If Technology Had a Disabling Device As Effective as Guns: Would You Give Yours Up? - Page 4

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; Not even going to read the whole thread. NO I like shooting too much. Target, sport, the rare occasions I get to do pest control ...

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 78
Like Tree18Likes

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

  1. #46
    VIP Member Array Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,441
    Not even going to read the whole thread.

    NO

    I like shooting too much. Target, sport, the rare occasions I get to do pest control (don't see a taser working all that well on prairie dogs and coyotes).
    Sticks

    Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
    A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.
    See also Sheep


  2. #47
    New Member Array dekova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    5
    I assume we're talking about a device that disables instead of kills? If so... I'll be the odd man out. If I could buy something that performed in all areas (cost, concealment, accuracy, range, effectiveness) as well as my guns, I would gladly trade them in.

    I could defend myself without having to take someone's life (for me, this is huge).
    I could defend myself knowing that a mistake in my judgement isn't costing someone their life.
    I could defend myself knowing there's a 0% chance I'd get charged with manslaughter/murder and be taken from the family I'm trying to protect.
    I could leave it on the nightstand at night knowing there's a 0% chance for a fatal ND. (I've got a 7-year-old, the gun stays on me or locked up)
    I could holster it knowing there's a 0% chance for a fatal ND.

    I don't hunt and I figure my kid and I would learn to have just as much fun shooting the "phasers" as we do the guns.

    For me, the positives easily outweigh the negatives.
    9MMare and WhatGun like this.

  3. #48
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Very good points dekova.

    Altho I still enjoy shooting and wouldnt 'give up my guns' I would indeed consider such an option for self-defense.
    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)

  4. #49
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    What the OP seems to be suggesting is more of a upgrade to the Taser and not a replacement for a firearm. The ability to stun at a longer distance has nothing to do with what we now consider a firearm. A firearm is meant to kill.

    Michael

  5. #50
    Ex Member Array walleye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    erie PA
    Posts
    677

    From op

    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    What the OP seems to be suggesting is more of a upgrade to the Taser and not a replacement for a firearm. The ability to stun at a longer distance has nothing to do with what we now consider a firearm. A firearm is meant to kill.

    Michael
    More than "what" "it" would be as I do not have a science background, would be that "it" was disabling without killing or seriously injuring - so in that way like a Taser, but it's effect would last longer than a Taser, so LEO's could arrive easily. As far as reliability it would always disable based on science and besides that only that it "hit" some part of an attackers body which could occur quite easily - as an intense flashlight is simple to shine on a person. It would be small, "pocket-size" and light, say like a cell-phone in terms of size and weight
    And again, I don't know the science, but only the attacker would be disabled - any others in the periphery of the "beam" would only feel slight warmth, or vibration, or some other harmless "touch" of the full effect.

    Perhaps the effect would be like REM-sleep - the brain is active and normal but awareness of the outer world absent and the body motor-muscles "paralyzed" so the body cannot act-dreams - but the the muscles of breathing, heart etc are not affected.
    Or perhaps body temperature would be suddenly lowered to the point where normal flow of blood was shunted away from the peripheral muscles of movement into the organs to maintain normal functioning - with the attendant stupor present and inability to move anywhere or use the arms and hands - semi-consciousness.

    Anyway, examples of the top off top of my head ............. whatever, the thing WORKS.

  6. #51
    VIP Member Array Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,441
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    More problems than misfires or bad ammo? Not having one chambered? Accidentally having the safety on?

    I'm all for new technology *for self-defense* that stops a threat immediately. As our handguns of any caliber often do not.

    And one that doesnt kill is a bonus (IMO).
    Touchy subject that I have been trying to avoid.

    If it just happen to format their brain/behavior programming at the same time to make them more passive...permanently then I could see a use for it.

    I suspect that even gunshot survivor BGs have a serious sit down and rethink their career choices. There is sufficient pain reinforced discipline to get the message across. Getting zapped and wetting themselves, albeit embarrassing, is not sufficient.
    Sticks

    Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
    A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.
    See also Sheep

  7. #52
    VIP Member Array Brass63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    NW Washington
    Posts
    5,551
    Nothing wrong with adding items to one's self-defense options.
    But to replace mechanical tools (i.e.firearms) with 'superior' electronic tools would seem short-sighted.
    Electronics are vulnerable to things like Solar flares, EMPs, and hidden 'kill switches'.
    (Aren't they already putting 'kill-switches' in cars?)
    I'm keeping the tools I already have...and for many reasons.
    The United States Constitution 1791. All Rights Reserved.

  8. #53
    Distinguished Member Array Arborigine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Calaveras County, California
    Posts
    1,808
    I would not give up the fun of trying to stay proficient at launching projectiles with gunpowder, but would like to add a gun that only kills engines to my arsenal. That, and a cannon that fires sharks with laser beams on their heads.

  9. #54
    Senior Member Array TomEgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    777
    Are we talking Star trek old school phaser with optional stun setting, I'd add it to the collection but replace my gun No.
    "If you want peace, prepare for war." Si vis pacem, para bellum.
    NRA Member - GRNC Member
    Old Paratroopers never die , we just regroup!!
    82nd ABN DIV.. GOD Bless our Troops!!
    Foward Observer 3/505thPIR - A/319thAFAR
    87-91 "Just Cause - Desert Sheild/Storm"

  10. #55
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Quote Originally Posted by sdprof View Post
    Phasers on stun? Sure.
    But I want the option to ratchet up the power.

    Or a Zat'nik'tel? Works for me.
    Done in one.

    though... I can think of times when a projectile weapon might be more effective, but in general, I'd give my pistol up for daily carry for a type-two phaser :)

  11. #56
    Senior Member Array adric22's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    1,146
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    though... I can think of times when a projectile weapon might be more effective, but in general, I'd give my pistol up for daily carry for a type-two phaser :)
    Well, I don't care much for the design of the star-fleet type phasers. I'd rather have a Klingon, Romulan, or heck.. even a Bajoran phaser.

    Lets face it.. there are times, as already mentioned, that a regular fire-arm of any caliber will simply not stop an attacker immediately. Even a modern taser can be more effective assuming they aren't wearing a heavy coat or something. So yeah, I'm all for something better. I'd even be happy with some kind of chemical laser gun that uses "bullets" that are full of a reactive chemical that will produce a very short but extremely powerful burst that would put a hole through somebody. The military has such things now but are designed for large objects like shooting down missiles. If they could produce a handheld unit, that would be pretty cool. Just don't shoot it into a mirror.
    "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." -Plato

  12. #57
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,052
    Ok, having read the rest of the thread now, I have deeper thoughts on the matter :)

    OP mentioned a disabling device. If I had to choose between a pistol and a stunning device, I wouldn't change what I carry.

    Even in Star Trek, phasers have different settings. Light stun knocks you on your butt, makes you groggy; Medium stun knocks you out for a few minutes; Heavy stun knocks you out for a couple of hours, gives you a nasty hangover. Then they moved up to "kill", then the destructive settings that were good for knocking down cave entrances and blowing up shielded hard targets. When ever we get to beam and particle weapons, they will start out as military weapons, so I can see the exact same progression. The hand phaser was designed to fill lots of roles, and when science catches up to the fiction, the same thing will happen.

    Just like I wouldn't give up my pistol now for a taser, I wouldn't give it up for a phaser unless it had at least one 'kill' setting. Not because I want to kill someone, but because sometimes that's the only deterrent. But even then, I wouldn't give it up for a first generation one...



    Quote Originally Posted by adric22 View Post
    Well, I don't care much for the design of the star-fleet type phasers. I'd rather have a Klingon, Romulan, or heck.. even a Bajoran phaser.

    Lets face it.. there are times, as already mentioned, that a regular fire-arm of any caliber will simply not stop an attacker immediately. Even a modern taser can be more effective assuming they aren't wearing a heavy coat or something. So yeah, I'm all for something better. I'd even be happy with some kind of chemical laser gun that uses "bullets" that are full of a reactive chemical that will produce a very short but extremely powerful burst that would put a hole through somebody. The military has such things now but are designed for large objects like shooting down missiles. If they could produce a handheld unit, that would be pretty cool. Just don't shoot it into a mirror.
    Starfleet phasers are superior to Klingon and Romulan disruptors in a lot of ways... (funny, spellcheck likes "Klingon", but not "Romulan") concealability, sustained firepower, and destructive force. At least the hand weapons, at any rate.

    The nice thing about particle weapons (the beam and burst energy weapons in Trek fire high-energy subatomic particles... I know, my Geek is showing) over lasers is that they aren't easily deflected by mirrors. Otherwise the hull of the Enterprise would be shined to a mirror finish )

    I would stun an assailant if possible. Even shooting someone with a handgun isn't really that likely to kill them, and then in order to detain them, you have to keep your weapon drawn until LE arrives. If they were stunned, you could keep them that way, bind them without being in danger, etc. There would be a whole new system of training, force on force education, even a whole new legal code for when killing in defense is justified over simply incapacitating them.

  13. #58
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Sticks View Post
    Touchy subject that I have been trying to avoid.

    If it just happen to format their brain/behavior programming at the same time to make them more passive...permanently then I could see a use for it.

    I suspect that even gunshot survivor BGs have a serious sit down and rethink their career choices. There is sufficient pain reinforced discipline to get the message across. Getting zapped and wetting themselves, albeit embarrassing, is not sufficient.
    Interesting perspective.

    I'm going to stick with protecting myself tho, and not concerning myself with punishment or deterrance....that's not up to me, esp. not legally.
    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)

  14. #59
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    Just like I wouldn't give up my pistol now for a taser, I wouldn't give it up for a phaser unless it had at least one 'kill' setting. Not because I want to kill someone, but because sometimes that's the only deterrent. But even then, I wouldn't give it up for a first generation one...

    Loved all the Star Trek info!

    Was wondering tho, if you could explain the bold? Why wont knocking someone out cold work?
    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. #60
    Member Array BritishAgent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    250
    I've read about the microwave guns as well. The technology has a very cool non-weapon application as that uses microwaves to imitate sensory information such as the ones received by your brain from your ears, making it so you could point so called "speakers" at a person or people and have them hear whatever you want (like music) with zero sound degradation.

    I recall hearing in about 2003 or so the military had developed a similar weapon that used a similar frequency that would send out an invisible beam to a target which, once hit, would mimic your brain's signal to freeze all active muscle movement (the muscles you can control, not like your heart), thereby completely incapacitating the target, which seems much more humane than the "pain gun". In '03 it was about the size of a briefcase, so who knows what one looks like now.
    ,____,
    //' British Agent
    "
    "Happiness is a warm Gun."

Page 4 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

device for disabling guns
,
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.