It seems to me that the moral stand for pro-gun people would be to invest in the developement and spread of weapons that temporarily incapacitated an agressor, but that left no lasting harm.
Tasers and mace are real life examples of this. They are perfect for home defence, perfect for defense agains a mugger on the street, *and they are very hard to go on a killing spree with. *
(Mace and tasers are also very hard to shoot a deer with, but as I understand it, that is generally done with a long shotgun, and those are unattractive for young men on killing sprees anyway). Shotguns are also the perfect answer to those who want to form their own woodsland militiae.
Mace requires a close distance, so it is less “easy” then a gun. Taser guns now allow a distance of a couple meters. I guess there is a market for a dart gun with darts with a sedative, rhino hunter style. As long as we don’‘t shoot those at people that operate cars, I’'d say they do less harm then a fire arm while serving the same purpose.
Are there any weapons that serve this truly defensive purpose?
If there are, we might start a thread on if we should aim for a slow replacement of firearms with such weapons.
Perfect! Also, it has that comic book hero appeal. I secretly suspect that a large part of owning and holding a gun is to feel like a badass fantasy person (cowboy, ninja, comic book hero, etc). In order for a weapon to be attractive, it has to cater to that need.
Tasers are not easy to shoot - at least 2 barbs must connect and penetrate. If the guy swats at them while they’re flying toward him, he can knock em down or deflect. And u only get 1 shot - what if there’s > 1 intruder or the 1st shot misses? I’m thinking teargas nozzles embedded in the walls - or just chuck cannisters at em. I doubt any intruder will carry a mask, but the homeowner can strap 1 on while hitting the button or b4 pulling the pin. With practice, at least the standard-issue military mask can be put on in 10 seconds.
That would be a perfect solution for home and shop/store defence. Such a device, if it was mandatory combined with smoke, could not even be abused to commit robbery with. It is hard to force a clerk to open the safe when all he is instinctively running away, or else is helplessly retching all over the bankrobber.
Even going on a looting spree is hard when due to the smoke & teargras grenade thrown by the owner, the robber can’t even see where the big-ass tv screens are kept.
And afterwards, instead of cleaning away th bodies, the blood and the broken glass, all the owner has to do is open the windows and buy a replacement canister. The mask can be used indefinately.
A google search on"tranquillizer guns for home defense".Interesting discussions on pro-gun forums. (apparently, air guns or crossbows can be used too) They compare it to fire arms, and say it is no use against a fire arm (they are probably right) but the comparison would be different if you compared it to no-one having a fire arm.
No. Neither Tasers nor pepper spray are perfect examples of this. Pepper spray, even when deployed perfectly, has inconsistent results. Many people are not significantly incapacitated by pepper spray, and many of those who are are not stopped immediately. It does one no good to temporarily incapacitate an aggressor 10 seconds after you are stabbed to death.
Tasers are slightly more effective when deployed perfectly, as detailed in benbo1’s post. They have the added benefit of occasionally causing death in the target. Google Taser and the phrase “excited delirium” for more details.
Simply put, we do not have a magic wand that reliably stops aggressors without harming them. I’m eagerly awaiting that day, but until it comes firearms are the most effective option for self defense by a wide margin.
edit: Tranquilizer guns are also much too slow-acting to be reliable for this purpose.
And in addition to that, would have wildly variable results depending on the target. I’m a large guy with a high tolerance for sedatives. A dose that would knock me out reliably would likely kill a large percentage of the population.
Ok, what about a realllllllllllllllllllllly loud and continuous air horn? (Provided you and your family have ear protection. (also pairs well with a baseball bat!)
A Star Trek style stun weapon would likely also become the primary means of street theft. I think it’d cause a big increase even, as it would allow a ranged incapacitation of a person walking down the street. If nearly completely safe, it would remove most of the implied threat to life, so criminals not interested physical confrontation could join in stun-mugging. Hell, kids would probably get their hands on them and use them for de-pantsing, posing stunned people for goofy pics, etc.
JLRogers’s post says it all. There’s a reason the police carry firearms in addition to gazers and pepper spray: our currently available nonlethal defensive devices just aren’t reliable enough to be trusted 100% in a true life-or-death situation.
Probably, but I’d prefer that situation to the current one in which muggers threaten their victims with a lethal force weapon (and sometimes use it on them).
But it’s an academic problem right now, as we are nowhere near creating a Star Trek stun phaser.
Never tried it but I’ve heard that a can of hornet spray is more effective than a gun if there is an immediate intrusion. Keep a can by your bed instead of that pesky gun which might be used to kill a family member.
I knew this would become another debate thread, eventually, but so soon already? You are right of course, that most non-lethal weapons are… well, not as lethal and threatening as fire arms, when threatened by someone carrying a fire arm.
But that is the whole debate. The chicken and egg situation created by the wide spread of fire arms. “” I need a fire arm because my opponent will have a fire arm". And the pro gun crowd don’t see a way out of this, because in the short term, they don’'t want to be armed with a taser or an air horn or an unwieldy shotgun or air gun, when they might come up against someone with a fire arm. So what is the alternative? An ever bigger public arms race?
Not just someone with a firearm, pretty much anyone with any kind of weapon, even just fists. Non-Lethal weapons are simply less reliable, the results vary wildly between individuals, and the defender runs a significant risk of their weapon being unable to disable his attacker.
I’m not a gun person, but if you intend to defend your home with a weapon, a one shot, short range taser is no substitute for a multi shot handgun.
For the police, they work as an alternative to the billyclub, less so as an alternative to their sidearm.
Technically, if you want to protect yourself then surely the way to go is to…protect yourself.
Rather than focus on incapacitating an attacker, I mean.
If you’re relying on a weapon you’ve already handed them an advantage (since you can only respond to your attacker instead of preempting it). Some sort of armour or anti-weapon/disarming system might be the way to go.
Sound LASERs. They have used big units on ships to deter pirates. I see there are now hand held versions. More effective than just an air horn. Apologies if this was mentioned in the cracked.com post - our IT overlords block those type of links.
WARNING: MAY BE LESS EFFECTIVE AGAINST INTRUDERS WITH EAR BUDS IN AND SET ON ELEVEN!
