Can Anyone of the Anti-gun Crowd Please Explain This?

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
3
36
A hunting rifle is for hunting.
A tazer is for self defense.
You should be comparing tasers to hand guns or assault weapons
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
A hunting rifle is for hunting.
A tazer is for self defense.
You should be comparing tasers to hand guns or assault weapons

So a person couldn't use a hunting rifle in self defense?
 
Last edited:

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
3
36
So a person couldn't use a hunting rifle in self defense?
There is a good reason for hunting rifles to be available.

Comparing them to tasers is not as sensible as comparing them to other self defense weapons
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
There is a good reason for hunting rifles to be available.
Comparing them to tasers is not as sensible as comparing them to other self defense weapons

For self defense, when used properly, a taser probably presents a lower threat of bodily harm to an agressor than a sword, a baseball bat, or any other long blade or hard striking instrument does.

Just ask yourself: suposing that I knew how to safely use a taser, would you rather that I swing a sword or a bat at you or that I just zap you with a taser?
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Here's a real question for the anti-gunners, unlike the set-up questions pro-gunners usually ask.

In those states that allow it, I carry concealed a small, 9-millimetre pistol. It weighs less than a pound (1/2 kg), is less than an inch (2.5 cm) wide, and nestles in my hip pocket quite nicely.

I carry it whenever I'm out, again in those states that permit it (the state in which I live, Maryland, and the jurisdiction in which I usually work, the District of Columbia, do not allow it). I've had the license for over 30 years. I have never fired, nor even drawn, the gun anywhere except at a shooting range. I'm a lawyer and a military veteran. I go to a shooting range regularly. I know when to shoot, and how to shoot, including most critically how not to shoot. I leave my gun behind if I plan on drinking, just as I arrange for transportation if I plan on drinking. I only drink when I plan to, my usual choice is coffee or soft drinks. The worst violation of the law on my record is a failure to stop at a red light 25 years ago. If I were armed in a theatre or a restaurant or a shop or on the street or on public transit, there's a pretty good chance I could use my gun to stop a shooter.

Do you think I should be allowed to carry my gun? Do you think I should be allowed to own it? If not, why not?
How does society differentiate you from someone who is far more dangerous?
 

Decapoda

Council Member
Mar 4, 2016
1,682
801
113
Do you think I should be allowed to carry my gun? Do you think I should be allowed to own it? If not, why not?

I'm not an anti-gunner, but I'll give my 2 cents anyhow.

Yes, you should be allowed to own and carry your gun in jurisdictions that allow it. The problem isn't you, it's people who don't share the level of responsibility, experience, and moral integrity that you do. The laws are written reactively, not proactively, and they are based on the lowest common denominator.

Of course, I'm referring to the lowest common denominator of law-abiding citizen, because criminals and people who have no respect ...or lose respect for common societal good are not bound or affected by gun laws, which is the fundamental flaw of trying to legislate gun ownership and use.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,646
7,103
113
Washington DC
I'm not an anti-gunner, but I'll give my 2 cents anyhow.
Yes, you should be allowed to own and carry your gun in jurisdictions that allow it. The problem isn't you, it's people who don't share the level of responsibility, experience, and moral integrity that you do. The laws are written reactively, not proactively, and they are based on the lowest common denominator.
Of course, I'm referring to the lowest common denominator of law-abiding citizen, because criminals and people who have no respect ...or lose respect for common societal good are not bound or affected by gun laws, which is the fundamental flaw of trying to legislate gun ownership and use.
Thank you. I agree.

I guess I'm not hardcore, because I agree with licensure, and would make licensure much tougher than it currently is in the U.S. I'd require classes in weapons safety and use of force, and a demonstration of proficience with a rifle, a shotgun, and a handgun, before anyone could be licensed to own a gun. I would remove the license from anyone who was convicted of any violent crime, or even the misdemeanors of brandishing a weapon or discharging a firearm within city limits. Depending on the crime, I might consider reinstatement of the license after intensive training.

I own "semi-automatic assault weapons," but I would have no problem with banning them, and would turn mine in if they were banned. I also own lever-action "cowboy rifles" and a bolt-action hunting rifle. Similarly, with handguns I would be OK with banning high-capacity automatics. If I can't get the job done with my eight-shot, .357 magnum revolver, I can't get it done at all.

I just don't kid myself that it would make much difference. It would take down the numbers on mass shootings (it's hard to mow down 50 people when you have to re-load a lot), but only a tiny fraction of U.S. gun homicides are mass shootings.

But I do wish the anti-gunners would get off their high unicorn and get serious. The problem in the U.S. is handguns. They account for over 95% of all gun homicides. I don't agree with banning them, but if you're going to be a serious anti-gunner, that's where you have to focus your efforts.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
Oh you're talking about the US? Why's it in the Canadian Politics section then? Handguns and semi-autos are already banned in Canada, so that's a non-issue then.
 

Decapoda

Council Member
Mar 4, 2016
1,682
801
113
Oh you're talking about the US? Why's it in the Canadian Politics section then? Handguns and semi-autos are already banned in Canada, so that's a non-issue then.

Actually, no... you're completely wrong. Handguns can be legally owned in Canada, they require an RPAL licence, and anyone with just a PAL can get a semi-auto.

It's pretty rich you complaining that this topic belongs in a different section. You can't seem stick to the topic being discussed regardless of where it's located.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
Actually, no... you're completely wrong. Handguns are legal, they require an RPAL licence, and anyone with just a PAL can get a semi-auto.
It's pretty rich you complaining that this topic belongs in a different section. You can't seem stick to the topic being discussed regardless of where it's located.

OK, so you can get a handgun that can shoot bullets with an RPAl license. What license do you need to get a taser?
 

Decapoda

Council Member
Mar 4, 2016
1,682
801
113
Torture? I'd far rather get tazed than shot. What about you?

Don't be an idiot and go threatening anyone's personal safety or security, and you won't have to worry about either option.

Stick to the topic genius. Should people be allowed to carry a firearm for self defense in jurisdictions where it's allowed?
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
Don't be an idiot and go threatening anyone's personal safety or security, and you won't have to worry about either option.
Stick to the topic genius. Should people be allowed to carry a firearm for self defense in jurisdictions where it's allowed?

Sure, why not?