Curious question.

[Docfeelgood]

I was wondering, those of you who are anti-gun would feel the same way if it were lasers/phaser/blasters ( what ever they are called )
Would you pass up the opportunity to have one of these futuristic weapons?
What if light sabers were real and a group was wanting them banned. Would you still go along with the ban? Even still they were used in crime?

[giblets]

lol good luck keeping your truck safe from "******s" (as you call them) with light sabers.

[Docfeelgood]

lol good luck keeping your truck safe from "******s" (as you call them) with light sabers.

Your point?
The lasers/phaser/blaster would work.
I'm just asking a question gribbler.

If being horney is making you ornery? go jerk off.

[snoopy369]

Speaking as someone who is in the middle on gun control but personally does not own a gun and does not want to, I think the issue is not with the specifics of the weapon; it is with two things.

1. The ease by which such a weapon can be used to kill someone
2. The danger even a legally owned weapon poses, in terms of accidental shootings, children, etc.

I combine those two, and compare the degree to which I think guns have benefits to the dangers in those. I tend to be ambivalent - I'm okay with some gun control, but I don't argue for it - because I think it's pretty moot. Odds are gun control wouldn't reduce my risk substantially (criminals have easy access and will for the forseeable future) but they wouldn't really improve things for me either (I don't have one and don't want one, largely because of 2 plus the very low chance I'd actually be able to use one to defend myself). Gun control does have the benefit of allowing the police to arrest criminals for something that is easy to prove (possession of a weapon) when they otherwise might not be able to arrest them, so that's a plus, but then again that's letting the police selectively enforce laws, which is a minus. I don't believe gun control is "all that is standing between us and the government takeover", particularly as we're a democracy (ish) and that is (theoretically) one of the advantages thereof. Basically I don't believe any of the rhetoric of either side (or consider it a positive).

But no, I would not want to own a phaser or a laser gun or a lightsaber. Perhaps if some technology were to make it so it were completely safe in terms of children and such, I might consider it (ie, DNA locking or something); but as it stands, there's no way I could have a gun accessible enough to defend me from the limited kinds of crime that might occur but be inaccessible enough that there were no risk for my (very young) children. Even very, very safe and careful people make mistakes sometimes, and it only takes one. If I can accidentally leave the garage open overnight, I'm sure I could accidentally leave a round in the chamber.

[Docfeelgood]

Speaking as someone who is in the middle on gun control but personally does not own a gun and does not want to, I think the issue is not with the specifics of the weapon; it is with two things.

1. The ease by which such a weapon can be used to kill someone
2. The danger even a legally owned weapon poses, in terms of accidental shootings, children, etc.

I combine those two, and compare the degree to which I think guns have benefits to the dangers in those. I tend to be ambivalent - I'm okay with some gun control, but I don't argue for it - because I think it's pretty moot. Odds are gun control wouldn't reduce my risk substantially (criminals have easy access and will for the forseeable future) but they wouldn't really improve things for me either (I don't have one and don't want one, largely because of 2 plus the very low chance I'd actually be able to use one to defend myself). Gun control does have the benefit of allowing the police to arrest criminals for something that is easy to prove (possession of a weapon) when they otherwise might not be able to arrest them, so that's a plus, but then again that's letting the police selectively enforce laws, which is a minus. I don't believe gun control is "all that is standing between us and the government takeover", particularly as we're a democracy (ish) and that is (theoretically) one of the advantages thereof. Basically I don't believe any of the rhetoric of either side (or consider it a positive).

But no, I would not want to own a phaser or a laser gun or a lightsaber. Perhaps if some technology were to make it so it were completely safe in terms of children and such, I might consider it (ie, DNA locking or something); but as it stands, there's no way I could have a gun accessible enough to defend me from the limited kinds of crime that might occur but be inaccessible enough that there were no risk for my (very young) children. Even very, very safe and careful people make mistakes sometimes, and it only takes one. If I can accidentally leave the garage open overnight, I'm sure I could accidentally leave a round in the chamber.

TY for your comment.
I see your point.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Your point?
The lasers/phaser/blaster would work.
I'm just asking a question gribbler.

If being horney is making you ornery? go jerk off.

I would like to point out that Doc did not disagree with the assertion that that is what he "[calls] them".

[Docfeelgood]

I would like to point out that Doc did not disagree with the assertion that that is what he "[calls] them".

So?

Whats your point?

[Docfeelgood]

Black , brown , white, yellow, green and purple. " ******s" are about the person and there ant-social attitude tword society not the color of there skin.
Sorry to disappoint you.
If you took the time to read my post then you wouldn't look so stupid trying to point out my faults.
Get a life dude!

[DaShi]

I'm ok with light sabers, but not blasters. So uncivilized.

[Docfeelgood]

I'm ok with light sabers, but not blasters. So uncivilized.

[Wezil]

I can't wait for the advent of mass produced energy weapons.

US society is going to get sooo much more exciting.

[The Mad Monk]

You mean like tasers?

[Docfeelgood]

You mean like tasers?

Tasers require a wire to be functional.
Need like a phaser with a stun setting.
I could have fun and enjoy stunning some people I don't like.

[Wezil]

You mean like tasers?

Inadequate range and not lethal enough.

I mean really, it would be hard to shoot up a school with a taser.

You need to make is useable by the kids for it to be a hit.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

You mean like tasers?

Owen: [after Patches O'Houlihan has been killed] Look on the bright side, at least we've still got Peter!

Dwight: Yeah, but Globo Gym's got guys named Laser, and Blazer, and Tazer, and all kinds of "azer's"! Without Patches, we're going to get our taints handed to us, that's what!

Justin: [Whispers to Gordon] What's a taint?

Gordon: I don't know, but it sounds *bad*!