NationStates

Hey uh, can any of these kill a home invader?

https://www.airgunsource.ca/en/rifles/u ... page2.html

They shoot pellets under 500 fps, so I can get away with owning them without a license in Canada. Since Canada designates airguns that shoot over 500 fps as firearms, cus Canada is actual cancer when it comes to this stuff.

no
9mm

Loben wrote:no
9mm

I'm tryna get around the licensing xDDD

Greater Cesnica wrote:Hey uh, can any of these kill a home invader?

https://www.airgunsource.ca/en/rifles/u ... page2.html

They shoot pellets under 500 fps, so I can get away with owning them without a license in Canada. Since Canada designates airguns that shoot over 500 fps as firearms, cus Canada is actual cancer when it comes to this stuff.

Short answer: "Probably not within an amount of time relevant to improving your chances of survival."

Would mostly just frighten and piss them off enough to get crimminal charges filed against you.

Most airguns over here don't jump the curb out of airsoft territory until about 600 to 900 FPS and that's only for squirrels.
Becaus 570 fps is literally airsoft velocities. You are asking if you can kill with airsoft if you replace the plastic with lead.

Gun Manufacturers wrote:

Jolthig wrote:I fail to see the need to stock up guns against tyranny. I mean, guns can't fight against bombs or cruise missiles or tanks can they? The government would crush the armed militias.

It's more reasonable to have a gun for self-defense from a criminal, than against the government. It's simple paranoia that gun manufacturers want their buyers to believe.

I don't want my buyers to be paranoid, I just want to increase my prof... I mean, I want to promote firearms sports.

What was that GM? I think you cut out there.

Kernen wrote:

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:Honestly Jerry Brown was always a bad dude.

But it definitely isn't treason...

Disregarding civil rights is alwasy treasonous.

Greater Cesnica wrote:Hey uh, can any of these kill a home invader?

https://www.airgunsource.ca/en/rifles/u ... page2.html

They shoot pellets under 500 fps, so I can get away with owning them without a license in Canada. Since Canada designates airguns that shoot over 500 fps as firearms, cus Canada is actual cancer when it comes to this stuff.

Sure, if you use it to bludgeon a home invader to death. If you shoot a home invader with one though, you might injure them, and you'll definitely piss them off.

Greater Cesnica wrote:Hey uh, can any of these kill a home invader?

https://www.airgunsource.ca/en/rifles/u ... page2.html

They shoot pellets under 500 fps, so I can get away with owning them without a license in Canada. Since Canada designates airguns that shoot over 500 fps as firearms, cus Canada is actual cancer when it comes to this stuff.

Using the gun as intended, from a distance of several dozen feet or more, it's very unlikely you'd kill anyone unless you hit them square through the eye, though at a close enough range an air gun could certainly penetrate the skull; At the end of the day, it's better than nothing, even if certainly not ideal.

Arengin Union wrote:

Kernen wrote:But it definitely isn't treason...

Disregarding civil rights is alwasy treasonous.

Thats a goalpost shift, though.

Treasonous, insofar as it is an adjective to describe an act, behavior is not itself treason. It isn't giving aid to the enemy with sufficient certainty to stick as a charge. It doesn't betray the sovereign or the government. It doesn't even necessarily betray the people if there is a legitimate policy argument in favor. And you can't say there are no legitimate policy arguments. We disagree with their efficacy, legality, or moral justification, but they aren't inherently illegitimate.

My point is just that it's clearly rhetorical hyperbole to call it treasonous or treason, and we ought not sink to gun grabber levels by engaging in hyperbole.

Crockerland wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:Hey uh, can any of these kill a home invader?

https://www.airgunsource.ca/en/rifles/u ... page2.html

They shoot pellets under 500 fps, so I can get away with owning them without a license in Canada. Since Canada designates airguns that shoot over 500 fps as firearms, cus Canada is actual cancer when it comes to this stuff.

Using the gun as intended, from a distance of several dozen feet or more, it's very unlikely you'd kill anyone unless you hit them square through the eye, though at a close enough range an air gun could certainly penetrate the skull; At the end of the day, it's better than nothing, even if certainly not ideal.

I mean, if I get licensing, there are certain legal groups that will help me fight the retarded laws that are against me defending myself with a firearm against a deadly threat.

Arengin Union wrote:Raising the age to buy firearms to 21 is unconstitutional and should be grounds to depose and tried Jerry Brown and his cronies for treason.

That is a bit of a stretch don't you think? There is more standing legal precedent for age limits than there is for example, banning all civilian access to firearms. I'd think that the 21 age requirement is easier to defend as constitutional than it'd be to defend a true example of gun control from being struck down in the US, that that was ever tried.

I don't support any forms of gun control apart from, perhaps, an age limit around 16.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Crockerland wrote:Using the gun as intended, from a distance of several dozen feet or more, it's very unlikely you'd kill anyone unless you hit them square through the eye, though at a close enough range an air gun could certainly penetrate the skull; At the end of the day, it's better than nothing, even if certainly not ideal.

I mean, if I get licensing, there are certain legal groups that will help me fight the retarded laws that are against me defending myself with a firearm against a deadly threat.

Honestly, if someone is in your home with no right to be their you should have a right to stand your ground.

Saiwania wrote:

Arengin Union wrote:Raising the age to buy firearms to 21 is unconstitutional and should be grounds to depose and tried Jerry Brown and his cronies for treason.

That is a bit of a stretch don't you think? There is more standing legal precedent for age limits than there is for example, banning all civilian access to firearms. I'd think that the 21 age requirement is easier to defend as constitutional than it'd be to defend a true example of gun control from being struck down in the US, that that was ever tried.

I suspect not. Raising the age to own a certain class of arms is, obviously, legal. We see that upheld all over the place in the form of handgun sale age limits. But for all firearms? You're systematically removing the right of a class of adults, 18-20 year olds, from exercising their right to bear arms in any form. Which gets you into 14th Amendment territory. So long as the age of majority is 18, you aren't going to win on broad age restrictions.

Kernen wrote:

Saiwania wrote:
That is a bit of a stretch don't you think? There is more standing legal precedent for age limits than there is for example, banning all civilian access to firearms. I'd think that the 21 age requirement is easier to defend as constitutional than it'd be to defend a true example of gun control from being struck down in the US, that that was ever tried.

I suspect not. Raising the age to own a certain class of arms is, obviously, legal. We see that upheld all over the place in the form of handgun sale age limits. But for all firearms? You're systematically removing the right of a class of adults, 18-20 year olds, from exercising their right to bear arms in any form. Which gets you into 14th Amendment territory. So long as the age of majority is 18, you aren't going to win on broad age restrictions.

The courts seem to have a very retarded view about 14th amendment rights of 18-21 year olds. Given their are crimes they can be prosecuted for that those over 21 are immune from.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Kernen wrote:I suspect not. Raising the age to own a certain class of arms is, obviously, legal. We see that upheld all over the place in the form of handgun sale age limits. But for all firearms? You're systematically removing the right of a class of adults, 18-20 year olds, from exercising their right to bear arms in any form. Which gets you into 14th Amendment territory. So long as the age of majority is 18, you aren't going to win on broad age restrictions.

The courts seem to have a very retarded view about 14th amendment rights of 18-21 year olds. Given their are crimes they can be prosecuted for that those over 21 are immune from.

There is a policy reason for treating 18-20 year olds differently from 21 year olds insofar as brain development is still incomplete at 18.

But it doesn't jive with the clear age of majority being 18.

Kernen wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:The courts seem to have a very retarded view about 14th amendment rights of 18-21 year olds. Given their are crimes they can be prosecuted for that those over 21 are immune from.

There is a policy reason for treating 18-20 year olds differently from 21 year olds insofar as brain development is still incomplete at 18.

But it doesn't jive with the clear age of majority being 18.

Then change the age of majority.

Personally, studying law has driven me to hate 'policy reasons.' I favour a very strict interpretation of the law; it doesn't even have to make any degree of common sense. If that's what it says, that's what it says.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Kernen wrote:
There is a policy reason for treating 18-20 year olds differently from 21 year olds insofar as brain development is still incomplete at 18.

But it doesn't jive with the clear age of majority being 18.

Then change the age of majority.

Personally, studying law has driven me to hate 'policy reasons.' I favour a very strict interpretation of the law; it doesn't even have to make any degree of common sense. If that's what it says, that's what it says.

Literalism is basically the worst theory.

Kernen wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Then change the age of majority.

Personally, studying law has driven me to hate 'policy reasons.' I favour a very strict interpretation of the law; it doesn't even have to make any degree of common sense. If that's what it says, that's what it says.

Literalism is basically the worst theory.

Living document laughs at your claim.

Kernen wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Then change the age of majority.

Personally, studying law has driven me to hate 'policy reasons.' I favour a very strict interpretation of the law; it doesn't even have to make any degree of common sense. If that's what it says, that's what it says.

Literalism is basically the worst theory.

Not really.
If you've made laws so dumb that to protect societal sanety courts have to interpret them in a way that bares no relation to the actual law itself, or quietly ignore sections of the law that are inconvenient for the continued functioning of society, you've made a bad law.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Kernen wrote:Literalism is basically the worst theory.

Not really.
If you've made laws so dumb that to protect societal sanety courts have to interpret them in a way that bares no relation to the actual law itself, or quietly ignore sections of the law that are inconvenient for the continued functioning of society, you've made a bad law.

Even the most aggressive forms of textualism abide by the canon to avoid absurdity, dude.

Kernen wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Not really.
If you've made laws so dumb that to protect societal sanety courts have to interpret them in a way that bares no relation to the actual law itself, or quietly ignore sections of the law that are inconvenient for the continued functioning of society, you've made a bad law.

Even the most aggressive forms of textualism abide by the canon to avoid absurdity, dude.

You see, I'm not of the belief that societal stability is a particularly necessary thing. I think it's more important to know exactly where you stand; that your rights are not going to be removed based on a policy reason, or even more callously, the 'floodgates argument.'

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Kernen wrote:Even the most aggressive forms of textualism abide by the canon to avoid absurdity, dude.

You see, I'm not of the belief that societal stability is a particularly necessary thing. I think it's more important to know exactly where you stand; that your rights are not going to be removed based on a policy reason, or even more callously, the 'floodgates argument.'

Justice, though the heavens fall? Law is not a suicide pact.

Kernen wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:You see, I'm not of the belief that societal stability is a particularly necessary thing. I think it's more important to know exactly where you stand; that your rights are not going to be removed based on a policy reason, or even more callously, the 'floodgates argument.'

Justice, though the heavens fall? Law is not a suicide pact.

Justice at expense of all safeguards and hurdles is what society should strive for. The fact that the UK refuses to properly consider psychiatric injury, for example, is sickening; even more so when done to protect the court from a 'flood of complex claims.'

But I've forgot what the topic originally was.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Kernen wrote:
Justice, though the heavens fall? Law is not a suicide pact.

Justice at expense of all safeguards and hurdles is what society should strive for. The fact that the UK refuses to properly consider psychiatric injury, for example, is sickening; even more so when done to protect the court from a 'flood of complex claims.'

A theory of justice that advances absurd interpretations is not justice.