Not a great plan

#1 - heroicdose

Reply +87 123456789123345869

(08/14/2014) [-]

i think anybody who thinks thats a good idea should definitely follow through.

#4 to #1 - grimagination

Reply +18 123456789123345869

(08/14/2014) [-]

then sit back and let natural selection do its thing

#44 to #4 - anon id: 0b37b79f

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(08/15/2014) [-]

You mean, when those who tazered the others get charged with assault and battery? That's not natural selection, that's JUSTICE.

#51 to #44 - mephiblis

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(08/15/2014) [-]

He means when a libtard tazes Billy Bob who then magdumps his 1911 into said libtards chest.

#8 - Lambda

Reply +61 123456789123345869

(08/14/2014) [-]

"See that guy legally carrying a weapon? Let's go assault him!"

#52 to #8 - sciencexplain

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(08/15/2014) [-]

Then you are finally forced to remove the taser, he gets up and shoots you in the stomach. Justice is ******* served.

#10 - tittylovin

Reply +54 123456789123345869

(08/14/2014) [-]

>don't like weapons
>solution is to carry weapons and attack other people with weapons
In what possible way is this going to work out in your favor.

#32 to #10 - srskate

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(08/15/2014) [-]

>don't like lethal weapons
>solution is to carry non-lethal weapons

It's still **********, but come on dude.

#36 to #32 - tittylovin

Reply +6 123456789123345869

(08/15/2014) [-]

It's lethal if you've got a weak heart or a pacemaker.

#64 to #36 - srskate

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(08/16/2014) [-]

as opposed to bullets?

#65 to #64 - tittylovin

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(08/16/2014) [-]

I've never shot a pacemaker

#66 to #65 - srskate

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(08/16/2014) [-]

Need to work on your aim, bro. They're pretty easy to hunt in the wild.

#49 to #32 - blargchikahonkhonk

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(08/15/2014) [-]

you can kill someone with a taser if you want

#63 to #49 - srskate

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(08/16/2014) [-]

I can kill you with my hands too. They still aren't qualified as lethal weapons.

#15 to #10 - akselrk

Reply -1 123456789123345869

(08/15/2014) [-]

Tasing people would be fun though. Get a shot in the face wouldnt be so much fun on the other hand.

#22 to #15 - draaaaiven

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(08/15/2014) [-]

Either way you're going to jail.

#7 - Maroon

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(08/14/2014) [-]

I would straight up shoot the bitch that tased me the second I got up

#12 to #7 - sploogesundays

Reply +19 123456789123345869

(08/14/2014) [-]

>le edgy 12 year old

#20 to #12 - yaybacon

Reply +4 123456789123345869

(08/15/2014) [-]

#60 to #12 - thesweetscientist

Reply -3 123456789123345869

(08/15/2014) [-]

But he has a point. A good one too!

#16 to #7 - captainstinkypinky

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(08/15/2014) [-]

i dont think that would be considered justifiable homicide

#42 to #16 - thegamerslife

Reply -1 123456789123345869

(08/15/2014) [-]

It is though, because you don't know what her intentions are. after you get up, or avoid the tase you are acting in self defense. once you are tased you are defenseless, especially if she kept the thing going and who knows what she will do to you while you are in that situation. ANYTHING, cause you can't stop **** at that point.

tl;dr it is though.

#58 to #42 - anon id: f06d37b2

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(08/15/2014) [-]

it isn't though tl;dr: no

#61 to #58 - anon id: 339eeafe

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(08/15/2014) [-]

Actually when it comes to citizen use of tazers where I am they are considered on par with handguns as far as level of force and as such a ballistic response would be justified, not wise but justified. An unprovoked attack like the one described is assault with a deadly weapon at minimum and attempted murder at maximum because tazers do have the capacity to kill in certain situations. Regardless of intent the suggested attack is illegal and the logic behind it only illustrates the violent irresponsible tendencies of individuals who take a hard civilian disarmament stance.

#6 - slenderwolf

Reply +12 123456789123345869

(08/14/2014) [-]

If someone can see the gun you're carrying you're either an officer of doing it wrong.

#24 to #6 - anon id: a39ff372

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(08/15/2014) [-]

Many areas allow open carry.

#25 to #24 - TheForce

Reply -2 123456789123345869

(08/15/2014) [-]

Open carry is the wrong way to go about carrying a gun, whether is is legal or not.

#27 to #25 - skypatrol

Reply +1 123456789123345869

(08/15/2014) [-]

Dont dress like a ******* bum and youll be fine.
You look like some ****** from innercity with a gun in your back waistband your gonna have problems
Dress nicely and have a holster and usually people leave you alone.

#29 to #27 - TheForce

Reply +4 123456789123345869

(08/15/2014) [-]

“Heh, I gotta tell you the truth…I look at this as a double-edged sword. I think it’s good when people see legitimate people with guns. That’s a good thing. A down side to it is, some of the people that open carry use the term deterrent when they do it, as if seeing someone with a gun will keep the bad guy from committing a crime. Nothing could be further from the truth—bad guys commit crimes all the time in front of cops. Bad guys kill cops, and cops carry out in the open. I would never carry the gun openly…even in place where it was normal, like Arizona, people carry guns openly all the time…but I don’t like giving up the tactical advantage that is concealed carry. If I’m going to draw, if I’m going to get involved, it is going to be on my terms..if five guys with shotguns come in to take the place down, I’m not just going to engage them, I may just stand by and be a good witness. I carry concealed because if I’m going to act it has to be on my terms.”

Pat Rogers, EAG Tactical

#47 to #29 - poeci

Reply -1 123456789123345869

(08/15/2014) [-]

it both has it's ups and down, open carry makes you the first threat for a criminal, so he may engage you first.
on the other hand if i was a criminal i rather rob the person who seems to not have a gun, rather than the person who obviously has one

#31 - Steinwolf

Reply +10 123456789123345869

(08/15/2014) [-]

This post in a nutshell

#28 - phoenixdowner

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(08/15/2014) [-]

that's still an assault charge

#40 to #28 - masdercheef

Reply +6 123456789123345869

(08/15/2014) [-]

Of course it's an assault charge

if there was no charge the taser would be useless

#26 - noblexfenrir

Reply +6 123456789123345869

(08/15/2014) [-]

You see, the problem for this guy is that the vast majority of gun rights advocated believe in equal levels regarding your reaction to certain violence. If your life is in danger whether explicitly or you don't know just how far that person will go, then they will fire.

If you shock them slightly, it's going to be real hard to be the one asking questions when they pull the gun from it's holster and hit you in the ******* face with it, then hold you at gunpoint until the police arrive because some moron is just tasing random people outside of a store.

#11 - Jabberwocky

Reply +5 123456789123345869

(08/14/2014) [-]

It's people like her that make it really ******* frustrating to be liberal.

#41 to #11 - thegamerslife

Reply -3 123456789123345869

(08/15/2014) [-]

stop spreading this idea of restricting rights and your side wouldn't look so stupid.

#38 - zomaru

Reply 0 123456789123345869

(08/15/2014) [-]

I say if a business does not want people to have a gun on the premises if it's legal, then install a metal detector and free lockers for them to store them in.

#46 to #38 - theXsjados

Reply +2 123456789123345869

(08/15/2014) [-]

It already works that way. In most states, if the owner of a property posts a sign in a place that any reasonable person could be expected to see it barring firearms on the property it's illegal to carry onto that property. The exception is law enforcement officers. LEOs can carry anywhere throughout the entire US, on or off duty, active or (honorably) retired, except for specific types of government buildings (where they check everyone for guns in the first place).

Some places, like banks, firearms are prohibited by law.

Smaller stores, like your mom and pop hardware store might be willing to prohibit firearms on their property, but bigger stores, like Walmart, would probably be less willing because a large portion of their customers carry, if you don't let them in with their guns they don't shop at your store.