121–130 of 152 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the 18th century the phrase "Well Regulated" had a different meaning, for example a "well regulated clock". It's a misconception that it refers to regulation as we understand it in a modern sense.
If mememory serves me, everybody 16 (18?) and up was "the militia" by default.
"10 USC Ch. 12: THE MILITIA" https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/sub...
I don't have a lot to say about the functionality or specifications here, but I feel like there's a new conceptual issue raised by non-lethal, or notionally non-lethal weapons. Constitutional arguments are about the right to self-defense. That's not necessarily the same as killing someone, and you don't necessarily have a right to killing in and of itself, but only as a means to an end for self-defense. I suppose it…
I don't have a lot to say about the functionality or specifications here, but I feel like there's a new conceptual issue raised by non-lethal, or notionally non-lethal weapons. Constitutional arguments are about the right to self-defense. That's not necessarily the same as killing someone, and you don't necessarily have a right to killing in and of itself, but only as a means to an end for self-defense. I suppose it…
Are the constitutional arguments about self defense? I've heard a few times that they're about rebelling against a corrupt government.
That's a relatively modern myth. The intent of 2nd Amendment is primarily the defense of the State. This is clear from the text itself and from other writings of the framers.
In fact, in the Pennsylvania Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, Americans tried to use their firearms in just this way; to resist what they considered to be a tyrannical tax and imposition on their way of life. Washington called up the militia and put down the rebellion with overwhelming support of Congress, which contained many of the original framers.
The leaders of the rebellion were tried and found guilty of treason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is definitely an interesting line of thought worth exploring, but I do take issue your central point: There is no such thing as a non-lethal weapon, and even good less lethal weapons struggle to effectively stop determined assailants. A human truly determined to inflict harm on someone is astoundingly difficult to stop. The starkest examples I've come across are two officer-involved shootings: First was in Orego…
> people getting head injuries when getting zapped is pretty common This scares the shit out of me, more than getting shot by a cop. Cops use tasers a lot more freely than guns, very frequently using them when there is no plausible threat to themselves or anybody else. They're allowed to get away with it because tasers are "less lethal." All it takes is one bad fall to turn you into a brain scrambled imbecile who can…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is definitely an interesting line of thought worth exploring, but I do take issue your central point: There is no such thing as a non-lethal weapon, and even good less lethal weapons struggle to effectively stop determined assailants. A human truly determined to inflict harm on someone is astoundingly difficult to stop. The starkest examples I've come across are two officer-involved shootings: First was in Orego…
> no such thing as a non-lethal weapon The jargon du jour is "less lethal" for this reason. And since every weapon from a stick to a stun gun is possibly lethal, your adversary can claim "self defense" when he shoots you dead with an actual firearm. I would be afraid to carry only "less lethal" weapons because they can get you killed faster than being completely unarmed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> people getting head injuries when getting zapped is pretty common This scares the shit out of me, more than getting shot by a cop. Cops use tasers a lot more freely than guns, very frequently using them when there is no plausible threat to themselves or anybody else. They're allowed to get away with it because tasers are "less lethal." All it takes is one bad fall to turn you into a brain scrambled imbecile who can…
This is why I’m kind of surprised to see the use of stunners (taser with out the gun part, and usually with longer, usually spring loaded for safety, electrical contacts, yea you have to be closer. But you also are now in range to ensure the delivery of the electric shock and to grab them in order to ensure they don’t hurt themselves when they collapse. Walk in arms up doing the de-escalation stuff and then if shit h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is why I’m kind of surprised to see the use of stunners (taser with out the gun part, and usually with longer, usually spring loaded for safety, electrical contacts, yea you have to be closer. But you also are now in range to ensure the delivery of the electric shock and to grab them in order to ensure they don’t hurt themselves when they collapse. Walk in arms up doing the de-escalation stuff and then if shit h…
Stun guns are pain compliance weapons and won't incapacitate like a Taser will. They do have their place, and like you said give you more control over placement, but can be completely useless against people that don't care about pain because of adrenaline or drugs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stun guns are pain compliance weapons and won't incapacitate like a Taser will. They do have their place, and like you said give you more control over placement, but can be completely useless against people that don't care about pain because of adrenaline or drugs.
Oh your right about adrenaline and drugs changing the effectiveness, but I could have sworn they made stun guns that were designed to function as takedown devices exactly how tasers are.