MP thinks tasers should be legalised

[Taquito]

this is a long thread so i havent read anything else, but i once had this idea(when i used to be a little hoodlum mind you) that it would be easy to rob the local paintball/airsoft store using a taser, one person to imobilize the guy, the other to grab all the gear, think of whatelse you could do, i think its just better to use more simple things to protect yourself, bats anyone? i have one : ] but then again guns beat bats so it all depends on the situations, oh well its just something to think about

[Sale]

Okay Xaccers, instead of addressing my points properly, you just went past them and repeated yourself. I'll go through your post without quoting, because it's starting to take so much space.

 

1. I only backed out after you failed to response to points that were raised in the thread. That goes for my posts but also all the other people who were having a decent conversation for 7 pages. Get your chronology straight.

 

2. Calling someone ignorant is not name-calling. The word has a meaning and I think it applies to you. You either have trouble understanding written english, or you just don't want to.

 

3. You missed the numerous times where I said that as a basic principle I suggest running away instead of a confrontation, and I feel disgusted by the idea of taking someone's life, even if it's legitimate self-defence. You have made up your mind about me, I have a label on my head now. Basically only because you can't read.

 

4. You also missed the part(s) where I said that using a firearm as self-defence is good because about 99% of the time it doesn't actually need to be discharged to get the desired effect. I clearly said that I oppose the idea of shooting first and asking questions later. I can't see a kid or other people harmed if a bullet wasn't shot. Not even the assailant.

 

5. Like I said previously, the point about going to court is no issue to me if I'm defending my life or the life of anyone else. I'll comment anyways. I don't know about UK laws, but in Finland stopping an intruder with a taser will get you right to court explaining why you had the device in the first place. There's a high probability that the target will fall and sustain injuries if he hits his head on something for example. So your point about not getting charges when using a Taser is a lie.

 

6. I don't share your trust about the effectiveness of a Taser. In my view it's more likely that it somehow malfunctions or is otherwise ineffective, resulting in more injuries to anyone involved, than me accidentally shooting someone else with a firearm. It's actually a very rare occasion that (civilians) shoot bystanders when protecting themselves. Again I emphasize that guns are very seldom actually even fired in self-defence. If Tasers are even more effective even against armed assailants, then how come the law enforcement still has guns?

 

7. Covering your eyes or dodging the OC spray is pathetic? That's the wildest stuff I've heard in a while, because it works. I've personally seen and experienced the effects of OC both in training situations and in real life. No PCP or other drugs involved in any of the cases. I've seen a totally sober chick just keep coming after getting a can of Sabre 5% OC with an SHU number of 2 000 000. Sure it'll make the attacker blind if you hit the eyes, but not immobile for the few seconds that might be the last ones of your life. Also, OC is not an option indoors if you or your kids or spouse have asthma. For the kids it's really dangerous even if they are healthy. Now which one of us was more concerned about the kids we're planning to have? (Not together, though. )

 

8.

For instance, Israel, to keep a gun the owner must regularly practice at a gun club or with the police. Most people with criminal intent are not likely to do this, or wish to own a traceable weapon.

Exactly. But this isn't a good example of tight gun laws, because most lawful gun-owners practice anyways. And they are still allowed to have the gun in their homes for defence. Also I don't think the discussion was about people with criminal intent, because defending your home isn't.

By the way, do you think the authorities in Israel even bother to check when was the last time someone went to the range? I know that they don't in Finland. Once you go through the initial process of providing proof of active sport shooting, it doesn't matter if you never even go to the range or any courses for decades.

 

9.

With Switzerland, the issue of assualt rifles relates to trained soldiers, not the general public. They are given a sealed container of bullets, which must be presented unopened when they report for duty, if they fail to do this, they are put in jail.

You make "trained soldiers" sound like something special. They have a mandatory draft in Switzerland, so every male has to go to the army or civilian service. Just like in Finland. I can tell from personal experience (2 years of service) that the focus is not on handling the gun and shooting. Typical sport shooters, who are civilians, shoot much better than army grunts, who are these "trained soldiers".

Switzerland has a reserve of 400 000 soldiers with the issued rifles in their homes. The part of having a sealed ammo reserve is true, but it doesn't restrict them from having other ammunition (suitable for the rifle) in their homes. They can freely buy ammo at shooting ranges, and no-one monitors if it's taken home with them - a common practice. http://www.guncite.com/swissgun.html

 

10. The example countries with a lot of privately owned weapons but little violent crime don't have as tight gun control as you want people to believe here. I have seven firearms myself, five of which are semiautomatics. The "control" really wasn't much for a guy with a clean record and honest interest to the shooting hobby. I do agree that culture has something to do with it, because the attitudes in Finland are really tight about guns: Sport shooting or hunting only, no self-defence purpose. Like I said previously, my guns are locked away and I don't "blow criminals away" like Charles Bronson.

Still, I think the biggest reasons why Canada, Switzerland, Finland or Norway don't have high gun crime is the "safety networks" of the society. There's welfare for unemployed people, you get treated in a hospital if you get sick even if you don't have insurance, education is free (from elementary schools to universities) and so on. The gun control isn't tight.

On the other hand, there are lots of examples of countries, states and cities with extreme violent crime and a total ban on firearms. These are also countries that don't do anything about outcasts. People are left on their own, if rich people don't help them out of generocity. See the pattern?

 

11. No, I never said that having guns in homes prevents burglars from killing the people. I only said it would happen less often. Let me quote myself:

I never said it's a 100% solution and would completely prevent people from getting killed in burglaries.

What I did say is that I feel sorry for those people, but it could happen regardless of the amount of guns in homes. I honestly think armed home-defence could save some lives, not "settle the score" with the bad guys.

 

12. You do know tellers at gas stations have instructions to give the attacker the money or whatever, because it's insured? The gun is only a last resort for self-defence - defending the life of the teller. But you know, maybe I agree with you. Gas stations shouldn't necessarily have guns to protect the cash, because there isn't lots of it. Anyways it's a tight question, but a gas station is a bit off topic, because you have people walking in and out all the time. If someone meets me in my home at 3 AM when I'm going to the toilet, he surely didn't come to buy a Coke and a candy bar.

 

13. Tragic cases where a legally owned handgun ends up as a tool for a four year old to accidentally kill his six year old sisters get a huge amount of media coverage. That's why it might seem that it happens really often. The much more numerous cases where children drown in a pool or die from poisoning by household chemicals don't get media coverage. When I have kids, the "Johnsons liquid plumber" and bleach are going behind locks - real locks. In my gun safe for example.

I'm not going to quote a huge load of text and sources here, but point you towards this:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/downloads/GunFacts_v3.2.pdf

Go to page 10 for "Children and guns" and page 23 for "Accidental deaths". Please read with an open mind, and don't think I believe all that's written there. I'm not fundamentalistic about this.

 

14. You still wanted to have a go on me because I said OC isn't effective if the attacker is expecting it. Tell me then, why are the police and security guards told to keep the mace out of sight until it's used? Why do the certified instructors say that it's because the target would cover their eyes or dodge? How come I have personally seen this happen, if it isn't true?

 

-Sale

[snorkelman]

the trouble with all of these sort of arguments is its impossible to draw a direct correlation between gun ownership and levels of crime or the craziness of the criminals.

 

In uk crime has gone up X amount while legal gun ownership has gone down due to bans and restrictions. While both facts are true they arent neccessarily related, and changing one wont neccessarily change the other.

 

The move from soft and psychotropic drugs of the 60s and 70s to increasing amounts of hard drug addicts in the late 80s and 90s caused a crime wave (it also corresponded in an increasing standard of living and an increased level of disposable property worth stealing to fuel a drug habit).

 

That coincided with the two main weapons bans of the 80s and 90s but wasnt an outcome of them even in the late 80s post hungerford but prior to the handgun restrictions the rise in drug related offences (thieving burglary etc) was already on the way up.

 

In the UK you'ld get a far bigger reduction in crime from legalising smack and coke and putting those on prescription for any waste of space that wants to turn themselves into a zombie, than you would from legalising guns as you'ld remove a good chunk of those folks motivation to steal in the first place, and you wouldnt have drufg dealers shooting each other in turf wars over what had becme non-existant customers for their overpriced *beep*.

 

Its like most other cultural things you can point to aspect A B or C of a particular society be it a decent attitude towards alchohol, a liberal attitude to guns or drugs that works just fine for them but take things out of that context and throw them into a society where those underlying attiudes arent in place (eg where 24 hour coffee bar culture would be little more than an excuse to get even more tanked up on the bevvy and hammer seven coolours of ###### out of someone) Then they wont neccessarily have the same neutral or positive influences as they do in the society they're being imported from.

[Xaccers]

1. I only backed out after you failed to response to points that were raised in the thread. That goes for my posts but also all the other people who were having a decent conversation for 7 pages. Get your chronology straight.

 

Interesting.

If you actually read those 7 pages, you'll see that only Crimson and Spedz mentioned being shot by an assailant or the assailant arming themselves because people have access to guns.

No one picked up on those points.

Hardly a conversation then really is it now?

I made the comment with a bit more meat in my post, rather than debate the issue, you denied such documented and increasingly more frequent instances of burglars shooting first and taking what they want later actually occur.

 

2. Calling someone ignorant is not name-calling. The word has a meaning and I think it applies to you. You either have trouble understanding written english, or you just don't want to.

 

Like I said, you are a bit of an onanist aren't you?

 

3. You missed the numerous times where I said that as a basic principle I suggest running away instead of a confrontation, and I feel disgusted by the idea of taking someone's life, even if it's legitimate self-defence. You have made up your mind about me, I have a label on my head now. Basically only because you can't read.

 

Let me repeat what I said as you appear to have difficulty grasping English:

Again, you may not have that problem, that's your choice, but I don't consider blowing someone away an attractive thought when there are alternatives.

Notice the third word?

You do understand what "may" means don't you? It's not just a month you know.

 

4. You also missed the part(s) where I said that using a firearm as self-defence is good because about 99% of the time it doesn't actually need to be discharged to get the desired effect. I clearly said that I oppose the idea of shooting first and asking questions later. I can't see a kid or other people harmed if a bullet wasn't shot. Not even the assailant.

 

If you cannot see how a child could be harmed though having a gun in your house, then you seriously need to look into going on a gun safety re-education course.

 

5. Like I said previously, the point about going to court is no issue to me if I'm defending my life or the life of anyone else. I'll comment anyways. I don't know about UK laws, but in Finland stopping an intruder with a taser will get you right to court explaining why you had the device in the first place. There's a high probability that the target will fall and sustain injuries if he hits his head on something for example. So your point about not getting charges when using a Taser is a lie.

 

In the UK (incidently, you did notice the threat title didn't you?) where this proposal has been put forward, a home owner is allowed to use reasonable force to defend themselves and their property.

Shooting someone with a gun if they were armed with a lethal weapon and you believed your life was in danger would be considered reasonable force (anyone thinking of mentioning the farmer who shot the chavs, remember, they were running away and unarmed, so his life was not in danger, hence why he went to prison).

Using a taser against an unarmed intruder who lunges for you, even if they harm themselves on the way down to the floor would be considered reasonable force.

Ergo, in the United Kingdom, where this MP has raised this proposal, you would not end up in court for disabling an intruder with a taser.

 

6. I don't share your trust about the effectiveness of a Taser. In my view it's more likely that it somehow malfunctions or is otherwise ineffective, resulting in more injuries to anyone involved, than me accidentally shooting someone else with a firearm. It's actually a very rare occasion that (civilians) shoot bystanders when protecting themselves. Again I emphasize that guns are very seldom actually even fired in self-defence. If Tasers are even more effective even against armed assailants, then how come the law enforcement still has guns?

 

Surely you can see the difference in circumstances between a homeowner waking up hearing someone downstairs in their house, and the police responding to an armed incident?

However, more and more police in this area are being issued with tasers.

ARU's are still required and I'm sure you don't need me to explain why.

 

7. Covering your eyes or dodging the OC spray is pathetic? That's the wildest stuff I've heard in a while, because it works. I've personally seen and experienced the effects of OC both in training situations and in real life. No PCP or other drugs involved in any of the cases. I've seen a totally sober chick just keep coming after getting a can of Sabre 5% OC with an SHU number of 2 000 000. Sure it'll make the attacker blind if you hit the eyes, but not immobile for the few seconds that might be the last ones of your life. Also, OC is not an option indoors if you or your kids or spouse have asthma. For the kids it's really dangerous even if they are healthy. Now which one of us was more concerned about the kids we're planning to have? (Not together, though. )

 

Where did I say that I would prefer spray?

I have seen it used effectivly against a drunk lout who turned nasty with the police.

After his mate had been dropped to the floor with a spray, he covered his face with his forearm and continued to lash out until he got a spray and was tackled to the ground.

 

8.

Exactly. But this isn't a good example of tight gun laws, because most lawful gun-owners practice anyways. And they are still allowed to have the gun in their homes for defence. Also I don't think the discussion was about people with criminal intent, because defending your home isn't.

 

Really? What percentage of lawful gun owners in the US practice once a month? Once every two months? Once a year?

 

By the way, do you think the authorities in Israel even bother to check when was the last time someone went to the range? I know that they don't in Finland. Once you go through the initial process of providing proof of active sport shooting, it doesn't matter if you never even go to the range or any courses for decades.

 

Yes they do actually, hence why my friend regularly goes to the range despite having once shot herself in the head while there, but that's another story...

 

9.

You make "trained soldiers" sound like something special. They have a mandatory draft in Switzerland, so every male has to go to the army or civilian service. Just like in Finland. I can tell from personal experience (2 years of service) that the focus is not on handling the gun and shooting. Typical sport shooters, who are civilians, shoot much better than army grunts, who are these "trained soldiers".

Switzerland has a reserve of 400 000 soldiers with the issued rifles in their homes. The part of having a sealed ammo reserve is true, but it doesn't restrict them from having other ammunition (suitable for the rifle) in their homes. They can freely buy ammo at shooting ranges, and no-one monitors if it's taken home with them - a common practice. http://www.guncite.com/swissgun.html

 

Are you trained in firearms?

If so, do you therefore consider yourself to be more suitable to own and handle firearms than someone who is untrained?

 

10. The example countries with a lot of privately owned weapons but little violent crime don't have as tight gun control as you want people to believe here. I have seven firearms myself, five of which are semiautomatics. The "control" really wasn't much for a guy with a clean record and honest interest to the shooting hobby. I do agree that culture has something to do with it, because the attitudes in Finland are really tight about guns: Sport shooting or hunting only, no self-defence purpose. Like I said previously, my guns are locked away and I don't "blow criminals away" like Charles Bronson.

Still, I think the biggest reasons why Canada, Switzerland, Finland or Norway don't have high gun crime is the "safety networks" of the society. There's welfare for unemployed people, you get treated in a hospital if you get sick even if you don't have insurance, education is free (from elementary schools to universities) and so on. The gun control isn't tight.

On the other hand, there are lots of examples of countries, states and cities with extreme violent crime and a total ban on firearms. These are also countries that don't do anything about outcasts. People are left on their own, if rich people don't help them out of generocity. See the pattern?

 

In the UK, there are areas of extreme social deprivation, where crime is rife, yet these criminals do not turn to wielding guns because their targets are not armed.

In the US for instance, a mugger can pull a gun on you before you can react.

Sure you may have a gun on your hip, but he's got one pointed at your face, then you have to ask yourself, do you feel lucky? Well? Do ya punk?

Sorry, got lost in the moment there.

Now he's armed because he knows there's a high chance of you being armed.

He also knows that if he gets his gun on you first, the chances of him being shot are very slim.

 

11. No, I never said that having guns in homes prevents burglars from killing the people. I only said it would happen less often. Let me quote myself:

What I did say is that I feel sorry for those people, but it could happen regardless of the amount of guns in homes. I honestly think armed home-defence could save some lives, not "settle the score" with the bad guys.

 

If homeowners are not armed with guns, then there is no real need for burglars to be armed with guns, hence why in the UK, most burglars don't carry any weapons at all, it makes for an easier getaway and they aren't going to be shot in the back.

If homeowners are armed, as has been demonstrated in the US, burglars are more likely to carry a gun.

More guns being carried during burglaries means more injuries and deaths.

 

12. You do know tellers at gas stations have instructions to give the attacker the money or whatever, because it's insured? The gun is only a last resort for self-defence - defending the life of the teller. But you know, maybe I agree with you. Gas stations shouldn't necessarily have guns to protect the cash, because there isn't lots of it. Anyways it's a tight question, but a gas station is a bit off topic, because you have people walking in and out all the time. If someone meets me in my home at 3 AM when I'm going to the toilet, he surely didn't come to buy a Coke and a candy bar.

 

You know what tellers are told, I know what tellers are told, but that doesn't stop criminals reducing the risk of being shot by a have-a-go-hero teller by shooting first. It also means less chance of a silent alarm being triggered.

 

13. Tragic cases where a legally owned handgun ends up as a tool for a four year old to accidentally kill his six year old sisters get a huge amount of media coverage. That's why it might seem that it happens really often. The much more numerous cases where children drown in a pool or die from poisoning by household chemicals don't get media coverage. When I have kids, the "Johnsons liquid plumber" and bleach are going behind locks - real locks. In my gun safe for example.

I'm not going to quote a huge load of text and sources here, but point you towards this:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/downloads/GunFacts_v3.2.pdf

Go to page 10 for "Children and guns" and page 23 for "Accidental deaths". Please read with an open mind, and don't think I believe all that's written there. I'm not fundamentalistic about this.

 

Surely you agree once is one time too many?

Can you guarentee that your 12 year old son won't ever be able to access your guns without you knowing (assuming you haven't just locked away the household cleaning products but still left your gun in your bedside drawer )?

Incidently, with your gun locked away in a safe, how long would it take you to access it and load it? How long with cleaning products in there too?

[Sale]

Dude, it's mil sim!

[Chimpy]

If you cannot see how a child could be harmed though having a gun in your house, then you seriously need to look into going on a gun safety re-education course.

 

Umm? Get knives, bleach, electricity, anything-not-fluffy out of the house then! Seriously they might harm the child! As someone that grew up around firearms I successfully avoided being harmed by them even once. Proper respect is due around things that are that lethal and that is only gained by understanding. My father taught me about his guns when I was young, let me shoot them and understand them. You see the lack of awareness about the dangers of guns in the safe-zone at any skirmish in this country. Why? Most people, especially the younger contingent have had little exposure to the real thing.

 

Surely you can see the difference in circumstances between a homeowner waking up hearing someone downstairs in their house, and the police responding to an armed incident?

However, more and more police in this area are being issued with tasers.

 

IIRC only AFO's are allowed to carry Tasers. So anyone responding with a Taser will also have a gun.

 

Using a taser against an unarmed intruder who lunges for you, even if they harm themselves on the way down to the floor would be considered reasonable force.

Ergo, in the United Kingdom, where this MP has raised this proposal, you would not end up in court for disabling an intruder with a taser.

 

If Tasers were legal to own there would also need to be a change in the law that you were allowed to equip yourself with one for self-defense in the home. Currently if you pick up anything 'for defense' (e.g. a Bat or a Knife) and used it on an intruder in your house you would be charged. The only caveat to that is if the object had a different primary use, like a torch you carried because it was dark and you only used in the heat of the moment. In short it is not considered reasonable to equip yourself for a confrontation.

 

If so, do you therefore consider yourself to be more suitable to own and handle firearms than someone who is untrained?

 

Anyone with a gun, particularly if they want to use it for self-defense should be well trained. In the States that isn't regulated aside from some states requiring a qualification/training shoot.

 

He also knows that if he gets his gun on you first, the chances of him being shot are very slim.

 

Which supposes there are no other armed people about who might help you. An example of this is the guy who tried an armed robbery on a gun store and ended up being shot by the owner and several customers. Darwin award candidate maybe but it does aptly demonstrate the point.

 

If homeowners are armed, as has been demonstrated in the US, burglars are more likely to carry a gun.

 

Can you cite any stats on that? I could easily say it lowers the number of burglaries commited when the occupants are home. I can't prove that though as it's rather hard to get statistics from people not commiting crimes.

 

Can you guarentee that your 12 year old son won't ever be able to access your guns without you knowing (assuming you haven't just locked away the household cleaning products but still left your gun in your bedside drawer )?

Incidently, with your gun locked away in a safe, how long would it take you to access it and load it? How long with cleaning products in there too?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hopefully your 12 year old son will be educated enough to know not to touch them. Also those stats Sale posted previously seem to suggest that it is an extremely rare occurance for a child to be killed or injured this way.

 

You can buy gun safes specifically designed to be quick to access without requiring more than a recognised thumb-print.

 

http://www.lock-depot.com/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=211 <-- For example.