If you support gun control, what tools do you think should ....

[Left in IL]

...be allowed for self defense in public.

Please keep in mind there are several types of "Public"

Crowded bar
Mall
Busy downtown street
Dark city alley
Rural Road
Yellowstone National Park

The first 2 are private proprty, but open to the public. (I'm not sure if this is important or not)

[SHRED]

1. Bear spray

It is awesome.

[solinvictus]

2. Colateral damage,

it'd be easy to hit innocent people with an aerosol spray of capsicum.

[SHRED]

3. True

That would be the least of my worries in an attack situation.

Which would you rather have? People causing collateral damage with a handgun or bear spray?

[NorthernSpy]

7. you can kill an asthmatic with pepperspray

And how nice that the wellbeing of innocent bystanders is "the least of (your) worries".

Which would you rather have? People causing collateral damage with a handgun or bear spray?

I'd rather that people armed themselves according to their skill, and did not use any potentially dangerous implement that they couldn't fully control. The creation of "collateral damage" is mostly unacceptable in a self-defense situation. Your right to defend yourself does not outweigh other people's rights not to be physically harmed by your use of weaponry.

[SHRED]

11. Uhhh...No

I was responding to the original post which gave a choice between a handgun or what.

I think you misunderstood my intentions.

[iverglas]

14. druthers

I'd rather that people armed themselves according to their skill, and did not use any potentially dangerous implement that they couldn't fully control.

I'd rather that people drove at speeds according to their skill, and did not drive at high speeds if they couldn't fully control their vehicles at those speeds.

I just haven't figured out a way of actualizing my druther, which I'm sure is shared by most people, other than by prohibiting everyone from driving at high speeds.

Have you figured out a way to actualize yours -- that people not arm themselves with any potentially dangerous implement that they couldn't fully control -- other than by prohibiting everyone from arming themselves with "potentially dangerous implements"?

[robre]

30. Fahren fahren fahren auf der Autobahn

Germany has less fatal car accidents per capita per year than the U.S. They drink more, drive drunk more, and drive faster.

The congestion caused by speed limits kills more than speed itself.

If we lived in such a system people would have to learn that their automobile is a machine guided by the laws of physics like an airplane. That means get rid of the distractions and stay alert. Properly adjust your mirrors. Learn the basic physical principles of how a car works before even think about operating it. Make sure you're properly restrained and the car is operating normally. Learn how to use the idea of a friction circle to never drive beyond the abilities of yourself or your automobile. Actively maintain a buffer zone around your automobile to ensure you have plenty of time to stop in the conditions you are in. Drive one full mile ahead of your car. Only pass on the right if absolutely necessary.

The same applies to any machine, even firearms. Rights beget responsibility.

[Left in IL]

4. Final Answer

How about a spray made from this:


http://www.mohotta.com/ShowView/product/309/6

It' a hot sauce called FINAL ANSWER made from Habenaero (sp?) Extract, and is 500 times hotter than a Jalapeño

1.5 Million heat units!

just touching a drop with a toothpick and then touching the toothpick to the tip of your tounge (not the whole drop!!) and you can feel the heat spread through your whole mouth, and down your throat, and then you cant taste anything for a half hour. My head is begining to sweat just thinking about it!!!


(UPDATE)


There is now a hot sauce that is 7.1 Million heat units called THE SOURCE

http://www.mohotta.com/ShowView/product/330/6

"WORLD'S HOTTEST !!! Holy Hell, this is the one! At 7,100,000 Scoville Units, this additive is the hottest we have ever seen, ever...and we have seen them all. Folks, this is no joke, this one could cost you a hospital visit if you are not careful. Use with extreme caution, this is a food additive only!!!!!!!!!!!! "

I am too scared to try it!!!

[Hoka Ke]

6. DID YOU SEE THE PRICE ON THAT HOT SAUCE???

$187.95/1 oz. :wow:

Holy friggin' heck.

'Course, at 7 million Scoville's, one ounce will probably last you a pretty long (and painful) time!


Hoka"ashotcommingoutasitisgoingin"Ke

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

8. alligators

Well, they might not be really useful in a pinch.

Lions and tigers and bears, then. Why limit yerself to the spray, when you can have the real thing? A bear (on a leash of course) will likely deter most evil doers in a crowded bar. Hell, it might even deter the other four-legged denizens of Yellowstone National Park. Although a tiger might work better there.

Now, if the law required that the tool be concealed, I might go for a cobra in a bag ... not in my pants, though ...

[Left in IL]

9. I assume your just being funny...

... but a lot of people to keep a large dog for protection.

So I'll add large dog to my list.

[iverglas]

10. not at all

My not just being funny.

If it's most effective tool for the job we're talking, I'll go with lion-on-a-leash in most situations, for making sure I come to no harm at the hands of two-legged, or claws of four-legged, predators. Surely you wouldn't disagree.

[Left in IL]

12. That works for me

As long as you could control it, it wasn't too noisy, you bought it a seat (at theaters and such,) and it didn't poop on the floor. should be fine.

Most places can accomodate service animals.

I had dinner at a resturant a couple of weeks ago and someone had a yellow lab as a service animal. I didn't even know it was there till they got up to leave, it must have been laying quietly on the floor.

If your lion on a leash could behave as well as that yellow lab, there wouldn't be a problem.

Just so were clear, your in favor of having lions in public, but not handguns.

[iverglas]

13. dandy

If your lion on a leash could behave as well as that yellow lab, there wouldn't be a problem.

Very true -- but whether or not there would be a problem isn't our question, as I understand it.

Our question is whether the "tool" in question should be "allowed for self-defense in public". I certainly hope you are not suggesting that there should be some kind of criterion for my ability/willingness to control my lion that I would have to meet. Heaven knows how you would enforce it anyhow. Will my assurances of my responsibility and trustworthiness be enough?

Just so were clear, your in favor of having lions in public, but not handguns.

Terribly unclear, I'm afraid. My *not* in favour of having lions in public but not handguns.

If you support gun control, what tools do you think should ....
...be allowed for self defense in public.

Perhaps it was I who was indeed unclear, and in fact was not quite to the point.

My in favour of me having lions *if* you have handguns.

If you *don't* have handguns, I won't have lions. If you insist on having handguns and I can't do anything about it, then I'll have lions, thank you.

If we both agree to be civilized about it and have neither handguns nor lions, my in favour of you having the option of going about in public without carrying a weapon or staying home. Which, of course, you always have.

And lest you somehow be still unclear about the concept, "carrying a weapon" means "carrying a thing for the purpose of inflicting bodily harm", whatever reason you might have for having that purpose.

[Left in IL]

15. back to the original question

Which is if gun were resticted, what self defense tools would gun control folks be comfortable with people having in public.

Bear spray?

Tasers?

Knives?

[Buster43]

17. Guns

will never be restricted for me so I will always be carrying.

[iverglas]

18. I thought I'd answered

And lest you somehow be still unclear about the concept, "carrying a weapon" means "carrying a thing for the purpose of inflicting bodily harm", whatever reason you might have for having that purpose.

And I'm not "comfortable" with anyone carrying any weapon in public. That includes bear spray, tasers and knives.

[Left in IL]

19. What about self-defense

I thought you said you believed in self-defense? Well maybe with just your hands and feet then.

So how do we prevent criminals from carrying weapons? Surly anyone willing to commit murder will not obey a law on carrying weapons.

Won't we just end up in a situation like the city of Chicago, where carrying weapons is illegal, and the murder rate is 3 times higher than the US average?

Or do you support the outright ban of all weapons?

[iverglas]

20. I just keep thinking I've answered

"What about self-defense
I thought you said you believed in self-defense? Well maybe with just your hands and feet then."

And I believe in free speech. I just don't think that we have to allow anyone who wants to, to broadcast his/her speech over the airwaves or scream obscenities in the middle of a religious service or teach evolution in the public schools, etc. etc. etc.

If someone really really wants to scream obscenities or teach evolution, s/he is welcome to stay home and do it, or find someone who wants to listen. If s/he wants to broadcast his/her speech, s/he is welcome to apply for a licence.

If someone is really really afraid of the big bad nasty people who inhabit the world outside his/her front door, s/he is welcome to stay home (or, where I'm at, if s/he can demonstrate something other than paranoia as the basis for this fear, apply for a licence).

"Or do you support the outright ban of all weapons?"

I support a ban on the carrying of most things that I would define as weapons: things carried for the purpose of causing bodily harm, for whatever reason someone might have for doing that.

"So how do we prevent criminals from carrying weapons? Surly anyone willing to commit murder will not obey a law on carrying weapons."

You don't prevent criminals from carrying weapons, any more than you prevent criminals from committing homicide, from shoplifting, from embezzling, from dumping toxic waste, or from doing all the other things that criminals do. Why would you think there was an answer to your question, any more than to the same question about a myriad of other crimes?

You can do two things:

- deter as many people as possible from doing what you don't want done, using a range of measures including, most usually and prominently, punishment of those who do them with the aim of persuading both them and others not to do those things;

- make it as difficult as possible for them to do what you don't want done.

The latter is the bit that you don't want to do, and I don't particularly care that you don't want to do. In my humble opinion, if you were actually serious about preventing criminals from carrying weapons, you'd be more interested in making it difficult for them to do so.

"Won't we just end up in a situation like the city of Chicago, where carrying weapons is illegal, and the murder rate is 3 times higher than the US average?"

Or maybe you'd end up in a situation like we have in Canada, where carrying the weapons you cite (firearms, tasers, sprays, knives of certain sorts and in certain circumstances, etc.) is illegal and the murder rate is half the US average. Who knows?

Of course, you could always start by trying to be less disingenuous, but it seems a little late for that.

[Left in IL]

21. Ilinois is already a no carry state

In Illinois, you can not carry a firearm or knife over 3" in public.

It's been this way since 1968.

It just dosen't work here. It may work in Canada, and many other places, but not here.

I suppose I could be real cynical and believe the murder rate would go up if we allowed CCW. But other states that have reciently allowed CCW have not shown a increase in murder or crime rates. Some have shown decreases others haven't shown much changes at all.

So why add CCW if it might not reduce the crime stastics? Because it matters at the individual level. Especially if you are a cab driver or deliver pizza. Both of which are far more dangerous than being a police officer. If crime stastics are not affected by CCW, why restrict individuals from defening themselves with effective tools?

[iverglas]

22. amazingly

In Illinois, you can not carry a firearm or knife over 3" in public.
It's been this way since 1968.
It just dosen't work here. It may work in Canada, and many other places, but not here.

Among the host of other factors undoubtedly at work, there is a border between Canada and the rest of the world ... and there is no border between Illinois and anywhere else.

I wonder whether this could possibly have anything to do with why "it" doesn't work in Illinois.

Of course, one of those other factors is the fact that Canada does make it difficult to obtain the firearm that is generally involved when we're talking about "carrying" firearms -- handguns. It is difficult for people who are likely to use them to cause harm or to facilitate crimes to obtain them, precisely because it is difficult for anyone at all to get them, and because anyone who does have them is subject to strict rules about how they are to be stored and when and to whom and how they may be transferred, so that as few people who should not have them as possible will get them.

Of course, all of that could be done in Illinois, and there still wouldn't be a border between Illinois and the places where it isn't done, so it would all be relatively pointless.

So why add CCW if it might not reduce the crime stastics? Because it matters at the individual level. Especially if you are a cab driver or deliver pizza. Both of which are far more dangerous than being a police officer. If crime stastics are not affected by CCW, why restrict individuals from defening themselves with effective tools?

That's a mighty big "if" you got there -- and it isn't the only one I would consider, of course.

Nonetheless, you assume a position that I do not take: that it should be easy to acquire and possess the things we're talking about, whether or not it is permissible to cart them around in one's pants.

As far as I'm concerned, the only effective way to prevent people from carting them around in their pants and using them to cause harm or facilitate crimes is to keep as many of them (handguns) out of the hands of as many of them (people who are likely to use them unpleasantly) in the first place.

So your question is entirely moot, as I look at it. It seems to me that there is very little point indeed in having laws prohibiting the carting around of handguns in pants if anybody and its mother-in-law can acquire one at the drop of a hat.

Horses and barn doors, it seems to me.

[NorthernSpy]

23. I'm scared, BatMan! :o

And I believe in free speech. I just don't think that we have to allow anyone who wants to, to broadcast his/her speech over the airwaves or scream obscenities in the middle of a religious service or teach evolution in the public schools, etc. etc. etc.

If someone really really wants to scream obscenities or teach evolution, s/he is welcome to stay home and do it, or find someone who wants to listen. If s/he wants to broadcast his/her speech, s/he is welcome to apply for a licence.

(emphasis mine throughout text)

Wha...? How in blazes are kids supposed to learn anything about the life sciences without a decent understanding of evolution?

Did you really say that, or have I just gone plumb stupid?

[iverglas]

24. I said it

and I was the one who went plumb stupid. I was supposed to be finishing up a job of work having to do with shareholders, in preparation for my mum arriving on the train, which I won't be able to meet her at because my car froze overnight in the -30 weather (that's around where degrees F and degrees C are the same, so no translation needed), and I was (and am) posting instead, and I just hope I don't say anything quite so stupid about those shareholders when I get back to them.

Allow me to provide the revised version, which reads probably just about as you might have expected it would have: ;)

And I believe in free speech. I just don't think that we have to allow anyone who wants to, to broadcast his/her speech over the airwaves or scream obscenities in the middle of a religious service or teach creationism in the public schools, etc. etc. etc.

If someone really really wants to scream obscenities or teach creationism, s/he is welcome to stay home and do it, or find someone who wants to listen. If s/he wants to broadcast his/her speech, s/he is welcome to apply for a licence.

Phew.

[Billy Ruffian]

25. -34C = -22F

-34 x 9 / 5 + 32 = -22

still pretty cold, but just a bit different, numerically.

We were just below freezing in central North Carolina, and it will be in the 60s (F) on Wednesday. Perhaps I'll go golfing :evilgrin:

-40C = -40 F

-40 x 9 / 5 + 32 = -40

[iverglas]

26. yes indeed

I've done it in my head a few dozen thousand times (19 times 9, divided by 5, plus 32 ... it's 66 out; I'm an old timer and still think in F when it comes to fine gradations), and -40 is -40.

And since it was -39C here with the wind chill counted in, it wasn't a whole lot different numerically to the touch. Especially if you touched it with your tongue.

:P

And I'd dare a Californian / Virginian / Texan to distinguish between -30C and -30F anytime. Going up to zero on xmas day, though; that's 32 to yoo, and quite balmy.

[Billy Ruffian]

27. You can have it.

I've got very little tolerance left for the cold, unless I'm well dressed and active.

Too many hours cold and wet, esp. while decompressing.

And I am sure I couldn't tell the diff between -30C and -30F. Way too cold.

[TX-RAT]

29. I'd dare a Californian / Virginian / Texan to distinguish between -30C and

Won't call that dare.
It's 14 degrees, wind out of the north 15mph, and I've already had to bust ice in the stock ponds this morning so the cows can drink. Damn near froze my butt off.

[NorthernSpy]

28. ah..! the world makes sense again :)

And, yeah: I figured. Just wanted to be sure.

Sorry about your car, and I hope you enjoy your mom's visit!


:toast:

[Left in IL]

16. to answer your post

you said:

"If we both agree to be civilized about it and have neither handguns nor lions, my in favour of you having the option of going about in public without carrying a weapon or staying home. Which, of course, you always have."

The problem is that we can both agree to leave our guns and lions at home, but that will not stop the criminals from having their guns and knives.

Also, if I were to see you with a lion, and I'm afraid of lions, I would be the one with the choice of leaving. It would be wrong for me to expect you and you lion to leave to settle my fears.