+70

Surely a good compromise in the guns debate would be to give people wishing to defend themselves a non-lethal weapon like a taser or a gun with rubber bullets, that way they can defend themselves by temporarily incapacitating the enemy until the police arrives and nobody dies in the process. It's just as much a deterrent to criminals without the death.

71%Agree29%Disagree
hkhan24s avatar Politics
Share
1 28

I think tranquilizer darts are the way to go. Most people are afraid of needles when they're injecting something good for you, imagine when one is flying at you with intent to harm

I like this idea, but wouldn't it eventually be counter-productive, once enough criminals realize that their lives aren't at stake?

Something makes me feel like this idea is good in theory, but bad in practice. It would cause an uproar in people who want guns to defend themselves, because I don't believe they'll feel as safe with a deterrent than with a gun. A taser can't shoot nearly as far as a gun, and in many situations, criminals won't be incompacitated by just rubber bullets. Additionally, if criminals can find ways to defend them selves again these deterrents much more easily then they can against guns. I'm sure they could creat some sort of thick clothing that doesn't conduct electricity, making a taser useless, and should they wear a bulletproof vest, a real bullet, which would normally kill them, might knock them to the ground, and a rubber bullet, which would normally knock them to the ground, won't do a thing.

Squaffles avatar Squaffle Disagree +6Reply

The entire point of the second amendment it so that the citizens can overthrow their government if need be.

@OnePiecepkmn Citizens don't need to legally possess guns for that purpose.

And why do you think that?

Wait, are you saying they can illegally own guns for that purpose?

@Frank_n_Furter And why do you think that? Wait, are you saying they can illegally own guns for that purpose?

If you're attempting to overthrow the government it doesn't matter if you have a gun permit.

@OnePiecepkmn If you're attempting to overthrow the government it doesn't matter if you have a gun permit.

You can do it without one, but the whole point is to make half a sort of check and balance of powers between the government and the citizens like there is within the government. And would make it a heck of a lot easier to protect yourself if you did. If they had machine guns, tanks, flame throwers, etc. and full body protect-ant gear and we had tasers and rubber bullets, we wouldn't stand a chance. Plus criminals can wear specialized clothing, non electricity conducting materials and bullet proof vests and the like and only criminals are going to use the black market so they can have real guns, so they're just gonna laugh at you when you pull out your weapon that can't hurt them and they have a lethal weapon.

@Frank_n_Furter You can do it without one, but the whole point is to make half a sort of check and balance of powers between the...

Most people won't be going up against a Rambo type criminal armed to the teeth with machine guns, flamethrowers, grenades and bullet proof vests and even if they did have a gun, it would only be slightly more effective than having a taser/rubber bullets and odds are they would still lose against the criminal. Most people require some sort of device that when they find a person in their house in the middle of the night, that device should make the intruder harmless until the police arrive. I'm not saying it should be black and white where you ban all guns and replace them with non-lethal weapons. Guns should still be around but harder to get hold of. Perhaps do a two-week training course with a psychological assessment at the end of it to get your gun. That way everyone's happy. Criminals are gonna get guns anyway, you can't stop them, that's the police's problem. If you are looking for something protect yourself from intruders i your home the you can go to a shop and buy a taser/rubber bullet gun. If you are paranoid that the mafia is gonna break into your house and attack you then you do the 2 week course and get a real gun.

Putting myself in the mindset of a robber who's willing to kill, I don't see that as a deterrent. I see that as laughable.
I really like the idea though, finding a non-lethal deterrent would be really nice.

@Len Putting myself in the mindset of a robber who's willing to kill, I don't see that as a deterrent. I see that as...

How is it laughable? If you broke into someone's house and they tased you or hit you in the face with a few rubber bullets it would have the same effect as if someone shot you, you'd be on the ground defenseless and then they'd have the option of beating the crap out of you until you die or making your life miserable until the police arrive. It's probably worse than death. Having a non-lethal weapon is the equivalent of having a gun which temporarily "kills" someone and you have the option of bringing them back to life once you are in safety or keeping shooting them to keep them in their "dead" position until help arrives. Also if you shot someone in your house thinking they were a burglar and they turned out to be your relative, you'd be damn glad it was just a taser and not a gun.

Finally A good idea that has to do with guns! I am tired of hearing about how teachers should haver guns and how so should students. I have heard about how painful rubber bullets are and I approve of this.

So what would the gun laws be in this system?

@AtheisticMystic So what would the gun laws be in this system?

Well I suppose anyone wanting a weapon for self defense reasons would be given a non-lethal weapon. That way they have sufficient protection and they can deter criminals without killing them. Obviously you can't stop people getting their hands on real guns if they wanted to as it's too late to close that can of worms but punish them more severely if they are in possession of one as they have no need for it.

@AtheisticMystic So criminals that have guns will be deterred by tasers and rubber bullets?

It will deter the low level criminals who do petty crime but obviously it won't deter the hardcore criminals who work in gangs and do serious crime but then again it's not exactly deterring them now is it with the current gun laws. The current laws haven't exactly made these criminals not do crime.
I can see where you're coming from, fear of death is greater than fear of getting caught but if you get tased you're still pretty screwed as the homeowner can still technically kill you as you in his/her mercy. Besides it's the police that deal with these hardcore criminals not the average Joe who lives at home with his family, he doesn't need an AK-47 in case the mafia come to his house, he just needs something that will knock out a burglar for long enough until the police come and arrest him.

@hkhan24 It will deter the low level criminals who do petty crime but obviously it won't deter the hardcore criminals who...

You say that, but do you realize that just South of the American/Mexican border there are ruthless and powerful cartels? It's not some fantasy, Mexico is practically run by the cartels. It's very hard to get a gun down there, and citizens are being helplessly slaughtered. The murder rate of central American is 28.5 murders per 100,000, and the North American murder rate is only 3.9 per 100,000. It's no joke and cannot be over-stated how bad things are. The only people not being bothered by the cartels are groups of Mormons who are illegally arming themselves with pretty heavy weaponry. I believe one of the only things keeping the cartel down where they are is the Second Amendment. We have far more weaponry than people realize. There are more firearms in this country than there are cars. 47% of households have at least one firearm. Our citizens are not citizens to mess with. If they tried coming in and taking over our cities, they would get killed.

Mike_Hawks avatar Mike_Hawk Disagree +1Reply

Read the Second Amendment, then get back to me

What about the cops that abuse their power to use guns?

@MusicIsAGift What about the cops that abuse their power to use guns?

I don't see how that would work. Surely there wouldn't be any more abuse of their power to use guns just because people have non-lethal weapons. If two people are pointing a weapon at each other and one has a gun and another has a taser/rubber bullet gun, they are both on an equal footing and whoever shoots first wins. Although the guy with the real gun might have a slight psychological advantage and would probably get the other guy to put his gun down.

I think this is a brilliant idea, can't believe it never occurred to me!

What this whole gun control argument, as well as pretty much any other argument involving the control or regulation of something, is based on are a couple basic things:

1. Do we value complete freedom or increased safety?
2. Do we believe there should be an authority, other than the united common people, powerful enough to tell someone that they must do this to increase safety or be punished?

For the first question, if you believe that some freedoms do need to be given up for the common good, then you must ask yourself, "Are the proposed regulations granting us enough safety to justify the freedoms we're surrendering?"

In this particular case, I believe you must remember one very simple rule. Outlawing something does practically nothing to stop outlaws from either doing the outlawed activity or getting the outlawed item. Throwing obstacles in the way of obtaining guns is really far more entangling law abiding, responsible gun owners in nearly useless red tape than it is deterring criminals from getting the same thing. You yourself admitted that there's no way of stopping those who really want guns from getting them. Your proposed solution was to create harsher penalties for all who possess a gun. I believe you're half way to the best solution. The penalties for those who use guns to commit crimes should be made far harsher, while leaving the law abiding citizens alone.

MrRites avatar MrRite Disagree 0Reply

Less-than-lethal means of defense are not as effective. Someone with strong conviction and a high pain tolerance would be undeterred by pain. People on certain types of drugs are unable to feel pain. The threat of pain is not as powerful as the threat of death.

Actual criminals, yes. People that would just like to incapacitate people for they can do who in the world knows, hell no. Nice creativity thoughActual criminals, yes. People that would just like to incapacitate people for they can do who in the world knows, hell no. Nice creativity though

I'm typicall not a pro-gun person, and I usually agree with gun control laws, but I think this goes too far. Saying that people who want to defend themselves can't have guns would just leave the law-abiding citizens with no guns and the criminals with plenty of them. Anyone who would follow the no gun rule is obviously not the type of person who would use a gun for illegal purposes anyway. People who are willing to commit crime with a gun are also willing to obtain a gun illegally.

What if you hunt? I don't but a whole bunch of my friends do.

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.