Why is a fucking gun on the front page? Moderators also gave up on the site I guess.
E-Shotgun
81–90 of 152 posts
Re: E-Shotgun
#82Why is it called a shotgun? It shoots little discs, not shot.
Re: E-Shotgun
#83I 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…
It's also problematic for another reason: the intent of 2A was to enable citizens to force a regime change even when said regime is resistant to verbal criticism. Lethal means would be required to safeguard that.
> the intent of 2A was to enable citizens to force a regime change
No it was not and this is a common myth that is repeated by the 2A crowd. The primary intent of the 2A was to allow the individual states to field militias (the only land army available to the new nation who was still in conflict with its former rulers) without going broke. It was more about a fear of a standing army balanced against a fear of British invasion than it was a means for citizens to rebel against their own government.
Re: E-Shotgun
#84I 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…
> open up a lot of possibilities for regulating traditional firearms
I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I suspect this argument wont fly. From what I can see the only arms that are prohibited are ones that don't have a legal use (ie sawnoff shotguns)
I don't think one can technology one's self out of cultural issue. Sure its an enabling technology, but so are stun guns and tasers. However that has not allowed the USA to create a somewhat more normal gun regulation regimen.
Re: E-Shotgun
#85> 3. Internet: it is combined with big data and it can be tracked during the whole process The site feels like satire. Some of the Q&A answers just make little sense. Also, they claim it's non-lethal. After the example videos, I cannot see how that is the case. It looks like it could easily shred through some stomach lining or nick an artery or completely blind someone.
Non-lethal means it is not going to cause death. Being blind in one eye is not going to make you stop living.
If you used this on any person it would be lethal force. The company declaring it not lethal is a joke and liability for them.
Re: E-Shotgun
#86I 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…
That's already how this works in some countries. If someone attacks you with a baseball bat or fists and you shoot them dead you might be sentenced for overstepping a reasonable self-defense. The same crime at gun-point and at knife-point carries much harsher punishment. This encourages reasonable (de)escalation instead of just going for 120% from the start. And saves lives.
End result is - even in countries with relatively easy access to guns for hobby - nobody carries them for self-defense (criminals included), because they don't expect to need them, and in case of a self-defense situation they are more likely to cause problems than to solve them.
Re: E-Shotgun
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans have bloodlust. Let's not chaffer in national stereotypes.
Humans have bloodlust, and many other urges. Societies decide whether to encourage these, or not.
Sure. While the US has a higher murder rate than most (say) European countries, its overall rate of violent crime is lower than many European countries. For example it has fewer police-recorded assaults than Britain, Israel, Germany, Finland, Chile, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Iceland, Australia, Portugal and France.
So, the explanation for the US' high murder rate is perhaps less likely to be "they encourage bloodlust" and more likely to be "they make it very easy to own guns".
https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/crime_stats_oecdjan...
Re: E-Shotgun
#88I 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…
> open up a lot of possibilities for regulating traditional firearms I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I suspect this argument wont fly. From what I can see the only arms that are prohibited are ones that don't have a legal use (ie sawnoff shotguns) I don't think one can technology one's self out of cultural issue. Sure its an enabling technology, but so are stun guns and tasers. However that has not allowed the…
> From what I can see the only arms that are prohibited are ones that don't have a legal use (ie sawnoff shotguns)
Not really, the sawnoff shotguns thing is an anachronism. The National Firearms Act (NFA) which restricted sawnoff shotguns (not completely banned) was originally intended to restrict all handguns, presumably because they're concealable and useful for crime. To make a handgun ban meaningful, it was going to also restrict short barrel shotguns and rifles. The handgun restrictions got dropped from the NFA for political reasons, but the short barrel shotgun and rifle restrictions remained.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Backgrou...
You can still acquire/manufacture a short barrel shotgun or rifle, but you have do paperwork for it and from what I've seen nobody really values short barrel shotguns enough for this to be common. However if you did do all the paperwork and made or bought one, then subsequently used it for self defense, that would be legal.
Also they're legal in Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawed-off_shotgun#Canada
Re: E-Shotgun
#89Why is a fucking gun on the front page? Moderators also gave up on the site I guess.
Tech
Re: E-Shotgun
#90I 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…
> open up a lot of possibilities for regulating traditional firearms I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I suspect this argument wont fly. From what I can see the only arms that are prohibited are ones that don't have a legal use (ie sawnoff shotguns) I don't think one can technology one's self out of cultural issue. Sure its an enabling technology, but so are stun guns and tasers. However that has not allowed the…
> I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I suspect this argument wont fly. From what I can see the only arms that are prohibited are ones that don't have a legal use (ie sawnoff shotguns)
A couple things I could unpack there but to keep it simple…
The most recent take by SCOTUS was 2008 Heller and 2010 McDonald that set up the language for guns that may be regulated as “dangerous and unusual”. The AND is very important. Dangerous is not to the target, they’re all dangerous to the target, but rather I read it as in hard to control or wider effecting or camouflaged or potentially harmful to the user. Unusual is easier to understand. A gun that might be dangerous and unusual is a 50BMG handgun or a machine gun or something generally not effective for defense of self/state or a cane gun. It’s hard to seriously rationalize that if gun control exists at all that an M240B LMG should have the same exact regulations as a Glock. We clearly have more use for the latter as a society, although there is vigorous debate that of varying reason.
The other is that sawed off shotguns are not illegal. The DOJ at one point did want to ban guns, and tried to ban all guns with barrels less than 18” knowing full well this would be all handguns. They failed but did come away with a consolation prize of barrel length limits for rifles and shotguns. 18” for shotguns and 16” for rifles basically for no reasons that make sense. You can saw a shotgun barrel down all you like up until you get to 18”, where 17.9” is an SBS, short barreled shotgun, and still not illegal but does require a $200 tax to be paid. Funny though, this only applies to “shotguns” which is a smooth bore gun with a stock. A “shotgun handgun” is not a shotgun, and also not a handgun, but rather a “firearm”. But only if it was made that way. You can have or saw down any shotgun barrel to any length so long as it doesn’t have and wasn’t made with a stock. This gun http://primusdatabase.com/images/d/d3/Sawed-Off_Shotgun.jpg is legal if the tape is covering a grip that hasn’t been modified, but illegal if it’s covering that someone sawed the stock off as well. You can buy a version of this gun with no stock and saw it down if you like. There is a world of stupid ATF NFA that you do not wish to know. https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1db1617798849b0d0a7d7b...
