If Technology Had a Disabling Device As Effective as Guns: Would You Give Yours Up?

This is a discussion on If Technology Had a Disabling Device As Effective as Guns: Would You Give Yours Up? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I am sure that someday our Sig, Glocks, Colts etc will be thought of as we think of muzzle loaders now. If that happens in ...

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 78
Like Tree18Likes

Thread: If Technology Had a Disabling Device As Effective as Guns: Would You Give Yours Up?

  1. #16
    Senior Member Array stevem174's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    749
    I am sure that someday our Sig, Glocks, Colts etc will be thought of as we think of muzzle loaders now. If that happens in my lifetime I am sure that I will want the highest level of protection I can have. But I will still enjoy shooting guns.

    Bring on the phasers!!
    awoodpd13 likes this.
    Don't do things you don't want to explain to the Paramedics!

    Stupidity should be painful.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Member Array jblitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    280
    IMO, a stunning type device would simply give a bad guy a second chance to get it right. Don't want to be that second guy...
    Secret Spuk likes this.
    I Shoot Birds With A Canon.

  4. #18
    VIP Member
    Array WHEC724's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    6,289
    There's just very little substitute for destroying flesh and bone in order to curb the enthusiasm of a violent attacker with murderous intent.
    Secret Spuk and SARR001 like this.
    __________________________________
    'Clinging to my guns and religion

  5. #19
    Senior Member Array adric22's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    1,146
    As long as the device was capable of doing serious pain or death, I'd be okay with it. That may sound like an inhumane statement at first. But consider that I view guns as not only a defensive weapon but as a deterrent. If citizens were only carrying around less-than-lethal devices then I think more criminals would be willing to risk it. Sort of like why they run from the police. They know the police won't kill them when they run. I'm all for adding additional tools to our defensive toolbox. Some kind of stunning weapon, or even one of those microwave pain-causing devices the military has in a handheld form would be a great defensive tool for some people. But I think we need a lethal option as well. Right now that is the firearm. But I suppose other weapons may exist in the future that could take the place of a firearm.
    "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." -Plato

  6. #20
    Member Array JerryMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    397
    As reliable as my smart fone is, lol, as soon as i needed it the battery would be dead, or no service, or i would as normal, not know where the dang thing is. No, I would not give mine up, I always know where my weapon is, only service required is manual,no batteries, and it is smart as i want to make it....
    Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American GI. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

    I asked my stock broker the other day, what I should be investing in ....his reply, canned goods n ammo !!!

  7. #21
    Member Array Eaglebeak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Republic Of Texas
    Posts
    367
    I have great visions of the Star-Trek "Phaser" (set on "vaporize") mounted under my .45 (instead of the laser sight) so, if necessary, I could still shoot whatever was left after my finger touching the trigger "phaser-sighted" the target - ooops, where'd it go??

  8. #22
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    No man made device will ever take the place of a sharp piece of flint. I just know that someone somewhere once said that.

    Michael
    marcclarke and Secret Spuk like this.

  9. #23
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,635
    Not unless it was capable of less than 4" groups at 600 yards.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  10. #24
    Senior Member
    Array marcclarke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Loveland, Colorado USA
    Posts
    727
    Then we have the problem that this hypothetical device runs on batteries. We all know what happens with batteries just when you need them most...

  11. #25
    VIP Member Array SmokinFool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,297
    As an additional option? Absolutely. As a replacement? Absolutely not!

  12. #26
    Ex Member Array walleye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    erie PA
    Posts
    677
    Quote Originally Posted by adric22 View Post
    As long as the device was capable of doing serious pain or death, I'd be okay with it. That may sound like an inhumane statement at first. But consider that I view guns as not only a defensive weapon but as a deterrent. If citizens were only carrying around less-than-lethal devices then I think more criminals would be willing to risk it. Sort of like why they run from the police. They know the police won't kill them when they run. I'm all for adding additional tools to our defensive toolbox. Some kind of stunning weapon, or even one of those microwave pain-causing devices the military has in a handheld form would be a great defensive tool for some people. But I think we need a lethal option as well. Right now that is the firearm. But I suppose other weapons may exist in the future that could take the place of a firearm.
    What's the Microwave thing?- never heard of that one

  13. #27
    Ex Member Array walleye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    erie PA
    Posts
    677
    I'm the OP and I guess the best way to use "The Device" would be as a first-try, like pepper-spray or blinding combat light etc., with the gun ready to go if needed. Best of both worlds.

    Hard to beat a gun as bottom-line in terms of ultimate effect + simple mechanics decades/centuries old as opposed to digital electronics which can be dicey. How many have no computer issues ever, or cell phone screw-ups or cable outages? Course, guns can screw up too but I bet less and there are remedies on the spot and quick for some gun failures. Think you could rack your Device again quick and start it working right - ugh!

  14. #28
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    I have no desire to kill anyone. Or confront them with a gun, much less shoot them.

    If we had phasers or any other technology that immediately stopped a threat without killing them, I'd carry it in a heartbeat.

    Even now, the handguns we carry do not necessarily stop a threat immediately.

    Phaser on stun? You betcha! Beam me up Scotty!

    Of course this doesnt mean I'd stop shooting...I like that and I'd still compete. And it would be silly to stop SA or self defense training. (Until they come up with personal force fields)
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  15. #29
    VIP Member Array Secret Spuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,203
    Nope!!!

    It is my humble opinion, that a person bent on doing harm will have second thoughts when confronted with his/her own mortality in the form of a victim armed with deadly physical force.

    Also my opinion that same person bent on doing harm may well gamble the new technology may not work, or at least he'd have a second chance after he recovers. Whats the worse that could happen? A few years in jail?

    Nope!... I'd rather have the option of issuing the long dirt nap. Thats the only thing some people fear. And some... not even that. But it is the soloution.

  16. #30
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,635
    Guns are tools. We seem to be looking at only one use for the tool...defensive purposes.

    There are many reasons that electronics wont be as popular as guns.

    The Taser thingy might be great for scuzballs, but it wouldnt be so good for squirrel hunting. You zap several, stick em in your vest, and when they weake up they are going to be ticked. I dont know about you, but the thought of several mad squirrels waking up in a vest that I am wearing seems to be a scary and chaotic thing. It could be very hard on the fingers.

    Probably not so good for deer hunting. The last buck I shot has some rather deep gashes on his back and flanks from fighting with another deer. Grabbing on to a tased deer and trying to load it on the 4 wheeler is a recipe for disaster. I can imagine deep gashes all over my butt, back and every path of skin from head to toe. I would be the victime here, not the deer.

    Repeat offfenders. We all know that some people just need to be shot. Terminated. Eliminated. Killed. In some cases, there is absolutley NO sense in letting someone live...the Government seems to have a monopoly on that. Tasing them is just prolonging and encouraging the threat.

    Tinkering. I like to take stuff apart to see what makes it tick. Guns are mechanical. Tasers are electrical. Nothing to see there and being plastic, they may not go back together so well.

    Family Hierlooms. Some people that have guns that have been passed down for generations. I doubt that plastic and circuits would make it so long. When they quit working, you just toss them. You dont hang them on the wall over the fireplace.

    Gifts. There would be no gratification. You, your Dad and your brother could'nt go out behind the house to shoot the Taser. You can do that with a gun and be smiling when you do it. Its a challenge to hit the target with a new gun and it is very gratifing when you do it.
    You wont tase your brother.
    Well...you arent supposed to anyway.No, doubt, somewhere it would happen.

    Resale value...
    Some guns are worth more as they go along. Some become collector items. I seriously doubt that any taser or electric weapon would gain value as time goes on. Most would depreciate with time due to be the next generation becoming better and more efficient. Very few people would have a cabinet full of vintage Tasers.

    Now to the real issue...
    Reason for the question: at heart, how many defend themselves with guns because they are attached to guns, as opposed to actually feeling the need to defend themselves with the most sure, current defensive-tool?
    As any cop that has been Taser certified knows...there are times to use a Taser and times to use a gun. Some people just need to be slammed to the ground with a jolt, and some just need to be shot.
    There is a time to use lethal force and a time not to use lethal force.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

disabling guns with technology
,
gun disabling devices
,

gun disabling technology

,
information technology disabling device
,

xdforum technology forums

Click on a term to search for related topics.