Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tasers for the Public?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ftlaudcop
    replied
    don't think your country will ever have un-wanted hordes of
    invaders, the u.s.a due to it's climate and fertil lands
    would be a target if their was a real enemy invasion,
    thus the citizenry has to be ready to be mobilized in case
    of civil disturbance " DEPUTIZED " by the local Sheriff.
    canada's answer is " let them eat cake' and let them get
    fat, thus they won't bitch about high tax's or other social ill's.

    www.schackdaddy.com

    Leave a comment:


  • Finch
    replied
    Originally posted by scanner
    And the real question: what in the world makes you believe that only you should have a gun ?
    The US has proven that when you allow people to have guns, thousands and thousands of people will die each year because of it.

    I should have one because I'm a police officer.

    Leave a comment:


  • scanner
    replied
    Originally posted by Finch
    I've said it before and I'll say it again; the only people who should have firearms are military and police.

    Too bad for the rest.
    And this statement will bring you a promotion, tax break and a platnium membership card of the Lieberal Party of Canada.

    And the real question: what in the world makes you believe that only you should have a gun ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Welpe
    replied
    Originally posted by Finch
    And we can defend ourselves just fine.
    So how is that possible if a citizen can't have a handgun and there isn't a police officer around? Use a baseball bat?

    Leave a comment:


  • Finch
    replied
    Originally posted by Puget Sound
    But here is the problem with you anti's...
    Relax. It's just an opinion.

    YOU ALL BELIEVE PEOPLE CAN'T THINK FOR THEMSELVES!
    Where did I say that?

    hell if they threaten MY damn DOG...I am going to shoot until the magazine is empty.
    Hence why people shouldn't have firearms.

    Also, should cops shoot all B&E suspects? And let's say they don't, but the suspect is convicted of B&E, should they get the death penalty? The fact that you would kill a human being who threatens your dog is scary.

    Criminals have NO right to steal my property or harm me or my family.
    I agree.

    But thankfully I live in a FREE NATION, unlike Canada, and I have the SACRED RIGHT to defend my loved ones, myself, and my property!
    Canada is a free nation. And we can defend ourselves just fine. We just have to have more grounds than some guy threatening our dog.

    Leave a comment:


  • Puget Sound
    replied
    Originally posted by Finch
    Morally maybe, but ultimately, (untrained) citizens shouldn't be deciding when to shoot someone. There are the obvious cases where everyone knows to shoot someone (someone knifing someone else etc.), but when it comes down to split second decisions, it takes a highly trained individual to use a firearm properly (under the law).
    Y'know what...

    That statement just stopped me dead in my tracks. I was reading, reading, reading and then BAM! I had to reply to this. I read no further than that, so forgive me if someone has already said this:

    But here is the problem with you anti's...

    YOU ALL BELIEVE PEOPLE CAN'T THINK FOR THEMSELVES!

    It shouldn't be up to me when to shoot someone?! EXCUSE ME?! If someone comes into MY house, threatens MY life, MY family, hell if they threaten MY damn DOG...I am going to shoot until the magazine is empty.

    Criminals have NO right to steal my property or harm me or my family. But thankfully I live in a FREE NATION, unlike Canada, and I have the SACRED RIGHT to defend my loved ones, myself, and my property!

    And to the American Anti's: This nation was founded on the right to possess firearms. The right to keep and bear arms may be the SECOND Amendment, but it is truly America's FIRST FREEDOM. And anyone who seeks to threaten that right is not an American in my eyes.

    Sorry, you struck a nerve.

    Leave a comment:


  • zap
    replied
    Originally posted by lt93lover
    My guy's a veteran Sheriff's Office employee and his concern is the public's ability to obtain and use a taser on a LEO. Training won't matter, anyone can point and shoot...Subdue a cop, then get his weapon, kinda scary to imagine...
    He is getting ready to undergo Taser Qualification. I was naive enough to not realize the general public could have access to Tasers. Course, they seem to be able to get anything else they want, so guess I shouldn't be surprised....
    Y'all be safe and happy....

    Well, if you are going to get shot with SOMETHING....it is much better to be shot with a $1000 taser than a $40 .38 I just think the economics of the thing will deter bad guys from having them, which automatically reduces the chance of a LEO being on the receiving end of one.

    ....but the rule STILL applies....you point it at a LEO....you get shot with a REAL gun.

    Leave a comment:


  • Norm357
    replied
    Originally posted by lt93lover
    My guy's a veteran Sheriff's Office employee and his concern is the public's ability to obtain and use a taser on a LEO. Training won't matter, anyone can point and shoot...Subdue a cop, then get his weapon, kinda scary to imagine...
    He is getting ready to undergo Taser Qualification. I was naive enough to not realize the general public could have access to Tasers. Course, they seem to be able to get anything else they want, so guess I shouldn't be surprised....
    Y'all be safe and happy....
    Seeing as your profile says your in Texas(God Bless Texas ) this is a ridiculous post. Any law abiding Texan(God Bless Texas ) can buy a firearm and get a CCW. So why would you worry about a Tazer?

    Norm357 who hopes to live in Texas(God Bless Texas ) one day.

    Leave a comment:


  • lt93lover
    replied
    My guy's a veteran Sheriff's Office employee and his concern is the public's ability to obtain and use a taser on a LEO. Training won't matter, anyone can point and shoot...Subdue a cop, then get his weapon, kinda scary to imagine...
    He is getting ready to undergo Taser Qualification. I was naive enough to not realize the general public could have access to Tasers. Course, they seem to be able to get anything else they want, so guess I shouldn't be surprised....
    Y'all be safe and happy....

    Leave a comment:


  • soontoberookie1
    replied
    Hummmmmmmm

    I guess he will not touch the wonderful states that ahve consealed carrie like the nice state of missouri where our goverment decided the people have a right do defend them selfs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Finch
    replied
    ...oh...and btw....I still have not had an answer to why a BG would give a rip about a law banning guns.
    For the same reason that he would give a rip about murdering/raping/dealing etc etc. By your logic, there's no sense in any laws simply because BG's don't give a rip.

    All I know is that in Canada, there isn't much gun related violence and the US has a ton. While guns can save lives, I think they create more harm than good. Moreover, while a law restricting them isn't the be all and end all, I think it would make a difference. I think the US is past the point of no return in that department really. The laws have been in place so long and there are just so many guns, it would be next to impossible to have an impact.

    Leave a comment:


  • zap
    replied
    Well, Finch....we do disagree. Not surprisingly so...but rather predictiably so. I never fail to be rather amused when the rabbit trail of my opponent always goes back to the root of "I disagree", or just restating the argument that was just blown to bits.

    We have proven as Norm says, that in states with common sense laws that allow RESPONSIBLE QUALIFIED citizens to not only own, but to carry and use firearms for defensive purposes, we do not all turn into cowboys...but the bad guys do start shaking in their boots and violent crime sharply drops.

    Australia thought the same thing...ban the guns. They did. Then they had to ban the swords cause the BGs started using those....last I heard...they were studying the need for large kitchen knives. How far down this slippery slope do you wish to go my friend before you can't come back? Ask the UK and Australia about their violent crime rate after the banning of guns. They took off like a jet.

    I still feel that the issue here really is that of freedom. Be it tasers, guns, or kitchen knives. Responsible adult citizens should be allowed to use the tools they see fit to use to defend themselves, their families, and their country.

    Unlike our liberals here...I do NOT think that the average citizen is too stupid to do things for themselves without being a menace to society.

    The problems you mentioned are symptoms of a societal issue...not one of guns, tasers or kitchen knives. No matter how you wrap it..that does not change.

    ...oh...and btw....I still have not had an answer to why a BG would give a rip about a law banning guns.



    I have enjoyed the discussion...it is nice to delve into this topic without name calling and rudeness.... Thank you for that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Norm357
    replied
    Finch said:
    Maybe I'm missing something, but gun-related violence in the US is so out of whack compared to most other countries.
    The answer to is so obvious that it is often missed. It is because we have more guns in the US than almost every other country. I notice that your (Canadas) billion dollar gun registry isnt quite working out the way it was planned either.

    The point that Zap was trying to make is that States that have loosened gun laws and put into place common sense concealed weapons laws for Citizens, all have had a sharp drop in violent crime. That fact tends to mess with our liberals heads.

    Leave a comment:


  • Finch
    replied
    Originally posted by zap
    With that permise, it just means we have a disproprtionate number of criminals. If they didn't use guns, they WOULD use something else. To me, that alone more than justifies the training and arming of QUALIFIED citizens
    Well, in this case, we should look at criminals per capita (ie. the total number of criminals in Canada / total population against the same thing in the US). I doubt there would be much difference per capita. Believe you me, we have our share of criminals.

    I have to strongly disagree with that. Without firearms, the world as we know it would not exist. It would not be a peachy place either.
    It's not a peachy place with them either.

    I won't go into the legitimate uses of firearms. You already know there are many of them. BTW...don't you carry a gun?
    As I've previously stated, military and police should be the only ones armed.

    Ok...let's try again. A criminal is someone by DEFINITION that does not obey or abide by laws. The question is why would a criminal, by definition, be hindered in any way by a law saying that he should not have a gun?
    While there are always exceptions, that law is working pretty well in Canada. (ie. the low amount of firearm violence compared with the US)

    Nope....wrong again. Keeping people safe IS the job of police, and to a lesser extent the responsibility of every citizen.
    Morally maybe, but ultimately, (untrained) citizens shouldn't be deciding when to shoot someone. There are the obvious cases where everyone knows to shoot someone (someone knifing someone else etc.), but when it comes down to split second decisions, it takes a highly trained individual to use a firearm properly (under the law).

    I just don't get why anti-gun people (what ever country they are in) always equate citizens and guns with "cowboy" and "shoot outs in the streets"!!
    I was using hyperbole, but I don't think it's that far from the truth.

    We have experience....it NEVER happens that way. Violent crime on the other hand does tend to sharply drop.
    Maybe I'm missing something, but gun-related violence in the US is so out of whack compared to most other countries.

    Same thing with the tasers. The chance of a problem with tasers in the hands of a "cowboy" are slim and none. I have had tasers available for about 3 years now. I am certain they have been available to the public long before that ...and we see NO problem with privately owned units.
    My opinion is that the less weapons in society the better. That's really my only comment on that.

    Are you saying that you refuse to answer robbery calls or theft calls...or neighborhood complaints like loud music at 3 am? I doubt it.
    Of course not. As a police officer, I know one of my roles is to enforce the laws/rights of the citizens. My point is that citizens should not have the right to own firearms to begin with.

    I see fighting for people's safety and freedom as justified also. However, I see the right to keep and bear arms in self defense of self, family, and country to be a symptom of the freedom that is justified fighting for.
    We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

    You said that you felt fighting for freedom and safety, as well as some rights, is justified. I agree. (I would not fight for you to have the right to burn the flag....but would for your right to say that you should be able to burn it...for instance)
    I don't think that right is worth fighting for either. But, if someone were to burn a flag, I could care less really. Their opinion of the country I live in doesn't alter mine.
    Last edited by Finch; 07-26-2005, 10:48 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • zap
    replied
    Originally posted by Finch
    I meant disproportionate in the sense that the US has 10 times the population Canada does, but 100 times the amount of violent crimes involving firearms.
    With that permise, it just means we have a disproprtionate number of criminals. If they didn't use guns, they WOULD use something else. To me, that alone more than justifies the training and arming of QUALIFIED citizens



    Originally posted by Finch
    Obviously, but cars serve a legitimate purpose in society, whereas firearms do not. The world would be a much better place if there were no firearms. The world would not be a better place if there were no cars.
    I have to strongly disagree with that. Without firearms, the world as we know it would not exist. It would not be a peachy place either. The biggest guy with the biggest club or spear would ALWAYS win. There can be no laws and no order unless the rest of us can enforce them.

    I won't go into the legitimate uses of firearms. You already know there are many of them. BTW...don't you carry a gun?


    Originally posted by Finch
    I'm not exactly sure what you're asking.


    Ok...let's try again. A criminal is someone by DEFINITION that does not obey or abide by laws. The question is why would a criminal, by definition, be hindered in any way by a law saying that he should not have a gun?

    My answer is that he would NOT be hindered in the least. It would simply make his 'job' easier. Here is an example. Say we have two grocery stores right next to one another. One has a prominently displayed NO WEAPONS sign on their door. The other has no sign, or one that says CCW WELCOME. Now, if you were a thug....in which parking lot would you look for a victim? The one that is guaranteed to have disarmed the honest people going in and coming out....or the one that would be like playing Russian roulette?



    Originally posted by Finch
    Keeping people safe and using firearms is the job of the police, not the citizens. I'm sure there are situations where a random person having a firearm could help a dismal situation, but I think regular joe playin' cowboy does more harm than good in the long run.
    Nope....wrong again. Keeping people safe IS the job of police, and to a lesser extent the responsibility of every citizen. Using or having firearms is a separate issue entirely, although often overlapping.

    I just don't get why anti-gun people (what ever country they are in) always equate citizens and guns with "cowboy" and "shoot outs in the streets"!!

    We have experience....it NEVER happens that way. Violent crime on the other hand does tend to sharply drop.

    Same thing with the tasers. The chance of a problem with tasers in the hands of a "cowboy" are slim and none. I have had tasers available for about 3 years now. I am certain they have been available to the public long before that ...and we see NO problem with privately owned units.



    Originally posted by Finch
    To protect life.
    Are you saying that you refuse to answer robbery calls or theft calls...or neighborhood complaints like loud music at 3 am? I doubt it.



    Originally posted by Finch
    Fighting for people's safety and freedom is justified, but fighting to be sure people can carry guns? I agree most rights are worth fighting for, but some aren't.
    I see fighting for people's safety and freedom as justified also. However, I see the right to keep and bear arms in self defense of self, family, and country to be a symptom of the freedom that is justified fighting for.



    Originally posted by Finch
    No disrespect taken. We hold different opinions and are having a discussion. Nothing wrong with that.
    Well said....likewise



    Now....we have gotten off on guns, but the issue for tasers I think is just the same. We are really talking about the freedom to protect yourself, your family, or others from harm if it is NECESSARY.

    You said that you felt fighting for freedom and safety, as well as some rights, is justified. I agree. (I would not fight for you to have the right to burn the flag....but would for your right to say that you should be able to burn it...for instance)

    I think the ability to defend yourself is a necessity in a truly free society. Lets face it, cops can't be everywhere at once. LE cannot stop crime. We can prevent crime we see...but not when it happens just before we pull up to the scene. Why should that person who was just victimized be so because of the notion that they can't be trusted to defent themselves without turning into a thug?

    That argument just does not make logical sense anyway you roll it over.
    Last edited by zap; 07-26-2005, 10:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 2375 users online. 180 members and 2195 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X