US Weapon laws

Pages Prev1234

Weapon law: Positive or negative

Total Votes : 41
0
mnx wrote...
yeah,i'm thinking that given the power(ie. gun),civilians would likely to go out and bang.(that's the case with a lot of countries)

maybe that's not the case with the american.
i believe your words that americans wouldn't do it.

i get it.but i still couldn't stand the thought of lots of civilians carrying a potentially lethal weapon.
how about this:equip every civilians who need self protection it with taser or some kind of gun that isn't lethal(rubber bullet could kill).
and i heard that they're actually developing a pistol that can gauge its stopping force according to the distance between the shooter and the target.
so there won't be any blood spilled.no casualties.

them criminals might try to kill us,but it doesn't mean that we must kill to stop them.

sorry,i'm not even american and i talked too much.i just want the condition where casualties could be the lowest possible.

consider my posts is a foreigner's point of view.


Many people carry a taser or pepper spray but, usually women carry those and sometimes they just aren't effective. Tasers also run the risk of killing people who use a pacemaker or people with weak hearts.

Being an American and knowing the general way we all think. I believe restricting guns even more or outright banning them will only lead to higher crime rates like in England and Australia after their gun bans. Plus the American government has a history of overstepping its limits and wandering around like a giant with a short attention span.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
mnx wrote...
yeah,i'm thinking that given the power(ie. gun),civilians would likely to go out and bang.(that's the case with a lot of countries)

maybe that's not the case with the american.
i believe your words that americans wouldn't do it.

i get it.but i still couldn't stand the thought of lots of civilians carrying a potentially lethal weapon.
how about this:equip every civilians who need self protection it with taser or some kind of gun that isn't lethal(rubber bullet could kill).
and i heard that they're actually developing a pistol that can gauge its stopping force according to the distance between the shooter and the target.
so there won't be any blood spilled.no casualties.

them criminals might try to kill us,but it doesn't mean that we must kill to stop them.

sorry,i'm not even american and i talked too much.i just want the condition where casualties could be the lowest possible.

consider my posts is a foreigner's point of view.


Many people carry a taser or pepper spray but, usually women carry those and sometimes they just aren't effective. Tasers also run the risk of killing people who use a pacemaker or people with weak hearts.

Being an American and knowing the general way we all think. I believe restricting guns even more or outright banning them will only lead to higher crime rates like in England and Australia after their gun bans. Plus the American government has a history of overstepping its limits and wandering around like a giant with a short attention span.


Amen. There's honestly nothing I could add to this. Good one penguin.
0
There's too many stupid people.
0
+rep for penguin for doing all you could to convince me.
0
mnx wrote...
+rep for penguin for doing all you could to convince me.


Eh, I'm stubborn as a mule on some things.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Many people carry a taser or pepper spray but, usually women carry those and sometimes they just aren't effective. Tasers also run the risk of killing people who use a pacemaker or people with weak hearts.

Being an American and knowing the general way we all think. I believe restricting guns even more or outright banning them will only lead to higher crime rates like in England and Australia after their gun bans. Plus the American government has a history of overstepping its limits and wandering around like a giant with a short attention span.

If you have a bad heart, you should be smart enough not to do something that will get you hit with a taser, but that doesn't mean you are. Frankly, you probably deserve to die if you are that stupid.
0
I believe that every person should have the right to carry a weapon, however, you could argue that stricter background checks are needed, as well as stricter control on the smuggling of guns and other weapons. Also, removing the right to own guns would remove guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens more than it would remove them from the hands of criminals - many of which get their weapons through underground channels.
0
Kais86 wrote...
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Many people carry a taser or pepper spray but, usually women carry those and sometimes they just aren't effective. Tasers also run the risk of killing people who use a pacemaker or people with weak hearts.

Being an American and knowing the general way we all think. I believe restricting guns even more or outright banning them will only lead to higher crime rates like in England and Australia after their gun bans. Plus the American government has a history of overstepping its limits and wandering around like a giant with a short attention span.

If you have a bad heart, you should be smart enough not to do something that will get you hit with a taser, but that doesn't mean you are. Frankly, you probably deserve to die if you are that stupid.


Tasers can also kill a healthy human being. Most people never hear about the numbers because nobody ever reports on them. A few weeks ago a man was killed in a prison holding cell and they guards tased him until he died. So they are far from "non-Lethal" they are just "Less Lethal"
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Kais86 wrote...
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Many people carry a taser or pepper spray but, usually women carry those and sometimes they just aren't effective. Tasers also run the risk of killing people who use a pacemaker or people with weak hearts.

Being an American and knowing the general way we all think. I believe restricting guns even more or outright banning them will only lead to higher crime rates like in England and Australia after their gun bans. Plus the American government has a history of overstepping its limits and wandering around like a giant with a short attention span.

If you have a bad heart, you should be smart enough not to do something that will get you hit with a taser, but that doesn't mean you are. Frankly, you probably deserve to die if you are that stupid.


Tasers can also kill a healthy human being. Most people never hear about the numbers because nobody ever reports on them. A few weeks ago a man was killed in a prison holding cell and they guards tased him until he died. So they are far from "non-Lethal" they are just "Less Lethal"



It's not voltage, it's the amps that kill.
0
That classifies in the "Stupid stuff that gets you killed." category, perhaps if that individual didn't give the guards a reason they wouldn't have to hit them with a taser 15 times(or however many times), causing their heart to fail.
0
Kais86 wrote...
That classifies in the "Stupid stuff that gets you killed." category, perhaps if that individual didn't give the guards a reason they wouldn't have to hit them with a taser 15 times(or however many times), causing their heart to fail.


If a guy with his hand cuffed behind his back is talking shit in a enclosed room. There is no reason to have more than two officers enter the room (five did) and no reason to taze him more then once or twice. Just let the d-bag wear himself out or wear out his vocal chords and lose his voice.

I agree though. It falls into the "stupid stuff that gets you killed" category.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
If a guy with his hand cuffed behind his back is talking shit in a enclosed room. There is no reason to have more than two officers enter the room (five did) and no reason to taze him more then once or twice. Just let the d-bag wear himself out or wear out his vocal chords and lose his voice.

I agree though. It falls into the "stupid stuff that gets you killed" category.
I didn't say either side was right, since in situations like this there is usually no one who does the right thing, in a situation like this if I were that guy (very hypothetically, I am smart enough that when I actually do something wrong I'm not going to be caught doing it) I'd have shut up after the 4th cop entered the room, however he was not and so was forcibly removed from the gene-pool, even if the cops went way overboard. Frankly, if the guy was cuffed to a chair, then he is no danger to anyone, period, you shouldn't discharge a weapon of any kind on someone who isn't a danger. I can only hope those officers were, at the very least, fired.
0
aww i wanted to add stuff but most of it is already.
America would be less scary if a nation potentally invading were to magically defeat our military and invade and the citizens didnt all have guns and could slowly kill off there military

more gun control=good
Ban=BAD
0
They sould just destroy ALL weapons in the world, shut dont all the war/weapon industry (would be great for the american politic aswell) and settle all wars/fights/wuteva in CS 1.6 since i know that mankind has to fight eachother.


an even better way would be if the 2 politicans that want to start a war have to fight eachother with whtever weapon till death. would clear the world of war lusty politicans aswell !!!!!!!!!!!111one1eleven
0
but then everyone would run around falcon punching each other.
0
Leed wrote...
They sould just destroy ALL weapons in the world, shut dont all the war/weapon industry (would be great for the american politic aswell) and settle all wars/fights/wuteva in CS 1.6 since i know that mankind has to fight eachother.

Problem with that is, you can't do that. People will continue to make guns after you destroy the factories and everything. Some radical country like Iran or whatever will just make guns after the rest of the world is disarmed.

Malik_USMC wrote...
but then everyone would run around falcon punching each other.
It would solve overpopulation problems in the future.
0
Let's put it this way. IF there were laws to completely ban all citizens from carrying guns, what's going to stop the criminals from illegaly obtaining them and then going after the pretty much unarmed citizens who do not have guns to protect themselves? Sure they may have other kinds of weapons such as tasers, knives, etc. and know martial arts, but let's face it, useless against bullets, unless the shooter is a horrible shot.

And disarming the military would be obviously stupid.
0
Pennlocke wrote...
Let's put it this way. IF there were laws to completely ban all citizens from carrying guns, what's going to stop the criminals from illegaly obtaining them and then going after the pretty much unarmed citizens who do not have guns to protect themselves? Sure they may have other kinds of weapons such as tasers, knives, etc. and know martial arts, but let's face it, useless against bullets, unless the shooter is a horrible shot.

And disarming the military would be obviously stupid.


Bluntly stating what we have already said. Good work. You have to be blunt and to the point to get a point across. +rep because I'm in a good mood.
Pages Prev1234