Stun Guns: Dangerous and Unusual?

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
The author of the Slate article in the topic link called the prosecution "inexplicable" and the behavior of government "idiotic" in this case.

It gets a lot easier to explain if you recognize the animus against self-defense that exists among American hoplophobes.
There is no such animus. You are equating self defense to being armed.

ALL unarmed people have multiple self defense mechanisms available.

Any animus is directed against lethal tools. And battlefield tools.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
So clueless, yet so funny. Almost, but not quite, at a Rimas level.
You are quite superior, a ghost with a clue but without much detail. Rattle off all the recent Libertarian gun victories. Right here. Toss in an update for your major ruling in the Marianas Islands. Contrast your unprovided (but superior) list with these eight specific, and major, defeats below.

Larry Pratt is getting his wings clipped in the courts.

Kolbe vs Hogan 3/2017: AW's Not a Constitutional Right

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Publish

the adventures of tom ray's elk:

   WHOOPS, My Recent Court Failures    by Alan Gura

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=152016&p=5434073


Joyce in her prime.JPG

 
Last edited by a moderator:

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
He still doesn't understand that .223 is a poodle shooter, and doesn't have much recoil, regardless of what gun it is shot from...
One such "poodle shooter" shot a congressman from LA, left him crawling for the safety of the open outfield. The poodle shooter shot into his human hip.  FOUR OPERATIONS so far, Greeves, two related to infection. However small the projectile, however adamant the technical white noise, those AW wounds are over the top.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Greever

Super Anarchist
4,091
106
Rockford, MI
It wasn't a .223, the shooter used an SKS which shoots 7.62x39 and doesn't even have a detachable magazine. It holds a whopping 10 rounds if I recall.

Try again Joe...

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
It wasn't a .223, the shooter used an SKS which shoots 7.62x39 and doesn't even have a detachable magazine. It holds a whopping 10 rounds if I recall.

Try again Joe...
Is Rep. Scalise a fan of this round? 

Ten of these rounds is some serious gun mayhem Greeves, then re-loading is momentary. The trajectories of both bullets support my position, according to Doctors.  Both rounds create medically complicated tissue damage. You offer no benefit when choosing between two evils. 

 

Greever

Super Anarchist
4,091
106
Rockford, MI
My point is that your average deer rifle is far more devastating than an AR-15, SKS, or AK-47.

Do you propose to eliminate hunting rifles like my bolt action .30-06? (It holds 4 rounds)

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,021
1,873
Punta Gorda FL
My point is that your average deer rifle is far more devastating than an AR-15, SKS, or AK-47.

Do you propose to eliminate hunting rifles like my bolt action .30-06? (It holds 4 rounds)
He thinks my wife's Ruger 10/22 is a "dangerous and unusual battlefield weapon" that should be banned, so take a wild guess. Lethality is the watch word. Is your gun more lethal than an ordinary .22? Then it should be banned along with ordinary .22's.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
He thinks my wife's Ruger 10/22 is a "dangerous and unusual battlefield weapon" that should be banned, so take a wild guess. Lethality is the watch word. Is your gun more lethal than an ordinary .22? Then it should be banned along with ordinary .22's.
In a leetle shop test, my .22 shot through three sheets of plywood and chipboard. The slug became trapped in a 3" wooden bulge.

Pooplius, does your wife's .22 not have a LCM? In the POV of the courts (not according to me, as such) your wife's gun places danger on society. Time to live with that.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
My point is that your average deer rifle is far more devastating than an AR-15, SKS, or AK-47.

Do you propose to eliminate hunting rifles like my bolt action .30-06? (It holds 4 rounds)
We've been good buddies so long, Greeves, why prolong this tacky argument? Let's let Scalise make the decision

Dear Mr. Scalise, yould you rather be shot by

  1. --the NATO .223 from a 30 round magazine
  2. --the 7.62 from a 10 round magazine
  3. --the 30.06 with four round magazine
  4. --none of the above.
 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
62,021
1,873
Punta Gorda FL
How about your gun Joe?

Would he, or anyone else want to get shot by a .22 long rifle?
Joe has gone on and on about the devastating power of a .22 that was used in a crime in his state. His assault weapon is as lethal as any other battlefield weapon.

(b) A  semiautomatic  pistol,  or  a  semiautomatic,  centerfire,  or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
Hi Pooplius. Your angst about .22's on our forums is now completing eight months. You offer us Libertarianism, adolescence and vapor. You won't stand behind the Libertarian history, or even acknowledge it.

I suggest that your philosophy is a bill of goods, like your researcher, John R. Lott. and your historian, Joyce Lee Malcolm. 

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,263
298
near Seattle, Wa
How about your gun Joe?

Would he, or anyone else want to get shot by a .22 long rifle?
Good one. Let Scalise choose between my plinker and these battlefield guns.

30.06 lost favoritism with the military because their large cartridges limited the size of the desired LCM's. The 30.06 is okay for those who don't need the suppressive fire which all law-abiding homeowners need.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

LB 15

Cunt
Sloop, the idea that the second amendment is the only one that should apply just to technology in existence at the time it was written was a ridiculous idea and I can't believe it made it all the way to the Supreme Court before being rejected unanimously.

It's still ridiculous. Spare me.
No it was written for the politics in existence at the time and it is a ridiculous idea that that has any relevance today.  

 

Fah Kiew Tu

Curmudgeon, First Rank
10,061
3,240
Tasmania, Australia
No it was written for the politics in existence at the time and it is a ridiculous idea that that has any relevance today.  
I quite like the idea of legal stun guns myself; I have a little list of people who could serve nicely as targets. Even better, a vehicle mounted one where you could shoot the dickhead in front of you and fry all the electronics in his car. Though technically that'd be a directed EMP gun I suppose.

FKT

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest posts




Top