Guns

[Johnnypenso]

Joe Biden came on the air today saying that the best option for home defense was not an AR15 with 30 rounds, but rather firing warning shots into the air with a double barrel shotgun.

Two problems.

1. You've used up at least 50% of your ammo in a gun that is slow and difficult to reload
2. Warning shots are illegal.

They played the Biden sound clip on one of the conservative talk shows this morning. You can just hear the arrogance and smugness dripping from his every word. I don't own a gun, but even I was listening thinking, "A double barrelled shotgun? Any idiot with a lick of sense can see I have a shotgun and once I fire a couple of rounds into the air I have no ammo left. What if there are two guys and you miss one? What if there are three of them? Where the heck do you hide a shotgun from the kids if you are keeping it handy for self defence? What an idiot!!"

And he went on to say, "You don't need an AR15 for self defence" Thanks Uncle Joe for deciding that for me, not like I'm old enough or smart enough that I can figure out what I need for myself. I need Big Brother to tell me. The arrogance of some of these guys is just amazing

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

It's been known for years now that Joe Biden is a ****ing moron.

^

 

[Nicksfix]

Chris Cox's letter to Congress. 02/13/13

The letter

 

[FoolKiller]

Today Adam Carolla discussed how he handles the guns he had gotten from his father-in-law, because he doesn't like guns and is afraid of the accidents that could happen (I should note that he and I disagree on gun control).

First, he makes sure he and his wife go to the shooting range and know what they are doing.

But then at home, he makes sure that the first round in every gun is non-lethal, but will get the message across. The first bullet in the handgun's clip is snake shot.

I kind of like that idea. It's not a legislatable thing, but it's not bad practice to make sure your first shot will damage something, but not kill a human. If there's an accident it (most likely) isn't fatal. The second bullet is lethal and he figures if he needs it then the guy deserves it.

 

[DEATHSARTHE]

Well, I'll speak from an American perspective because Gun Control has been a firey debate following the tragic massacres of 2012.

Before I go on, I want people to remember that there is no utopia. Where there is people or society, there will always be a level of violence and even more threatening than that... an agenda.

In America we have something called the Bill of Rights in our Constitution, and its 10 "god" given rights guaranteed to the people of our country. The 2nd Amendmant is our right to bear arms, it is literally a "god" given human right to own a firearm in America.

When I think about this Amendment, I also think about the time it was eventually agreed upon and written into our Constitution by numerous committees in the late 18th century.

In the 18th century, life was much different and people relied heavily on guns and were definitely aware and educated about them. They were important and considered a necessity. It wasn't unusual to see a family with a firearm of some sort... and typically it was for hunting or protection/defense (from indians, readcoats, Mexicans, predators, bandits, and criminals). Of course from time to time in our history as a country, we'd have to take up arms in certain events like the Civil War and the Revolution.

When America declared its independance from Great Britain in 1776, the redcoats still occupied not only the States but also parts of the Americas as a continent (even to this day). We also were threatened by the Spanish too.

So in this context, the 2nd Amendmant in its most literal sense is necessary. There was a lot to lose at any given moment and it was the ability of the people at the time that made this country a successs.

Fast foward 200 years and here we are, the world is a much different place and it happened very rapidly and chaotically. But I'd point out one of the biggest differences between today and life in the 18th century was our dependance on guns and our reliance on government.

I believe our founding fathers were visionaries but impossible to foresee what we would eventually become. Churning over those 200 years were technology, world wars and the fear/propoganda that came with them, organized government, revolutions in industry/society, several depressions, and foreign policy would all forge the world we live in today. It was all chaos and all we could ever do is react to it.

When we're put in that position, I can't help but feel that makes us as a people very vulnerable for unfavorable things to happen - like an agenda to further oppress us by stripping the public gun market down... Rely on goverment and corporate America a little more.

In my opinion, we should revisit the old ways and change public perception of guns around and encourage people to be educated about them. Somewhere we lost that passion for them and I think it happened in the 1900s for sure. Mob violence, the Civil Rights movement, Vietnam, instances of police vs. civilians (Kent State), hippie/world peace movement which all happened during the same time we started making huge industrial/commerical advances in farming, slaughterhouses, and public market... the real necessity for guns just sort of phased out and over time they've been associated with violence as our news media shifted towards stories on violence for ratings.

And thats what a majority of us grew up with. We have our Safeways and Walmarts, our McDonald's and Chillies. We've got nice houses today in cookie cutter neighborhoods, watched over by an ogranized government that takes care of our problems (or so they say). When your only association with guns is from violent news stories its no wonder there's such an outcry and a ridiculous debate on what infringement means.

 

[Keef]

In America we have something called the Bill of Rights in our Constitution, and its 10 "god" given rights guaranteed to the people of our country. The 2nd Amendmant is our right to bear arms, it is literally a "god" given human right to own a firearm in America.

Though I generally agree with your message, I'd like to clarify a few things about these rights.

Our right to bear arms as protected in the 2nd Amendment, and all others protected in the Bill of Rights and later Amendments, are not literally "god given" or natural. They're legislated rights.

Now, that aside, many of those rights must exist logically as part of our actual god given or natural rights which are life, liberty, and property. These three things exist through logical reasoning and many if not all of the legislated rights in the first ten amendments are redundant; the freedom of speech is already assumed in the idea of liberty; using weapons to defend life must already exist via the right to life; the right to private property protects against unwillful quartering of troops; the rights of liberty and property already assume protection against unreasonable searches and seizures; the next five rights clarify legal processes of our government in order to preserve fair justice; the 10th Amendment very strongly implies a broad right to liberty which not only shall not be infringed by a strong central government, but empowers citizens to prevent that type of government from forming in the first place.

Basically, our god-given rights are the rights to life, liberty, and property. The Bill of Rights, the first four rights in particular, are simply clarifications by the Founders of issues they thought were especially important.

 

[FoolKiller]

Columbine survivor pens an open letter to President Obama and asks, "Whose side are you on?"
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-rejecting-gun-control-whose-side-are-you-on/

 

[Johnnypenso]

Columbine survivor pens an open letter to President Obama and asks, "Whose side are you on?"
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-rejecting-gun-control-whose-side-are-you-on/

Well written letter..unfortunatly it'll fall on deaf ears and the author will be dismissed by the Dummycrats as "misguided, right wing nut"

 

[Joel]

What I find hilarious is the generalizations are so conflicting. The hipsters who want to ban guns all smoke weed, an illegal and controlled substance. Yet somehow banning "assault weapons" is going to get gangsters to stop shooting each other with handguns.

 

[FoolKiller]

What I find hilarious is the generalizations are so conflicting. The hipsters who want to ban guns all smoke weed, an illegal and controlled substance. Yet somehow banning "assault weapons" is going to get gangsters to stop shooting each other with handguns.

1st rule of arguing political opinions:
Logic only applies when it is convenient.

 

[Joel]

1st rule of arguing political opinions:
Logic only applies when it is convenient.

Well that's just like, your opinion man.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

What I find hilarious is the generalizations are so conflicting. The hipsters who want to ban guns all smoke weed, an illegal and controlled substance. Yet somehow banning "assault weapons" is going to get the drug dealers they buy from to stop shooting each other with handguns.

ftfy

 

[Joel]

ftfy

That certainly is a key piece of context. Big part of why I'm adamantly for legalization of marijuana.

 

[Nicksfix]

Another video that is good for a few laughs.

Piers Morgan interviewing Ted Nugent.

WARNING ... LANGUAGE CONTENT

 

[hogger129]

Today Adam Carolla discussed how he handles the guns he had gotten from his father-in-law, because he doesn't like guns and is afraid of the accidents that could happen (I should note that he and I disagree on gun control).

First, he makes sure he and his wife go to the shooting range and know what they are doing.

But then at home, he makes sure that the first round in every gun is non-lethal, but will get the message across. The first bullet in the handgun's clip is snake shot.

I kind of like that idea. It's not a legislatable thing, but it's not bad practice to make sure your first shot will damage something, but not kill a human. If there's an accident it (most likely) isn't fatal. The second bullet is lethal and he figures if he needs it then the guy deserves it.

That has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard (I'm guessing he's serious). If he doesn't want the first shot to be lethal, then he shouldn't be pulling the trigger. It's easy for these idiot politicians and many of these celebrities to talk high and mighty when they've never faced a real self-defense situation or even a simulated scenario like they do in some of these self-defense training courses.

I am an adult and I feel that I am the best person to decide the best way to defend myself. I don't think owning an AR-15 with the standard 30-round magazine is unreasonable at all for a personal defense weapon. Nor is a handgun or a shotgun, regardless of the round it's chambered for or its magazine capacity. People have gone on to ask where the line should be drawn, and if you ask me, I think drawing the line at automatic weapons is perfectly reasonable. People should be allowed to have anything up to and including automatics. Why? They're "small arms." That is the "ARMS" the Second Amendment protects our right to have.

 

[FoolKiller]

That has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard (I'm guessing he's serious). If he doesn't want the first shot to be lethal, then he shouldn't be pulling the trigger.

So, it is dumb to want to protect yourself and your family but not actually want to commit a homicide in the process?

It's easy for these idiot politicians and many of these celebrities to talk high and mighty when they've never faced a real self-defense situation or even a simulated scenario like they do in some of these self-defense training courses.

Explaining his personal home situation on his own podcast on the network he owns is getting high and mighty? He didn't say it is what everyone else should be forced to do.

You might want to actually know what he was talking about before going off on him for speaking. Even if he was stating his opinion on what the law should be on his own show, how is that any different than you stating your opinion on a forum you don't own?

I am an adult and I feel that I am the best person to decide the best way to defend myself. I don't think owning an AR-15 with the standard 30-round magazine is unreasonable at all for a personal defense weapon. Nor is a handgun or a shotgun, regardless of the round it's chambered for or its magazine capacity. People have gone on to ask where the line should be drawn, and if you ask me, I think drawing the line at automatic weapons is perfectly reasonable. People should be allowed to have anything up to and including automatics. Why? They're "small arms." That is the "ARMS" the Second Amendment protects our right to have.

So other adults shouldn't be able to decide that the best way to defend themselves is with an automatic weapon? How exactly do you get that the second amendment applies to small arms when at the time it was written citizens all had the same kind of weaponry as the military? There was no such thing as an automatic weapon, so how were they distinguishing between the two?

 

[Zenith]

I believe that automatic firearms should be legal. There simply isn't that big of a difference.

The non-lethal first round is a nifty concept, similar to how police tried mounting tasers to their rifles in the early 00's.

I question the user's ability to identify whether a threat still exists after the first shot. They'll have to be quick and accurate. Too long of a pause and you can be in a bad place very quickly. What looks like clutching a flesh wound can very easily be reaching for a gun. Too quick and you might as well have not bothered with the snake shot.

The hit might not even register against somebody who is either amped up on adrenaline or some drug. It also probably wouldn't be enough to cause noticeable damage through a thick coat.

It's very common for people to want to defend themselves with a non-lethal instrument. Mace and Tasers are the premier non-lethal options, but have extremely large limitations. Both have limited range. Mace can blow back into the user when fired into a wind. Taser's are single use. Both have exhibited instances where they were completely ineffective.

When it's my life at risk, I'd rather not take chances. I would also prefer to be mentally prepared to commit homicide than bet my emotional well-being that I will never have to kill another person, especially not someone who was intent on hurting/killing/robbing/raping me.

If I could guarantee that my non-lethal option would incapacitate any attacker and any amount of attackers, then I would consider one. Even guns are not able to guarantee that.

EDIT:What happens if there are two assailants? Do you load two rounds of snake shot in anticipation that there might be two or do you hope that the second attacker knows that you used a non-lethal shot instead of thinking that you just killed his friend? What about three snake shot rounds? Will I have to "get through" 3 rounds of ineffective ammo in case there's an attacker who continues to assault me?

 

[Johnnypenso]

How exactly do you get that the second amendment applies to small arms when at the time it was written citizens all had the same kind of weaponry as the military? There was no such thing as an automatic weapon, so how were they distinguishing between the two?

Maybe the forefathers were smart enough to word things so that they could work beyond 1776. The Constitution doesn't say, "The right to keep and bear a musket" it says, "arms". They didn't say, "Freedom to be a Protestant or Christian" they said, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Seems to me they at least had the foresight to design the document to be as inclusive and visionary as was possible at the time.

 

[FoolKiller]

I question the user's ability to identify whether a threat still exists after the first shot.

To put it in context, he was relating it to the Blade Runner case, where the guy claims he accidentally shot his girlfriend four times through a door, thinking she was an attacker hiding in the bathroom. While Adam believed that was most likely untrue, he related to his personal practice because he doesn't want some late night incident involving a family member or drunk neighbor. He pointed out that in a clearly visible threat the lethal shot will be coming a second later.

He also had a little side bit about firing the non-lethal shot into the curtains or ceiling to scare off an non-attacking intruder without fearing it could penetrate and hit a neighbor's house.

I know his mindset is relying too much on his ability to think and act quicker than an assailant, but it has little more error to it than the idea that a gun properly secured from children or thieves can be accessed and prepared to use before an intentional threat can get to you. Which is why I don't own a gun. My house is too small for me to be able to access a safely secured gun before a potential attacker could reach me. I keep an old golf club by my bed. I can get to it quickly because it is next to me, but if my daughter picks it up it isn't a weapon.

When it's my life at risk, I'd rather not take chances. I would also prefer to be mentally prepared to commit homicide than bet my emotional well-being that I will never have to kill another person, especially not someone who was intent on hurting/killing/robbing/raping me.

There are two problems that ultimately can come into play here. The first is how often the potential victim becomes a criminal by our legal system. The second is that fight of flight responses are mostly hard wired in what remains of our lizard brain. You cannot be 100% sure you are prepared to kill until you face that situation. It is partly instinct and you could be fighting your nature. Even if you overcome that the hesitation can be deadly. Someone knowing their first attempt will be non-lethal might be less hesitant and that first shot can make it apparent that your assailant is determined, which can flip the kill switch. But you never know.

Maybe the forefathers were smart enough to word things so that they could work beyond 1776. The Constitution doesn't say, "The right to keep and bear a musket" it says, "arms". They didn't say, "Freedom to be a Protestant or Christian" they said, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Seems to me they at least had the foresight to design the document to be as inclusive and visionary as was possible at the time.

I never understood people that claim very open language only applies to specific things.

 

[Keef]

I never understood people that claim very open language only applies to specific things.

Have you ever read a Constitutional Law book? I was astonished at the amount of effort put into explaining how the English language doesn't actually mean what is written down.

 

[hogger129]

So, it is dumb to want to protect yourself and your family but not actually want to commit a homicide in the process?

It's dumb to pull the trigger unless you intend to do harm.

Explaining his personal home situation on his own podcast on the network he owns is getting high and mighty? He didn't say it is what everyone else should be forced to do.

You might want to actually know what he was talking about before going off on him for speaking. Even if he was stating his opinion on what the law should be on his own show, how is that any different than you stating your opinion on a forum you don't own?


So other adults shouldn't be able to decide that the best way to defend themselves is with an automatic weapon? How exactly do you get that the second amendment applies to small arms when at the time it was written citizens all had the same kind of weaponry as the military? There was no such thing as an automatic weapon, so how were they distinguishing between the two?

I don't think you understood what I was trying to say at all. "Warning" shots are stupid. If you aren't ready to pull the trigger, then don't pull it. These people all like to act like they know what they're doing, but they really don't.

Also, I said that if people want to own an automatic weapon, they should be allowed to - no jumping through special hoops, paying all kinds of fees, filing paperwork, etc, to do it.

Please explain to me how the Second Amendment doesn't apply to small arms? If it doesn't, does that also mean the First Amendment means you should only be able to speak out against King George III?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Just wanted to post up this video not sure if anyone else has

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

Another video that is good for a few laughs.

Piers Morgan interviewing Ted Nugent.

WARNING ... LANGUAGE CONTENT

Pretty funny stuff.

I met him in the security area at the San Diego airport on the way home from boot camp; he had just done a show for the troops at Pendleton. I was in boot camp so obviously I didn't get to go. We were in the security area and I had powder all over my boots from being at the range... I guess their machines picked up on it. Well they were giving me a hard time about it and he was like "What the hell?" haha. Good guy.

I agree with his points but he definitely dodged Piers' question about, what appeared to be, the same points being used against drugs. But, IMO that is two situations that contribute towards the real problem; which is the border and Mexico....

National security... we can't even secure the border... AND YOU WANT TO TAKE AWAY MY GUNS?

Take care of the violence in Mexico, the inefficient border patrol, (its killing us with illegal immigrants and problems with the cartels), legalize marijuana and put more money into scientific research... Call it a day.

(The) one problem with a democracy, its slow.

 

[Zenith]

That Henson Ong video was great. I want his voice.

To put it in context, he was relating it to the Blade Runner case, where the guy claims he accidentally shot his girlfriend four times through a door, thinking she was an attacker hiding in the bathroom. While Adam believed that was most likely untrue, he related to his personal practice because he doesn't want some late night incident involving a family member or drunk neighbor. He pointed out that in a clearly visible threat the lethal shot will be coming a second later.

Using non-lethal rounds should never take the place of target identification.

He also had a little side bit about firing the non-lethal shot into the curtains or ceiling to scare off an non-attacking intruder without fearing it could penetrate and hit a neighbor's house.

As stated before, warning shots are illegal.

I know his mindset is relying too much on his ability to think and act quicker than an assailant, but it has little more error to it than the idea that a gun properly secured from children or thieves can be accessed and prepared to use before an intentional threat can get to you. Which is why I don't own a gun. My house is too small for me to be able to access a safely secured gun before a potential attacker could reach me. I keep an old golf club by my bed. I can get to it quickly because it is next to me, but if my daughter picks it up it isn't a weapon.

That's perfectly up to you. Choose your tool based on your needs and be able to use it when you need to.

There are two problems that ultimately can come into play here. The first is how often the potential victim becomes a criminal by our legal system. The second is that fight of flight responses are mostly hard wired in what remains of our lizard brain. You cannot be 100% sure you are prepared to kill until you face that situation. It is partly instinct and you could be fighting your nature. Even if you overcome that the hesitation can be deadly. Someone knowing their first attempt will be non-lethal might be less hesitant and that first shot can make it apparent that your assailant is determined, which can flip the kill switch. But you never know.

Of course, there is no substitute and I don't think anyone here is pretending that there is. Some people prepare for it and are still traumatized, some people don't and are fine. I still believe that simply coming to terms with the idea that you may have to kill somebody is better than trying to escalate in a manner that may not work in all situations.

 

[FoolKiller]

It's dumb to pull the trigger unless you intend to do harm.

Non-lethal still does harm.

I don't think you understood what I was trying to say at all. "Warning" shots are stupid. If you aren't ready to pull the trigger, then don't pull it. These people all like to act like they know what they're doing, but they really don't.

That is not high and mighty. That is him explaining a personal choice you disagree with. High and mighty would be acting like you know what is best for someone else more than they do.

He does get high and mighty, a lot, but this was not one of those cases.

Also, I said that if people want to own an automatic weapon, they should be allowed to - no jumping through special hoops, paying all kinds of fees, filing paperwork, etc, to do it.

Looking back, I do see I misread your bit about automatic weapons. Not sure how I did that. My apologies.

Please explain to me how the Second Amendment doesn't apply to small arms? If it doesn't, does that also mean the First Amendment means you should only be able to speak out against King George III?

I am saying it doesn't just apply to small arms. You say you are drawing a line at a certain point. I am saying the 2nd Amendment doesn't.

Using non-lethal rounds should never take the place of target identification.

Which then goes back to your point of an assailant being quicker than a second shot. Proper target identification in a dark room will take longer than two shots, especially if the other person is moving fast enough for you to believe they are a possible threats.

Recognizing accidents can and do happen is an important part of safety. Preparing so that if it does occur no one dies isn't the dumbest idea on the planet, even if it reduces your best chances of self defense.

Of course, Carolla is a former football player and boxer and I'd be willing to guess his first choice for defense won't be a gun when he is in survival mode.

As stated before, warning shots are illegal.

I fail to see how that matters in this situation. We are talking about the guy who encourages everyone to turn left from a turning lane at red lights if there is no traffic coming.

That's perfectly up to you. Choose your tool based on your needs and be able to use it when you need to.

Just as Adam Carolla has for himself.

As for me, I have a touch of rage in me, handed down through genetics or "nurture" from my father, and when I get past a point I don't realize what I'm doing. My memory of events and how those around me describe it are teo very different things. I've worked hard to push the breaking point very far back, but I still have a limit. I haven't hit it in years, but I have come close enough to know it is there. An assailant would probably prefer I had a gun.

Of course, there is no substitute and I don't think anyone here is pretending that there is. Some people prepare for it and are still traumatized, some people don't and are fine. I still believe that simply coming to terms with the idea that you may have to kill somebody is better than trying to escalate in a manner that may not work in all situations.

My point simply is that claiming to be mentally prepared to kill is a bold statement. You believe you can, but you don't know for sure. You may find yourself unable to do more than take that illegal warning shot. Or if you doubt your willingness to kill, but want protection, you put some rock salt in your shotgun and hope that gets the point across, or that if it doesn't your kill switch will be flipped by the definite kill or be killed situation.

 

[Zenith]

Which then goes back to your point of an assailant being quicker than a second shot. Proper target identification in a dark room will take longer than two shots, especially if the other person is moving fast enough for you to believe they are a possible threats.

I can't think of any good instructor that won't recommend having a weapon light attached to or lying next to a home defense gun. I do understand what you are saying though: Threat identification is not easy and is time consuming.

Recognizing accidents can and do happen is an important part of safety. Preparing so that if it does occur no one dies isn't the dumbest idea on the planet, even if it reduces your best chances of self defense.

Yes, and I recognized some of the merit in loading a gun with a nonlethal first shot to be able to quickly switch between non-lethal and potentially lethal force. I also recognized some of the drawbacks, limitations, and downfalls to be had with the concept.

Of course, Carolla is a former football player and boxer and I'd be willing to guess his first choice for defense won't be a gun when he is in survival mode.

Sure. I'm not a football player, but I'm a good shot. I choose my defensive options based on my skill set.

I fail to see how that matters in this situation. We are talking about the guy who encourages everyone to turn left from a turning lane at red lights if there is no traffic coming.

Let me be clear, I'm talking about the idea of loading a gun with an under-powered first round as a method of avoiding homicide unless deemed necessary. I'm not talking about Carolla in particular.

As for me, I have a touch of rage in me, handed down through genetics or "nurture" from my father, and when I get past a point I don't realize what I'm doing. My memory of events and how those around me describe it are teo very different things. I've worked hard to push the breaking point very far back, but I still have a limit. I haven't hit it in years, but I have come close enough to know it is there. An assailant would probably prefer I had a gun.

Respectfully, doesn't having a golf club as a defensive weapon open up the possibility of what you were talking about earlier how potential victims can quickly become criminals in the eyes of our legal system?

My point simply is that claiming to be mentally prepared to kill is a bold statement. You believe you can, but you don't know for sure. You may find yourself unable to do more than take that illegal warning shot. Or if you doubt your willingness to kill, but want protection, you put some rock salt in your shotgun and hope that gets the point across, or that if it doesn't your kill switch will be flipped by the definite kill or be killed situation.

Of course, I never claim to be prepared to kill because (as you said) I have no way of knowing. I have spent time researching and training myself so I understand why it is important to look at violent encounters in a certain way. In the hypothetical case that I kill somebody in self defense, I know why using ammunition that is designed to be as damaging as possible is important. I know why shooting a threat until they are unable to do more harm is important. I already have the understanding in my brain that their right to life was forfeited when they chose to violate my right to life. This is due to a personal outlook on human rights. I hope that these sets of knowledge ingrained into my head would be enough to keep my emotional and mental well-being secure.

 

[FoolKiller]

I can't think of any good instructor that won't recommend having a weapon light attached to or lying next to a home defense gun. I do understand what you are saying though: Threat identification is not easy and is time consuming.

But most people don't. Well, I guess in this age of smartphones we all do, but I barely remember I have mine when all I want is a light.

Let me be clear, I'm talking about the idea of loading a gun with an under-powered first round as a method of avoiding homicide unless deemed necessary. I'm not talking about Carolla in particular.

Legality still has no bearing on the discussion of if it is the right idea for some people. The fact that our legal system will punish those who tried to end confrontations without lethal intent is ridiculous. Sure, it should be treated as the dangerouse act to bystanders that it is, but it should not be punishable by the same laws that govern opening fire in public with strict minimum sentences.

Respectfully, doesn't having a golf club as a defensive weapon open up the possibility of what you were talking about earlier how potential victims can quickly become criminals in the eyes of our legal system?

Self defense of any kind does. I'm of the opinion that any victim defending against a criminal should not be guilty of any actions taken up to the point of incapacitating the criminal or making them flee. A gunshot in the back should be investigated, but once self defense is determined then all actions of a purely defensive nature should be deemed acceptable.

Of course, I never claim to be prepared to kill because (as you said) I have no way of knowing. I have spent time researching and training myself so I understand why it is important to look at violent encounters in a certain way. In the hypothetical case that I kill somebody in self defense, I know why using ammunition that is designed to be as damaging as possible is important. I know why shooting a threat until they are unable to do more harm is important. I already have the understanding in my brain that their right to life was forfeited when they chose to violate my right to life. This is due to a personal outlook on human rights. I hope that these sets of knowledge ingrained into my head would be enough to keep my emotional and mental well-being secure.

Anyone who buys a gun should be of the understanding that they may need to use it to kill. But a non lethal shot is no more senseless than displaying the gun and audibly cocking it, hoping that is all that's necessary. Considering most gun defenses succeed without a shot fired, adding a non-lethal shot is just a step up in aggression between showing the gun and using lethal force.

 

[Zenith]

But most people don't. Well, I guess in this age of smartphones we all do, but I barely remember I have mine when all I want is a light.

Fruit Ninja and a Glock muzzle.

Legality still has no bearing on the discussion of if it is the right idea for some people. The fact that our legal system will punish those who tried to end confrontations without lethal intent is ridiculous. Sure, it should be treated as the dangerouse act to bystanders that it is, but it should not be punishable by the same laws that govern opening fire in public with strict minimum sentences.

I was unclear, I'm talking about the effectiveness of the snake shot in a self defense scenario.

Self defense of any kind does. I'm of the opinion that any victim defending against a criminal should not be guilty of any actions taken up to the point of incapacitating the criminal or making them flee. A gunshot in the back should be investigated, but once self defense is determined then all actions of a purely defensive nature should be deemed acceptable.

I agree, laws like the 30 foot limit and the policy CA seems to have where you basically need to be backed into a corner before any kind of force is justified are dumb.

Anyone who buys a gun should be of the understanding that they may need to use it to kill. But a non lethal shot is no more senseless than displaying the gun and audibly cocking it, hoping that is all that's necessary. Considering most gun defenses succeed without a shot fired, adding a non-lethal shot is just a step up in aggression between showing the gun and using lethal force.

And as I noted, this step up has some drawbacks. It is up to the user to decide whether it is worth it.

I'd like to use that as a dropping off point regarding the concept of self defense. It is not in response to the snake shot or golf club discussion, just a quote that I read.

Is your life worth protecting?

If so, whose responsibility is it to protect it?

If you believe that it is the police's, not only are you wrong since the Supreme Court ruled that police officers have no legal obligation to protect you, but you face some moral quandaries. How can you rightfully ask another human being to risk their life to protect yours when you will assume no such responsibility yourself? Because that's their job and we pay them to do it? Because your life is of incalculable value yet theirs is only worth the salary we pay them?

If you believe it is reprehensible to possess the means and will to use lethal force to repel a criminal assault, how can you call upon another to do so? Are we relying on altruism in the face of bodily harm?

 

[Keef]

 

[Dennisch]

I have seen that Biden "skit". Seeing it combined with those videos is awesome.

And every frikkin' time I see videos like that, I want a gun/rifle/shotgun even more.