When gun stocks are the market's biggest risers, that really should be telling you something about the prospects for the rest of it. You'd have thought.
I am idly interested in the firearm sales data compared to that when President Obama was taking office and fears of a different nature - but same general result, a rush on firearms - happened.
Can you imagine Pepper Spray is illegal in NYC? It’s better than a gun because it’s non-lethal in the vast majority of cases, so you won’t need to hesitate, plus you don’t have to aim so much, can hit multiple assailants.
While you're right on those accounts, it does have some disadvantages - it tends to fill a room, and has a much higher chance of catching bystanders, so you can't use without any forethought. That being said, you also don't kill them when that happens.
Pepper spray is not illegal in NYC. The places to buy them are limited (specific sellers), the size of the canister is limited (pocket sized only), and the laws around using it are strict (self defense only where physical force would be justified).
In Manhattan for example you can buy pepper spray at certain pharmacies including ESCO in midtown (https://www.escopharmacy.com/).
there are many much more troublesome compounds thanpepper spray that come from a store or under a kitchen sink apparantly noone has used this concept yet but what happens when the pepper spray is all gone but there is plenty of glycerin and sodium bisulphate as an example?
This is not surprising at all. After seeing rampant violent/opportunist theft and destruction of property in my city, as well as threats from antifa to invade neighborhoods and give people "what they deserve", I am not surprised at all to see self defense on top of people's minds. I've seen online that many towns have citizens showing up with firearms to defend their neighbors and local businesses. I applaud them for the courage, and think it reflects the sentiment that politicians and police forces have failed to take the necessary actions to put an end to rioting with conviction. It is well past the time for them to use more forceful measures, if peaceful methods do not work.
I'll take it a step further and say that this situation is exactly why the 2nd amendment matters and why citizens need access to handguns/shotguns/semiautomatic rifles, in case a violent mob shows up. I am glad to have that right, should my property or loved ones be threatened.
CA has the castle doctrine, and many states have stand your ground laws. Nobody plans to shoot anyone, for self defense it is used as a last resort when an intruder continues to threaten the occupant.
That’s taken heavily out of context. Nobody plans to shoot someone when in a self-defense situation. Planning to use a gun to shoot someone is by definition a crime, and there is a burden of proof for that.
> If you pick up a gun, you are actively planning the possibility of a shoot.
That is exactly what I stated earlier. Nobody is planning to shoot someone with malice aforethought in a self-defense scenario. As you say, they are planning for the possibility that they might shoot someone. Those are two very different things.
> I think we are just sparring over the definition of "planning". Have a good day!
It matters a lot in a legal context. If you state the assertion that “everyone who picks up a gun is planning to shoot someone”, then automatically everyone who ever picked up a gun is guilty of a very specific crime. The distinction matters a lot.
I read his comment not in an absolute sense, but that most reasonable people do not want to ever use their firearm against another human. But they may encounter a situation that forces them to, and that defending their property/loved ones using a firearm is their right.
These imperfect people trying to defend themselves are easy to avoid, you just don't break into their property so that doesn't really seem like much of an issue.
So people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves because sometimes there are accidents? Should people be allowed to drive? After all, some people drive drunk. Should people even be allowed to go outside at all? After all, people get hit by meteors and lightning bolts.
Wow, way to be completely out of touch with reality. You really think the police should use more force? Hell why not use some hellfire missiles on 'em, right?
I think you're out of touch with reality. Most people do not support theft and destruction and violence. Do you?
When people illegally congregate without appropriate permits for protest, or in violation of curfews, or against peaceful orders to disperse, more action must be taken. When requests to stop looting and destruction of property are ignored, more action must be taken. Your reply makes me think you just want anarchy on the streets to be permitted without any deterrent.
Sorry, but most people do not want that. Most protesters also do not want that. And so yes, the police do need to take more definitive action when other methods have failed. This isn't a radical proposal, it is common sense.
Where was the order to disperse in Seattle? It definitely was not announced on Saturday before the Seattle Police Department started attacking protestors.
Mayor Jenny Durkan didn't even send the emergency curfew alert much before 5pm. I received it at 5:04pm, and most people I talked to got it after 5pm.
> the police do need to take more definitive action when other methods have failed.
Apply this logic to the protesters. There have been many examples of attempts at change without violence. I don’t like this, but I see why it is happening.
Protestors day one were hurling heavy rocks tens of yards at riot police as they stood. They are constantly being dehumanized - the protestors stand inches away and scream at police. All of this during a pandemic, by the way.
It's obscene to watch the media (CNN in particular) repeatedly claim that these nationwide protests are peaceful, when the police are universally yelled at, belittled, threatened, and dehumanized while stoically standing, and almost all of these riots seem to be accompanied by late night looting. Not to mention, I've repeat fly witnessed protestors belittle police for being black, female, and/or physically small.
I'm not saying there aren't legitimate reasons for protestors to be angry, only pointing out that this notion that police are just antagonizing innocent, peaceful protestors is pure propaganda.
Aside: that I have access to 20 first person perspectives from all sides of a historic event in real time, from the comfort of my home, is a testament to how far humanity has come.
There are multiple groups with different motives and actions. It will always be inaccurate to lump "protesters" together into one homogenous group when they are anything but.
Ironic, because I’m rather livid that local and national news are not airing the obvious clips of police brutality that are going around the country. Last night multiple people lost eyes to “rubber bullets” (baton rounds is more accurate) at peaceful protests, aiming at their heads.
I’ve also noticed that people who are comfortable using the destruction of property to justify the brutalizing of human lives have the unique ability to see looters before and after the clip began and ended, or perhaps just out of frame, or perhaps halfway across the city.
Look at the tweets and vids of cops using pepper spray recently and you will notice they all were furnished massive "bear spray" pepper cannisters, at least $50 each.
It's illegal for common citizens to use such large size pepper sprays, we only get puny little purse sizes.
is it really that surprised? After the riots/lootings in my metropolitan and has spread to my near by suburban areas, I am seriously thinking about buying a few hundred rounds of ammunition now.
45 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 86.6 ms ] threadhttps://www.wsj.com/articles/gun-stocks-surge-past-broader-m...
I advocate pepper spray for all instead of guns.
If a criminal is deciding to commit harm they will be prepared.
In Manhattan for example you can buy pepper spray at certain pharmacies including ESCO in midtown (https://www.escopharmacy.com/).
Legal: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/265.20
found this as well.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a28904691/ho...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20873675
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oAcT4Duun4
I'll take it a step further and say that this situation is exactly why the 2nd amendment matters and why citizens need access to handguns/shotguns/semiautomatic rifles, in case a violent mob shows up. I am glad to have that right, should my property or loved ones be threatened.
How many do you plan to shoot?
So nobody has ever used a gun to commit first degree murder?
I don't think you've thought through what you're typing.
I agree that you weren't talking about a 1st degree murder situation, but your wording is still sloppy and the idea you are conveying is inaccurate.
> Nobody plans to shoot someone when in a self-defense situation
Literally the only way your logic works is if you don't pick up a gun. If you pick up a gun, you are actively planning the possibility of a shoot.
Perhaps you are making a mental distinction between shooting a specific person versus shooting any person you find in your house?
> Planning to use a gun to shoot someone is by definition a crime, and there is a burden of proof for that.
I think we are just sparring over the definition of "planning". Have a good day!
That is exactly what I stated earlier. Nobody is planning to shoot someone with malice aforethought in a self-defense scenario. As you say, they are planning for the possibility that they might shoot someone. Those are two very different things.
> I think we are just sparring over the definition of "planning". Have a good day!
It matters a lot in a legal context. If you state the assertion that “everyone who picks up a gun is planning to shoot someone”, then automatically everyone who ever picked up a gun is guilty of a very specific crime. The distinction matters a lot.
edit: some examples of scared shooters acting out of fear without enough information shoot people who are not "intruders":
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2012/09/28/justice/connecticut-father-ki...[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ohio-father-fatally-sho...
"Accidents happen" disproves this assertion.
In my example, your drunk driver would be the shooter, not my the shooting victim.
I'm very familiar with risk evaluation. This whole thread was because I was pointing out a big gap in your logic.
I got from your parent "a semiautomatic rifle takes two hands to shoot, so how do you plan to shoot rifles?"
More realistically, a good engineer will always have a backup.
When people illegally congregate without appropriate permits for protest, or in violation of curfews, or against peaceful orders to disperse, more action must be taken. When requests to stop looting and destruction of property are ignored, more action must be taken. Your reply makes me think you just want anarchy on the streets to be permitted without any deterrent.
Sorry, but most people do not want that. Most protesters also do not want that. And so yes, the police do need to take more definitive action when other methods have failed. This isn't a radical proposal, it is common sense.
Mayor Jenny Durkan didn't even send the emergency curfew alert much before 5pm. I received it at 5:04pm, and most people I talked to got it after 5pm.
Apply this logic to the protesters. There have been many examples of attempts at change without violence. I don’t like this, but I see why it is happening.
Protestors day one were hurling heavy rocks tens of yards at riot police as they stood. They are constantly being dehumanized - the protestors stand inches away and scream at police. All of this during a pandemic, by the way.
It's obscene to watch the media (CNN in particular) repeatedly claim that these nationwide protests are peaceful, when the police are universally yelled at, belittled, threatened, and dehumanized while stoically standing, and almost all of these riots seem to be accompanied by late night looting. Not to mention, I've repeat fly witnessed protestors belittle police for being black, female, and/or physically small.
I'm not saying there aren't legitimate reasons for protestors to be angry, only pointing out that this notion that police are just antagonizing innocent, peaceful protestors is pure propaganda.
Aside: that I have access to 20 first person perspectives from all sides of a historic event in real time, from the comfort of my home, is a testament to how far humanity has come.
I’ve also noticed that people who are comfortable using the destruction of property to justify the brutalizing of human lives have the unique ability to see looters before and after the clip began and ended, or perhaps just out of frame, or perhaps halfway across the city.
It's illegal for common citizens to use such large size pepper sprays, we only get puny little purse sizes.