It's Not Too Soon to Debate Gun Control

[Aldebaran]

Perhaps if you had, you would've remembered post #543 is where is began.

I see. So what kind of restrictions would you like to legislate out of pure emotion?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Read this and then tell me why I shouldn't be allowed to defend myself.

Who said you shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself? Please try to read more carefully. I know you can do that.

Better still -- it's easier to look at a picture:

I used to have one of these when I worked for the post office; trusted it more than the pepper spray they provide. Saved my bacon on more than one occasion.

$30 on Amazon, impossible to miss with it, zero chance of hitting anyone with a ricochet.

There is always an option.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I see. So what kind of restrictions would you like to legislate out of pure emotion?

Me? None. But then again, I'm starter than our President.

How about you?

 

[Aldebaran]

Who said you shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself? Please try to read more carefully. I know you can do that.

Now, now. Don't be offended when you're being corrected.

Better still -- it's easier to look at a picture:

I used to have one of these when I worked for the post office; trusted it more than the pepper spray they provide. Saved my bacon on more than one occasion.

$30 on Amazon, impossible to miss with it, zero chance of hitting anyone with a ricochet.

There is always an option.

You clearly didn't read from the link I gave you. But I won't go so far as to suggest that you actually go there and read it. I'll just serve it to you right here:

Tasers & tranquilizers
Tasers are often useless against fur-covered animals. Tasers don’t deliver a shock unless the tasering device sticks to the target person or animal. Contrary to makers’ claims, they work about as well on thickly furred animals as tossing a ping pong ball.

 

[Aldebaran]

Me? None. But then again, I'm starter than our President.

How about you?

What legislation against guns did he propose? Which ones? Please, I'd really love to know! Make up something if needed!

 

[TLK Valentine]

Now, now. Don't be offended when you're being corrected.

Corrected how? You keep implying that I said something which I have not.

You clearly didn't read from the link I gave you. But I won't go so far as to suggest that you actually go there and read it. I'll just serve it to you right here:

Ah, but I did read it, which is why I offered you something the article didn't address.

Tasers & tranquilizers
Tasers are often useless against fur-covered animals. Tasers don’t deliver a shock unless the tasering device sticks to the target person or animal. Contrary to makers’ claims, they work about as well on thickly furred animals as tossing a ping pong ball.

Good thing what I showed you was neither a tazer nor a tranquilizer -- it's an ultrasound emitter.

I trust you won't be offended at being corrected.

 

[TLK Valentine]

What legislation against guns did he propose? Which ones? Please, I'd really love to know! Make up something if needed!

You forgot post #543 again already?

 

[Aldebaran]

Good thing what I showed you was neither a tazer nor a tranquilizer -- it's an ultrasound emitter.

I trust you won't be offended at being corrected.

I've heard of these types of things. But ultrasonic devices rarely work for anything. I've tried the ones available in stores that are supposed to scare off rodents and they had no affect. I even used them on bats in my basement and one time noticed a bat hanging right in front of the emitter! Sorry, but I won't depend on one when a vicious dog comes charging at me at a full sprint.

I'm obviously not the only one to realize this: Why I'll Never Use Ultrasonic Dog Repellers and Deterrents

Think about it for a minute (or longer if needed), why does law enforcement carry Tasers, but also pepper spray, and still carry a firearm? If electronic weapons were so effective, they would be able to replace a firearm. But they aren't at that point. When they arrive at that point, then they can replace firearms. You see, Val, when your life is at stake, it's good to have options--not just one form of defense with only failure as the alternative.

 

[Aldebaran]

You forgot post #543 again already?

Nope. I remember it very well. Still waiting for an answer to my question though.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I've heard of these types of things. But ultrasonic devices rarely work for anything.

Perhaps you missed the part where I mentioned that I had used them successfully on several occasions.

Please try to read more carefully. I know you can do that.

I'm obviously not the only one to realize this: Why I'll Never Use Ultrasonic Dog Repellers and Deterrents

Perhaps if the author had any sort of experience with the kind of repeller I mentioned, and not strictly the ones used for training? (Which I agree, is a counterintuitive use for them)

Think about it for a minute (or longer if needed), why does law enforcement carry Tasers, but also pepper spray, and still carry a firearm? If electronic weapons were so effective, they would be able to replace a firearm. But they aren't at that point.

I'll grant you that they're certainly no match for a gun, which many criminals have.When you encounter an armed pitbull, your argument will be more logical.

Of course, on the other side of that, why do they bother with tasers and pepper spray at all if they carry a firearm?

When they arrive at that point, then they can replace firearms. You see, Val, when your life is at stake, it's good to have options--not just one form of defense with only failure as the alternative.

If options are what its about, will you feel safe enough carrying only one gun the next time you're out in pitbull territory? After all, a gun can jam or misfire, and then you've got a real problem.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Nope. I remember it very well. Still waiting for an answer to my question though.

I can't answer your question until you know (not just claim to remember) to remember what I was referring to. Otherwise I'm just wasting your time, and more importantly, my time.

 

[Aldebaran]

Perhaps you missed the part where I mentioned that I had used them successfully on several occasions.

Please try to read more carefully. I know you can do that.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I'm flattered.

Perhaps if the author had any sort of experience with the kind of repeller I mentioned, and not strictly the ones used for training? (Which I agree, is a counterintuitive use for them)

Is there that much of a difference between them? I'd really like to know. If they really are that effective, I would be interested. However, even though they may or may not be effective against a dog, they would be useless against other threats. A firearm is more versatile.

I'll grant you that they're certainly no match for a gun, which many criminals have.When you encounter an armed pitbull, your argument will be more logical.

A pitbull doesn't need to be "armed". They only need to be equipped and capable of causing great bodily harm or death, plus the tendency to do so. Pitbulls possess both.

Of course, on the other side of that, why do they bother with tasers and pepper spray at all if they carry a firearm?

Because not all situations where they want to use some sort of control tool are a life-threatening one. There are plenty of occasions where they need to incapacitate someone who is uncooperative, yet not life threatening. But if a criminal is threatening people with a gun or knife, or is specifically attacking the officer, then the gun usually gets used. Now, this is talking about the police who not only have to stop attacks against themselves, but also need to make arrests. Since I'm not a cop and don't make arrests, my big concern is life-threatening attacks against me. Should I be only armed with devices that even a cop would only use to make arrests with when their life is not actually threatened?

If options are what its about, will you feel safe enough carrying only one gun the next time you're out in pitbull territory? After all, a gun can jam or misfire, and then you've got a real problem.

That's why a gun needs to be fired in practice and testing before carrying it for defensive purposes. Reliability is essential.

 

[Aldebaran]

I can't answer your question until you know (not just claim to remember) to remember what I was referring to. Otherwise I'm just wasting your time, and more importantly, my time.

I can't argue with that!

 

[TLK Valentine]

Is there that much of a difference between them? I'd really like to know.

Intensity. The ones designed for training are meant to be mild. The ones for self-defense, well... be glad you're not a dog.

Consider: some people use a squirt bottle to get the cat off the counter. A mild tool for a mild job.

Those training emitters are squirt bottles. What I was packing during my postal days? Think "firehose."

Granted, I was using the older model back then, but I think it's a safe bet that the newer model is an improvement.

If they really are that effective, I would be interested.

I can only testify based on my personal experience. That said, trust me: they stop some big, angry dogs.

However, even though they may or may not be effective against a dog, they would be useless against other threats. A firearm is more versatile.

True, but in the context we were discussing (riding a bicycle) the Dazer would definitely be the better tool for the job, considering aiming.

Against a human, I certainly understand why you'd want more firepower.

 

[Aldebaran]

Intensity. The ones designed for training are meant to be mild. The ones for self-defense, well... be glad you're not a dog.

Consider: some people use a squirt bottle to get the cat off the counter. A mild tool for a mild job.

Those training emitters are squirt bottles. What I was packing during my postal days? Think "firehose."

Granted, I was using the older model back then, but I think it's a safe bet that the newer model is an improvement.

I can only testify based on my personal experience. That said, trust me: they stop some big, angry dogs.

Hmmmm. Well, I looked up some to read the reviews. They're pretty mixed. The Dog Dazer 2 got a rating of only 40% of people giving it 5 stars, and 26% gave it 1 star. I like the idea, but this doesn't give a whole lot of confidence: https://www.amazon.com/Dog-Dazer-II-Ultrasonic-Deterrent/dp/B000IBRI2Y

True, but in the context we were discussing (riding a bicycle) the Dazer would definitely be the better tool for the job, considering aiming.

Against a human, I certainly understand why you'd want more firepower.

I found other devices that are similar to what you're talking about but seem more effective. There's even a Youtube video for it. There were videos for the Dazer as well, but they weren't nearly as impressive. Here's the video for an alternate device:

and the link to where it's sold: Dog Repellent Device - Sound Defense® K9 Warning Device

 

[TLK Valentine]

Hmmmm. Well, I looked up some to read the reviews. They're pretty mixed. The Dog Dazer 2 got a rating of only 40% of people giving it 5 stars, and 26% gave it 1 star. I like the idea, but this doesn't give a whole lot of confidence: https://www.amazon.com/Dog-Dazer-II-Ultrasonic-Deterrent/dp/B000IBRI2Y



I found other devices that are similar to what you're talking about but seem more effective. There's even a Youtube video for it. There were videos for the Dazer as well, but they weren't nearly as impressive. Here's the video for an alternate device:

and the link to where it's sold: Dog Repellent Device - Sound Defense® K9 Warning Device

Hmmm... guess the company sacrificed quality for price. Good to know.

 

[Aldebaran]

Hmmm... guess the company sacrificed quality for price. Good to know.

How much did you pay for yours?

 

[TLK Valentine]

How much did you pay for yours?

Actually, mine was a hand-me-down. It belonged to my father when he used to jog (said he never needed to use it), but back in the day (and we're talking maybe 20 years ago) they were pretty expensive.

 

[Aldebaran]

Actually, mine was a hand-me-down. It belonged to my father when he used to jog (said he never needed to use it), but back in the day (and we're talking maybe 20 years ago) they were pretty expensive.

I remember back around that time when there was an obscure company that was making things like this called pain field generators that supposedly created sound fields that would ward off humans and animals from a perimeter. Not sure if they worked or not, but I imagine these dog repellers are something similar and come from the same technology. The company at the time was called Information Unlimited and existed long before the internet, but they still exist. Here's their website: Dog and Rodent
They make plenty of other things too. Some of the ultrasonic devices they have will work for hundreds of feet distance. They could quiet barking dogs your neighbors have. Some of those devices could even get rid of the neighbors themselves!

 

[Par5]

I remember back around that time when there was an obscure company that was making things like this called pain field generators that supposedly created sound fields that would ward off humans and animals from a perimeter. Not sure if they worked or not, but I imagine these dog repellers are something similar and come from the same technology. The company at the time was called Information Unlimited and existed long before the internet, but they still exist. Here's their website: Dog and Rodent
They make plenty of other things too. Some of the ultrasonic devices they have will work for hundreds of feet distance. They could quiet barking dogs your neighbors have. Some of those devices could even get rid of the neighbors themselves!

It's all very well discussing protecting yourself against a vicious dog, but this thread is about gun control in America. If dogs were the only creatures being massacred by people who had guns I would be angry at such stupidity as I really like dogs, but it would be the lesser of two evils as it is people, not dogs, that people who have guns are killing and I like people more than I like dogs.
As has been already stated on this thread, after a mass shooting you have the usual outpourings of anger, prayers and empty rhetoric, which are then quickly put away ready to be brought out again after the next mass shooting, which experience has shown us means they won't be in storage for long.
I'm sorry to say that in America, as far as guns are concerned, the genie is out of the bottle. America is on a long-running lust affair with guns bordering on the pornographic, and it will take more than a bucket of cold water to dampen that ardour.
There just doesn't seem to be the political will to bring in effective legislation to help stop Americans killing thousands of other Americans each and every year and a failure to look and learn from gun control as practised in other countries where its citizens are not killing each other by the thousands.