• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Stun gun lawsuits claim bans violate constitutional right to bear arms

Rucker61 said:
They'd arrest those "associated" with the victim for misdemeanor charges?
Click to expand...

Yup! The study successfully showed that when someone is shot, the short-term probability of someone else up to two degrees of separation from the victim goes up considerably. So if the cops can legally get some of them off the street, they actually wind up doing those arrested a favor, not to mention reducing the short-term risk of more violence.

Rucker61 said:
"As many policy decisions as possible need to be driven by the numbers that most nearly and comprehensively reflect the reality of the applicable situation."

What is this supposed to mean? It's simply a numbers game?
Click to expand...

That's the TL;DR version, but as I've alluded to here, it goes far deeper than just numbers. It's also about social structures and connections, ex., gang memberships.
 
Phys251 said:
Yup! The study successfully showed that when someone is shot, the short-term probability of someone else up to two degrees of separation from the victim goes up considerably. So if the cops can legally get some of them off the street, they actually wind up doing those arrested a favor, not to mention reducing the short-term risk of more violence.
Click to expand...

I wonder why they wait until someone gets shot.

That's the TL;DR version, but as I've alluded to here, it goes far deeper than just numbers. It's also about social structures and connections, ex., gang memberships.
Click to expand...

Understood.
 
Phys251 said:
Humans can choose whatever rhetoric they like, but numbers don't lie. As many policy decisions as possible need to be driven by the numbers that most nearly and comprehensively reflect the reality of the applicable situation.
Click to expand...

why not just come out and say what you are trying to insinuate. You appear to be a gun banner. Why do gun banners have such a hard time telling us what they really want?
 
TurtleDude said:
why not just come out and say what you are trying to insinuate. You appear to be a gun banner. Why do gun banners have such a hard time telling us what they really want?
Click to expand...

Is this what you think this is really about? That's really unfortunate.
 
Phys251 said:
Is this what you think this is really about? That's really unfortunate.
Click to expand...

why not tell us what you think needs to be done.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Stun gun lawsuits claim bans violate constitutional right to bear arms

Stun gun lawsuits claim bans violate constitutional right to bear arms - Washington Times

I guess tasers look mean. Lethal defense, non lethal defense, doesn't matter. They just don't like the idea of a person defending themselves I guess.
Click to expand...

No, that's not true. What would happen if a kid got a'hold of one and shot his 3 year old friend? What if the 70 year old, just thought that he or she was being threatened? It would also give armed robbers the same effect without the lethal after burn.

Too early, too many problems.
 
jet57 said:
No, that's not true. What would happen if a kid got 'hold of one and shot his 3 year old friend? What if the 70 year old, just thought that he or she was being threatened? It would also give armed robbers the same effect without the lethal after burn.

Too early, too many problems.
Click to expand...

what does that have to do with his post? most anti gun advocates are opposed to honest people being able to defend themselves because these BM advocates know that their proposed laws mainly impact the law abiding
 
jet57 said:
No, that's not true. What would happen if a kid got a'hold of one and shot his 3 year old friend? What if the 70 year old, just thought that he or she was being threatened? It would also give armed robbers the same effect without the lethal after burn.

Too early, too many problems.
Click to expand...

This post is pretty much blather that doesn't address anything to do with my statement. Your talent if creating "what if" scenarios is noted however.
 
NonoBadDog said:
This post is pretty much blather that doesn't address anything to do with my statement. Your talent if creating "what if" scenarios is noted however.
Click to expand...

No, it's another entry of logic that's keeping those things off the public market.
 
jet57 said:
No, it's another entry of logic that's keeping those things off the public market.
Click to expand...

Jet wants us to live under the same laws he does. Nothing more nothing less. there is no legitimate way to ban an AR 15 (which has never been issued to our military as its presently configured) with the MI Carbine which Jet claims to own and was a US military issue
 
jet57 said:
No, it's another entry of logic that's keeping those things off the public market.
Click to expand...

It was that third grader "what if" kind of post.
 
Last edited:
NonoBadDog said:
Stun gun lawsuits claim bans violate constitutional right to bear arms

Stun gun lawsuits claim bans violate constitutional right to bear arms - Washington Times

I guess tasers look mean. Lethal defense, non lethal defense, doesn't matter. They just don't like the idea of a person defending themselves I guess.
Click to expand...

"But rapists could..."

That's the defense. Tasers are very easy to trace. Glad to see someone is dealing with this bull****. You should be allowed pepper spray, batons, dirks, tasers, stun guns and so on. Good for self defense. Bad for bad guys.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jet57 said:
No, that's not true. What would happen if a kid got a'hold of one and shot his 3 year old friend? What if the 70 year old, just thought that he or she was being threatened? It would also give armed robbers the same effect without the lethal after burn.

Too early, too many problems.
Click to expand...

So we should just let that 70 year old be robbed and have no means of self defense. They should sacrifice themselves. We should ban pools because what if. And we should ban the 4th and 5th amendments because if you aren't guilty you shouldn't have anything to hide. And we should ban guns because "what if."

Dude. Really?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
blackjack50 said:
So we should just let that 70 year old be robbed and have no means of self defense. They should sacrifice themselves. We should ban pools because what if. And we should ban the 4th and 5th amendments because if you aren't guilty you shouldn't have anything to hide. And we should ban guns because "what if."

Dude. Really?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Right; everybody should have guns so that they can return fire.

We got it.
 
NonoBadDog said:
It was that third grader "what if" kind of post.
Click to expand...

Uh, no... third graders just reach for whatever they can get their hands on without thinking.
 
jet57 said:
Right; everybody should have guns so that they can return fire.

We got it.
Click to expand...



Where did I say that? Please quote me. I want people to have the option. You want to get rid of rights and severely restrict them...based on what if. Not due process.

"Hey let's ban self defense in case a 3 year old hits another 3 year old."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jet57 said:
Uh, no... third graders just reach for whatever they can get their hands on without thinking.
Click to expand...

You don't know much about kids. Funny how I had access to guns in 3rd grade and never shot anyone. Weird. Almost like I was fully aware of how dangerous they were because I was taught by a responsible parent.

Omg. We better not force parents to teach their children responsibility. The democrat party could be in real jeopardy if that happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom