Would you carry a gun?

[chuckskull]

It's a pain-compliance device. Just about the oldest and simplest to stop someone doing something, is to hurt them, that simple. Just like a truncheon, CS or hands and feet. Taser is the same principle mixed with modern technology to allow extra range. The absolute vast majority of people these weapons are used against by police wouldn't hesitate to kill or hurt a civilian or police officer to get away and the vast majority survive with the most minor of injuries.

They are LESS LETHAL not non lethal. In Britain for example they are a lot less lethal than a police marksman with an assault rifle(the alternative). I don't really see how the fact they can and sometimes do kill people is an argument against them. Any more than it is an argument against ASP's and fist's. Which every British copper carries and also kill people.

Don't want to get tased? Simple, do what the officer tells you, or y'know, don't break the law in the first place. In every western country I can think you'll get ample warning before one is used and multiple opportunities to surrender/comply.

It's a choice between a burst of 5.56 to the chest and certain death or 30 seconds of pain and a tiny chance of death.

It's not 'safe', it's safer. It's a stepping stone between non-lethal and shoot to kill in my mind. A sensible one to have at that.

Although I get the impression from some posters and from various other debates along similar lines in other places that many believe the police should be completely unarmed and more worried about sensitivity and diversity than being a robust force for dealing with the most dangerous and violent elements of society.

Is it torture? Well I've been tasered, it hurts like hell, yes, though not as much as some make out IMHO and as soon as the trigger is released the pain stops almost instantly, unlike CS or a physical blow, I think the fear and shock generated by the crackling of electricity and loss of motor control causes most of the screaming and thrashing. The pain itself can easily be fought through. It's the incapacitation of the muscles that actually stops you.

In my opinion it's not torture, it's not pleasant, no doubt about that but I think anyone who would call it torture either; hasn't been tasered, is being over-dramatic for their own benefit or has lead a very sheltered life up until the point they met the nice officer.

Given the choice of getting doused in CS, beaten with a stick or a taser, I'd take the taser.

[Saracen]

Very well put, chuckskull.

[ahmed87]

Nope. No need for them.

[razer121]

It's a pain-compliance device. Just about the oldest and simplest to stop someone doing something, is to hurt them, that simple. Just like a truncheon, CS or hands and feet. Taser is the same principle mixed with modern technology to allow extra range. The absolute vast majority of people these weapons are used against by police wouldn't hesitate to kill or hurt a civilian or police officer to get away and the vast majority survive with the most minor of injuries.

They are LESS LETHAL not non lethal. In Britain for example they are a lot less lethal than a police marksman with an assault rifle(the alternative). I don't really see how the fact they can and sometimes do kill people is an argument against them. Any more than it is an argument against ASP's and fist's. Which every British copper carries and also kill people.

Don't want to get tased? Simple, do what the officer tells you, or y'know, don't break the law in the first place. In every western country I can think you'll get ample warning before one is used and multiple opportunities to surrender/comply.

It's a choice between a burst of 5.56 to the chest and certain death or 30 seconds of pain and a tiny chance of death.

It's not 'safe', it's safer. It's a stepping stone between non-lethal and shoot to kill in my mind. A sensible one to have at that.

Although I get the impression from some posters and from various other debates along similar lines in other places that many believe the police should be completely unarmed and more worried about sensitivity and diversity than being a robust force for dealing with the most dangerous and violent elements of society.

Is it torture? Well I've been tasered, it hurts like hell, yes, though not as much as some make out IMHO and as soon as the trigger is released the pain stops almost instantly, unlike CS or a physical blow, I think the fear and shock generated by the crackling of electricity and loss of motor control causes most of the screaming and thrashing. The pain itself can easily be fought through. It's the incapacitation of the muscles that actually stops you.

In my opinion it's not torture, it's not pleasant, no doubt about that but I think anyone who would call it torture either; hasn't been tasered, is being over-dramatic for their own benefit or has lead a very sheltered life up until the point they met the nice officer.

Given the choice of getting doused in CS, beaten with a stick or a taser, I'd take the taser.

I agree with you here but,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyvrqcxNIFs

Ya see whats wrong there? lol abuse of power or what

[Alex C]

Probably not. I think I'd be more at risk walking around with a gun, than without. I think if everyone else was walking around with guns I'd move house!

[fuddam]

I grew up in a society where violence was pretty common. I've have a fair number of friends and family murdered, beaten, tortured. Illegal weapons were (and are rife) and it doesn't make for a pretty situation. Smuggled AK47s at one point cost about GBP1 (at the current exchange rate), and it was commonplace at uni to see someone with a small case like a woman's clutch purse, alongside the books/stationary etc.

Guns a good idea? Depends on the context. I never owned one (though have fired a fair few, esp automatic weapons fulla blanks - lol), nor did anyone in my immediate family.

Criminals will always find a way to arm themselves. Am I glad the UK doesn't endorse easy gun ownership? You betcha, but then there isn't that much need to protect oneself with them, here.

my 2c

[nlr]

I think everyone has a right of protection in their own homes but outside certainly not.

[TeePee]

I think everyone has a right of protection in their own homes but outside certainly not.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Saracen]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Well, it kinda does, if he means what I suspect he means.

What I take from it is that he means the steps you can take inside your own home are different from the steps you take outside it. In the context of the question in the thread title, it probably means that we should be allowed guns to defend ourselves in our own homes, but not allowed to carry them on the street. Of course, I could be reading it wrong.

[nlr]

lol I think everyone has the right to protect them selfs in their own home (with a gun) but outside I think it shouldn't be allowed.

[Saracen]

Seems I was right .... and a bit faster.

[nlr]

Seems I was right .... and a bit faster.

haha thanks for clearing that up

[TeePee]

I understand what he meant, it just doesn't make any sense. Why should you be able to protect yourself in your home but not out of it. What's the difference?

[Saracen]

Well, protect yourself with a gun in your own home, but not on the street.

I'd look at it on two ways. First, the risk to innocent third parties of using a gun to protect yourself in the street is higher than doing it in your own home. Also, a lot of people feel, right or wrong, that anyone breaking on to your home deserves whatever they get. So the argument goes that the right to defend yourself, or the extent of force you should be allowed to use, is higher in the home than it is on the street precisely because it's your home, and most people have no right at all to be there.

[kmufc77]

i wouldn't carry a gun,but if allowed i would certainly have one in my bedroom in case of being burgled

[JamesDS]

Living in the UK the thought has never occurred to me, but if I were living in a place where guns were common, I may feel the need to have one, if nothing else but to have it to threaten with should I be in a dangerous situation.

But to be honest, I don't know if I could use it. I think it'd be pretty cool to have a gun for hunting, but using it to shoot someone with is something I'm not sure I could bring myself to do. Of course I don't know what I'd be like in that situation as I've never been in one with a gun, so it's hard to know. I guess that's a very personal question that comes with owning a gun.