US Philadelphia Student Carrying Legal Firearm Shoots It Out

[Wumbologist]

Of course, if guns are ok, we should all be allowed Tazers.
That goes without saying.

I'm not sure how that follows, actually. I don't think tasers should be illegal, though I don't think they're ideal as defensive weapons in most situations.

[mistermack]

Of course, if guns are ok, we should all be allowed Tazers.
That goes without saying.

I'm not sure how that follows, actually.

How so?

[Wumbologist]

How so?

First of all, because nobody else had mentioned tasers until that post. Second, because it assumes that the arguments for gun ownership naturally double as arguments for taser ownership. There may be a valid argument for owning tasers (though from what I've seen you're the last person I'd trust to find it), but it doesn't just "go without saying".

[Gallstones]

You've got a very simple black/white view of life. I don't think you should be pronouncing on reality.

• 
  
  
  

[Wumbologist]

You've got a very simple black/white view of life. I don't think you should be pronouncing on reality.

• 
  
  
  

I hadn't seen that one! Holy shit, I'ma piss my pants!

[Coito ergo sum]

mistermack, you make such a good case for forbidding a person from owning a gun that I agree with you - you should not own a gun.
Where I disagree is when you try to make that call for others. Do you have any idea how many people have guns and never hurt anyone with it (except your feelings, of course)

Of course, if guns are ok, we should all be allowed Tazers.

I could buy one today, if I wanted to. I wouldn't even have to justify it to you.

That goes without saying.

[/quote]
What would be wrong with owning a Taser? It sounds not much different than being allowed to own Mace or Pepper Spray.

[Coito ergo sum]

Of course, if guns are ok, we should all be allowed Tazers.
That goes without saying.

I'm not sure how that follows, actually. I don't think tasers should be illegal, though I don't think they're ideal as defensive weapons in most situations.

They are legal for civilian ownership here in Florida, and I think in almost all States.

[mistermack]

How so?

First of all, because nobody else had mentioned tasers until that post. Second, because it assumes that the arguments for gun ownership naturally double as arguments for taser ownership. There may be a valid argument for owning tasers (though from what I've seen you're the last person I'd trust to find it), but it doesn't just "go without saying".

I think you've got a bit confused there. It's not about the arguments FOR gun ownership or Taser ownership. It's whether people should be banned from owning them.

If you don't ban guns, how can you justify a ban on tasers?

[Wumbologist]

Of course, if guns are ok, we should all be allowed Tazers.
That goes without saying.

I'm not sure how that follows, actually. I don't think tasers should be illegal, though I don't think they're ideal as defensive weapons in most situations.

They are legal for civilian ownership here in Florida, and I think in almost all States.

Yup. Not here in Massachusetts, though.

Practical reasons why a taser is not an effective and reliable defensive weapon:

You get one shot. If you miss, you're screwed. If there's more than one assailant, you're screwed.

Most, if not all tasers, are easily defeated by a target wearing heavy clothing. If both of the taser's probes do not penetrate a leather jacket or a pair of denim jeans, the taser will have no effect on the target. On the other hand, heavy clothing is not sufficient to stop any caliber handgun round I've ever heard of.

Even if both probes do make contact, there's no guarantee that it will incapacitate the target. Many people are able to fight through the effects of a taser hit, even in drive stun:



On the other hand, very few people will take 2-3 9mm hollowpoints to center mass and continue an attack.

[Wumbologist]

I think you've got a bit confused there. It's not about the arguments FOR gun ownership or Taser ownership. It's whether people should be banned from owning them.

If you don't ban guns, how can you justify a ban on tasers?

I never said I thought tasers should be banned. I don't think they should be, I think they're impractical for self-defense use but that's not to say that people should be prevented from buying something impractical.

[Cunt]

mistermack, could you please tell us what 'trolling' means in the context of an internet forum?

[Gallstones]

mistermack, you make such a good case for forbidding a person from owning a gun that I agree with you - you should not own a gun.

Where I disagree is when you try to make that call for others. Do you have any idea how many people have guns and never hurt anyone with it (except your feelings, of course)

Oh come on <D> have you no sense of fun?

I say we give him a selection, stand out of harms way behind bullet proof plexi, and make him shoot them before we let him out. He'll either convert or shoot himself.

[Coito ergo sum]

How so?

First of all, because nobody else had mentioned tasers until that post. Second, because it assumes that the arguments for gun ownership naturally double as arguments for taser ownership. There may be a valid argument for owning tasers (though from what I've seen you're the last person I'd trust to find it), but it doesn't just "go without saying".

I think you've got a bit confused there. It's not about the arguments FOR gun ownership or Taser ownership. It's whether people should be banned from owning them.

If you don't ban guns, how can you justify a ban on tasers?

Is someone trying to justify a ban on Tasers?

[Cunt]

mistermack, you make such a good case for forbidding a person from owning a gun that I agree with you - you should not own a gun.

Where I disagree is when you try to make that call for others. Do you have any idea how many people have guns and never hurt anyone with it (except your feelings, of course)

Oh come on <D> have you no sense of fun?

I say we give him a selection, stand out of harms way behind bullet proof plexi, and make him shoot them before we let him out. He'll either convert or shoot himself.

I think it's pretty clear that he thinks that owning a gun would make him a danger to all those around him. I don't want to contribute to that.


I just wonder who cuts his meat for him and whether they could ever allow him a steak with the bone in...

[Wumbologist]

mistermack, you make such a good case for forbidding a person from owning a gun that I agree with you - you should not own a gun.

Where I disagree is when you try to make that call for others. Do you have any idea how many people have guns and never hurt anyone with it (except your feelings, of course)

Oh come on <D> have you no sense of fun?

I say we give him a selection, stand out of harms way behind bullet proof plexi, and make him shoot them before we let him out. He'll either convert or shoot himself.

I think it's pretty clear that he thinks that owning a gun would make him a danger to all those around him. I don't want to contribute to that.


I just wonder who cuts his meat for him and whether they could ever allow him a steak with the bone in...

I hope whoever it is uses one of those rounded tip knives so that they can't kill anyone.