Step 1: Invade home. Step 2: Score family-sized can of whoopass.

Aw, gawd, garamet trolled me!!!

I can't feel my legs!! I can't feel my fuckin' legs!!!

Awmahfaggingawwwd!!!

Eh-heh-hehhh!!!

Awjayzuuuuuusss!!

*Bucks teeth, slacks jaw, flails tongue around*
Auuaarllauuraallllaauurr!!!

Auuahaaur-lauuurr!!

Laaauuurrrrraauuurrr!!!!!!

It's implied in the post I cited, as well as in Post #43.

I note you're continuing to duck the Tasers are "just the same" as guns nonsense.

This is for LizK:


"Degrees of risk"

Bozeman, a Johns Hopkins-trained emergency doctor, said his study was not funded by Taser International but by the National Institute of Justice, an agency of the federal government.

In each of the six target cities, a doctor was allowed access to police reports and also the suspects' medical reports, Bozeman said.

By examining these reports, the doctors determined that, in 1,201 uses, 99.75 percent of those shocked suffered no injury or mild injuries.

"That speaks to the overall safety of the weapon," Bozeman said.

They're not "just the same." But firearms are not 100% lethal, and tasers are not 100% non-lethal, which is what you dance around the edge of implying.

But LizK said they were, and you agreed with her.

Agreed.

Not at all.

Oh, "at all" all over the front of your shirt. If we see it and you don't, then maybe you're writing imprecisely. But I doubt that. I think it's far more probable that you're simply continuing to behave like the lying liar we all know you are already.

Dude! Have a cookie and a Vicodin and relaaaaaax.

I see garamet is doing her same ol' misquote/quote again.

And she still hasn't told me how the general public is supposed to be able to tell that the person they taser isn't going to be harmed or killed.

At least with a gun, one KNOWS one is gonna at least harm, if not kill, the person one is shooting at. And one is usually trying to harm, if not kill whom they shooting at, one expects that.

Can't say the same thing about a taser, can you?

She said that guns and tasers have both caused death. She didn't say that guns and tasers cause death with the same frequency.

What's more likely is that you're being deliberately vague so as to preemptively deflect any criticism of your position. Why is that more likely? Because you have a history of doing exactly that which spans years.

No need. You're simply being dishonest, as you always are.

So when a Gunlubber says "just the same," it doesn't mean "just the same."

Nice of you to help her out with that.

I'll add it to the Gunlubber to Everybody Else dictionary.

I'm not saying "a taser has NOT caused death." I'm saying "guns are far more lethal than Tasers." Major, major difference. See Post #64.

No. As worded, your statement is incorrect. See Post #64.

No, the difference is that Tasers were fatal in 0.25% of cases.

Let's make sure we're clear on that percentage. It's not "twenty-five percent." It's "point-two-five percent."

That's the difference.

You probably didn't mean "Tasers = guns." Maybe you can think of a way to rephrase that sentence so that it says what you actually meant.

Lest we forget, a taser isn't 100% sure to incapacitate, period. Witness Rodney King. Big, drunk, mean and belligerent often counters the effects of the shock.

True. Though the likelihood of a guy that drunk managing to break into your house without severing an artery trying to climb through your window is...well, probably slightly greater than 0.25%. And I'm sure you can think of lots and lots of other scenarios in which only a gun will do. In fact, you probably already have. It's a terrifying world you live in.

Except no one ever made that claim. The closest anyone has come to that is to point out that a firearm is the best alternative to physically taking on an intruder.

Obviously it is from you POV, because it's what you're most familiar with. But just as Forbin can think of lots of scenarios in which a Taser won't work, some of us might argue that a gun might not always be the best alternative.

I'd rather reach out and touch someone from 20 feet away than let them get within arm's reach, personally.

Indisputably and, with the exception of a Rodney King outlier, arguably a Taser would accomplish that.

Not through body armor.

And this is where it's your turn to name some examples.

Yah, okay.

I don't know that civlians have access to Tasers with leads that long.

Elwood?

I'd be reasonably confident that the percentage of gun owners who've had their own guns turned on them by an intruder is higher than 0.25%.

See, now there's a major disconnect.

"Sure, you can buy a trunkload of unregistered guns from some stranger in Georgia, but a Taser? Nuh-uh!"

Reasonably? Reasonably? Well, for you to characterize that number you just pulled directly out of your ass as "reasonable", you'll need to cite some statistics on which you base this alleged "reasoning." Let's see 'em.

The above was not stated as fact, but as opinion. You're not going to start cranking up JC's Friday Nite Stay-at-Home Dog & Pony Show by requiring everyone here to provide data to support a specifically stated opinion, so don't start it with me.

Here's something else to consider: Believe it or not, there are some people who aren't comfortable with the idea of killing someone else. Disabling them to prevent harm to themselves, yes. Killing, no. Try to wrap your mind around that.

Again, this has "don't know shit from Shinola" written all over it. Yes, I can gather up cash, make one phone call, and have my choice of unregistered rifle or shotgun in my hands within five minutes. Nobody I know has a taser, let alone one they could sell me. So "nuts" to you right backatcha.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Thank you for underscoring my point.

The right tool for the right job.