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 would be concerned about the disabling and failure of any electronic device. While I may use such a device, the ability for someone to ...
I would be concerned about the disabling and failure of any electronic device. While I may use such a device, the ability for someone to remotely disable such a device would be a no brainer to keep the devices that are simple and effective.
Some really good points here about the inherent problems of such a Device - that i hadn't though of before posting.
If any new device still made repeat offenders, dead offenders, I might consider it.
For now, I like .45 holes.
The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
I don't think firearms will ever be obsolete, at least in my lifetime. I wouldn't give up my guns. Would I mind carrying this new form of a non-lethal weapon, yeah sure. But god forbid, there are instances where true lethal force is needed. But then again, lethal force isn't always immediately lethal. So there are many instances where non-lethal but immediately incapacitating weapons are a great tool. I'll take both.
Anything that is going to be as effective or have the potential to wreak havoc, such as this hypothetical device is going to make elitists nervous. Don't be surprised if a device like this comes out, it wouldn't also have a tracking device in it. Once it has been set off, it alerts the police and they come to the scene so as to investigate. Given that its probably going to be registered in your name, this will most likely be but yet another way for big brother to keep track of you, etc. If the given proposed scenario is an accompanying contingency, then would you still carry said device? If it came down to big brother tracking you with said device and remaining "off the grid" with a handgun, would you still carry the techno device over the gun? With technological advancement, it often carries with it un-foreseen problems and circumstances that deliver a whole new set of dilemmas, etc.
I'll grant that registration isn't something that would certainly happen but at the same time, it could very well be a part of the mixture of the proposed scenario. At the very least, I submit that it should be a consideration when thinking this scenario through to its fullest conclusion.
Never give up your guns. The way to loss of freedom is loss of guns.
In theory, somebody might make a handheld version of this device someday. It would have similar uses as one of those shock wands, with the benefit that you don't have to get close enough to the person to touch them.
My biggest fear, though, is that these devices could be used to torture a person for hours while leaving no signs of injury on their body.
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." -Plato
I think people are getting hung up on the OP's example and not the question.
I carry because I feel the need to protect myself, my wife, and other loved ones. I will accept whatever tool this comes in. If I can't carry a gun, I will carry a knife. If I can't carry a knife I will carry my martial arts skills (poor example...).
If the best thing for me to protect my family is a chemical gun or a iphone app or a Phaser set to stun. Ill carry it. I enjoy shooting so i wont get rid of my guns, but i would be completely open to replacing a carry method for a better approach.
Its almost unfortunate something does not exist now. If someone breaks into my home truth be told I don't want them to die. Unfortunately, there is nothing available to a homeowner to protect himself as effectively as a firearm, I look forward to such a thing existing.
What I will say is, I will use the best tool for defense. But, I will keep my guns. And, I want to be able to own what ever the Military is using to fight with as far a weapons go. The 2nd Amendment isn't about self defense when it comes right down to it, it is about having the same weaponry available to the citizens that the standing Army uses so we may be on equal footing when the time comes to rise up and over throw a tyrannical government.
As long as it has range.
And as long as it can kill somebody. A bandit might not think twice about something that won't actually kill them.
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)