I'm tired of chickenshit pants wetting weepy paranoids insisting that we have to have mass shootings every day so they can hump their precious Gunz.

than saving lives.

Gotcha.

They are turning our public spaces into shooting galleries for idiots with Gunz and bad ideas.

And look up the definition of non-lethal.

If we had stricter gun laws, we would be safer, like Mexico. Strong gun laws. Probably no murders. At least thats my guess, I don't have time to look up the stats.

Now I wish stats were taken on that.

sees a minority.

Got the stats for that Hoyt?

I shouldn't be forced to buy one for protection. Tazers shoot. Alarm system. A dog will stop entry. Proper security lighting. Locks on doors and windows.

without packing heat?

life without ever having the need for a gun. Despite having lived in many major violent American cities, including New York. Somehow, somehow, I have survived without a fucking gun.

All the years we spent roaming clubs and bars on Chicago's west side, Rogers Park, south side, maxwell street Polish at 4 am - high, drunk, tripping balls - wandering around till 5 or 6 or 7 in the morning.

Never had any problems.

Now they move back out to Hinsdale and Western Springs and they need guns.

I asked my one buddy if he has been getting in some tough scrapes in Hinsdale.

They all have high school aged kids. I hope they secure their guns better than their parents did when we were in HS.

The scary thought is we knew two kids in high school who killed themselves with handguns. Who's next?

are there any people who think they need a gun with them at all times for their safety?

There have been a lot of postings on how mass shooting is rare, but at the same time, they need a gun in case they are in confrontation with a mass shooter so they can take him out.

Drop em like a rock and give the cops time to get there. So 30 minutes unconscious should do it.

You got someone in your house (god forbid) with an automatic and you’re gonna be o.k. with a Taser?

Give me a break.. I hate guns, never owned one, but don’t tell me that a taser will do the deal for me..

This is a phaser:

Subject makes me jumpy..

already have communicators and tricorders and ion engines. We can have a phaser that stuns, rather than kills. It doesn't have to send out a beam or blue laser light or anything.

But I'm thinking something more along the lines of a fast-acting dart that could be available sooner to replace guns as a defense weapon. You can even use blanks for target practice - and REUSE them. Replace the bullets with darts that'll knock your ass out 'til the popo come.

You could even have each dart registered to the owner so that even if it's used to kill someone by loading it with some other poison to use as a murder weapon, that dart(s) can be traced back to the owner as part of the investigation. It would be illegal to be in possession of a dart gun or darts that are not registered to you. And, if you're accidentally shot or shoot someone else, you and they don't die. Well, you might by related stress/shock/what-have-you, but that becomes a legal/liability issue.

I'm sure there are other points I could make, but it's late and I'm about to lie down for the night.

Thanks for the update and a good sleep..

Still, if you hit, you'll stop the threat.

And Juror #3 bought it...which is just sad.

If its not lethal, than it all becomes mute.. Because when gunners play with themselves they want the real deal in their hands.. Makes them shoot further and harder..

Is what makes sensible gun control hard to achieve in this country. Stop with the insults and become a part of the solution and not a part of the problem.

Sensible gun control? To 98% of the gun nuts in our country? There is no such thing as sensible gun control and you know that..AND HERE”S WHY.. THe NRA has reinforced into the minds of their children, that if you give a 1/4 of an inch to the liberals in America, they will immediately take a mile.. And you know this..

And many like it on this board shows that is a reasonable expectation. Just like why the pro-choice movement fights any more restrictions on abortion. The anti-abortion and gun ban movement share the same mentality. If we just ban these things, it will save so many lives. What both sides fail to realize is both gun violence and abortions will still happen even if they are banned.

ends our discussion. But one last point... Jesus!! The Anti Abortion movement has been able to close hundreds of woman’s clinics, made legal abortions in some states practically impossible and generally have successfully pushed back on woman’s healthcare choices in hundreds of cities across the nation..

Tell me the successes of the anti-gun movement in our country within the last 20 yrs.. YEA....Right!!.

California, Connecticut and Colorado to name a few. Massachusetts does too. NYC and Chicago do as well.

been in place for quite awhile, if they were not there would be little chance today that they would be able to stand down the NRA and their minions.

And that's about as factual as a fact can get.

Fuck's sake, if you're going to insult people at least speak the language properly.

Just look in the mirror for the answer.

... because anyone who keeps a gun for "for home and self-defense purposes" is probably smoking something.

I don't.

I trust the neighbors to look after themselves, or not, it's not really my business. I'll take care of myself, as I doubt anyone has more of a vested interest in doing so than I do.

And yet around 4 people per 100k are killed annually.

As do most New England states. Maine and Vermont have higher rates, but most of that can be attributed to hunting, not paranoid fear, like the rest of the country.

I know my neighbors, except for a few friends, I don't know most cops.

Where I live it can take up to 45 minutes for the cops to arrive.

I live in a rural area, and I know, without a doubt that every single one of my neighbors own guns. And guess what? We have never had an accidental, or intentional shooting (unless you count the deer that were shot last week.

Our police department closes at Midnight. The county would respond, but I would be amazed if they could respond in less than an hour.

The funny thing is that most people I know (that almost all own guns) are not really the "self defense" "penis extender" "gun humpers". They are every day people that keep their guns (and yes most of them are semi automatics) for hunting, or for target shooting, or just because they like them.
Heck I don't even lock my doors at night, but you bet I could use my husbands gun for self defense if needed. It's a lot more likely though that when he conceal carries it's because we are taking a hike at our local state park and there have been bear and coyote sightings.
I don't have statistics but I bet there are more gun owners, per capita, in the rural areas yet my town has had one murder in 5 years (and that was done with a knife)!
Guns, for the majority of people, are just tools. Nothing more, and nothing less but it is pretty damn insulting to read over and over again how I am a "Gun Nutz".

Way to win friends and allies, let's insult them!!!!!!

in the nearest city to me the nightly killings are almost all related to drugs. The secret is to remove the drug war and then we can have peace and with that less killing of one another.

It starts with giving up fear.

But, how do we make that happen?

that is a good first step

So you are getting paranoid over what exactly? Don't tell me you are saying Obama is coming fer your guuuun!?

Nice try.

Unfortunately...

That I am already accustomed too, and already own..

You would have to answer that first before your question is even relevant.

I don't know why taser technology is not better developed, but I have to admit that guns are still unparalleled in stopping power.

Personally though, I would be scared of using lethal force, especially if I accidentally would kill someone. I would rather use non-lethal force because I would be more comfortable using it.

We really need something like this to be developed

to show evidence for this. Without this evidence, his second premise, and need for alternatives, isn't necessary or answerable.

instant enough in stopping power and reliable. Pepper spray can take a few seconds to stop the person, tasers can work but they only give you two rounds (if you miss you'd be reduced to using it as a stungun), a stungun needs to be close up to work (and works better to keep the person away).

However, if the criminal is on PCP, not even a gun may be able to instantly stop them. A quote from this site:

general, as in, real world usage. The answer appears to be no.

ON EDIT: To put it more succinctly, you are more likely to use that gun on yourself or a household/family member than on someone else trying to harm your or your family.

I would rather have an effective non-lethal weapon.

However, homeowners especially have to deal with the threat of a home invasion.

in real life, it is hard to find the situation where the gun protects you, and the situation happening often enough to fear it.

If you lived in the big city in a very bad area full of drug kingpins, maybe, but they wouldn't shoot you if you were not involved.

In rural areas on the off chance that a Ted Bundy or the like would come by, maybe.

In a movie I recall a Glenn Close character pulling a gun from under a pillow to shoot someone who was about to attack her in her bedroom. But that's a movie.

Like a multi round net gun, maybe combined with a taser shocker.

don't run around the world so fearful that they need to bring their security bwanky with them everywhere they go.

that have to worry more about security and not being attacked than you do.

Something we, apparently, we no longer do.

On the other hand, so would I and I'm also old, female and live in the country with neighbors who often disturb the peace and quiet we moved here for to target shoot with their noisy, semi-automatic weapons. Their lives may be more in danger than mine because I daydream about strangling them.

without ever being afraid enough to want a gun. I'm more afraid of the gun.

instead of a security bwanky, people could demand a safe space in every building
impervious to home invasion or fearful things or people. /sarc

Guns don't make people more safe. They make people less safe.

Meanwhile there's plenty of things that actually make people more safe.

A dog
Lights
Better locks
More secure doors and windows
Electronic security systems
Neighborhood security initiatives
Etc.

And even though I HATE guns, if I were queen/king/whatever .... I'd be willing to allow each home to have a single-shot long gun or pistol for protection against predators on farms, ranches, etc. or personal protection in the home. But still with a sad heart, as so far guns have killed my dad, almost killed my best friend a year ago when she took a sleeping aid and woke up thinking she heard something outside and accidentally shot herself through the neck, a young school-mate shot and killed by his brother years and years ago, a cousin killed hunting going through a fence ....... and many suicides and accidental shootings with the ambulance over the years. I hate them, but understand a need for them in limited circumstances. Oh ... I forgot - also collectibles, those I'd be fine with.

I honestly do not see any reason ever to carry them outside the home - except for hunting and closely regulated target shooting and competitions.

I worked in the Post Office up here years ago when the long-gun registry came in. Of course people grumbled and one or two had real problems with the gov't knowing they had guns, but after the first couple of weeks of it ....... it was no big deal. They'd come in, ask for the forms, maybe still complain a bit, but fill them out, sign them ... and were good to go. No-one believed every single gun was registered - but it wasn't this horrendous thing pro-gun people made it out to be.

Any argument that starts with forcing someone to accept the false premise that guns make people safer fails right out of the gate.

the self-protection in the home argument is something I'd be willing to grant for those who do live in very violent neighbourhoods. We have our own of those up here, particularly in Regina, SK, in areas of very high poverty (I think it's just been named Canada's most violent city) ... but I don't see the daily or weekly use of a gun to either invade or protect - ........... ok, wait a minute then ....... you're probably right.

Never mind ...... I'm going away now.

What crap, IMO.

In a second.

It always devolves into bullshit like this.

Unrec.

This straw man is always thrown up in our faces. No reputable organization is suggesting that anybody give up all their guns. Nobody disputes anybody's right to self defense.

Also, in my experience, whenever someone says, "It is your responsibility to make sure your gun isn't used against me," what the gun-humpers hear is: "I am going to murder your family, and take all your guns."

It's quite odd, but it's a nearly universal misinterpretation that they make.

They are just itching for a socially acceptable reason. They are all basically George Zimmerman.

a 'gun nut' in your estimation?

Like you can't take the gun out of the house. Then the people who think they need defense against intruders could have one.

The rural gun owners might be fine with that.

Also you can have hunting rifles. That would get the hunters off the list of people who oppose gun control. They usually aren't the ones who murder or do mass shootings.

Ban the semi-automatics unless the person can show a need for one. Adam Lanza's attack lasted only 5 minutes and he shot 26 other people, most of them more than once:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

It just really hit me from that how much damage they can do and how would you need one for self defense? You're a bad shot would be the only excuse.

Also licensing and renewal of license and training responsibilities that are just as strict as for driving.