Can we change guns to kill into guns to sleep for all security matters?

Question

War is a way of blind love.

Answer 1

Sure. Didn't you ever see King Kong? They put him to sleep with a few gas bombs. All you would have to do is load some of that sleeping gas into your tear gas gun, and there you would have your gun to sleep, for security matters.

Answer 2

Huh? Can we change guns that cause death into guns that put people to sleep? Is that what you are asking? How much does security matter? How much freedom are you willing to trade for it? If you don't want other people to kill people, you'll need to curtail a lot of freedoms. There are more murders in the United States than in most other countries because we place such a high premium on individual liberties. Do you want to trade liberty for saftey? I don't.

Or are you asking that Armies and Police forces start using non-lethal weapons? If that's the case, the movement is already under way. Both the use of non lethal weapons and precision weapons is on the increase. That's why current wars have death totals in the tens of thousands rather than the millions. That's why the number of deaths that occur in prisons and police stations has been shrinking. It may seem otherwise, both because our populations are larger and there is greater media coverage, but if you count up the actual numbers, law enforcement has been growing better and better at preserving life.

Answer 3

maybe not for all, but probably for many purposes. it doesn't seem like it would be beyond the reach of science to develop a weapon which knocked out an assailant as rapidly as a firearm can kill. something which worked faster and more certainly than a tranquilizer or gas. tasers are a good example, but they are pretty limited in their application: limited range and unable to confront multiple attackers. Perhaps some type of bullet that acted like a taser without doing serious damage. at least it doesn't seem to be an impossible idea. one problem might be that the police would then be much more likely to use force. thats whats happened with tasers. since they have the easy option of incapacitation, police have been much more likely to go for that than "old-fashioned" methods. the result is more instances of people being tasered who before would have been calmed down. but surely proper training could handle this.

rico9663: of course for military purposes it might not be too feasible, but certainly for police and civil protection a gun which knocked out instead of killed would be vastly preferable. "How much freedom are you willing to trade for it?" I don't see how the police having guns that knock out instead of kill is trading liberty for security. If anything it seems like it would increase liberty. once a person is fatally shot, their liberty is curtailed a lot more than if they are knocked out. even if you mean private firearms, you aren't trading the freedom to defend yourself away. you maintain the freedom to defend yourself and ensure that if you make a mistake the person you shot will have the freedoms that come with a future life.

a quick aside: freedoms are traded for security all the time. whenever a certain freedom is too risky, that freedom is sacrificed. the freedom to have nuclear weapons (and not do anything with them) is one example. The freedoms that we do have exist only in so far as they do not radically undermine security. Rhetoric to the side, freedoms always have and always will be secondary to security. We can pretend that they are primary as long as they do not severely threaten security. Once they do (or it is perceived that they do) we no longer have those freedoms. Heroin is another example. The freedom to take heroin was, rightly or wrongly, judged to be too big of a risk for society. thus the total freedom to put whatever you want into your body was curtailed.

"There are more murders in the United States than in most other countries because we place such a high premium on individual liberties." Thats completely wrong. The Netherlands, for example, has a lot more individual liberties than the US does, but only a fraction of the violent crime rate.

"current wars have death totals in the tens of thousands rather than the millions" because current wars are very minor compared to the wars of the early 20th century. No two major powers have fought a war in quite some time. If they did, you can be sure that the death total would not be in the tens of thousands, regardless of what technology they used. The war between the biggest powers to have been fought recently was probably the Persian Gulf War, and even then the number of deaths were in the hundreds of thousands, not tens.

Answer 4

tranquilizers affect different people, well, differently. some have allergic reactions or interact with drugs already in the suspects system even stun guns can kill. Use of force should be a last resort.
AND BY THE WAY-rico9663, thought u should know....
Since 1994, violent crime rates have declined, reaching the lowest level ever in 2005. Homicide rates recently declined to levels last seen in the late 1960s

Answer 5

The problem with any kind of gas weapon is that the perpetrator could just wear a gas mask. And, if we were to use some kind of chemical weapon, such as a tranquilizer dart, that could have disastrous effects on some people. People with low blood pressure, hypotension, could die very quickly with a depressant shot into their system.

Answer 6

As society have tested and tried and seen the effectiveness of guns in subduing the enemy,I think its only natural human tendency to be better than their neighbour so they'll continue to experiment on ways to make weaponry more effective than their neighbours' and some enemies are not to be left alive to reform and pose further threat to our existence!!!!!!

Answer 7

War is not any kind of love. Religion is war ... And no it would be stupid to change our guns to put you to sleep because they would wake up as we walk by and kill us..

Answer 8

In short you mean erasing every gun from this earth isn't it. It seems you say a prayer whenever you ask a question
Amen

Answer 9

Tranquilizer darts?

Answer 10

What are you on? Your question is totally weird.