2006-11-15 05:55:32 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
i say no.....
2006-11-15 11:53:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ok, let's assume for a moment that we have an efficient, effective non-lethal weapon: something that works at least as well as a handgun.
If used in conjunction with a firearm, it can be a great tool. It truly would allow "shoot first and ask questions later" in fast-moving dangerous situations.
If you tried to eliminate the deadly weapon choice, you would only increase the assault rate on both civilian victims and on Police.
Bad guys (who hardly hesitate to use deadly force) would be even more likely to use the new, non-lethat weapon. It's a lesser charge.
Now, suppose the cops have caught you, and are holding a non-deadly weapon on you. You have a real gun. This is your third strike, so if you get caught, you go down for a very long time, probably forever. Why not shoot? What's to loose? Worst case, the cop shoots you, you go to prison forever...just like if you surrendered. If you win, you escape.
So you shoot.
2006-11-15 23:04:51 · answer #2 · answered by tyrsson58 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No:
If lethal weapons are taken off the shelves, and if police begin to use non-lethal weapons, there are already too many lethal weapons in private ownership to perform a successful recall of all of them. The black market demand for lethal weaponry will go way up and criminals and gang members may still have their hands on assault rifles or live ammunition while our law enforcement will be seriously under-equipped with their tranquilizers and shock tasers.
Plus, tranquilizer rounds and electric shock tasers can still kill a person if used in excessive force. The only other alternative is to fire beanbags to debilitate the target, but this is relatively unreliable, especially in a live gunfight situation.
2006-11-15 14:06:28 · answer #3 · answered by 27ridgeline 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is not practical to face lethal weapons with non-lethal. (the first rule of gun fighting...Have a gun...)
On the other hand, how do you justify this: In the Portland Oregon area, an average of one UNARMED citizen a week is sumarrily executed by police for failing to follow instructions.
A no win situation? Best stay off the streets.
2006-11-16 11:07:05 · answer #4 · answered by Gunny T 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Non-lethal weapons are a great tool, but there still has to be availablilty of deadly force. I know that all the dirtbags out there, would never consider a non-lethal weapon in the commission of a crime. Its sad, but yes, all law enforcement has to have the ability to use deadly force when its a last resort.
2006-11-15 14:03:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, because non lethal weapons are not that effective, especially on people hopped up on drugs.
2006-11-16 07:18:23 · answer #6 · answered by WC 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For everyone? How would that happen? The whold point of them being lethal is that there is the possibility of death and they should be used with caution.
2006-11-15 13:58:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, since there is no non lethal weapon that would protect someone against lethal force.
2006-11-15 17:34:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
For God's sake no. What an imbecilic question. You must be Jane Fonda liberal.
2006-11-15 13:58:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
if im ever unlucky (or stupid enough) to get shot...i really hope that i die...i don't want the live w/ the possible after math of being shot like disability...mental issues etc.
2006-11-15 13:57:36 · answer #10 · answered by mel 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No way!...that would just embolden society's riff-raff.
2006-11-15 13:57:04 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋