7 ms·

I don't have any interest in owning guns. Simply because I didn't grow up around them and I would prefer to not have to have the responsibility or risk involved

by qzcx 12y ago

I don't have any interest in owning guns. Simply because I didn't grow up around them and I would prefer to not have to have the responsibility or risk involved with owning one. However, I do have a bat in my home near my bed just in case. A taser sounds like an appealing option which is much less lethal than a handgun, but certainly gives me a better defense. I honestly don't understand the reasoning on this case.

15155 12y ago
> but certainly gives me a better defense Assuming you don't miss. A firearm is a much safer tool for personal self-defense, especially home-defense. Knives are highly dangerous to their (usually untrained) users, bats have the same issue: you're getting too close to the threat. Also, these mechanisms of self-defense are widely seen as heinous. If you stab someone, bash their head, even in self-defense: that's a heinous and inhumane way to defend yourself. Tasers have the limitation of a slow-moving (harder-to-aim) projectile that may-or-may not penetrate clothing (it certainly won't penetrate heavier leather, etc.). Assuming you don't miss (in which case you're not going to be able to fire again with the civilian-oriented tasers), you are praying that it's enough to actually stop the threat. What if there is more than one assailant?
- qzcx 12y ago
  Not saying I wouldn't still keep the bat. But honestly, I'm sort of a pacifist as far as guns are concerned. I don't see them being necessary for most people in a modern society. (Yeah, I understand the whole "we need them to defend us from a evil government or criminals" argument. I'm not looking to get into a debate about it.) Also, Using a bat is more heinous than a gun? What society are you from? Someone can be subdued but not killed with a bat, but a gun puts them down for good.
  - 15155 12y ago
    > Also, Using a bat is more heinous than a gun? What society are you from? Someone can be subdued but not killed with a bat, but a gun puts them down for good. I would rather stop the threat cleanly with a firearm. I'd also rather subject myself, my family to far less physical risk by not thinking I can macho it out with a baseball bat. Brain damage, broken limbs, missing teeth caused by a baseball bat are widely viewed as inhumane, regardless of the situation - self defense included. > I don't see them being necessary for most people in a modern society. You should share that view with the next police officer you see carrying a firearm. In the US, any will do. > What society are you from? I'm from the United States of America. US courts, even in the most self-defense averse areas tend to agree with this view.

by qzcx 12y ago

15155 12y ago

> but certainly gives me a better defense Assuming you don't miss. A firearm is a much safer tool for personal self-defense, especially home-defense. Knives are highly dangerous to their (usually untrained) users, bats have the same issue: you're getting too close to the threat. Also, these mechanisms of self-defense are widely seen as heinous. If you stab someone, bash their head, even in self-defense: that's a heinous and inhumane way to defend yourself. Tasers have the limitation of a slow-moving (harder-to-aim) projectile that may-or-may not penetrate clothing (it certainly won't penetrate heavier leather, etc.). Assuming you don't miss (in which case you're not going to be able to fire again with the civilian-oriented tasers), you are praying that it's enough to actually stop the threat. What if there is more than one assailant?

qzcx 12y ago
Not saying I wouldn't still keep the bat. But honestly, I'm sort of a pacifist as far as guns are concerned. I don't see them being necessary for most people in a modern society. (Yeah, I understand the whole "we need them to defend us from a evil government or criminals" argument. I'm not looking to get into a debate about it.) Also, Using a bat is more heinous than a gun? What society are you from? Someone can be subdued but not killed with a bat, but a gun puts them down for good.
- 15155 12y ago
  > Also, Using a bat is more heinous than a gun? What society are you from? Someone can be subdued but not killed with a bat, but a gun puts them down for good. I would rather stop the threat cleanly with a firearm. I'd also rather subject myself, my family to far less physical risk by not thinking I can macho it out with a baseball bat. Brain damage, broken limbs, missing teeth caused by a baseball bat are widely viewed as inhumane, regardless of the situation - self defense included. > I don't see them being necessary for most people in a modern society. You should share that view with the next police officer you see carrying a firearm. In the US, any will do. > What society are you from? I'm from the United States of America. US courts, even in the most self-defense averse areas tend to agree with this view.