Reply
Sat 17 Jan, 2004 09:33 pm
We've already developed the technology.
Newer versions have been developed that can accurately hit moving targets several yards away, almost never fail to incapacitate the target, and yet also are almost never lethal. Not all are electric either. Some chemicals have been found that can almost instantly paralyze the victim without killing them.
A bit govt investment into further refining and mass producing them and they can be quite cheap.
Ways in which nonlethal weapons are superior law enforcement tools...
Officers would no longer have to wait until after the suspect points a gun at them to be able to fire back. This will undoubtedly save the lives of many officers.
Accidental shooting related deaths disappear.
In hostage situations, there is no risk of misfiring and hitting the hostage.
Stun gases can be a effective way to stop riots like those that follow football games and cost millions in damages to personal property, many fires and cost lives every year.
They are a safer alternative.
They can serve as a superior home defense idea. Less children accidently finding and shooting themselves with them. The victim will be less hesistent to shoot an invader as they don't have to fear killing someone who is unarmed and ending up in jail as a result. The prospect of taking a life can would make anyone hesistate and possibly be killed as a result.
For these same reasons, stun guns would be more a more effective response to guerilla warfare. How many innocent Iraqis have been killed because soldgers mistook them to be armed? How many american soldgers have died by waiting to be fired upon to respond in kind?
Stun gases can be a useful military too as well. They can be used in a large ambush without having to fear accidently shooting and killing fellow troops in the process. They can by a few members to bring down a large force.
I believe this technology will revolutionize law enforcement, the army, domestic defense and will eventually make normal guns obsolete.
Even hunters can use them to bring down animals painlessly so that they can be killed with minimal damage to the meat and minimum pain to the animal. Many animals escape even after being hit by a bullet. This wouldn't be the case if the bullets instead injected them with painless but paralyzing chemicals. Hunters don't have to worry about all the accidental killing that happen during hunting each year. They don't have to fear the many killed each year by bullets that ricochet off of trees. There isn't a single thing they can't replace.
Is this the compromise that the NRA and Suburban moms are waiting for?
They make for a much more compassionate
armed robbery, burglary, and assault too.
Crimes can be made cleaner, easier, with fewer consequences,
higher volume and productivity with less risk.
If it means less innocent people are killed in burglaries by armed assailents, then how can you possibly complain about that?
I think it would be a mistake if this was technology was openly offered in the free market. Police, armies sure but what does anyone else need it for. I can see only baaaad result is the average criminal got a hold of one.
i would much rather that criminals arm themselves with these than guns that actually kill people.
they make a lot of noise too, they are not some stealthy new way for criminals to bring down people.
they would decrease the risk people have from trying to escape an armed assailent. having your life threatened is one thing, being threatened with maybe being stunned is another.
i see NO reason why any criminal would prefer this over a regular gun especially if the penalties for armed robbery etc remain the same regardless of whether they used a real or a stun gun.
the psychos that would use these for armed robbery are more likely to use regular guns for them if these make the same amount of noise, and they will still be punished just as severely if caught. but less people would be killed.
i don't know how you can think that's a bad thing.
once the tech is tweaked enough and we can use these guns to just as effectively defend ourselves, i see no reason why we can't simply ban regular guns. maybe this is the reason, republicans and the nra hasn't embraced stun guns though they can with more development be used to do everything a real gun can.
but people are still uncomfortable wiht the idea, sure, we can still develop them for use by police/armies. Not having to fear killing your allies in friendly fire or having to wait to be shot at first to fire back is a HUGE benefit.
Imagine if a rapist got hold of one...You'd be incapacitated before you were 'unparalysed', Armed robbery, these are the nicest dudes, easier to slice someone if they are out. Just saying, I think the bad guys got enough weapons. Do they really need more. I can see it now, the safer, gentler bad guys.
Can't ban regular guns... same as you can't ban nuclear weapons... they already exist.
I think that it's safer if the police force use them, but- as Sealpoet's already said- they will never be able to ban regular guns. It is sadly impossible.
ceili, thats how they use normal guns now. i don't see how stun guns would be even worse. i think they increase the liklihood that people won't be killed in these situations. in addition, women can start carrying stun guns too. people hesistate to carry or use normal guns because fo the risk of accidental death and the difficulty it is for someone inexperienced to pull the trigger and kill another. but with stun guns it's a whole anohter story, like pepper spray. more of these criminals and rapists would end up behind bars pretty quick.
if stunguns prove to be able to do everything that normal guns can (can be used for hunting, home defense, etc), i don't see why there is any need for anyone to have normal guns. we can try to pass an amendment to ban normal guns. maybe the govt could replace people's normal guns with stun guns.
sure, there will still be some people who have them. but the less there are, the less deaths they'll be. i am only proposing this if stun guns prove to just as effective defensive tools as normal guns.
Also be great to stop those irritating folks who insist on excercising their right to protest in a democracy.
"None of those nasty baton marks to the head anymore, hey Sarge?"
'No. Thanks to this new technology, traces of excessive police force can't be identified on 9 out of 10 protesters".
"Can't I just hit one of them Sarge?"
"Just see if you can 'accidently' smack their face against the door of the van when your putting them in. Twice".
That's an entirely seperate issue Mr stillwater.
If there are complaints of police abusing this technology, then an investigation will be launched into them.
Frankly, that example is ludacrous. On very rare occasions do officers use excessive force. And in those cases, an investigation is launched and they end up in jail.
Regardless, police brutality is a seperate issue, one we can discuss elsewhere.
The benefits of this technology far outweight the risks associated with it.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace