Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,063
1,883
Punta Gorda FL
As to the killing efficiency of that tiny subset of civilians who commit mass murder, they're the very last people likely to be affected by any effort to reduce the effectiveness of the militia.
Pretty sure that's debatable.  
Well, OK. My position is that past and ongoing confiscation programs have an abysmally low compliance rate. Past and ongoing prohibition programs have failed to solve the targeted problem and have instead exacerbated it and caused other problems. So they work on almost no one. Things that work on almost no one are least likely to work on those most motivated to overcome them. The sliver of nutjobs whose actions you want to rule us all are those "most motivated" people. Prohibition programs affect them not at all.

Now tell me why you think prohibition programs are effective, especially against those most motivated to circumvent them?

 

Marty Gingras

Mid-range Anarchist
My position is that past and ongoing confiscation programs have an abysmally low compliance rate.

...

Now tell me why you think prohibition programs are effective, especially against those most motivated to circumvent them?
Well shoot (pun intended), you have yet to answer my latest question --- though I have repeated it a few times and it's sort of the key question in all of this --- yet you have posed several others during the same period.  

Do you think we should go about reducing the killing efficiency of civilians who use guns to illegally kill others?

EDIT:  I'll address your strawman in due time, even if you don't answer my question timely.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,063
1,883
Punta Gorda FL
The sliver of nutjobs whose actions you want to rule us all are those "most motivated" people. Prohibition programs affect them not at all.
Well shoot (pun intended), you have yet to answer my latest question --- though I have repeated it a few times and it's sort of the key question in all of this --- yet you have posed several others during the same period.  

Do you think we should go about reducing the killing efficiency of civilians who use guns to illegally kill others?

EDIT:  I'll address your strawman in due time, even if you don't answer my question timely.
You mean the ones I just said are not at all affected by dangerously stupid prohibition programs?

Again, whatever ban/confiscation program you dream up will not affect them at all but will have dangerous side effects, just like all our stupid prohibition programs.

With those things in mind, take a wild guess as to whether I think they're a good idea.

 

Marty Gingras

Mid-range Anarchist
Do you think we should go about reducing the killing efficiency of civilians who use guns to illegally kill others?


You mean the ones I just said are not at all affected by dangerously stupid prohibition programs?

Again, whatever ban/confiscation program you dream up will not affect them at all but will have dangerous side effects, just like all our stupid prohibition programs.

With those things in mind, take a wild guess as to whether I think they're a good idea.
When you don't answer questions posted multiple times even w/polite reminders, you come across to some as unserious and to some as frightened.  Are you unable to answer or are you unwilling?

I do. Capital punishment stops recidivism 100% of the time. 
I suppose recidivism is one measure of efficiency, such that capital punishment would sometimes reduce efficiency.  Probably reducing pretty much only the number of other-than-mass murders, unless of course you are proposing capital punishment for more than stuff like violent crime.  Clarify? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Blue Crab

benthivore
16,184
2,603
Outer Banks
Clarify? 
Both above my pay grade and below depth of the average rabbit hole. I was just trying to answer the question posed:  

  23 hours ago, Marty Gingras said:
Do you think we should go about reducing the killing efficiency of civilians who use guns to illegally kill others?
I'm 100% behind reducing killing efficiency of civilians who gun down others. Plus, as far as I know, civilians cannot kill others legally. A rephraziology may be in order. 

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
62,288
5,494
De Nile
Well, OK. My position is that past and ongoing confiscation programs have an abysmally low compliance rate. Past and ongoing prohibition programs have failed to solve the targeted problem and have instead exacerbated it and caused other problems. So they work on almost no one. Things that work on almost no one are least likely to work on those most motivated to overcome them. The sliver of nutjobs whose actions you want to rule us all are those "most motivated" people. Prohibition programs affect them not at all.

Now tell me why you think prohibition programs are effective, especially against those most motivated to circumvent them?
The old “US is special” trope. Bunch of hogwash.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,063
1,883
Punta Gorda FL
You mean the ones I just said are not at all affected by dangerously stupid prohibition programs?

Again, whatever ban/confiscation program you dream up will not affect them at all but will have dangerous side effects, just like all our stupid prohibition programs.

With those things in mind, take a wild guess as to whether I think they're a good idea.
When you don't answer questions posted multiple times even w/polite reminders, you come across to some as unserious and to some as frightened.  Are you unable to answer or are you unwilling?
I was hoping you'd take that wild guess.

Don't want to spoil it for you. Go ahead and guess whether I want another stupid, ineffective, and dangerous prohibition program. I've tried to offer a few hints over the years so it can't be all that hard to guess.

 

Marty Gingras

Mid-range Anarchist
I was hoping you'd take that wild guess.

Don't want to spoil it for you. Go ahead and guess whether I want another stupid, ineffective, and dangerous prohibition program. I've tried to offer a few hints over the years so it can't be all that hard to guess.
Nope.  I've only been here several months and I haven't been paying attention to you, but read an entire long-term thread from start to finish and got enough of a flavor.  Not going to read more of your old stuff. 

It's clear you don't want a prohibition program, you don't want to tweak the 2nd Amendment, you are biased against prohibition programs, and now --- because you haven't said otherwise --- you do not think we should go about reducing the killing efficiency of civilians who use guns to illegally kill others. 

I thought maybe you would say something useful, like others have here (e.g., hardening schools and such; body armor for all; etc.).  Instead, you are playing weak word games.

Word games are fine, but if you've got some great idea don't rely on hints eh.

 

Ishmael

52,401
12,225
Fuctifino
Nope.  I've only been here several months and I haven't been paying attention to you, but read an entire long-term thread from start to finish and got enough of a flavor.  Not going to read more of your old stuff. 

It's clear you don't want a prohibition program, you don't want to tweak the 2nd Amendment, you are biased against prohibition programs, and now --- because you haven't said otherwise --- you do not think we should go about reducing the killing efficiency of civilians who use guns to illegally kill others. 

I thought maybe you would say something useful, like others have here (e.g., hardening schools and such; body armor for all; etc.).  Instead, you are playing weak word games.

Word games are fine, but if you've got some great idea don't rely on hints eh.
Good luck with that.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,063
1,883
Punta Gorda FL
It's clear you don't want a prohibition program, you don't want to tweak the 2nd Amendment, you are biased against prohibition programs, and now --- because you haven't said otherwise --- you do not think we should go about reducing the killing efficiency of civilians who use guns to illegally kill others. 
Congrats, you figured it out.

I thought maybe you would say something useful, like others have here (e.g., hardening schools and such; body armor for all; etc.).  Instead, you are playing weak word games.
Heh. Making venues responsible for those few deranged nutjobs is consistent with the general gungrabby theme of making peaceful people responsible for the actions of violent criminals but I wouldn't call it useful. I'd call it idiotic overreaction. If you really think you need body armor all the time, it would probably be a good idea to arm yourself against the threat too. But the same people who want that won't say so, so they don't really have that fear and just want to impose another burden because they hate gun ownership. Mostly, because TeamD.

You asked for my thoughts on how the second amendment relates and I told you that reducing the efficacy of the militia isn't consistent with keeping it. If you want to reduce the efficacy of the militia, repeal the amendment.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Marty Gingras

Mid-range Anarchist
Congrats, you figured it out.

Heh. Making venues responsible for those few deranged nutjobs is consistent with the general gungrabby theme of making peaceful people responsible for the actions of violent criminals but I wouldn't call it useful. I'd call it idiotic overreaction. If you really think you need body armor all the time, it would probably be a good idea to arm yourself against the threat too. But the same people who want that won't say so, so they don't really have that fear and just want to impose another burden because they hate gun ownership. Mostly, because TeamD.

You asked for my thoughts on how the second amendment relates and I told you that reducing the efficacy of the militia isn't consistent with keeping it. If you want to reduce the efficacy of the militia, repeal the amendment.
OK.  Got ya.  Unavoidable collateral damage for those unable or unwilling to arm up.  Cost:benefit.  Some day I'll ask you for some evidence --- or barring that, a plausible hypothetical --- of the militia's value.

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
62,288
5,494
De Nile
Nope.  I've only been here several months and I haven't been paying attention to you, but read an entire long-term thread from start to finish and got enough of a flavor.  Not going to read more of your old stuff. 

It's clear you don't want a prohibition program, you don't want to tweak the 2nd Amendment, you are biased against prohibition programs, and now --- because you haven't said otherwise --- you do not think we should go about reducing the killing efficiency of civilians who use guns to illegally kill others. 

I thought maybe you would say something useful, like others have here (e.g., hardening schools and such; body armor for all; etc.).  Instead, you are playing weak word games.

Word games are fine, but if you've got some great idea don't rely on hints eh.
Poor old Tom. Another poster has figured him out. Tom’s ok when he talks about small boats though. 

 

Latest posts




Top