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 haven't read completely thru the whole thread. But here's my thoughts: I'd keep my guns, TYVM. I haven't given up my hand tools or ...

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 78
Like Tree18Likes

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

  1. #61
    Member Array protek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    155
    I haven't read completely thru the whole thread. But here's my thoughts:

    I'd keep my guns, TYVM.

    I haven't given up my hand tools or knives. I didn't give up pen and paper when email came along. Technology that is dependent on a power source such as batteries can fail. What happens in the event of an EMP? My Glock will still work. My sooper dooper Star Trek phaser prolly won't.

    And even if I didn't need to carry a gun any more, I'd still want to go target shooting at the range.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by BritishAgent View Post
    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.
    I always liked how they also used their phasers on Star Trek to heat rocks to keep warm when stranded.
    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. #63
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,050
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    Loved all the Star Trek info!

    Was wondering tho, if you could explain the bold? Why wont knocking someone out cold work?
    From the criminal's point of view:

    "If I rob that guy, he might knock me out with no permanent damage"

    "If I rob THAT guy, he might kill me"



    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    I always liked how they also used their phasers on Star Trek to heat rocks to keep warm when stranded.
    I think it was in the ST:TNG Technical manual that said that a hand phaser on setting two (medium stun) for 30 seconds will heat a chicken pot pie.

    If I could retrieve one item from the Trek universe, it would be a type 2 hand phaser. Imagine the uses, not just for defense. Driveway icy? Melt it with your phaser. Camping? Start a fire for cooking and heat with your phaser. Neighbor's dog threatening you? Stun it. Tree fall in front of your truck? You forget to pick up after Fido? Vaporize it.
    Last edited by livewire; December 23rd, 2011 at 04:32 PM. Reason: Merge

  5. #64
    Member Array BritishAgent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    249
    If I could retrieve one item from the Trek universe
    Uh, I'd definitely go with a replicator. Any meal (or small object) imaginable, instantly created.
    ,____,
    //' British Agent
    "
    "Happiness is a warm Gun."

  6. #65
    Distinguished Member Array Arborigine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Calaveras County, California
    Posts
    1,599
    Quote Originally Posted by BritishAgent View Post
    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.
    I'd like to have seen some of that sonic/pain inducing stuff used on the "occupy" crowds.

  7. #66
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,050
    Quote Originally Posted by BritishAgent View Post
    Uh, I'd definitely go with a replicator. Any meal (or small object) imaginable, instantly created.
    That's tempting... a close second.

    Bonus, with a replicator, you just scan a couple of rounds and endless supply of ammunition. And you'd never have to work again, since you could produce precious metals on demand. Maybe even replicate yourself a phaser, though you'd need to charge it before you could use it.

    But, if I still think a phaser wins... but we're getting a little off topic ;)

  8. #67
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    From the criminal's point of view:

    "If I rob that guy, he might knock me out with no permanent damage"

    "If I rob THAT guy, he might kill me"

    .
    Ah, I get it. I think I'd settle for, "if I try to rob that guy, I'll go to jail."

    Cuz I mean, if he's unconcho, he will not pass Go and he will not collect $200.


    *apologizes for shameless Frank Zappa reference....& Monopoly of course*
    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)

  9. #68
    Member Array wmgable50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    ALABAMB
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    Nobody gave up their daggers when muskets came online.


    +1 if that technology fails i still want my guns.
    "A PERSON WHO LEGALLY CARRIES A CONCEALED FIREARM IS THE BEST ASSET FOR ANY COMMUNITY, THEY DETER CRIMES BEFORE THEY EVER HAPPEN."

    "I CHOOSE TO CARRY TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE I LOVE FROM THE MONSTERS IN THE WORLD. WHEN I AM NOT AROUND THEM I CHOOSE TO CARRY SO THAT I MAY RETURN TO THEM."

  10. #69
    Member Array revjen45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    WA State
    Posts
    15
    Short answer: no.
    Better to perish in the fight for freedom than live to see defeat.

  11. #70
    Member Array kal0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Austin TX
    Posts
    120
    No in my case..

    But the reality will be that, if such technology exists it won't be us that will adopt it 100% but 2 or 3 generations down the road.
    Just like in our own history with other weapons (swords, etc). But in my case, NOpe

  12. #71
    Senior Member Array jem102's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    East TN
    Posts
    1,019
    NO!
    Who is John Galt?

    Sometimes there's justice, sometimes there's just us...

  13. #72
    New Member Array Therewolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Norman, OK
    Posts
    14
    First, to answer the question, no. I would not give up my guns. As several have said, that technology might work well as a backup.

    The notion of this technology in the hands of civilians brings up another question: How limited would be the access to such a weapon and how ridiculous would be government oversight/control? We have the personal Taser now.

    Initially, the device was touted (amongst the gun-control crowd) as the replacement for the personal firearm. Almost immediately, though, authorities began the warn/fear/control campaigns. Now, in many states and locales, it's banned or regulated to the point of a de facto ban.

    Would this new technology fall into the same quagmire? I believe it would. That's one reason I would never give up my gun. The gun is already at my disposal. Why would I trade a bird in the hand for one in the bush?

    Just me wandering the landscape.

  14. #73
    Senior Member Array BRTCP88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    574
    If it worked like a phaser, IE the asailant IMMEDIATELY drops to the ground and doesn't get up for a LONG time, I might like to have one but I still wouldn't give up my gun. Watch the Firefly episode "Heart of Gold" and you'll see why.
    Ron Paul 2012

    There are three kinds of Yankees: Yankees, Damn Yankees, and Floridians

  15. #74
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,050
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    Ah, I get it. I think I'd settle for, "if I try to rob that guy, I'll go to jail."

    Cuz I mean, if he's unconcho, he will not pass Go and he will not collect $200.


    *apologizes for shameless Frank Zappa reference....& Monopoly of course*
    I'm not saying I would kill someone, and I certainly wouldn't want to. I'm saying I don't want the assailant to know that. Visceral fear of death is a great deterrent, but knowing that the device that I'm pointing at him is incapable of killing him defeats the purpose of a defensive weapon.

  16. #75
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,050
    Quote Originally Posted by BRTCP88 View Post
    If it worked like a phaser, IE the asailant IMMEDIATELY drops to the ground and doesn't get up for a LONG time, I might like to have one but I still wouldn't give up my gun. Watch the Firefly episode "Heart of Gold" and you'll see why.
    Ahh, the whorehouse episode.

    To the uninformed, the BG in this episode had a very fancy, very accurate laser pistol. Then the battery started to die, the thing started missing targets (it had an auto-aim feature) and then failed. Then the Captain tackles the BG from horseback and uses his old-looking revolver to hold him captive.

    I thought it was a bit cheezy, a weapon wouldn't be that delicate, and would have a warning indication that the power was getting low. In reality, we talk a lot about batteries dying, but my pistol has a fatal flaw along the same lines... the magazine gets empty.

    The basic technology for a firearm is going to be a lot more reliable than any directed-energy weapon. The basic chemical reaction in the primer, and the burning of the powder, along with the mechanical action of a pin being propelled forward by the impact of a hammer or spring tension is going to be a lot more reliable than conversion of energy into a beam, but I guarantee that any weapon adopted by military forces and police will meat extremely strict reliability requirements.

Page 5 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.