![Line-up[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/i2pHwvI.jpg "Line-up[1].jpg")
if there was a weapon that had the same or better stopping power, range, and effectiveness as a gun, but was non-lethall - would you support banning guns?
>>76545145
No.
>>76545145
No.
>>76545145
yes
>>76545145
Negative
>>76545145
Does the device also alter time and retroactively change the constitution?
>>76545145
No. I'd convince everyone to change to that gun and I'd secretly keep using my trusty AK.
SHALL
NOT
BE
INFREEEENGED
No, I want the person dead that I have to shoot.
>>76545479
you would still have the right to bear arms with the guarantee that you could not break the law by killing someone
>>76545145
Sometimes people just have to be killed.
No
Guns are for much more than simple self defense.
>>76545145
SHALL
>>76545477
That is a nice collection senpai.
>>76545544
You still CAN kill someone without breaking the law, shitlord
>>76545145
>stopping powah
>>76545145
>implying a guns purpose is NOT to kill
guns are lethal and we like that
fuck off
So the government can kill us with lethal force while we impotently shoot them back with non-lethal "firearms"
Also
>stopping power
>non lethal
Is this even possible?
>>76545145
> equal effectiveness and stopping power
> non-lethal
Wat
There is no better way to stop a man than to kill him you fucking retard
>>76545145
no
but i would support giving out whatever this new technology is freely to all citizens to enable them to better defend themselves
>>76545696
Where did I say in this hypothetical situation that the government could still use lethal force?
No.
>>76545730
What would be stopping them from not?
>>76545145
If there was no violence would you defend yourself?
>>76545145
No
In all fairness though if such a tool did exist most people who use guns for defense would just stop using them.
Sport shooting would still be a thing
Collecting would still be a thing
Hunting would still be a thing
Tacticool faggotry would still be a thing
People who want guns for the purpose of killing people aren't out there buying legal guns anyway, and so they would continue to kill people with their illegal guns
>stopping power
Stopped reading there.
>>76545804
the fact that a technology exists that allows them to police without killing and the societal implications of such a technology existing
>>76545698
its a stretch but i get the idea
an instant acting sleeping dart that lasts for a week would have about the same effect in battle as killing your opponent
>>76545544
It was rhetorical, queeflord.
The point was that obviously my answer is "no", because the constitution guarantees me the right to own weapons that kill the people I want to protect my family from.
I have no interest in non-lethal means of protection. If I did, then I would use the existing, non-OP-faggot fiction means.
if they were all non-lethal, it removes the power that a gun has as deterrent.
We have tasers, bear mace, beanbag rounds, pepper-spray paintball guns, and while they're generally capable of incapacitating most people. Getting hurt/incapacitated doesn't offer the same deterrent to a potential mugger/rapist/murderer as LOSING THEIR LIFE
So no OP
SHALL
>>76545608
Thanks man
Oh sure, what you guys really need right now is more scum crowding your prisons.
Also, in the event of government radicalization and the subsequent need for a rebellious militia are the militia supposed to fight the powah with non-lethal weapons while the gov't still has all the death toys? That's a huge, crippling disadvantage.
Also
>hunting without killing the prey
Shall not be infringed.
/thread
>>76545145
Guns are for killing people, so this is not a valid replacement.
>>76546012
He still can wake up and murder your family
>>76545145
No, because a non-lethal weapon by definition cannot kill a person, which is the whole point of shooting someone.
>>76545918
Do we also live in a utopia with no poverty or niggers?
>>76545918
There are more people than cops. Non lethal force isn't that scary to everyone. What happens when people start mobbing, and the police use non lethal force? You think it's gonna be easy? Or do you think the government would not take a chance on maintaining order? Mobs fight against lethal force already, what makes you think they would back down to non-lethal?
Do you really think the government would take a chance on losing control? The ultimate power is the power to kill.
No because then the criminal nigger survives
>>76546012
Well if someone was asleep for a week they'd probably die from dehydration.
>>76545145
No.
>>76545145
No. Lethality is always a more effective deterrent than pain.
Pain, people can take. Pain is something a person can overcome.
Death is a bit trickier to get around.
Further, the fundamental premise of the 2A is the potential need to fight in a military context, either against an invader or one's own government. Stun guns or whatever magic futuretech we're discussing would not remove enemy soldiers from the fight, and thus be useless in that capacity.
>>76546012
>implying a human life even matters that much
Just fucking kill him you cuck
no.
>>76545145
>same stopping power as something that kills quickly
>but is non-lethal
wut
>>76545145
If you answer yes, he's going to show you a picture of an fn303 Less than lethal launcher and tell you turn them in
>>76545145
Considering that stopping power for most sane people means the time it takes from the bullet entering to the soul departing, no
my brother and I got into an argument the other day where I was complaining about how my cucked state has a cap on clips/magazines that cannot hold more than 10 bullets
I said that was unconstitutional and downright silly and blah blah blah but he said you don't need that many bullets (more than 10) and nobody ever should.
He is a fucking cuck right? I knew in my heart that he was wrong but I couldn't actually thinkof an off-hand rebuttal for needing more than 10 shots any any given time
>>76545477
Is that a wasr at the bottom?
I would support the ban of guns anywhere in the world except the U.S. anyway.
(because a country so tolerant of such crazy people can use the self-imposed culling)
>not matching force with equal force
MAD depends on an equal reaction. If you remove lethality, you're removing the deterrent.
Also: "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
>>76546012
Liberals are never going to win support by placing the life of Tyrone the Murderrapist as "more important" than the live of the family whose home he just broke into.
You need to stop worrying about protecting the worst of humanity. Some lives just don't matter. They're usually the black ones.
>>76545145
And will the criminals be in posession of illegal firearms?
Am I now expected to fight lethality with this fantasy "gun"?
>>76545145
No because why should criminals be allowed to kill us without fear of death?
>>76546490
When you have 11 people that you want to kill in rapid succession
>>76545145
Definitely not. It destroys any deterrence an armed individual possesses. Nobody is going to be afraid of robbing a house when they know that the worst that will happen is a free nap. Also if you do that soon there'd be pressure to force he military to adopt said system, and I'd like to see how effective an army would be without heavy weapons and with blasters set to stun.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
![Ferguson-Protests-Sunday1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/dTZFwSQ.jpg "Ferguson-Protests-Sunday1[1].jpg")
>>76546490
>I knew in my heart that he was wrong but I couldn't actually think of an off-hand rebuttal for needing more than 10 shots any any given time
11 niggers.
>>76545145
We really need to start putting you people into mental institutions.
>>76546662
you mean 11 liberal urban nu-males or 11 terrorists right?
see I knew that I was on the right side of this one.
>>76546761
I believe in the 2nd amendment - im just raising a hypothetical for discussion
>>76545145
If this fantasy weapon existed, maybe, even likely I would support it.
But until it happens, no to gun bans, since it's the most effective thing people can have for self defense.
Why not have both?
>>76545145
If by "same stopping power" you mean that it causes the victum to become paralyzed permanently.
Then maybe.
However, this would be worse than death, as the victum is as good as dead, but they have to sit there and think about how fucked up their paralized existance is, while still experiancing pain. I'm not sure why you would be advocating this. This sounds pretty dark.
>>76546825
It's a retarded hypothetical. You should feel bad.
>>76546490
>but he said you don't need that many bullets (more than 10) and nobody ever should.
Ask him what he thinks about nail guns. Should we limit the number of nails they hold? It's the same idea.
>>76545145
SHALL
NOT
BE
INFRINGED
YOU
FUCKING
FAGGOT
>>76547058
hm.. what if it did this but with an antidote for people that got shot accidentally or were found not guilty?
that'd be a pretty good deterrent since ppl in here seem to agree taking away the deterrent of death is one of this weapon's biggest drawbacks
>>76545145
Interesting question.
I would prefer to have both available. I would then pick one depending on the situation.
I assume I would almost always use the non-lethal (just to cut down on accidents if nothing else) though there may be a time I would actually want something dead.
>>76545145
No. But I'd still buy one, because I'm a trend hopping faggot. I'm sure it would look real cool in the case with my guns.
>>76546825
Assuming we lived under a government that was truly altruistic and would never needlessly infringe upon our rights like freedom of speech, right to privacy, right to assemble, etc--I could potentially support such a weapon.
However, this utopia would also have to be filled with truly altruistic people that would never dare to mug someone else, rob someone's house, attempt to murder someone, etc.
None of that is feasible since humans tend to be assholes in general, so I'd still prefer guns over this fantasy weapon. Knowing that breaking into someone's house could potentially kill you is a huge deterrent to most criminals. It also deters the government from fucking over its citizens too overtly.
>>76545145
No.
>>76546012
Yeah and then these two subhumans would still be out there chimping
>>76546012
>the solution to guns killing people is to build the Bill&Cosby Model 69
You didn't think this through all the way.
>>76545145
No
You sound like someone from a libtard 'think tank' researching bullshit ideas.
Gtfo. We're not your personal information and survey center
>>76546731
>>76546490
Shooting at the Government
>>76545145
No you can't fight your government with no pearl weapons. The 2A was implemented primarily for that purpose. Your waifu is shit and you might be a homo la la man.
>>76545477
How much blam blam ping go for in USA?
>>76547352
That's a good point.. i also like the "why not both?" point others have made where you have the choice of lethal and non-lethal and the consequences that come with each
>>76547326
I bet you considered buying a Prius.
>>76546500
Yeah. I attempted to refinish it a russian reddish color and the stain didnt turn out as well as id hoped. I swear it looks better in person, but I still plan on getting some better quality unfinished furniture and doing that a more traditional wood stain.
>>76545145
like some kind of libcuck lazer?
>>76547900
no it's a Non Aggression Principle dart
>if there was a weapon that had the same or better stopping power, range, and effectiveness as a gun, but was non-lethall - would you support banning guns?
Imagine the 1,000,000,000% increase in rape cases. Now imagine the 33% herpes infection among Blacks to be 100% infection rate for everyone. Don't forget the aides.
OP's solution still doesn't fix the only real problem here. He just made it worse.
>>76545878
You are not make an important distinction here. Killing is different than murder. A killing in defense is lawful where as a murder is not.
>>76547783
I got mine refurbed through the gubmint for $740. They also sell lower quality ones for $640.
>>76545479
Unexpected kek.
>>76545496
>Mexico
You mean your Rusty AK? Lol
>>76546210
If the police had a wide-range indiscriminate weapon that could paralyze every human in a 25 degree cone front of it for 2 hours up to 2000 feet, there wouldn't be any more mobs.
They'd just blast them and take their sweet time zip tying their hands and feet and booking them all individually and charging them as a group in a kind of RICO style group trial.
>>76545477
A E S T H E T I C
>>76545145
the fact it doesnt kill makes it less sexy though m8
>>76547792
I could potentially support this if guns were banned in public (in lieu of this fantasy weapon), but still allowed for home defense.
But again, this wouldn't really solve the "gun crime problem" because criminals and psychos will still shoot up kindergarten classes because guns are still freely available.
I still believe, with all of the problems gun crime causes, allowing us to own them has more pros than cons. I do support tighter regulation in order to prevent mentally ill people and criminals from obtaining one.
I think every single person needs to go through a long and thorough background check that includes psychiatric history, criminal background, and maybe even a psychological check list in order to weed out people that aren't psychologically sound / mature enough to own one. I know many states already do this to an extent, but there are too many Cho Seung-huis out there legally buying guns even though they have a long history of suffering from psychological issues.
No.
Why would I?
>>76549061
>But again, this wouldn't really solve the "gun crime problem" because criminals and psychos will still shoot up kindergarten classes because guns are still freely available.
but in this world, every teacher could have a non-lethal weapon that they can feel safe shooting at the armed person without hurting innocent bystanders
>>76549553
Yeah, I agree that in certain cases like that it could help.
But on an aggregate level, it wouldn't stop drive by shootings, gang warfare, cartel violence in some of our border states, etc. And of course, just because they're available, not every teacher would have one.
>>76545581
SHALL REPEAL
