Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Sheb]

It's not a law, it's an amendment.


Also, I'm sure that wife will be very comforted when her husband just grab the family gun rather than wield an axe.

[10ebbor10]

We have tazers for dealing with those situations.

And yeah, the mere presence of guns causes an increased amounts of deaths. (Israel, for example, halved suicide rates amongst conscripts by preventing conscripts from taking their guns home). They tend to escalate any crime they're part of.

[Dutchling]

You don't need weapons for self defence. It's illegal here and last time I checked I've not been assaulted by an axe wielding significant other.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Aah, well then, +1 for that amendment, (though it could do with some more narrowing- what do they mean by 'regulating the spending of money'? That's broader than 'regulating the total amount spent', I could see issues with, say, limiting radio-time to hurt a party's ability to garner poorer voters, that kinda thing).


No, I don't think she would, but at that point it just reverts to the same situation as the axe- killer has an unfair advantage. Difference being, he'd have to secure that gun, or else she'd be able to defend herself on equal terms.
Premeditated, first-degree murder? Not so easy to stop.
2nd/third degree so-called 'crimes of passion'? Stopped.

Can't seem to find a good source, but internet scuttlebut says murders are split ~50/50.

It's illegal here and last time I checked I've not been assaulted by an axe wielding significant other.

Do not want; to bring someone up on charges of murder for defending themselves in situations where they cannot flee should itself be criminal.
Yes, and your lack of being a victim of attempted homicide is evidence of what, that 'never in recorded history has one spouse attempted to murder the other'?

We have tazers for dealing with those situations.

And yeah, the mere presence of guns causes an increased amounts of deaths. (Israel, for example, halved suicide rates amongst conscripts by preventing conscripts from taking their guns home). They tend to escalate any crime they're part of.

True, some people do. But if I were trapped & under life threat I'd sure as shit prefer a 45 over a dinky 1-shot taser.

Let's see them stats.




Mind you guys, legally-justified self-defence is when you have no other recourse- if one can run, one must run. If they are no longer threatening your life, you don't shoot them in the back or 'finish the job'.

[Descan]

I'd be almost completely fine if everyone had less-than-lethal guns for self-defense, like a bean-bag shot-gun or a tazer. The only way it's "almost" is because if everyone had them, then you know that statistically speaking there will be a fair number of people for whom "less than" didn't quite cut it.

But I don't think that your self-defense should extend quite so far as "Capability of almost-guaranteed killing someone with a pull of the finger." Hunting rifles, sure. Police officers responding to a dangerous situation, sure. Recreational, sure. But hand-guns, not so much.

I could *settle* for a hand-gun ban and reliance on shotguns for self-defense. I wouldn't enjoy it, but I could settle. I would still rather bean-bag shotguns and tazers were the go-to self-defense weapon. Hell, give them out to anyone who takes a high-school course on gun safety (you can still kill someone with them, after-all). Get almost-literally everyone with a less-than-lethal self-defense weapon.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The right to self-defense is absolute, in my opinion. I don't even believe in the duty to retreat unless said retreat is a certainty, and only if you are not in your home.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

If everyone had laser beam eyes, we wouldn't need to worry about crimes happening anymore. Now that's an all-encompassing civilian self defense plan I can get behind.

[Dutchling]

It's illegal here and last time I checked I've not been assaulted by an axe wielding significant other.

Do not want; to bring someone up on charges of murder for defending themselves in situations where they cannot flee should itself be criminal.

Owning weapons for self defence is illegal here*. You won't get prosecuted for self defence, even if it's in excess or with an illegal weapon.

*You can of course just own one for sports/hunting/collecting. Illegal might not be a good term, it's just not a valid reason for a license.

[RedKing]

Get almost-literally everyone with a less-than-lethal self-defense weapon.

It's Nerf or nothing.


Because seriously, have you SEEN some of the Nerf guns these days?

Spoiler: Holy mother of foam.... (click to show/hide)

[nenjin]

We have about 8 Nerf Guns here in the office. Ironically, the one with the most "stopping power" fits in the palm of your hand. It hits hard enough with those rubber darts, if you got it in the eye it would really, really hurt.

[Sheb]

Ahah, the Thanks Obama meme spread to Belgium!

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Eeh, I want to like the tazers & classes idea, but I don't think I do. They just aren't as effective, not as a replacement & accompanied with an absolute handgun ban. And that ban runs into enforcement problems.
I'd be much more ok with introducing it as an option like driving classes & encouraging non-lethal possession, independent of the handgun ban.
If it works, who knows what could follow. But together, it feels like too much too fast.

Snip

Snip

Owning weapons for self defence is illegal here*. You won't get prosecuted for self defence, even if it's in excess or with an illegal weapon.

*You can of course just own one for sports/hunting/collecting. Illegal might not be a good term, it's just not a valid reason for a license.

Ooh, ok.

[Sheb]

Well, the problem is that with a tons of handgun around, it's not only your victim that is more likely to have one. Criminals are more likely to have guns too.

[RedKing]

Then everyone just starts wearing carbon-fiber insulated clothing.

[Descan]

Eeh, I want to like the tazers & classes idea, but I don't think I do. They just aren't as effective, not as a replacement & accompanied with an absolute handgun ban. And that ban runs into enforcement problems.
I'd be much more ok with introducing it as an option like driving classes & encouraging non-lethal possession, independent of the handgun ban.
If it works, who knows what could follow. But together, it feels like too much too fast.

Snip

Snip

Owning weapons for self defence is illegal here*. You won't get prosecuted for self defence, even if it's in excess or with an illegal weapon.

*You can of course just own one for sports/hunting/collecting. Illegal might not be a good term, it's just not a valid reason for a license.

Ooh, ok.

Notice how I focused on bean-bag shotguns and tazers were an afterthought? Yeah, there's a reason for that.