Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LordofHats wrote:
Setting the 3/5ths compromise aside as a case of the post-Colonial South wanting to have it's cake and eat it to, the document very clearly identifies a subset of people as 'the people' because Free people were the only ones prior to the Reconstruction Amendments (12th, 13th, and 14th) to whom the Constitution assured rights and protections.

Eh, that isn't strictly true. The Federal Government basically punted to the States, and most of them only allowed free, white, male, land owners to vote; because racism and misogyny. It wasn't until Incorporation that any Rights were assured.

 LordofHats wrote:

Arguably until Woman's Suffrage and the Civil Rights Act assured (at least as a matter of law) equality of all Americans in a general sense, 'the people' were only free white males.

Unless you were Mormon, or Jewish, or Irish, or Italian, or Polish, or insert quality which the US now accepts as "white" without hesitation.

 Breotan wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Still had a conservative court ignore what is actually written in the constitution.

Shall we derail this with how the same court ruled on Obamacare as a tax? Or would you rather just drop the bitter partisanship now?

Actually, it was more of a tongue in cheek comment as the conservatives rail against the Supreme Court when it doesn't agree with them and try to claim they aren't following the Constitution even if they are. However, Well Regulated is part of the Second Amendment, and a court with different justices could rule that that permitted more regulation of firearms than other rights in the Constitution. Especially if that regulation involved mandatory training (Which fits the meaning of 'Well Regulated'). I don't see the current court doing that though.

I'm also amused that the Republicans are aghast at any kind of regulation of firearms (Including mandatory training) but have no problems putting in all sorts of regulations about another protected right (Abortion).

People have asked me why I get involved in these threads, and I say it's because American history/politics is a hobby of mine. It's a very fascinating subject, plus the source material is in my own language, which is obviously a huge help when you read old documents.

It's worth pointing out as well, that the gun issue in American politics is a very big thing, and it generates a lot of emotion on both sides of the argument, which is why you need an outsider like myself, with no dog in the fight, to add some zen like calming influence

Sometime this year, I may start a thread on why I believe SCOTUS got it wrong over the Heller case, but that's for a later date.

But I will address the points people are making about the 2nd:


1) Militias were an effective 'police force' during the revolution to hold onto areas when the British troops left, and keep people in line, especially Tories, but they didn't win the revolution by themselves.

James Madison was a massive believer in militias, and was very suspicious of a standing army for obvious reasons.

And then came the war of 1812. President Madison rallies the militias...and then the British army marches through the Maryland militia and burns down Madison's house...

Needless to say, the militias fell out of fashion!

2) The right of the people to bear arms...

Well, if you read Madison's letters and see what he wanted to include in the 2nd amendment (something I believe SCOTUS failed to do in the Heller case) then you'll never look at the second amendment in the same way again. For the record, as a libertarian, I'm sympathetic to gun owners. I say this before anybody accuses me of being anti-gun ownership.

BUT,

If the 2nd was an individual right, then why did Madison want to include a pacifist clause to allow people to opt out of gun ownership? Quakers for example.

Logic tells you that if the 2nd were an individual right, you could exercise your right not to own a gun, but the inclusion of a pacifist clause says something else...

It tells me that the militias, and not the individuals, were the main focus of the 2nd...something which SCOTUS overlooked.

It has more to do with Madison wanting to allow Quakers to not be forced to gun up and move out when the Militia was called. At that point. Militia was pretty much every able bodied male. Forcing Quakers to be a part seemed to contradict the whole personal freedom thing.

The fact he wanted the clause really does do what you say, explicitly allowing someone to opt out does not take away the right from others. It was the 'forced into the militia' part rather than gun ownership (Quakers still owned guns and hunted, Madison did not want them to be forced to fight though).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We deal with that now by allowing conscientious objectors to avoid military service, but there is generally a pretty hard burden to prove you are a conscientious objector. That pacifist clause was about religious freedom, not gun ownership.

 Ouze wrote:
I'd agree that mandating firearm safety courses or similar as a prerequisite to firearm ownership is pretty clearly unconstitutional in the US.

There is always the option to add incentives;
http://fox59.com/2016/01/05/indiana-lawmakers-file-bills-to-make-guns-easier-to-buy-carry/

Lucas also introduced a bill that would allow people to carry on state property, including public universities, as well as a law that would give a $100 income tax credit to anyone who took a firearms safety course.

British army marches through the Maryland militia

To be fair, the British army at the time didn't enforce a huge empire because there were a lot of things they COULDN'T march through.

If the 2nd was an individual right, then why did Madison want to include a pacifist clause to allow people to opt out of gun ownership?

Because putting someone who is truly unwilling to fight, even at the expense of himself and those around him, in a gunline is a recipe for disaster. There are plenty of duties for this tiny group of people that don't involve shooting people while contributing to the war effort. No one wants to be next to that guy, and that guy doesn't want to be next to you. Your options at that point really are to shoot him yourself or give him the job of carrying water back and forth or something.

Well, if you read Madison's letters and see what he wanted to include in the 2nd amendment

Perhaps you'll enlighten us. He seems to think pretty clearly that the citizenry as a whole should be armed. Federalist 46 pretty blatantly states this as the justification for why a standing army wouldn't be a threat...because all the rednecks with rifles would leave said army hideously outnumbered.

It tells me that the militias, and not the individuals, were the main focus of the 2nd...something which SCOTUS overlooked.

Even were I to grant you the point, you do realize that the legal definition of who is in the militia is an enormous group of people, yes? Pretty much the exact same group that is buying all the guns right now? US Code 311 has the definition of who is in it, and yes, there are parts that talk about things other than the National/Coast Guards too.

<--Militia of one (currently)

I don't have to tell any American dakka member that they have the right to own guns.

I also don't have to tell them that they have the right NOT to own guns. That goes without saying.

James Madison was a pretty smart guy. If he felt the need to clarify this distinction, then it tells me that something else is going on with the 2nd.

IMO the militia/right to own guns relationship is like the chicken and the egg scenario. You can't have one without the other.

And for historical reasons that everybody knows, standing armies were seen as bad, and militia was front and centre when it came to the second amendment.

In my mind, the militia element of the second is a historical relic and should be removed from the second. That would clear up any confusion.

If we were to ask the founders about the 2nd, our questions would probably confuse them, and their answers would probably confuse us.

And for the record, again! I do sympathise with gun owners. If armed robbers broke into my house at 3am, your damn right I would want to be returning fire!





Automatically Appended Next Post:
If memory serves, I'm pretty sure that Pennsylvania was the only state that had a constitution that mentioned firearm ownership.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
<--Militia of one (currently)

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that militia is plural. You might want to re-word that

Ain't over yet...
Guns in America town hall with President Obama: Live updates

He made some whoppers that's going to bite him in the ass...

Especially this:

Obama tells a rape victim that a gun may not make her safer. pic.twitter.com/KGKxpnttEO

— Emily Miller (@EmilyMiller) January 8, 2016

 whembly wrote:
Ain't over yet...
Guns in America town hall with President Obama: Live updates

He made some whoppers that's going to bite him in the ass...

Especially this:

Obama tells a rape victim that a gun may not make her safer. pic.twitter.com/KGKxpnttEO

— Emily Miller (@EmilyMiller) January 8, 2016

He's not wrong. It won't.

The amount of time it would take to pull a gun out to stop a rapist or someone would be very slow. The twenty feet rule applies and makes guns obsolete and in most rape cases they are by people who the victim knows.

So no I don't think that was uncalled for. It won't make her safer, and it won't guarnette it. Pepper Spray, tasers, and other non-lethal items are far better to use than a gun. I am sorry gun peeps but I Do not think giving someone a gun is always the brightest of ideas.

 Asherian Command wrote:

He's not wrong. It won't.

The amount of time it would take to pull a gun out to stop a rapist or someone would be very slow. The twenty feet rule applies and makes guns obsolete and in most rape cases they are by people who the victim knows.

So no I don't think that was uncalled for. It won't make her safer, and it won't guarnette it. Pepper Spray, tasers, and other non-lethal items are far better to use than a gun. I am sorry gun peeps but I Do not think giving someone a gun is always the brightest of ideas.

I agree with you that he's not wrong. However, I think that he shouldn't have said it the way he did. As you said, the majority of rape cases, the victim knows the perpetrator. On top of that, you also have to consider the number of cases where alcohol and/or other drugs are involved.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Ain't over yet...
Guns in America town hall with President Obama: Live updates

He made some whoppers that's going to bite him in the ass...

Especially this:

Obama tells a rape victim that a gun may not make her safer. pic.twitter.com/KGKxpnttEO

— Emily Miller (@EmilyMiller) January 8, 2016

He's not wrong. It won't.

The amount of time it would take to pull a gun out to stop a rapist or someone would be very slow. The twenty feet rule applies and makes guns obsolete and in most rape cases they are by people who the victim knows.

So no I don't think that was uncalled for. It won't make her safer, and it won't guarnette it. Pepper Spray, tasers, and other non-lethal items are far better to use than a gun. I am sorry gun peeps but I Do not think giving someone a gun is always the brightest of ideas.

What's the difference between pulling out Pepper Spray, a taser, or a small pistol?

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Ain't over yet...
Guns in America town hall with President Obama: Live updates

He made some whoppers that's going to bite him in the ass...

Especially this:

Obama tells a rape victim that a gun may not make her safer. pic.twitter.com/KGKxpnttEO

— Emily Miller (@EmilyMiller) January 8, 2016

He's not wrong. It won't.

The amount of time it would take to pull a gun out to stop a rapist or someone would be very slow. The twenty feet rule applies and makes guns obsolete and in most rape cases they are by people who the victim knows.

So no I don't think that was uncalled for. It won't make her safer, and it won't guarnette it. Pepper Spray, tasers, and other non-lethal items are far better to use than a gun. I am sorry gun peeps but I Do not think giving someone a gun is always the brightest of ideas.

What's the difference between pulling out Pepper Spray, a taser, or a small pistol?

Would you rather A: Kill someone Or B: let them be completely blind and have the preprator be tracable and unable to move.

Nonlethal things are far more inexpensive far more easier to use.

Plus twenty feet rule, chances are they know the person which means alot. It would be harder for the person holding the gun to fire the weapon, I don't think a potential rape victim would like to remember how they flat out shot someone. Rape cases are already hard to defend as it is. So no I don't think it is reasonable to give everyone pistols, give them a taser and a pepper spray it will do the same job if not better than a lethal weapon.

I agree with you that he's not wrong. However, I think that he shouldn't have said it the way he did. As you said, the majority of rape cases, the victim knows the perpetrator. On top of that, you also have to consider the number of cases where alcohol and/or other drugs are involved.

Yep! Most of them if I remember correctly are used with substances and the 'date rape' drug.

But I do agree he shouldn't of said it is one of the reasons why I am quite adamant on saying "Guns won't help rape victims or potential rape victims."

IF everyone had access to guns, then rape would be a lot more common. (which it sorta is and is not.)

But considering how many politicians put their foots in their mouthes when talking about rape, I find it on the lesser side of terrible.

A.

Rapist caught in the act deserves no less.

@Asherion Command

You didn't answer my question, but I suppose it doesn't matter because there's not much difference in between pulling a pistol out of a purse/pocket than a can of mace.

If they're too close for a gun, or they already know them pepper spray or a taser aren't going to help either. Hosing someone down with pepper spray while they're on top of you isn't exactly the smartest idea either. As for a taser it will only work if they're already in striking range(as in already attacking), unless it's a taser pistol in which case a small revolver would still be more reliable and threatening.

 whembly wrote:
A.

Rapist caught in the act deserves no less.

I don't think they deserve to die, especially if they didn't commit it yet. I rather them face time than face death with no possiblity of changing and reform. Rapists are pretty bad but they don't deserve an execution.

If they're too close for a gun, or they already know them pepper spray or a taser aren't going to help either. Hosing someone down with pepper spray while they're on top of you isn't exactly the smartest idea either. As for a taser it will only work if they're already in striking range(as in already attacking), unless it's a taser pistol in which case a small revolver would still be more reliable and threatening.

Having been trained in close quarters fighting, a gun won't help you either. ITs better to blind someone than to have them avoid the shot, its fairly easy to disarm someone who is arms length away or even twenty feet away, Especially a moving target.

Threatening helps but at the same time so does a taser, or hell a knife. Pepper spray Or anything of the like to use for self defense can be intimdiating but most often it won't matter because most times it won't make a difference. Sometimes it could be a parent, a brother, or a friend. I think someone so easily turning a gun on someone they know and probably loved is alot harder a bit more difficult than many of you make it out to be. Plus the ages it would happen at would be college level so at campuses so the likelihood of someone bringing a gun to college IS VERY UNLIKELY

 Asherian Command wrote:

 whembly wrote:
A.

Rapist caught in the act deserves no less.

I don't think they deserve to die, especially if they didn't commit it yet. I rather them face time than face death with no possiblity of changing and reform. Rapists are pretty bad but they don't deserve an execution.

If they're too close for a gun, or they already know them pepper spray or a taser aren't going to help either. Hosing someone down with pepper spray while they're on top of you isn't exactly the smartest idea either. As for a taser it will only work if they're already in striking range(as in already attacking), unless it's a taser pistol in which case a small revolver would still be more reliable and threatening.

Having been trained in close quarters fighting, a gun won't help you either. ITs better to blind someone than to have them avoid the shot, its fairly easy to disarm someone who is arms length away or even twenty feet away, Especially a moving target.

Threatening helps but at the same time so does a taser, or hell a knife. Pepper spray Or anything of the like to use for self defense can be intimdiating but most often it won't matter because most times it won't make a difference. Sometimes it could be a parent, a brother, or a friend. I think someone so easily turning a gun on someone they know and probably loved is alot harder a bit more difficult than many of you make it out to be. Plus the ages it would happen at would be college level so at campuses so the likelihood of someone bringing a gun to college IS VERY UNLIKELY

I'd be very impressed if you could disarm a moving target from 20ft away.

Yes, on college campuses you can't bring a pistol, and pepper spray/taser is a very valid choice in those environments(although I believe there may be some campuses that don't allow those either). As far as threat level goes, a gun is the best you can do. A gun is not going to be a saving grace in every situation, and neither will a taser or spray. Especially while intoxicated or in an intimate setting with a well known friend/relative. On the other hand there are going to be situations where a gun would be far more preferable than either a taser or pepper spray, and restricting yourself to dealing without is not a wise move in my opinion.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Ain't over yet...
Guns in America town hall with President Obama: Live updates

He made some whoppers that's going to bite him in the ass...

Especially this:

Obama tells a rape victim that a gun may not make her safer. pic.twitter.com/KGKxpnttEO

— Emily Miller (@EmilyMiller) January 8, 2016

He's not wrong. It won't.

The amount of time it would take to pull a gun out to stop a rapist or someone would be very slow. The twenty feet rule applies and makes guns obsolete and in most rape cases they are by people who the victim knows.

So no I don't think that was uncalled for. It won't make her safer, and it won't guarnette it. Pepper Spray, tasers, and other non-lethal items are far better to use than a gun. I am sorry gun peeps but I Do not think giving someone a gun is always the brightest of ideas.

What's the difference between pulling out Pepper Spray, a taser, or a small pistol?

A gun is not guaranteed to hit the target. People can be wildly inaccurate.

A taser is a much more up close and personal approach with less aiming to it, you just need to make skin contact.

Pepper Spray will make anything within a small radius wish they had never been there. Pepper spray is by far the most effective.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 whembly wrote:
A.

Rapist caught in the act deserves no less.

I don't think they deserve to die, especially if they didn't commit it yet. I rather them face time than face death with no possiblity of changing and reform. Rapists are pretty bad but they don't deserve an execution.

If they're too close for a gun, or they already know them pepper spray or a taser aren't going to help either. Hosing someone down with pepper spray while they're on top of you isn't exactly the smartest idea either. As for a taser it will only work if they're already in striking range(as in already attacking), unless it's a taser pistol in which case a small revolver would still be more reliable and threatening.

Having been trained in close quarters fighting, a gun won't help you either. ITs better to blind someone than to have them avoid the shot, its fairly easy to disarm someone who is arms length away or even twenty feet away, Especially a moving target.

Threatening helps but at the same time so does a taser, or hell a knife. Pepper spray Or anything of the like to use for self defense can be intimdiating but most often it won't matter because most times it won't make a difference. Sometimes it could be a parent, a brother, or a friend. I think someone so easily turning a gun on someone they know and probably loved is alot harder a bit more difficult than many of you make it out to be. Plus the ages it would happen at would be college level so at campuses so the likelihood of someone bringing a gun to college IS VERY UNLIKELY

I'd be very impressed if you could disarm a moving target from 20ft away.

Yes, on college campuses you can't bring a pistol, and pepper spray/taser is a very valid choice in those environments(although I believe there may be some campuses that don't allow those either). As far as threat level goes, a gun is the best you can do. A gun is not going to be a saving grace in every situation, and neither will a taser or spray. Especially while intoxicated or in an intimate setting with a well known friend/relative. On the other hand there are going to be situations where a gun would be far more preferable than either a taser or pepper spray, and restricting yourself to dealing without is not a wise move in my opinion.

Mean't to say harder to hit a moving target especially someone untrained.

Campuses usually allow pepper spray, but won't allow tasers. But most rape's are by people they know. So turning the gun on them is especially hard. Most rapists aren't idiots either.

Hell I was pepper sprayed during my close quarters training to show why its so damn effective. To this day, I have never been in that much pain. Its like someone rubbing haberno peppers in your face.

Pepper spray will always be the highest and most effective thing you could possibly imagine. I have even though about buying one just in case. Even though I am a dude, I live in a Crip owned area.

Asherian Command wrote:He's not wrong. It won't.

Plenty of would-be rape victims who defended themselves with firearms would disagree.

Asherian Command wrote:The amount of time it would take to pull a gun out to stop a rapist or someone would be very slow. The twenty feet rule applies and makes guns obsolete and in most rape cases they are by people who the victim knows.

Why would it be slow? Most people I know with CPL training can draw in ~1 second. Maybe 2 on the high end. There's also draw techniques for when an attacker is right on top of you.

Asherian Command wrote:Pepper Spray, tasers, and other non-lethal items are far better to use than a gun.

Says who?

Asherian Command wrote:I am sorry gun peeps but I Do not think giving someone a gun is always the brightest of ideas.

Agreed. Nobody should be "given" anything. It should be up to the individual to decide for themselves what they wish to do for their own protection, if anything.

Asherian Command wrote:Would you rather A: Kill someone Or B: let them be completely blind and have the preprator be tracable and unable to move.

If we're talking rapists, option A.

Asherian Command wrote:Nonlethal things are far more inexpensive far more easier to use.

Generally, though some electronic incapacitative devices can be more costly. As to ease of use, I disagree. In most cases it's aim and pull a trigger, regardless of the tool. In fact, most pepper sprays and tasers I've seen have manual safeties, so they require more actions to fire than some of my handguns.

Asherian Command wrote:Plus twenty feet rule, chances are they know the person which means alot. It would be harder for the person holding the gun to fire the weapon,

Depends on the person and their mindset.

Asherian Command wrote:I don't think a potential rape victim would like to remember how they flat out shot someone.

Many volunteer their stories so that others may learn from their experience.

Asherian Command wrote:So no I don't think it is reasonable to give everyone pistols, give them a taser and a pepper spray it will do the same job if not better than a lethal weapon.

Absolutely don't give everyone pistols. Again, it's up to the individual. Non-lethal will do better than lethal? Interesting...

Asherian Command wrote:IF everyone had access to guns, then rape would be a lot more common.

Source?

Asherian Command wrote:Rapists are pretty bad but they don't deserve an execution.

We disagree there.

Asherian Command wrote:Having been trained in close quarters fighting, a gun won't help you either.

Having been trained in self-defense with a handgun, I beg to differ.

Asherian Command wrote:ITs better to blind someone than to have them avoid the shot,

Neo is a rapist now?

Asherian Command wrote:its fairly easy to disarm someone who is arms length away or even twenty feet away.

Please share your wisdom on disarming people from 20' away, sensei.

Asherian Command wrote:Plus the ages it would happen at would be college level so at campuses so the likelihood of someone bringing a gun to college IS VERY UNLIKELY

Rape is strictly a college problem? Better tell Cologne.

Asherian Command wrote:
Pepper spray will always be the highest and most effective thing you could possibly imagine. I have even though about buying one just in case. Even though I am a dude, I live in a Crip owned area.

It is effective, until it blows back into your own face. For the record I carry it too on occasion (even though I'm a dude, in a non-crip area), as it can be great in the right situation and it is good to have non-lethal options, but I understand it's limitations and it does not replace my gun.

 Alex C wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:its fairly easy to disarm someone who is arms length away or even twenty feet away.

Please share your wisdom on disarming people from 20' away, sensei.

Asherian Command wrote:Plus the ages it would happen at would be college level so at campuses so the likelihood of someone bringing a gun to college IS VERY UNLIKELY

Rape is strictly a college problem? Better tell Cologne.

Asherian Command wrote:
Pepper spray will always be the highest and most effective thing you could possibly imagine. I have even though about buying one just in case. Even though I am a dude, I live in a Crip owned area.

It is effective, until it blows back into your own face. For the record I carry it too on occasion (even though I'm a dude, in a non-crip area), as it can be great in the right situation and it is good to have non-lethal options, but it does not replace the gun.

Better known as the 21 Foot rule (http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/articles/2014/09/revisiting-the-21-foot-rule.aspx)

It is where the perpator has a knife. It is used as the standard of a police officer to determine if it is safe for a kill shot or a nightstick.

It is often debated and is used as a defense by officers but 21 feet rule is fairly common as taking a gun away from someone especially someone untrained is exceptionally easy, even if they fire wildly, (As most people who have never used a gun would) They aren't all going to be experts with weapons, in most of the scenarios a gun won't be useful. As has been said, in this situation especially in Cologne it wouldn't of helped.

At college it is out right banned.

Asherian Command wrote:
IF everyone had access to guns, then rape would be a lot more common.



Source?

Scenario:
SO the rapist has a gun.

Scenario ends.

Absolutely don't give everyone pistols. Again, it's up to the individual. Non-lethal will do better than lethal? Interesting...

If a college student was defending herself or himself, most would go for the non-lethal option because they don't want to kill someone and end their life. Most would know this. And would seek this alternative.

Oh, you mean the 21' rule. I misunderstood, sorry. I'm well aware of that rule. I thought you were proposing the use of telekenesis or something

As for college carry, it depends on the campus, and they are not the sole domain of rapists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Scenario:
SO the rapist has a gun.

Scenario ends.

Wait, I thought you claimed it was super easy to disarm people or to avoid the shot?

Wouldn't the rapist probably use pepper spray or a taser, as they do the job just as well, if not better?

 Alex C wrote:
Oh, you mean the 21' rule. I misunderstood, sorry. I'm well aware of that rule. I thought you were proposing the use of telekenesis or something

As for college carry, it depends on the campus, and they are not the sole domain of rapists.

True true! But it is usually where the highest amount are. I mean if you are woman or a guy (as rape does happen to men!) I would suggest both to carry non-lethal options, I mean you can carry a gun if you are out of college! But for college students no I don't agree.

Yes I accidentally said 20ft rule! I then realize I missed a foot, the knife rule! As most rapists while use something to well.... Bring someone down to their level and disempower, as is the MO of most rapists.

I mean gun control is a tough issue in general to use or justify for everyone to have, it is fine for most people to have them, and is up to the individuals choice, but the effectiveness of each one is varying differently according to different situations.

Which we could go on for eons about,

But the rapists in general don't deserve a bullet to the head, they deserve a fair trial and swiftly being throw in jail.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:

Scenario:
SO the rapist has a gun.

Scenario ends.

Wait, I thought you claimed it was super easy to disarm people or to avoid the shot?

Wouldn't the rapist probably use pepper spray or a taser, as they do the job just as well, if not better?

You pull a knife,

They pull a gun.

You are facing someone who has a fire arm, in either situation it doesn't matter if it was a girl the opportunity is to run. Not to fight.

Yes the 21 foot rule applies to either party but either way it is not going to end well. It is easy for someone who is trained, especially if they are going after something.

Why would a rapist use that? they would probably use drugs or substances to tip the balance in their favor.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Ain't over yet...
Guns in America town hall with President Obama: Live updates

He made some whoppers that's going to bite him in the ass...

Especially this:

Obama tells a rape victim that a gun may not make her safer. pic.twitter.com/KGKxpnttEO

— Emily Miller (@EmilyMiller) January 8, 2016

He's not wrong. It won't.

The amount of time it would take to pull a gun out to stop a rapist or someone would be very slow. The twenty feet rule applies and makes guns obsolete and in most rape cases they are by people who the victim knows.

So no I don't think that was uncalled for. It won't make her safer, and it won't guarnette it. Pepper Spray, tasers, and other non-lethal items are far better to use than a gun. I am sorry gun peeps but I Do not think giving someone a gun is always the brightest of ideas.

What's the difference between pulling out Pepper Spray, a taser, or a small pistol?

A gun is not guaranteed to hit the target. People can be wildly inaccurate.

A taser is a much more up close and personal approach with less aiming to it, you just need to make skin contact.

Pepper Spray will make anything within a small radius wish they had never been there. Pepper spray is by far the most effective.

People can be very accurate with a pistol as well.

A taser is not guaranteed to connect with skin.

Pepper spray is not guaranteed to just affect your attacker.

Why do you think pepper spray is the most effective? Or is it just the most effective in certain instances? Is there a scenario where pepper spray will always be a better alternative than a gun, or even a taser when stopping/preventing an attack?

I'm enjoying the after effects of pepper spray right now, very effective.

People can be very accurate with a pistol as well.

A taser is not guaranteed to connect with skin.

Pepper spray is not guaranteed to just affect your attacker.

Why do you think pepper spray is the most effective? Or is it just the most effective in certain instances? Is there a scenario where pepper spray will always be a better alternative than a gun, or even a taser when stopping/preventing an attack?

Neither can the assumption of someone being accurate with their gun. Especially in a terrified corner or drug scenario. Most times it won't make a difference, sometimes it can! But most won't.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

Why do you think pepper spray is the most effective? Or is it just the most effective in certain instances? Is there a scenario where pepper spray will always be a better alternative than a gun, or even a taser ?

We're at Buffalo Wild Wings, or Hooters, or Wing Stop (your favorite spicy wing joint) and you're complaining that the chicken just ain't hot enough for ya.... .


Pepper Spray> taser or gun, 7 days a week

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

Why do you think pepper spray is the most effective? Or is it just the most effective in certain instances? Is there a scenario where pepper spray will always be a better alternative than a gun, or even a taser ?

We're at Buffalo Wild Wings, or Hooters, or Wing Stop (your favorite spicy wing joint) and you're complaining that the chicken just ain't hot enough for ya.... .


Pepper Spray> taser or gun, 7 days a week

I would take a gun for 7.99 with a side of french fries. Preferably bullet to face.

Heeeeere we go with the hypotheticals...

No, pepper spray and tasers are not good alternatives to firearms for most people. Pepper spray doesn't typically stop threats even with direct hits to the eyes. Tasers sometimes stop threats, but are often impeded by garments as common as sweat shirts.

Sweat shirts don't stop bullets. Guns in a proper caliber, with good shot placement, will stop threats. Good shot placement is a product of training. Guns aren't magical talismans that ward off evil - you need to train with them, and obviously anyone who carries a gun should train regularly, and try to avoid dangerous situations in the first place.

And Asherian Command has it right that guns aren't a fix-all. Date rape is unfortunately very common, and none of these tools will prevent a woman from being roofied, from being attacked by someone close to her, etc. This kind of thing is awful and we all want it to go away, but we have to be realistic about the role of firearms and their use against criminals.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Heeeeere we go with the hypotheticals...

No, pepper spray and tasers are not good alternatives to firearms for most people. Pepper spray doesn't typically stop threats even with direct hits to the eyes. Tasers sometimes stop threats, but are often impeded by garments as common as sweat shirts.

Sweat shirts don't stop bullets. Guns in a proper caliber, with good shot placement, will stop threats. Good shot placement is a product of training. Guns aren't magical talismans that ward off evil - you need to train with them, and obviously anyone who carries a gun should train regularly, and try to avoid dangerous situations in the first place.

And Asherian Command has it right that guns aren't a fix-all. Date rape is unfortunately very common, and none of these tools will prevent a woman from being roofied, from being attacked by someone close to her, etc. This kind of thing is awful and we all want it to go away, but we have to be realistic about the role of firearms and their use against criminals.

Wow, you started by commenting about hypotheticals and they talked about how hypothetically a gun is better with proper training.

Luckily you do not need training for pepper spray. Or accuracy.