The Latest American Gun Thing

You cannot be sure you will stop someone with non-lethal force, whereas shooting someone with the intent to kill is legally justified.

This isn't rocket science, folks.

@orangerinapay makes a pretty good point there, @equinoxiswin. You can justify a gun's use for hunting and sport, but you can't justify a tazer for those.

Tazers are undeniably about defence. If they're not, then they're about offence, which is just laughable. I will laugh very loudly if you try to say that a tazer isn't for self-defence.

HANG ON.

You're not a mind reader. You don't know their intent is to kill.

They're grey area weapons because they cannot be used to kill. You have to have a very clear argument in court if you get sued for using a taser.

I don't make the laws here.

USING FORCE CARELESSLY.

Holy ****. In a gun-thread.

That's just the legal system being stupid, taking a human life is fine, but protecting yourself AND sparing the person who had an intent to kill you? I'd even go to say it's noble to be that forgiving.

Police testimony. Shoot-to-stop is always a weaker argument than shoot-to-kill.

This is probably because "america" but it's also the only country where this is justified.

If you shot someone with the intent to kill in any other country in the world, you're facing:

*charges for forbidden gun possession
*charges for manslaughter/murder.

Oh and the assaulter probably goes free.

I didn't say that, he said that.

Oh and for the record:
Theft = Taking someone's property without their permission.
Robbery = Using force to take someone's property.
Burglary = Trespassing with the intent of committing a crime.

I'm pretty sure that's right. But keep in mind that's Australian law.

ok something went wrong with the quotes then. sorry.

http://bearingarms.com/shoot-to-wound-vs-shoot-to-stop-vs-shoot-to-kill/

I'm not well-versed about non-lethal force so maybe this'll clear something up.

I can boil it down to a tiny part:

Basically it's a backdoor in the law to ensure the NRA is happy.

Sidebar here: Did you hear about the Dad that shot his daughter that was sneaking back into the house at night?

Lol.

Anyways, I'm off. Have fun bickering about things, people.

The fact someone can sue you for tazing them when they had the intent to kill you, or even made it appear that they did is stupid. If I fear for my life and am allowed to take another's life to save my own, I should be able to take him down without causing any serious damage and be fine.

If all you have on you is a tazer for example (let's say for some reason you don't have a gun on you) and someone comes up to you with a gun pointed at you. Are you telling me you wouldn't use the tazer on him, because if you did then you'd somehow not be in fear of your life for taking him down rather than standing there and possibly getting shot?

Cleared up a lot, actually.

To use a pun, it shot holes in your own argument.

A tazer is not lethal-force. You said so yourself.

You can use a tazer. Read the article @equinoxiswin linked. You won't face any criminal charges.

I kind of want to know now if there really is a minimum age for guns. there's got to be a minimum age?

It depends on the country. If you're caught carrying a weapon in Australia, saying it's for "self-defence" isn't valid. If you're a chef or something, you can get a permit or whatever to carry giant shiny knives, but regular folks aren't allowed any sort of armament. I'm not sure what would happen if something like that happened here, I'll find out. Just for you.

I'm pretty sure it varies between states.

I'll be honest we we're mostly bickering towards you. Just so you know that link had nothing to do with our Taze vs Kill discussion we just had. It was mainly about excessive shooting and that shooting to wound would get you in jail if you accidentally fired one more round.

EDIT: it also briefly explained that most people would say shoot the man is the most viable way. My main idea for this was that tasors should be more open to people.

On the topic of chefs and knives; I've got a few friends that work in hospitality and are actual chefs. Kitchen knives are basically considered work equipment, but because they're easily capabable of killing people too, there's laws on how you transport the knives. They always have to be in enclosed box and always have to be padlocked shut.

Armed security are allowed to open carry in Australia. Only pistols. Nothing more excessive than that. Every gun is recorded, every security guard is licensed and trained. There's laws and legislation that regulate all that... and it works.