by Conserative Morality » Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:57 am
by Genivaria » Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:15 am
by Ifreann » Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:38 am
Conserative Morality wrote:Been gone from NSG recovering from a little accident (nothing major) so I thought I'd return to the forums with a true classic - gun control.
So? Agree? Disagree?
Am I just rambling?
Genivaria wrote:Hey CM buddy glad to see you're okay, was starting to worry.
For me I don't consider the 2nd Amendment all that important in practical terms, that said I also think that from where I stand the Gun Control issue is a distraction at best.
However I have to agree on the regulation of suppressors. I think they too easily enable murder.
by Galloism » Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:49 am
Conserative Morality wrote:Registration and tracking of firearms is all-important, as is licensing for individuals.
by Len Hyet » Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:16 am
Conserative Morality wrote:-snip for the snip god-
by Sovaal » Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:24 am
Len Hyet wrote:Conserative Morality wrote:-snip for the snip god-
Cold dead hands, filthy statist, etc. Good to see you again CM.
My biggest bone is the "effective non-lethal self defense tools". As nice as it sounds, there really ain't. A TASER? Failure to deploy renders your weapon useless. Prong gets stuck in a baggy shirt renders your weapon ineffective. Hell, weapon connects and delivers a full charge right into the chest of your attacker, he bulls through it and you're left with your thumb up your ass. There's a reason Police Officers only deploy less-lethal when they're given lethal cover by their partner. A stun gun? Fuck that, I don't want to get into a fight with someone trying to kill me at hand to hand range. Pepper spray or mace? A stiff breeze renders your weapon useless at best, and blows it back into your own face at worst.
by A Rational Anarchist » Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:25 am
Galloism wrote:Then, when you consider the history of such firearm registries (how, in Chicago, it was used as a precursor and method to take away pretty much all the guns later), it would make anybody nervous to have their name and firearms in a database somewhere. Add on top of that how governments and corporations are losing confidential information at crazy levels, and I want to be in as few databases as possible. I have a LOT of concerns with firearm registries. I would have fewer concerns of such if the McDonald v. Chicago and DC v. Heller were decided by thicker majorities (7-2 or 8-1 perhaps), instead of a 5-4 in both cases, but still with concerns about data breach.
by A Rational Anarchist » Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:34 am
Conserative Morality wrote:Silencers is a question I struggle with. Any policy on silencers has to be Federal, not piecemeal state-by-state, but... on one hand, the use of silencers to lessen hearing loss and damage is perfectly legitimate and silencers don't work like Hollywood 'plink plink' kind of bullshit. It turns a roar into a bark. It's not exactly a sneaky-beaky murder weapon. On the other hand, turning a roar into a bark is sometimes enough combined with background ambiance to conceal the firing of a gun in circumstances where a gun should not be fired, which is... problematic.
by Aclion » Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:41 am
Galloism wrote:snip
by Galloism » Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:47 am
A Rational Anarchist wrote:Galloism wrote:Then, when you consider the history of such firearm registries (how, in Chicago, it was used as a precursor and method to take away pretty much all the guns later), it would make anybody nervous to have their name and firearms in a database somewhere. Add on top of that how governments and corporations are losing confidential information at crazy levels, and I want to be in as few databases as possible. I have a LOT of concerns with firearm registries. I would have fewer concerns of such if the McDonald v. Chicago and DC v. Heller were decided by thicker majorities (7-2 or 8-1 perhaps), instead of a 5-4 in both cases, but still with concerns about data breach.
Balancing the rights of peaceful individuals in their own homes versus Sandy Hook/Pulse-type public atrocities wasn't hard enough. Now I have to worry about privacy disasters as well.
Egads.
Although, just to clarify -- what difference does the thickness of the SCOTUS decisions make concerning "data breach?" Even if both decisions were 9-0, a concentrated database of personal information is still a breach disaster waiting to happen. Or does "data breach" just mean "SCOTUS eventually reverses and now the 'gun grabbers' know where all the guns are?"
EDIT: fixed quote to quote the person I meant to quote.
A Rational Anarchist wrote:"SCOTUS eventually reverses and now the 'gun grabbers' know where all the guns are?"
by A Rational Anarchist » Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:54 am
Galloism wrote:I have two independent concerns.
One regarding data breach that SCOTUS thickness has nothing to do with (just hackers). This would persist despite "thickness" of the decision.
The second is that, in some future time not far down the road,A Rational Anarchist wrote:"SCOTUS eventually reverses and now the 'gun grabbers' know where all the guns are?"
by Galloism » Wed Sep 20, 2017 9:59 am
A Rational Anarchist wrote:Galloism wrote:I have two independent concerns.
One regarding data breach that SCOTUS thickness has nothing to do with (just hackers). This would persist despite "thickness" of the decision.
The second is that, in some future time not far down the road,
They're both reasonable concerns, but presumably they apply to every other instance of licensing and registration which seem much less controversial -- motor vehicle registration, driver's licensing, etc. Although I suppose there aren't any "car grabbers," at least not quite yet.
by Conserative Morality » Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:14 am
Len Hyet wrote:Cold dead hands, filthy statist, etc. Good to see you again CM.
My biggest bone is the "effective non-lethal self defense tools". As nice as it sounds, there really ain't. A TASER? Failure to deploy renders your weapon useless. Prong gets stuck in a baggy shirt renders your weapon ineffective. Hell, weapon connects and delivers a full charge right into the chest of your attacker, he bulls through it and you're left with your thumb up your ass. There's a reason Police Officers only deploy less-lethal when they're given lethal cover by their partner. A stun gun? Fuck that, I don't want to get into a fight with someone trying to kill me at hand to hand range. Pepper spray or mace? A stiff breeze renders your weapon useless at best, and blows it back into your own face at worst.
by Len Hyet » Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:19 am
Conserative Morality wrote:Those same arguments can be applied to guns, though. There are any number of mechanical or maintenance problems that can render a firearm ineffective, whether through environment, circumstance, or user error.
People can and often do push through after being shot once or twice, sometimes more, especially when hopped up on adrenaline or drugs.
No method is 100% effective. Also, it'd have to be a pretty damn strong wind to render it useless. Pepper spray comes out pretty hard.
My point is not that guns are useless for self-defence. My point is simply that the generalized role of low-skill self-defence weapons has been diversified from the personal sidearm this past century and thus it can no longer be regarded as *the* method of personal protection. Low-skill self-defence in the modern day is very viable without firearms.
by A Rational Anarchist » Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:25 am
Len Hyet wrote:
If a TASER fails to deploy you're screwed. If I get a FTF I tap the mag rack the slide and it's good to go. Takes about a second.
by Telconi » Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:25 am
Conserative Morality wrote:Len Hyet wrote:Cold dead hands, filthy statist, etc. Good to see you again CM.
My biggest bone is the "effective non-lethal self defense tools". As nice as it sounds, there really ain't. A TASER? Failure to deploy renders your weapon useless. Prong gets stuck in a baggy shirt renders your weapon ineffective. Hell, weapon connects and delivers a full charge right into the chest of your attacker, he bulls through it and you're left with your thumb up your ass. There's a reason Police Officers only deploy less-lethal when they're given lethal cover by their partner. A stun gun? Fuck that, I don't want to get into a fight with someone trying to kill me at hand to hand range. Pepper spray or mace? A stiff breeze renders your weapon useless at best, and blows it back into your own face at worst.
Those same arguments can be applied to guns, though. There are any number of mechanical or maintenance problems that can render a firearm ineffective, whether through environment, circumstance, or user error. People can and often do push through after being shot once or twice, sometimes more, especially when hopped up on adrenaline or drugs. No method is 100% effective. Also, it'd have to be a pretty damn strong wind to render it useless. Pepper spray comes out pretty hard.
My point is not that guns are useless for self-defence. My point is simply that the generalized role of low-skill self-defence weapons has been diversified from the personal sidearm this past century and thus it can no longer be regarded as *the* method of personal protection. Low-skill self-defence in the modern day is very viable without firearms.
by Conserative Morality » Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:27 am
Len Hyet wrote:If a TASER fails to deploy you're screwed. If I get a FTF I tap the mag rack the slide and it's good to go. Takes about a second.
TASER gives you one shot. I can get up to 20 out of a full sized non-extended handgun.
Eh. If you're willing to trust your life to pepper spray that's your call and I respect your right to make it. I'd rather not.
by Conserative Morality » Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:30 am
Telconi wrote:A taser, or pepper, or any pain based defense weapon relies on the subjects pain response to be effective. A gun doesn't necessarily, while pain is a part, and likely the first part, there are further effects from a gunshot. No matter how tough, high, determined, etc. an attacker is, he cannot 'push through' blood loss, organ failure, or CNS damage.
by Kenmoria » Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:33 am
by Telconi » Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:35 am
Conserative Morality wrote:Telconi wrote:A taser, or pepper, or any pain based defense weapon relies on the subjects pain response to be effective. A gun doesn't necessarily, while pain is a part, and likely the first part, there are further effects from a gunshot. No matter how tough, high, determined, etc. an attacker is, he cannot 'push through' blood loss, organ failure, or CNS damage.
Blood loss takes too long, organ failure is hard to achieve, etc. If the hydrostatic shock doesn't set it and their pain response doesn't stop them, then you're not really looking at a stopped opponent, as any number of colonial troops facing natives in 19th century warfare could tell you.
by Conserative Morality » Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:38 am
Telconi wrote:Blood loss depends on the hit, organ failure aND CNS aswell. Either way, they may be 'hard to achieve' with a gun, but they're impossible with a TASER.
by Telconi » Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:44 am
Conserative Morality wrote:Telconi wrote:Blood loss depends on the hit, organ failure aND CNS aswell. Either way, they may be 'hard to achieve' with a gun, but they're impossible with a TASER.
You can survive, conscious, several minutes from a shot to the heart. Circumstance and the condition of the person being shot matter more than placement of the shot in most cases in terms of immediate immobilization and neutralization in the absence of a meaningful pain response. And yes, killing someone is very difficult with a taser. That's the point of less-than-lethal defence weapons.
by Conserative Morality » Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:46 am
Telconi wrote:If I'm going to end up in a fist fight with someone, I'll take the guy with a sucking chest wound any day of the week.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Eahland, Ineva, Maximum Imperium Rex, New Temecula, Nuevo Meshiko, Shrillland, Soviet Haaregrad, Statesburg, The Two Jerseys, The Vooperian Union, Tiami, Verkhoyanska, Xind, Yasuragi
Advertisement