Non-lethal self-defense weapons

[George_Bonanza]

I hate the fact that America feels like they have the right to own guns. It's a dangerous principle. Countries like Canada are gun-free, and we are very safe. Of course, America is bigger and more dangerous than Canada, so it's not exactly a parallel example. While I am inherently anti-gun, I do realize the fact that many American cities are not safe, and civilians deserve the weapons they need to protect themselves from the weapons of the criminals. Gun laws usually only affect those willing to obey them, which are the good citizens, not the thugs and gangs. So what's the word on non-lethal self-defense weapons, which I will refer to from now on as NLSDWs. I went to a hunting site and found that air-powered pistols that shot tranqs had a range up to 50 yards in gentle wind conditions. Isn't that perfect for a home invasion protection? I mean, nobody's going to be robbed during a hurricane, in the great outdoors. How much power and range do you need? And air rifles with tranqs have ranges up to a 100 yards. That's more than enough power and range I can dream of for self-protection. Of course, if you feel like you need the potential power of a soldier, than it's not for you.

Some idiot I argued with said that in a home invasion scenario, a tranq is no match for a shotgun. Yes, the power of a tranq is no match for a shell. But once you're tranq'ed, you've got a few seconds before you get knocked out, and even with the strongest gun in the world, unless you have the first shot, you're dead. So that point was utterly stupid, like two kids trying to one-up each other on whose Nerf gun was better. Then the idiot resorted to another argument that said that the hostile invader wasn't instantly put down by tranqs, that a few precious seconds would enable him to obliterate the victim before he got knocked out. I don't know what the strength of tranqs exactly is, but even bullets don't result in instant deaths. So with any weapon, tranq or handgun, you run the risk of not putting the guy down instantly. Personally, I would think that if someone shot me up with a load of anaesthesia or something, I wouldn't be able to aim a gun.

I hope more R&D is put into NLSDWs. I know it's a great idea, and it may even expose those who sincerely want guns only for protection, and those who want guns because they're arrogant or compensating for something. I don't know. You know, I love the United States. Many of my young Canadian fellows don't have that same respect I think. But this is one aspect of America that I really get riled over.

[WatchWhatISay]

1. Canada is not gun free. Just a lot more gun-violence free

That is one of Micheal Moore's major points in his book/movie Bowling for Columbine. Actually, I think he said they own more guns per capita than the we do.

[George_Bonanza]

2. Hmm

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,555589,00.html

America is responsible for half the handguns in Canada.

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/canada.htm

I don't know if this is a gun-nut or an extreme anti-MM site or not, but here it firmly states that Canadian per-capita gun-ownership is only 1/3 of America's, NOT its equal. I like MM as an entertainer, but his credibility with the truth is totally shot with me. This was way before I read this BTW.

In the city I live in, I have never seen a prominent gun store. I have never heard of an instance of an adult, or child that I faintly knew that owned a gun. The idea is very foreign to me.

[lcordero]

3. but they do have a right to own guns:D

people=militia
militia=people

Hell, most of everybody has a kitchen cabinet full of cleaning supplies <---these are super dangerous:evilgrin:

[George_Bonanza]

15. The whole militia thing is stupid

Like a bunch of civilians would be able to take on fighter jets and tanks and smart bombs. Guns or no guns, any civilian uprising would be squashed. If you really want a powerful potential civilian uprising, then amend the 2nd amendment into giving every civilian the right to a missile. The times have changed.

Also, I hate that argument because it's so lacking in confidence in our democracy and international watchdog systems. We're no longer settling this vast new mysterious New World. We have electoral systems in place to throw out bad fish. Do examples of non-violent leaders have any meaning?

[DoNotRefill]

21. LOL!!!

"Guns or no guns, any civilian uprising would be squashed."

Tell that the the Viet Cong and Mujahadeen. Hell, tell that to the Iraqi people. They seem to be doing a decent job resisting with small arms...

[NickB79]

24. Damn, tell that to the Iraqis

They're single-handedly proving the NRA right on their central tenet: that an armed society can and will successfully defend itself from a hostile invader. They're taking out our guys riding around in state-of-the-art vehicles, backed by jets and tanks, with homemade bombs, rifles and grenades, not hard items to get.

You think electoral systems will stop the need for citizens to own defend their countries? I'm sure the people of Iraq felt that way too, that the UN would stop the US from attacking them. Sure.

[Fescue4u]

27. Like Iraq?

" it's so lacking in confidence in our democracy "

The founding fathers felt the same way. They believed in Democracy but realized that its not the ultimate safety valve...hence the need for the 2nd.

[Fescue4u]

4. Canada gun Free????

Hardly, but it looks like someone else addressed that so I'll let it slide...

A tranquilizer for home defense? Interesting concept but what do you do when the bastard wakes up?

Or worse yet, when he doesnt fall over asleep. Certain drugs make some thugs damn near (temporaily) impervous to bullets let alone darts.

Understand that Im not dismissing the idea out of hand, just that Im not convinced yet.

If perfected it does sound like a good compromise for inflight aircraft protection though.

[Maple]

5. Canada not only has guns,

millions of them in fact...Canada is bigger than the US.

Only Russia is bigger than Canada.

(If you want to talk population, then China and India are individually bigger than the US and Russia combined)

What Canada does NOT have is a 'gun culture.'

[WilliamPitt]

6. You're watching the History Channel, right?

I saw that show last night. Eerie.

[DoNotRefill]

7. Watch bowling for columbine...

that pretty much shoots the "Canada is safe because we're gun free" argument right in the ass.

If you don't like our civil liberties, that's fine. You're free to not visit.

The problem with "non lethal" weapons is that they're generally not 100% effective. If you shoot somebody in the had with a shotgun at close range, they're going to die immediately, or at least not be able to continue what they're doing. With drugs, you've got a problem. If you make it powerful to knock down the 400 pound aggressor on PCP, it's going to kill smaller people. If you make it so it only is effective on smaller people, the 400 pound PCP guy's going to eat your lunch. Also, tranks for animals frequently take minutes, not seconds, to become effective. That's a VERY long time in a fight.

Being shot doesn't mean you die instantly. Shot placement along with weapon caliber is important. Shoot somebody in the foot with a .22, and they'll hop around for a while, bleading on everything. Shoot somebody in the head or central chest cavity with a shotgun or a centerfire rifle or even some pistols, and they're going down, period.

Another problem with trank guns is that they're pretty much single shot weapons. Miss the first time, and you're SOL. Most guns have at least 4 shots before reloading, and plenty have a high capacity. My "favorite" self-defense gun is a high capacity semi-auto rifle. I gave one to a family member who was concerned about break-ins, taught her the safety rules and some rudimentary point-shooting techniques, and told her how to respond in case of an attack (close the door, get behind the bed, point the rifle at the door, call the police on the cellphone, listen for the cops and look for the lights, yell "I've got a gun and have called the police!" so the intruder knows to leave, and if the door opens before the cops get there, keep pulling the trigger until it's empty.) Crude, but effective, and if 75 rifle rounds coming towards the intruder doesn't make the criminal hightail it out of there, nothing will.

[George_Bonanza]

10. Bowling for Columbine is hardly a documentary

It's entertainment. Period. I hate Michael Moore as a straight, to the facts reporter.

[DoNotRefill]

11. So, he planted the guns in Canada?

the Canadian Firearms Registry is a myth?

Moore isn't perfect, but he's dead on regarding some things.

[George_Bonanza]

16. No, but saying that per capita, CDNs own more guns than Americans

Is a lie. Ten percent of Canadian civilians own guns. You have pointed out that twenty five percent of American civilians own guns. That percentage is not equal. And it shows that per capita, Canadians own LESS guns than Americans. A big fat lie.

[NickB79]

25. May I ask for a link to the 10% figure?

Just curious, as I can't find anything substantial.

[onebigbadwulf]

8. Canada is peaceful

Because it's socialist.

America needs to abadon its right-wing nut uber-conservative mind set before we destroy ourselves.

[s33]

26. Canada is not socialist

.....it is a centrist democracy.Dont buy into the right-wing spin.Free healthcare,no death penalty and social welfare for all has been the norm for a long time in Western Europe,Canada and Australasia.It's not some sudden socialist takeover,it's just the way democracies work.The only places that dont believe in these tenets are third-world dictatorships and America.

The only clearly defined socialist country left is Cuba.

[George_Bonanza]

9. By gun-free I mean that

It's a rarity in Canada for a person to seek out guns. I know the prairies like their hunting rifles. Those are legal. I know Canadian policemen own guns. I know RCMP officers have guns. About 3 million of the 7 million guns in Canada are civilian owned. There's about 230 million guns in the U.S. That means there's about 10% of Canadian civilians that own guns. About 75% of American civilians own guns. Some of those may actually be federal users. Nevertheless, the percentage is signicantly higher.

[DoNotRefill]

12. your 230 million figure is out of date...

it's supposedly close to 300 million now. And 75% of all americans don't own guns, around 25% do. it's legal to own more than one gun.

[George_Bonanza]

14. Thanks for the info

Compare 25% to 10% though. Is Michael Moore right in saying the per capita is MORE in Canada?

[DoNotRefill]

18. I don't know.

but it wouldn't surprise me. Canada is mostly rural, right? Rural areas tend to have more guns than urban areas, and when there are fewer suburbs and more rural areas, there's more opportunity for hunting.

[George_Bonanza]

19. Canada is sparsely populated

Most of her lands are hard to live in, like the Arctic North and the Canadian Shield of Northern Ontario. Not many live in every acre of the praires, nor the interiors of BC. Populations are very highly concentrated near the U.S. border, like Vancouver and the Great Lakes area of Ontario.

I live in Vancouver, and I don't know any parent, teacher, or adult acquaintance that owns a gun. I have never seen a gun store downtown. I've only seen policemen and guards with guns. But if the city was transplanted into America, guns would be in the hands of many more people.

I realize that guns are needed in America to combat the heavy criminal activity. I accept the fact that guns deter crime. But I do not accept the fact that guns are the best we can come up with. Weapons that deter crime AND not kill are perfectly conceivable. That's what I hope to see.

[George_Bonanza]

13. DoNotRefill... That's why R&D could help

Clips too small on tranqs? Seek to increase them. Too much drugs can kill a guy? Well, if you're so worried about killing intruders, you wouldn't own a gun, would you? Again, more R&D into drugs then. And if 8% of the time, you will OD the guy you shoot, too bad. At least 92% of the time, the intrusion will end without a death or bloodshed. And you won't have lethal weapons lying around. Finally, a way out of the culture of heavy gun ownership that many good countries have found their way out of.

[DoNotRefill]

20. nope...

non-lethal weapons have much looser standards for use than lethal weapons. It's legal to use a non-lethal weapon in situations where a lethal weapon is illegal to use. Therein lies a problem. Imagine if teargas caused a certain percentage of people it was used on to die. How long would it still be considered non-lethal? and if it's reclassified as lethal, then it's much less effective than a gun, right? So where do you draw the line? And if it kills 8% of the people it's used on, well, that's not very non-lethal, is it?

BTW, I don't know if you knew this, but MOST times a gun is used to stop a crime, it isn't even fired, much less kills somebody. Pulling the gun is often enough to stop the behavior without killing the perpetrator.

Also, Switzerland has tons of guns in it. Is it a "bad" country? And if guns are NOT used in crime, is "heavy gun ownership" really a bad thing?

[Clete]

17. My thoughts are that in an ideal world

people would be unarmed, but there would be well-trained and armed militia to maintain the safety of the unarmed people. I mean there are going to be deviants from normal law-abiding behavior so I think trained professionals should deal with them, not any cowboy with a gun.

[DoNotRefill]

22. dude...

the people ARE the militia.

Given the current government in the US, would you REALLY trust the government with ALL the tools of power in the hands of the government?

[Silverhair]

29. Response time problem.

Let's say the response time of your local police is two minutes. That would be a response time that any police force would be proud of. Your home has just been invaded. Now what do you do - wait for the trained professional to get there - or defend yourself? And against most street criminals, holding a sword and looking angry will only draw laughs, and then they will show you what's what.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

23. No such thing.

There is no such thing as a 'non-lethal self-defense' weapon. They are all potentially lethal. So they are properly called 'less lethal' weapons, as in 'less lethal than firearms'.

In order for a Tranquilizer gun to be effective you'd have to pump up the dosage to such a degree you'd end up killing almost as many people as you would with a firearm.

[Silverhair]

30. Yes, The dosage needed would vary and...

could be lethal for some people. You wouldn't have time to estimate the body weight to determine dosage, guess what drugs they may be one and the tranq drug interaction to them, measure out the dose, prepare the gun, and then shoot. And what if you miss? Say, "Wait a minute evil dude while I get another shot ready?"

[bobthedrummer]

40. US non-lethal arsenal-a dated one but interesting

http://www.adacomp.net/~mcherney/nonlethal.html

Here is a more recent link, lots of directed energy weapons listed
http://www.datafilter.com/mc/nonlethalWeapons.html

[Silverhair]

28. Real world self defense.

The only moral and legal reason for using lethal force on another human being is that they are doing something so evil that they must be STOPPED INSTANTLY, even if in the process of stopping them you, as an unfortunate by product of stopping them, kill them. STOPPED INSTANTLY means exactly that, STOPPED RIGHT DAMNED NOW, THIS *&%#@^** FRACTION OF A SCEOND!!!!! Not a few seconds from now. That's why it is called, "in the gravest extreme." You use lethal force when ALL other reasonable options have been exhausted. If you are not yet in that gravest extreme then you have NO BUSINESS PULLING THE TRIGGER!!!! (That bullcrap of shooting someone in the leg to "stop" them is both stupid & wrong. A leg shot can be fatal & may not stop someone.)

That pretty much means that you are shooting because you are trying to save your own life or some one elses life, and you are trying to do it RIGHT NOW!!!! When I am trying to save my life I want something that will do the job.

Trying to use a tranqualizer dart has a bunch of problems. The first is that it takes time to be effective. Plenty of time for your assailant to badly injure or kill you. (Most real world defensive gun firings take place inside 7 feet) Criminals almost always try to get surprise on their side so you won't have a lot of time to do anything. No time to prep the tranq gun, or to fumble with gun locks, etc. Also, tranqs are a one shot deal. If you are up against more than one bad guy, you are in trouble. Tranq have little intimidation power. In 99% of self defense uses of a firearms, no shots are fired. The bad guy knows he could die and takes off running. Nothing in the nonlethal stuff has that ability - Nothing.

Also, for reason that I simply don't understand, many liberals are against the ordinary person possessing any self defense capability at all beyond trying to out run the crook. Defensive sprays have been outlawed for private use & carry in some states. Same for "stun guns".

I hope that I never have to actually pull the trigger on someone, but if that ever happens I will be "in the gravest extreme", out of time, and I will need lots of stopping power on my side in a super hurry. My Sig-Sauer .45 (I can still shoot military level expert with it.) loaded with 230 grain Hydra-Shok fired double-tap should save my life, if it ever comes to it.

I have said in other posts and will repeat here. The decision to own a gun, like the decision to drive, is a commitment. You need to become extremely proficient in the use of either one, or you have no business using either one. Proficient also means knowing what really happens in the real world, not an ivory tower theorist world.

[George_Bonanza]

31. Hold up. What about tasers?

They have up to 20 feet in range. Somebody mentioned here that most violent crimes have place within 7 feet. I think to protect one against home invasion, a taser is the way to go. You don't run the risk of killing a person, and you still get the full effect of a instant knocker-outer.

But alas, the range may not be so good. The answer? R&D. I'm surprised tasers have a range up to 20 feet. Unless you live in a mansion, I believe you don't need a high powered rifle to protect yourself.

[DoNotRefill]

32. Except, of course...

for the fact that tasers can be ineffective. When tasers work, it takes 4 seconds of application on average to incapacitate a person. When they don't work (for example, if the person is wearing a heavy leather jacket that the barbs can't bite into, or when the subject grabs the wires and yanks the barbs out) they're useless. Shot placement is also very important, far moreso than a firearm. Hit somebody in the leg or arm with a taser, and it'll just piss them off. Hit somebody in the leg or arm with a firearm, and you've still got a good chance of knocking them out of the fight.

Have you ever been hit with a taser? I have, as part of a training program. They have uses, but aren't perfect. I sure as hell wouldn't trust my life to one.

[George_Bonanza]

33. Again, tasers are not at their zenith of engineering

Develop a stronger shot so that the probes can penetrate anything weaker than kevlar. In fact, the probes don't even need to touch the skin. As long as they are within 2 inches of skin, the charges can jump. And I doubt anybody can withstand the initial freezing shock and pull them out like the Hulk or something. Anywhere you hit, the charges will affect the victim, so I do not see how an arm or a leg shot will differ from a torso shot. There are flaws in the taser though, in that the ideal range is around 7+ feet, in order to get the maximum charge into your attacker. But guns too have flaws, such as jamming, recoil, etc. Nothing's perfect. If perfection is what you're after, nothing's going to suit you.

I do not want a sweeping burning of guns, supplanted by tasers. I want a gradual, slow program of gun accountability in America. Gun shows should not be able to sell guns to shady characters. While gun registry may not be the best solution, there has to be accountability because guns are efficient killing tools in the wrong hands. The authorities need to now how they got there, and how to stop it. There can't be this blind leaking of deadly weapons into gangsters and thugs. Cracking down on irresponsible gun dealings, like in gun shows, is the first big step. It doesn't deny anytbody the right to defend themselves, but it does demand accountability. I think everybody can agree on that. Then maybe, when guns are in the country, but violence is down, alternatives like tasers and stunguns can be introduced to the public. By then, hopefully, tasers will have ranges of a 100 yards with a vast amount of shots.

And if you're so insistent on a citizen militia, take a note from the Swiss and create a National Guard sort of thing where volunteers enlist and are given training, and a rifle to keep away and never use unless called for. Just in case America is invaded unexpectedly or some rogue government exhausts all civilized methods of dealing with and has to be killed in a bloodshed.

[DoNotRefill]

34. some misconceptions:

First, the Swiss militia is NOT voluntary except for women. ALL men must go through conscription and around 2 years of active duty, and then they enter the reserves where they remain until retired.

Secondly, tasers DO NOT cause an instant freeze. I've been hit with them MANY times, and I've got a bucket of beer that says you haven't. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

"Cracking down on irresponsible gun dealings, like in gun shows, is the first big step."

Have you EVER been to a gun show in the US? Because nation wide, background checks MUST be performed EVERY time a dealer sells a gun to an individual, regardless of if it's at the store or a gun show. EVERY time. NO exceptions.

"The authorities need to now how they got there, and how to stop it."

Uh huh. Well, they made many drugs totally illegal. Yet they still can't stop the flow of drugs. What on EARTH makes you think they could fight a "war on guns" better than they fight the "war on drugs"? Talk about a pipe-dream...

"There can't be this blind leaking of deadly weapons into gangsters and thugs."

Let's say we could wave a magic wand and stop the diversion of guns from the domestic legal market to the illegal market. How exactly would that stop the availability of guns to gangsters and thugs? They stopped legally producing pot and cocaine in the US many years ago, but thugs and gangsters seem to have ZERO problem laying their hands on it. It's called a "Black Market" and it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE to stop in a free society.

[George_Bonanza]

35. Calm down

What does it matter if the Swiss militia is not voluntary? The fact is that something of an organized militia exists. If you seriously want a militia in America, than something similar to the Swiss program could be instituted. However, since I believe not every American would take kindly to potential conscription, I merely suggested that it should be voluntary. Sheesh.

Tasers do not cause instant freeze? http://www.mjbselfprotection.com/airtaserinfo.php. I do not know what kind of taser you were hit with. So these taser guys are just blatantly lying and nobody has sued their pants off? Perhaps you were just hit with a weaker taser.

Ah, gun show loopholes. On every search engine I go to, the name "Kopel" and "fictitious fraud" usually come up when I type in "Gun Control Loopholes". If it's true, then scrap that from the table.

Look, I'm trying to conceive of a kinder alternative world of self-defense here. Maybe the role of judge, jury, and potential executioner does not belong in the hands of people. If handguns can be legitimately replaced with tasers or tranqs, and militias can be unheld by Swiss-like programs, then I sincerely believe that's a better world to live in than holding guns at each other's throats, daring one another to give it a shot. When the Founding Fathers made the 2nd amendment, they were basically giving every individual the right to defend themselves. It does not necessarily have to be a lethal device.

BTW, I do not think the Assault Weapons ban is a logical act. It's definition of an assault weapon is very flimsy.

[DoNotRefill]

36. In your link...

please quote where it say it provides "instant incapacitation" or anything close to that. It doesn't. It gives an electric shock. To effect incapacitation, a continuous 4 second burst must be applied on average. You'll notice that it states that it automatically gives a 7 second shock followed by intermittent shocks. Why would it do that if it provided "instant incapacitation"? Is it that the designers wanted to just keep giving them juice, or because that's what it takes to put a person down? Remember Rodney King? He was on the ground, being hit by multiple air tasers simultaneously, while being brutally clubbed by cops, and he was STILL moving around. I've been hit with both the old style Taser (classified as a firearm) and the new style "air taser", along with the contact type of "stun gun", all of them LE-quality. I have actual real-world experience with these, and you don't. Why should ANYBODY listen to you and take your word over mine on this given that blatantly obvious fact?

"Maybe the role of judge, jury, and potential executioner does not belong in the hands of people."

It isn't currently in the hands of the people. What's currently in the hands of the people is the right to STOP an attacker, NOT the right to punish the attacker. There's a HUGE difference.

Oh, BTW, I'm perfectly calm. What makes you think I'm not?

[Don_G]

37. One Point

In my state, it IS legal to buy and sell firearms without papers at a flea market as long as the buyer and seller is a resident of the state.

I know because I just bought a .45 ACP in a rural part of my state this morning and didn't have to show my Drivers License to get a couple of boxes of hardball ammo at another booth.

[Silverhair]

38. Not that effective.

Tasers are a one shot weapon. If you miss, or have multiple attackers, you are in trouble.

Police have had instances of subjects being hit by the taser and grabbing the wire to rip the contacts away from them.

Very little itimidation value, crooks aren't scared of them.
Remember, in 99% of defensive uses of guns, no shots are fired.

If you are in a position to use one, you could use 15% pepper spray which is a lot cheaper, and more effective. DON'T use the weak stuff. I have inhaled 1% pepper spray with no effect on me.

[jody]

39. When criminals and police use NLSDWS, then law abiding citizens may follow