Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are no effective forms of defense that are guaranteed non-lethal. Even pepper spray can result in seizures and death.
We are talking in terms of harm-reduction, not harm-elimination. Why is it that otherwise seemingly rational people suddenly presume that a proposed response must completely resolve and eradicate a problem in order for it to be considered useful? This is bordering on simple absurdism.
Deport criminal aliens, starting with gang members.
We do that already. Removals peaked in 2012 before DHS began prioritizing the cases of exactly the sorts of security and public safety threats that seem to worry you.
We are talking in terms of harm-reduction, not harm-elimination. Why is it that otherwise seemingly rational people suddenly presume that a proposed response must completely resolve and eradicate a problem in order for it to be considered useful? This is bordering on simple absurdism.
Usually because "harm reduction" is based around making my life more difficult and removing civil rights without actually reducing harm.
I see a lot of wishful thinking, that the 2A will be deemed to be the only right, in the Bill of Rights, to refer to a collective, government regulated, activity, and not an inalienable RIGHT of the PEOPLE. So, say this wish upon a star comes true, and the federal government orders all private citizens to stack arms.. Declares that the National Guard (a reserve branch of the military) is the militia, and there is no individual right to arms. Then what?
Do these drunken outhouuse rats, honestly, think that the People, the actual militia, will comply? The civil disobedience, alone, will bring DCs eyebrows up, over their heads. Picture CAs "assault weapon" ban, and order to turn in, on a nationwide scale. The elitist minded, disarmament types, need to get with reality. They will NEVER see us disarmed. A selective ban, on certain classes of firearms, and a demand people register in a. National database, will be met the same way.
We have already seen , in our inner cities, what disarming lawful citizens does. They are under the boot heels of the gangs, who still have their guns. Lawful residents of these places are the meaning of rock and hard place. With fear of both the gangs and the police, who will arrest them, if they do dare to exercise their 2A rights, and defend themselves, their homes and families and their community. Speaking of snarled, unkempt, messes.
And still, the anti gun rights crowd, I sists on levying the blame for crimes , committed with guns on the lawful gun owners. Even when the areas the vast majority of violent crime happens, has no lawful gun owners. Follow that up with the criminals are victims train of thought, and the antis still can't see why we armed citizens, many of us having had to defend ourselves against violent crime, ask them to stop speaking Martian. Or whatever babble it is they are verbalizing with.
Last edited by NVplumber; 09-18-2015 at 08:27 PM..
We are talking in terms of harm-reduction, not harm-elimination. Why is it that otherwise seemingly rational people suddenly presume that a proposed response must completely resolve and eradicate a problem in order for it to be considered useful? This is bordering on simple absurdism.
No you stated quite clearly
"How about some non-lethal form of self-defense"
Non-lethal means, non-lethal, not may cause death if used inappropriately, or on persons with various medical conditions (which you would stop to ask before deploying it). You were not talking in terms of harm reduction, but non-lethal. If there is absurdity it does not come from my side of this discussion.
Non-lethal self defense is a fallacy, I was merely stating the truth of the matter. If it's self-defense there is a risk of lethality, if there is no risk of lethality it is not self defense.
Reread your posts. It's all guns, guns, guns. They are your FIRST choice in terms of response to anything. That's extreme lack of creative thinking. It's much more like some child's game of cowboys-and-indians. Your favorite toy is meanwhile piling up cadavers all over the place. Why do you NOT CARE about any of that?
You see monsters where there are none. I haven't proposed any sort of limits or restrictions at all. I have asked others and I will ask you: What are YOU willing to do to help reduce the levels of death and mayhem that guns produce in this country?
One. Track. Mind.
Automatic immediate death sentence for those who use a gun in the commission of a crime.
We are talking in terms of harm-reduction, not harm-elimination. Why is it that otherwise seemingly rational people suddenly presume that a proposed response must completely resolve and eradicate a problem in order for it to be considered useful? This is bordering on simple absurdism.
So, is it basic everyday "joe" you worry about or who?
You see, being absurd is knowing that one section of society is doing most of the harm and then pointing all your "reduction" towards the other section of society, and for some reason you think that works...
I see a lot of wishful thinking, that the 2A will be deemed to be the only right, in the Bill of Rights, to refer to a collective, government regulated, activity, and not an inalienable RIGHT of the PEOPLE. So, say this wish upon a star comes true, and the federal government orders all private citizens to stack arms.. Declares that the National Guard (a reserve branch of the military) is the militia, and there is no individual right to arms. Then what?
Do these drunken outhouuse rats, honestly, think that the People, the actual militia, will comply? The civil disobedience, alone, will bring DCs eyebrows up, over their heads. Picture CAs "assault weapon" ban, and order to turn in, on a nationwide scale. The elitist minded, disarmament types, need to get with reality. They will NEVER see us disarmed. A selective ban, on certain classes of firearms, and a demand people register in a. National database, will be met the same way.
We have already seen , in our inner cities, what disarming lawful citizens does. They are under the boot heels of the gangs, who still have their guns. Lawful residents of these places are the meaning of rock and hard place. With fear of both the gangs and the police, who will arrest them, if they do dare to exercise their 2A rights, and defend themselves, their homes and families and their community. Speaking of snarled, unkempt, messes.
And still, the anti gun rights crowd, I sists on levying the blame for crimes , committed with guns on the lawful gun owners. Even when the areas the vast majority of violent crime happens, has no lawful gun owners. Follow that up with the criminals are victims train of thought, and the antis still can't see why we armed citizens, many of us having had to defend ourselves against violent crime, ask them to stop speaking Martian. Or whatever babble it is they are verbalizing with.
New York state is a gun grabber's dream and they can't even get 50% compliance on their registration laws. Down here in MS it would be about 10% compliance if they are lucky.
I am a 115 lb woman & a man was breaking into my home. He had a knife, had already cut the screen of the window he was attempting to come through. Even my ferocious dog didn't faze him. The only reason he turned around & fled is because I cocked & pointed a .38 special in his face.
I go to the shooting range regularly. I clean & keep my guns in good working order & stored safely. I keep one handy in case I need it quickly.
I will not be without a gun. If I had, I doubt I would have 3 children & a grandchild as I believe that guy would have killed me. You don't have to own a gun. But don't you dare try to put me in such a vulnerable position.
I am a 115 lb woman & a man was breaking into my home. He had a knife, had already cut the screen of the window he was attempting to come through. Even my ferocious dog didn't faze him. The only reason he turned around & fled is because I cocked & pointed a .38 special in his face.
I go to the shooting range regularly. I clean & keep my guns in good working order & stored safely. I keep one handy in case I need it quickly.
I will not be without a gun. If I had, I doubt I would have 3 children & a grandchild as I believe that guy would have killed me. You don't have to own a gun. But don't you dare try to put me in such a vulnerable position.
But Reynard32 says you're wrong and should have just dialed 911 and hoped for the best.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
