Webleymkv, post #38
While non-lethal weapons can cause death, I think it is safe to assume that it is the exception, not the norm. I think you will agree that your chances of surviving being "tasered" is so much infinitely greater than surviving being shot, that the comparison doesn't exist.
I think we can also both agree that tasers and guns each share drawbacks. In reading the caliber "wars" here I have read of many times where assailants survived multiple gunshots. Here is a study that places a tasers stop efficiency at 85% (
http://www.google.com/url?url=http:/...P2hT7Ydwc0VauA), which is according to my limited research is better than a handguns stop ratio. If you have facts that refute this in any way please share.
I agree with you that eliminating guns does nothing to address the underlying cause of violence. However, comparing cities with high population densities fails to acknowledge the fact that the more people you have living in close proximity to each other the greater the crime rate and violence, regardless of gun legislation either way. I believe there is a term for the "crime/population effect but it escapes me at the moment..
Nathan post #39,
Quote:
|
This is where this gets funny. You set the trap and some have fallen in. I don't need a reason to own guns I have a constitutional right.
|
I would counter that the constitution is a "living" document and the 2nd Amendment's meaning has changed over the years and will continue to do so.
As for ladders, bathtubs, cars, etc., It's about utility versus risk. High utility, acceptable risk = ladder. Low utility, high risk = cocaine. For guns I'm honestly still debating the utility versus risk in light of non-lethal options. Which is why I'm here and glad that you are sharing your opinions with me.
As for the tyranny question, I'll answer that in a later post.. I see some new posts that might change my position on that..
Dwight55 post #40,
I do not want to be a victim either. For answers to your questions, please see post #62.