The Latest American Gun Thing

What makes you think the attacker will kill you after they get what they want? Maybe they'll just run and escape with what they've got and not bring any more attention to themselves.

In any case, I'll do what gives me the best chances at survival and minimises any risk that I could harm others. In most cases, cooperating does that.

For me, it's a matter of pride and respect. I would not let a crook steal my property because I worked for it. Being armed gives me the opportunity to defend myself against armed crooks.

Once you surrender, you're at the whims of an attacker.

I don't know the stats off hand, but I'd expect that the conversion from guns to knives in the event guns weren't available wouldn't be large. The prime reason being a knife is a close in, personal weapon that is much more suited to defence (as using it offensively or even just to intimidate means you need to get close, which opens oneself up to counterattack).

Oh no! The attacker's whims! That's the worst thing ever!

So you'd rather be dead and proud, than alive? I mean, yeah it sucks that you've lost stuff you worked for, but you can always replace it. And insurance is good for replacing things lost by theft.

That's what Australians do.

So not only do I get to keep my life, but I also get to keep my things. And in the case of things like electronics, they're often replaced with newer things. So I get a free-upgrade when I get robbed.

But hey, if pride is a big thing for you, feel free to do your thing.

You might end up dead in both scenarios. Why not do the logical thing and help yourself?

Is your fight or flight system broken?

It's working just fine.

Let me quote my earlier post on the subject. You seemed to have not read it, even though it was a post addressed directly to you.

How can you go outside knowing everyone can kill you with a flick of the finger?

If you're being robbed, odds are they're not going to actually hurt you. Because if they do, the police will come down on them like a sack of depleted uranium bricks. Whereas a mugging is going to have far less severe repercussions.

Oh and Australia does have gangs, mainly motorcycle gangs. And one state has come down so hard on those that Anonymous thought it violated human rights.

Tazers. C'mon guys if tazers were more available it would be way easier to defend yourself and is only lethal if done repeatedly. Other than that there is pepper spray.

Why is this sentence even possible? So you can't drink till 21 but you can hand a 9-year-old an uzi? If the guy wasn't dead already, he'd deserve the firing squad. I don't care what other americans do with their guns. I don't live there and i don't have to put up with it. But why in the name of any shred of responsibility is it possible to hand a kid -who isn't even in puberty let alone an adult and considered capable of truly autonomous decisions- a device built solely for the purpose of killing?

That's a good point! Open-carry tazers actually seem like a better option.

Because armed robbery /theft (i'm not sure of the proper legal term) is a fairly minor (relatievly speaking) crime compared to murder?

Tasers are as dumb as the "AIM FOR THE LEGS" argument, because it implies your life isn't in danger. It's not very compatible with self-defense laws.

You're making me look like a crazed killer already. Keep it up!

Home intrusion is enough of a reason to invoke castle doctrine in most states. I agree with it when it's done right.

I don't know your age, but if you're above 21 you're considered to be fully capable of making independent decisions (Though it depends - it can be 18 too).

A 9 year old kid? nope.

Elaborate please. I don't see how that using a tazer implies your life isn't in danger.

the keyword is range

I hope I'm not the only one familiar with laws here because this is getting quite stupid.

Tasers are not deadly force. You run into legal ramifications because the defense could argue that you're torturing someone or using force carelessly.

If you're not shooting to kill but doing something like shooting to maim, same deal.

Tasors ARE MADE for SELF-DEFENCE, they simply dont kill the person but give you enough time to run/call help. Would you rather shoot a person or stun them? You clearly speak of life being very important, so why not have a win/win situation where both you and your oppressor are NOT DEAD and can live on with BOTH of your highly needed material things (that as said before are always replaceable)

Because it doesn't kill the person I suppose? Ridiculous I know.

Well why would you need something very long range to defend yourself? There are some tazers with pretty decently ranged wires.

You will be accused for "torturing someone" for tazing BUT NOT SHOOTING AND KILLING THEM? They are not the same deal, one situation the oppressor is alive, another he's dead. Which would you chose?