ORLY?ZombieVampire! wrote:
It doesn't kill the person.
I'm pretty sure shooting someone with a handgun results in more deaths per incident, than shooting them with a tazer.
I wasn't talking about a taser.
Are we talking about same person who shows no respect toward societal values, norms or laws? The same person who seeks to steal, murder or rape?ZombieVampire! wrote:
It doesn't kill the person.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Give me one good substantial reason I should use a stun gun over a firearm.ZombieVampire! wrote:
They were ruling on firearms, not on whether you ought choose to use a guaranteed effective stun weapon if you had such a weapon, which is what you say you wouldn't use.
Then what did you mean by "stun gun"?ZombieVampire! wrote:
I wasn't talking about a taser.
No doubt. But it's not like a "stun gun" (ie, Taser) is non-lethal.FatherTed wrote:
I'm pretty sure shooting someone with a handgun results in more deaths per incident, than shooting them with a tazer.
Like the murder you're committing when you kill them?DBBrinson1 wrote:
Are we talking about same person who shows no respect toward societal values, norms or laws? The same person who seeks to steal, murder or rape?ZombieVampire! wrote:
It doesn't kill the person.DBBrinson1 wrote:
Give me one good substantial reason I should use a stun gun over a firearm.ZombieVampire! wrote:
They were ruling on firearms, not on whether you ought choose to use a guaranteed effective stun weapon if you had such a weapon, which is what you say you wouldn't use.
A hypothetical stun gun that always worked, was always non-lethal, and always kept them out until the police arrived. As compared to a death ray that always worked, and always killed.FEOS wrote:
Then what did you mean by "stun gun"?ZombieVampire! wrote:
I wasn't talking about a taser.
Because a surviving criminal that broke into a house would sue for his pain and suffering and mental anguish?FatherTed wrote:
Here's a question, why don't you have tazers to defend your house with? IIRC people simply can't withstand the shock from one, and theres only a tiny chance you'll actually kill the fuck.
Tell him it could have been worse, he could have been dead?lowing wrote:
Because a surviving criminal that broke into a house would sue for his pain and suffering and mental anguish?FatherTed wrote:
Here's a question, why don't you have tazers to defend your house with? IIRC people simply can't withstand the shock from one, and theres only a tiny chance you'll actually kill the fuck.
Oh yeah, you could walk away with millions from suing a low life, ain't got shit, burglarFatherTed wrote:
And then you can also sue the shit out of him.
Yeah I am sure his ACLU lawyer would tell him that.FatherTed wrote:
Tell him it could have been worse, he could have been dead?lowing wrote:
Because a surviving criminal that broke into a house would sue for his pain and suffering and mental anguish?FatherTed wrote:
Here's a question, why don't you have tazers to defend your house with? IIRC people simply can't withstand the shock from one, and theres only a tiny chance you'll actually kill the fuck.
Could be the junkie son of someone rich?lowing wrote:
Oh yeah, you could walk away with millions from suing a low life, ain't got shit, burglarFatherTed wrote:
And then you can also sue the shit out of him.
Now there is a great point as to why not use those thingsFatherTed wrote:
Could be the junkie son of someone rich?lowing wrote:
Oh yeah, you could walk away with millions from suing a low life, ain't got shit, burglarFatherTed wrote:
And then you can also sue the shit out of him.
Actually, tasers wouldn't be good for the average shot i imagine, not as if you can keep on firing if you miss.
Someone needs to make something like that.lowing wrote:
Now there is a great point as to why not use those thingsFatherTed wrote:
Could be the junkie son of someone rich?lowing wrote:
Oh yeah, you could walk away with millions from suing a low life, ain't got shit, burglar
Actually, tasers wouldn't be good for the average shot i imagine, not as if you can keep on firing if you miss.
I think a shotgun is a great sudstitute if you d onot own 16 tasersFatherTed wrote:
Someone needs to make something like that.lowing wrote:
Now there is a great point as to why not use those thingsFatherTed wrote:
Could be the junkie son of someone rich?
Actually, tasers wouldn't be good for the average shot i imagine, not as if you can keep on firing if you miss.
Or you could buy like 16 or so.
THtttpt. The law states it isn't murder, it's self defense. Why do you defend felons?ZombieVampire! wrote:
Like the murder you're committing when you kill them?DBBrinson1 wrote:
Are we talking about same person who shows no respect toward societal values, norms or laws? The same person who seeks to steal, murder or rape?ZombieVampire! wrote:
It doesn't kill the person.
Only if lethal force is reasonable. Further, the legal definition of murder is just that: the legal definition. Not the only definition.DBBrinson1 wrote:
THtttpt. The law states it isn't murder, it's self defense.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Like the murder you're committing when you kill them?DBBrinson1 wrote:
Are we talking about same person who shows no respect toward societal values, norms or laws? The same person who seeks to steal, murder or rape?
Why shouldn't I?DBBrinson1 wrote:
Why do you defend felons?
...yes, but then they would be free to SUE you.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
15 pages in before my first response... awesome.
After the 911 phone call I'm a little surprised he got off with nothing. Not that I care.
I'd have shot them in the legs given the choice of them getting away or me shooting them. They might die, but hopefully they'd have to live the rest of their lives with fucked up legs.