in a safe place where the police respond quickly to emergencies.

I can't carry a gun in CA, though, so I have to basically only go outside during the day. If I'm out somewhere late at night, I get pretty worried. Late at night I hear gunshots and glass breaking outside, nearby, on a fairly regular basis.

I'm flexible and open-minded. If someone can point me toward a method of self-defense that works better than a gun, I'll gladly take it. Personally I'd rather just have some way to be immune to bullets, then I wouldn't have to worry about being killed or being forced to kill someone else to avoid being killed myself. But such a thing doesn't exist.

I oppose the obvious gun control laws not because I think they're going to ban guns, but because I think they're stupid and they don't work. I don't think banning high-capacity magazines will do anything. I don't think banning folding stocks will do anything. I don't think banning bayonet lugs or flash suppressors will do anything. This will not stop violence--it will have virtually no effect.

I don't give two shits about the Second Amendment, personally. I really don't. I just would prefer to live my life without being killed, robbed or raped at gunpoint. If that means keeping a gun, so I can at least fight back if I'm attacked, then that's what I want to do.

While guns might provide some higher degree of security civilians still don't need to carry guns that shatter human bodies or penetrate through 3 houses down the road and possibly injure or kill your next door neighbor. You also don't need to fire tens of bullets in matter of seconds in order to defend yourself at home or shoot a deer. The collateral damage that the guns I just described do is far too great and too dangerous in civilian conditions.

You guys seem to be forgetting the whole point of this discussion: More guns or less guns don't reduce violence, they are irrelevant in that context, but making high powered guns easily obtainable will provoke the bizarre mass shooting phenomena that plagues this country. Nobody wants lunatics with power, specially lunatics with the power to kill hundreds.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Defending our unalienable rights is not even remotely hiding, Sugetsu.
Meeting your obligation to train (self-regulate in 18th century terminology) is taking responsibility as a citizen of this country.
As I've said repeatedly, I don't think training should be optional, I think it should be mandatory for anyone ages 17-45.
In fact I'd go one step further and push John F Kennedy's idea of mandatory ownership of a firearm if you are a male citizen age 17-45 and are able bodied, because you have an obligation to this country as a member of the militia.

I can't agree with any of this. Having all male citizens be trained in fire arms will only perpetuate a sense of nationalism and paranoia which is a mindset only fit for those living in the cold war era.

The fact that you view arms as some sort of "ego trip", "symbol of power", or other nonsense shows your total lack of understanding of the responsibility of choosing to own a firearm.
It is that kind of lack of integrity with regards to this issue that has allowed the level of infringement of our basic human right to self defense that currently exists in the US.
Hunting and sport shooting have absolutely nothing to do with the right to own military arms as I've already proven in this thread.

I do believe that weapons give their wielder a false sense of empowerment, specially when a the media glorifies guns with their movies and cowboy culture. I personally know people who collect guns most, not all of them, fit the profile of an ego maniac. Please note that I said "not all of them" I can't just over generalize. Some people's reasons to collect guns is because they see them as invaluable pieces of human history.

Therefore, it is reprehensible to someone like me to punish 80-100,000,000+ people who own firearms for the actions a less than 200 people over a 100 year period.
That isn't reasonable, that's persecution if you want to get right down to it since these bans harrass, punish, and intimidate anyone not wiling to give up their rights to make a minority feel safer.

I know it sucks, but this is the system we live in. We are interconnected, and we all pay for the actions of a few. I don't like to those TSA pat downs at airports but what can I do? I don't like that the world economy is in crisis because a few greedy individuals decided to gamble with our money.

Why don't you?
You are so close minded on this issue that you don't even realize the same President who claims to want to "save just one life" pushed for increased arms sales exports to Saudi Arabia and other countries in 2011.
Mr. "we need to protect our children" authorized UAV strikes in Pakistan and Yemen that have reportedly killed between 474-881 innocent civilians including some 176 children (Stanford Law School study).
On top of that, this President's ATF is responsible for Operation Fast & Furious that armed Drug Cartels in Mexico.
In 2010, one such Cartel killed 13 people at a Birthday Party of high school students in Villas de Salvarcar, Ciudad Juarez.
So don't try the guilt card on me, because it doesn't work.
This administration and this President have a lot of innocent blood on their hands already.
I'm not so blinded by the media as to believe for one minute they aren't interested in confiscating firearms for their own agenda.

On this I do agree, this administration extended the patriot act, has killed hundreds or thousands of innocents with drone strikes. It is ironic that Obama was given the Nobel piece price.

Define a "high powered" gun, because I'm willing to bet you don't know what one actually is...hint, an AR-15 is not high-powered.

Anything that fires tens of bullets in a very brief period of time. Any gun that can shatter living things upon impact. Any weapon that has a long range. All of those things should not be accessible to civilians for the reasons I described above. They belong in a war field or in the mind of Alex Jones...

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

NRA once supported Gun Control!

Read the rest here.


http://www.salon.com/2013/01/23/7_un...e_nras_become/

Yeah, the NRA, at one time when it was still a grass roots organization, did have level-headed ideas about gun control. Read about the revolution of 1977, where extremists took control, and then slowly starte drifting into the arms of the gun manufacturers, starting from when Clint Eastwood told them, "Your fight is now our fight."

And now, everytime someone buys a gun, there is a good chance they are donating to the NRA. They are also helping to keep in power, an industry every bit as insiduous as Big Tobacco, Big Media, and Big Oil. I don't know how anyone can support those.

Originally Posted by Vexx

That would be you putting words in my mouth. Self-defense is a multiple prong strategy. What I refuse to do is eliminate an option that

1) criminals have and will have.
2) that equalizes the opportunities for lesser folk to defend themselves.

And I refuse to eliminate an option that

1) will take guns from the hands of criminals
2) will result in far fewer deaths per year

You see, you talk about criminals getting guns, but neer ask where those guns come from. As Jon Stewart showed, 57% of illegal guns siezed, came from about 1% of gun shops. Your criminal guns? They are coming from American's gun shops. Gun shops which don't have to keep track of inventory, and can sell to whoever they want. We ban handguns and restrict rifles and shotguns to one person a piece for either hunting or sports purposes, and develop a national database that can track a gun from factory to retailer to gun owner, and I guarantee you'll see many, many fewer guns in the hands of criminals.

And don't give me the over the border BS. If it were that easy to get armaments over the border, you'd see people in the streets with RPGs and Stinger missiles. The fact that we don't (because those weapons are banned), shows that a country-wide ban can work.

You wanna talk about keeping all options on the table? Prove it. Keep the option of a gun ban on the table. I, at least, am willing to admit the possibility of it not working. We won't really know until we try. Are you willing to share the same open mind, and admit the possibility that it can work, and that we can't really know until we try?

Otherwise, that's quite a pile of swinging hyperbole you tossed there. Somalia... really. So ban them in the whole country, our border is utterly secure after all .... Did I say I normally carry a weapon? No, but I prefer the option is available, especially on my property.

Nice parlor psychology nonsense about "being afraid". Do you wear a seat belt because you're afraid? Or because you're prudent?

Now who is engaging in hyperbole? ANd a false analogy. Me wearing a seat belt won't kill anyone. There is a major difference between taking a small action that will increase safety, and taking an action which could very well end causing the death of another human being.

Thanks for the body count but that's a red herring. By that argument, there are dozens of other things that should be banned that kill far more kids (or people) in the average household.

Ah, this argument. Okay, then the US is doing fine, invading countries and killing people, and supporting the RIAA/MPAA. Who cares about Abu Ghairb? Those people would have been tortured or killed elsewhere. Do you really want to go through with this line of logic that "things kill kids anyway, so we shouldn't take any actions to mitigate that" ? Because you are giving the anti-gun crowd the ammuntion to say, "See? They don't care about anyone but themselves. Vexx, a gun owner, doesn't care about keeping kids safe. Just her gun."

And seriously, people have tried to kill me. Are you claiming some special ninja skills?

I hardly call "keeping aware of your surroundings, being smart about where you go, and whatyou broadcast" to be any kind of special ninja skills. Or, if it is, then I'll agree Americans are becoming dumber. Someone looking to rob another person, will be looking at how you are dressed and what you are carrying (do they look like they'd be someone with money?) and also how alert they are (Are they reading a book/tablet/smartphone? Or are they looking around and appearing alert?). They go for the low-hanging fruit. Don't make yourself a victim, and you'll rarely even be in a position where you might need a weapon.

I'm curious, Vexx. In any of those incidents where you felt you needed to brandish or fire your gun at a threat, did you report them to the police?

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

You may have enough disposable income to replace over a thousand dollars worth of kit if someone holds you up, but I don't, and I depend on these things to FEED MYSELF. And because California's laws are fucking retarded, I have to walk around, defenseless, with all this equipment on me, because I don't own a car, either (I can't afford to own one with insurance and fuel so expensive right now).

So yeah. Even if the robber doesn't kill me and just takes my stuff, they're still causing me significant harm because I won't be able to buy food, pay bills or make rent until I can replace the missing equipment. Not to mention any jobs I might have scheduled will have to be postponed or canceled until I replace everything, which isn't exactly good for return business.

Ah, I see your problem. Have you tried carrying your stuff in something like a diaper bag? If you walk around with a bunch of electronics, you might as well broadcast that you have money and are worth stealing from. I take it you don't have a vehicle, so you get around via a bus system? Get a cheap laptop, and a cheap phone, if you need them. I only finally got a cell phone maybe 5 or 6 months ago. Before that, my only phone was the cord phone in my house that I had since college (does that give you some idea of my finances?). I'm not rich, not by a long stretch of the imagination. Up until a few months ago, I was only making $10 an hour, and then I finally got a raise to $11 an hour.

I've often found, that once someone gets a gun, they begin to rely solely on that. They stop thinking of any other options. But all you've done is ensure that when you are robbed again, they'll take your gun, too.

[synaesthetic]

Arguing with you is like arguing with a creationist. There's just no point.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Why is that so surprising?
Some of the quotes in that Salon puff piece are taken out of context, but knowing the background on the issues those quotes are about shows that the NRA has no problem with laws that keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, crazies, or malcontents.

Or Black People. If you were a white person, and you suddenly see blacks empowered with their newly found rights toting around guns -- you'd be afraid of that and want to limit it. The Black Panther organization went around with their guns -- touting Second Amendment rights. Organizations then, such as the NRA, wanted to limit that.

But of course, that was the 1960's and 1970's. Difference eras, different times. Welcome to today, when race isn't that much of an issue. It still is, just not as heated as back then.

Back in the day, the Democratic Party was the party of racism.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Arguing with you is like arguing with a creationist. There's just no point.

I thought we were having a discussion, and that you were honestly looking for alternatives. I must hsve been mistaken. My bad. You wanted to keep your gun, no matter what, and no matter who else is injured or killed. Well, I suppose we have to keep Big Gun and the NRA in business. But I repeat myself.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Or Black People. If you were a white person, and you suddenly see blacks empowered with their newly found rights toting around guns -- you'd be afraid of that and want to limit it. The Black Panther organization went around with their guns -- touting Second Amendment rights. Organizations then, such as the NRA, wanted to limit that.

But of course, that was the 1960's and 1970's. Difference eras, different times. Welcome to today, when race isn't that much of an issue. It still is, just not as heated as back then.

You're right. It's no longer necessary for Civil Rights activists to arm themselves as the government isn't as brazen as violating civil rights. At least overtly. They still try every day.

However, it surely was a useful option, wasn't it? Even if they couldn't stand up to any government force. Because the government wouldn't protect their rights, they took it upon themselves. Back then, it was much worse but breakthroughs were made in the 60s and 70s for getting people more rights. But it may be a different era now, but I feel freedom is going in the opposite direction.

The principle stood then, it stood in 1776, and it stands now. It is not needed to that degree but it's hardly obsolete.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Arguing with you is like arguing with a creationist. There's just no point.

You're watching someone that has a dump truck of their own baggage and they're projecting it on everyone else. Like a temperance alcoholic. They can't handle it, so it isn't possible that anyone else can either.

But to answer the sensible question: why, yes, every incident was reported to the police. Even the shots exchanged incident, it took them 30 minutes to arrive. Whee. Two of the incidents they didn't even want to file a report because "nothing happened" (the good samaritans on one of the the mugs and the assault).

Kaijo is lumping moderates, centrists, and near-right people with extremists. For that matter, the feminists (liberal/progressives) who firmly view firearms as a force equalizer. No differentiation at all - they're all about to explode (as if people in cars weren't exactly the same problem).

As a moderate on the subject (yeah, I hold a position that pisses off extremists on both sides), I'm fine with more regulation that will be *effective*. Close the loopholes, improve mental health monitoring/treatment, require training, etc.

But what I am getting the real sense I'm dealing with here is someone who:
1) Is irrationally terrified of guns
2) Attempted to use one on themself; projects this action to everyone else (and that's key sign they probably shouldn't be allowed access to guns)
3) But like a temperance alcoholic, thinks that because they can't handle it, no one else can possibly be responsible about it. Ban it all.

Now, in Sugetsu's post answering syn above, I may not agree with some of her assessments but I find myself agreeing with much of what she says as a practical matter. However, I suspect she's never been hunting with what she considers a "weapon civilians shouldn't have".

[Reckoner]

About high capacity magazine bans... Isn't part of the idea that if they have to reload, even if it is for a mere second or two, it provides opportunity for other people to fight back or escape?

If there is any way to save people's lives, no matter how few, isn't that worth doing?

[synaesthetic]

@Sugetsu: Sorry, I didn't see your reply to my post until after I already posted.

I actually agree that there are certain weapons which aren't very useful for defense in an urban environment. There's a reason police don't use armor-piercing ammunition in their duty weapons, for the same reason I wouldn't use anything but hollowpoints in any pistol I would carry--because neither I, nor the police officers, want their rounds to penetrate too much and hit something or someone that we didn't intend to hit.

This is one of the reasons why shotguns are very effective home-defense weapons. They don't have a lot of penetrating power compared to rifle rounds, so they're not going to go through too many walls and potentially break something important or kill some innocent bystander.

Regarding the capacity limits, there's several arguments against that which make sense. When you take a weapon that's designed for a specific magazine and put a plug in it, or make a shallower, lower capacity magazine, there's a good chance that the springs won't work properly and the gun may encounter a failure-to-feed. This can lead to... well, death, if it happens at the worst possible time.

The other argument is that combat is extremely stressful and scary. People defending themselves are NOT at their best when their lives are being threatened. I may be able to put all my shots into the center ring at the range at 25 yards, which I have done on several occasions, but I have absolutely no illusions that if I had to use my gun in an actual fight, I would be lucky to hit a human-sized target at that range. Stress, adrenaline and the attacker not giving you the time to calmly line up your shots means that having more shots could save your life. Greater margin for error.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

I thought we were having a discussion, and that you were honestly looking for alternatives. I must hsve been mistaken. My bad. You wanted to keep your gun, no matter what, and no matter who else is injured or killed. Well, I suppose we have to keep Big Gun and the NRA in business. But I repeat myself.

I don't have a gun. If you read my post, you'd know that. I had to sell them before I left Oklahoma because they possessed characteristics that make them illegal to own in California.

This is why I said arguing with you is like arguing with a creationist. You don't listen to my arguments. You make strawmen and knock them down, and now you've resulted to personal attacks.

I don't support the NRA. I think gun nuts are nucking futs. I'm just not horrified of guns like they're some kind of cursed item that dominates our minds, simply because I grew up around them.

I support better gun regulations. I support licensing and testing and harsh penalties for people who have illegal weapons. But I also support easier paths to concealed-carry permits, especially in California, where you are only allowed to carry if you are rich.

I also support non-lethal methods of defense. I would love a non-lethal solution that works. I would be over the moon about it, honestly. I would love it if I could defend myself without having to worry about killing someone to avoid being killed myself. I would love to not have to worry about nightmares and associated psychological issues related to being forced to kill someone.

The reality is there aren't any non-lethal methods that can stand up against a handgun. There just aren't. None of the existing options have the range, power, reliability and efficiency that another pistol has.

Your "solutions" are questionable at best--effective sonic weapons are not man-portable (they sit on top of a humvee) and effective laser blinding weapons are about the size of an assault rifle and are much heavier. The DIY make-shift held-together-with-duct-tape-and-baling-twine versions of these prototype weapons you see on YouTube are not something I would want my life to depend upon.

Other existing solutions just don't stand up. Stun guns require direct physical contact. True tasers are illegal for civilian ownership and are delicate devices besides. Relying on blanks is foolish in the extreme--more likely to get you killed than save you.

So yeah, basically what I do now is just... lock myself up at home at night, try to avoid going places alone when I do have to go out late and hoping I don't get robbed or otherwise attacked. It's not terribly comforting to think about...

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

About high capacity magazine bans... Isn't part of the idea that if they have to reload, even if it is for a mere second or two, it provides opportunity for other people to fight back or escape?

If there is any way to save people's lives, no matter how few, isn't that worth doing?

It is (imo). The primary counter-argument is that low capacity mags have weaker springs and will malfunction more often (jam). To me, that's a design issue that can be rectified.

The sandy line is what constitutes a "high capacity". 6, 8, 10, 15? In a tactical situation one should allow about 3 bullets per target at a mininum, hence the number "10" often being used since its rare that more than 3 targets will be involved and, by then, perhaps they're under cover so you have chance to swap in a new magazine. That takes practice and training though. Home invasions are a relatively new phenomenon so "10" might not cut it.

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Now, in Sugetsu's post answering syn above, I may not agree with some of his assessments but I find myself agreeing with much of what he says as a practical matter. However, I suspect he never been hunting with what he considers a "weapon civilians shouldn't have".

Fixed it for you.

Yes, I have not gone hunting nor will I ever do so. But from a pure reasoning point of view I believe that hunting as an sport is meant to be a challenge, in which case none of the weapons I described above will grand you the thrill of the hunt.

Now if you find yourself agreeing with much of what I say, I have this question for you. Why are people so steadfast in their position of being allowed to carry any type of gun regardless of its firepower? Most of them can think critically and are aware that some weapons are too dangerous, specially in the hands of mentally unstable people. I can understand why the NRA and all gun lobby organizations oppose any regulation. After all it is the same reason why insurance companies oppose health reform, oil companies oppose climate change legislation and wall street opposes bank regulations. But why does the average Joe think like a corporation when in fact he/she is voting against his own self interest?

[Ithekro]

How about the Glare Mout? Most blinding weapons work much like a camera flash. Ever been flashed by a camera in the dark, and your eyes had bright spots on them for several seconds? That's pretty much what a blinding weapon does. Depending on type, you don't need to aim much. Just in the general direction. I'm working on getting one of these, but since they aren't allowed to sell directly to the public, I've been browsing online for online auctions and army surplus stores for one.

As for sonic weapons, you have to aim it less than you'd need to aim a gun. This company sells a number of sonic weapons, and I've been debating getting one of the blast wave pistols.

As for never seeing or hearing again? So? Someone who presents themselves as a threat, has removed all pretense of complaining about what I do to them. If I am allowed to legally shoot you, I can also beat the crap out of you, and both of those can leave lasting harm.

Since one is pointing out situations I would point this out to you. What about the people and animals around the criminal? Do you want them blinded or deaf as well? It is far more indiscriminate than a handgun, where unless the people or animals are in a line, only one will get hit by a single bullet.

The mention of too precise for the blinders what for the laser type were you have to hit the eyes for it to be effective. That is a small target and only effective if you hit an area that is has maybe a total of 2 square inches of surface area (one square inch for each eye). The larger area Flash types could hit everyone unfortunate enough to be looking at it.

If the sonics do an area, it could hit others you don't intent to injure. And while it is true that it is possible to hit unintended people with a firearm, it is at least possible to aim a firearm to only hit the intended target (or not even hit anyone by giving a warning shot which could potentially be enough).

[synaesthetic]

And actually, in some jurisdictions, you're better off if you kill someone. There have been incidents in California where someone shot their attacker, but intentionally didn't kill them and ended up being charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

Because they intentionally shot to wound, that "proved" that they did not need to use deadly force. So they weren't justified in using a gun at all, and it was not ruled self-defense, so the person was charged with a felony.

I wouldn't be surprised if a criminal, having his sight permanently damaged by a laser blinding weapon, sued the person he tried to rob... and won. This sort of thing HAS happened before.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

Fixed it for you.

Yes, I have not gone hunting nor will I ever do so. But from a pure reasoning point of view I believe that hunting as an sport is meant to be a challenge, in which case none of the weapons I described above will grand you the thrill of the hunt.

Oops, sorry. Had Sumeragi on the brain.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "long range". Most deer shots are taken at around 100 yards, sometimes more than 200 yards in open terrain. Short range only works in heavy brush. But you only need a few bullets (1 to hit, 1-2 more if the first hit wasn't lethal). I haven't been deer hunting in decades but a lot of my family hunts as their primary meat source. You really want a bullet that can "shatter living things" (though not sure what that means, system compression shockwave?) because you don't want the animal to suffer a prolonged death if possible.

Bird hunting is shotgun time, by definition, short range already.

Originally Posted by syn

And actually, in some jurisdictions, you're better off if you kill someone. There have been incidents in California where someone shot their attacker, but intentionally didn't kill them and ended up being charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

Because they intentionally shot to wound, that "proved" that they did not need to use deadly force. So they weren't justified in using a gun at all, and it was not ruled self-defense, so the person was charged with a felony.

That is a serious legal problem in several states - the legal system is wonked so that you're much better off killing the criminal (excluding executions, you can't do that). Multiple civil suits won by criminals wounded by their victims in the commission of a crime. Yes, it's stupid, yay for law :P

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

I feel freedom is going in the opposite direction.

I get that same feeling, but it's not coming from the government. Instead, it's coming from an unchecked corporate power, with vast sums of money used to funnel into government -- turning government into its b*tch, rather than as a counter-weight.

Lately, I'm starting to view another form of a triangular power structure, consisting of:

1) The People
2) Business
3) Government

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

I get that same feeling, but it's not coming from the government. Instead, it's coming from an unchecked corporate power, with vast sums of money used to funnel into government -- turning government into its b*tch, rather than as a counter-weight.

Lately, I'm starting to view another form of a triangular power structure, consisting of:

1) The People
2) Business
3) Government

Well, no doubt corporatism is disgusting and covers both parties and a number of privacy attacks come from the big media companies. And of course the NRA itself, which doesn't represent all gun owners is also a big player in the issue.

To me though, there is definitely a huge movement that is trying to dictate what people can do in the form of the neoconservatives. From a misguided war on drugs to a misguided war on terrorism (both are against an essentially abstract enemy) has caused much violence and suffering. Most importantly, the curtailing of certain personal rights.

I'd love to pin it all on the Bush jr Administration and their wiping of their asses with the Constitution, though Obama isn't exactly turning it around either.

However, Corporatism does work hand in hand with this.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Vexx

You're watching someone that has a dump truck of their own baggage and they're projecting it on everyone else. Like a temperance alcoholic. They can't handle it, so it isn't possible that anyone else can either.

Seriously, Vexx? You really want to get that personal, even despite my caution that we shouldn't read too much into each others' personal situations? I suppose an apology is too much to expect by now.

But if you had been reading my posts, you would realize that my idea would only ban non-smart handguns. Rifles and shotguns for hunting and sport (but registered) would be okay. And I'd only ban handguns since they are used in the vast majority of crimes where a gun is used. Does that sound like someone terrified of guns? If not, why do you think I have any baggage? Should I claim you have emotional baggage because a couple of people startled you? Do you have no compassion, no sense of empathy, for people who get so full-on depressed that they seek to take their own life?

I guess opening up a bit about my personal experiences, and expecting any kind of empathy or understanding, or even respect, was expecting too much.

But to answer the sensible question: why, yes, every incident was reported to the police. Even the shots exchanged incident, it took them 30 minutes to arrive. Whee. Two of the incidents they didn't even want to file a report because "nothing happened" (the good samaritans on one of the the mugs and the assault).

Did they take your gun for evidence? Because that is what they are supposed to do. It sounds like they didn't... which either means poor cops, or we're dealing with made-up instances.

And yes, that's right people, the government can legally take your guns. If it is used in any circumstance that is reported to the police, they can seize it for evidence, and odds are you will never get it back. It will most likely get destroyed. The NRA recommends that if your gun gets taken for evidence, that you just give it up and buy another. Then again, getting you to buy more guns is on their agenda.

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I don't have a gun.

I also support non-lethal methods of defense. I would love a non-lethal solution that works. I would be over the moon about it, honestly. I would love it if I could defend myself without having to worry about killing someone to avoid being killed myself. I would love to not have to worry about nightmares and associated psychological issues related to being forced to kill someone.

Your "solutions" are questionable at best--effective sonic weapons are not man-portable (they sit on top of a humvee) and effective laser blinding weapons are about the size of an assault rifle and are much heavier. The DIY make-shift held-together-with-duct-tape-and-baling-twine versions of these prototype weapons you see on YouTube are not something I would want my life to depend upon.

I apologize for missing that you didn't have a gun. But I think you'll find technology has advanced enough that blinding and sonic weapons are very man-portable, and smaller than an assault rifle. Hell, laser pointers are effective blinders if you hit their eyes; it's just hard to do. Real blinding weapons are bigg

So, if you missed my links before, I will repost
Glare Mout - Check out the size comparison picture, to see how it stacks up vs. a rifle.
Phasor Blast Wave Pistol - scroll down a bit to see the portable version.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Since one is pointing out situations I would point this out to you. What about the people and animals around the criminal? Do you want them blinded or deaf as well? It is far more indiscriminate than a handgun, where unless the people or animals are in a line, only one will get hit by a single bullet.

Glad you asked that. Because the blinding can be temporary. Ever been in a dark room, and looked at a camera when it took a flash picture? How your vision was temporarily obscured for a few seconds, and then you had spots in your eyes for several more seconds? Functional blinding weapons are very similar. They leave glares on your eyes which obscures your vision. Flash grenades (also flashbangs) do the same thing and have been in use for quite awhile now. So the blinding is temporary, and thus it doesn't matter as much if you hit bystanders.

For sonic weapons, we have two types: Normal and Infrasonic. Normal sonic weapons induce nausea and headaches via piercing sound, which will render someone incapacitated after a few moments.

But what I'm more interested in acquiring are infrasonic weapons. Ever stand next to a bass that was putting out low sounds, and felt your bones shake as your body felt the pulses? That's essentially what this is. Sound so low you can't hear it, but at sufficient power, it causes powerful nausea and your body no longer responds very well. Your bones shake, and cavities in your body resonate. Can make you ill enough that you throw up.

In both these cases, the damage is temporary. That is partially why I advocate these two weapons over anything else, including guns. You don't need to worry about ammo or aiming or killing anyone. You just point and let it loose, and your attacker is either blinded for you to tackle (blinding weapons), or they will collapse in pain (sonic and infrasonic).

In fact, if you have a flash function on your smartphone, that is almost as useful as a blinding weapon, especially if it is dark.

Firearms can leave someone permanently disabled, too, as well as kill. Blinding and sonic weapons (at sufficient power levels), will only temporarily disable, and not kill. Part of the problem is these weapons are not easily available to the populace, and my argument, part of my solution, is to make them available. Especially to teachers or school personnel, rather than guns.