And I'm not talking about a taser, I mean like on 'Star Trek', where you just point and shoot in the general direction and they become painlessly unconscious, even if they were hopped up on coke or meth or were made out of 500 pounds of solid muscle or.... you get the point.
So would you turn in your gun for this? Or do you think deadly force is the only way to go?
2007-05-25 16:58:00 · 14 answers · asked by nemo123 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
If it worked 100% I may buy one, I may carry one, but turn over a firearm when a stun phaser still would have to be charged is slightly short sighted, what happens if a natural disaster takes out all the electricity for a couple of months? You are unarmed.
The thing with the current tazers and stun guns, bad guys get used to them.
2007-05-25 20:37:47 · answer #1 · answered by .45 Peacemaker 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nope, I wouldn't because I don't use it just for protection. I have a CCW permit and I haven't been a situation where I have had to pull it out. Since I'm not a cop, I haven't been in situations where I'm likely to see a coke or meth addict to use a "stun phaser". I use my gun to shoot targets at a gun range. It's a great stress reliever after a long day at work. I'm currently going to school to become a Correctional Officer and I'm required to take some Law Enforcement classes, and what I have learned is that the use of deadly force is always the last resort.
2007-05-25 21:30:10 · answer #2 · answered by Rated_r.K.o 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Turn in my firearm? Not only no, but HELL NO!
A thinking felon would take a second thought when faced with a Glock or a shotgun. Those who commit crimes of passion and in the heat of the moment wouldn't if you had a rubber duck in your hand. Its a psychological thing with the offender.
Just the learning curve would be enormous for the average law breaker. Give you an example of a learning curve, here in FL a law was passed for drivers who were approaching a traffic crash, road construction or official warning lights the driver MUST move to a vacant lane. (For the morons out there) So no one hits any vehicle or person working the scene. This law was passed four years ago, billboards were put up, stories were written and published in all major newspapers, announcements were made in and on the media. Guess what the drivers are still doing? Snoop should get this one. They continue to ignore the law. SO-o-o, citations and court appearances have been made and people fined all to no avail.
2007-05-25 17:25:23 · answer #3 · answered by jube 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Good question...very interesting.
I don't think I would give up all my guns for a stun phaser, but I would definitely make that my primary weapon. In almost any circumstance, I think it would be better to stun an attacker and have the courts handle him, rather than taking a life.
Still, I would keep at least one conventional firearm even if a stun gun existed. You never know when you might need it....
2007-05-25 18:02:54 · answer #4 · answered by timm1776 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
that's a very properly written essay for such an inane argument. provide all and sundry a gun to hold around 24/7, and particular, you will have somewhat much less interior the way of overt government oppression. you would be able to as properly see somewhat greater mannered habit. you will even have idiots with short tempers killing one yet another, and on the top of the day you will nevertheless have all varieties of an identical stupid manipulation and ordinary bull**** that at present undermines society on a daily foundation. Arguing that gun possession deters crime or prevents tyranny is debatable - and for the checklist i'm no longer between people who oppose weapons - yet weapons are not what postpone civilization, reason itself is, and this essay shows a startling loss of that.
2016-11-05 10:15:38 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. Lethal force is not the only way to go, but it is the best way to go. If the criminal is dead then there is exactly a 0% chance that they will ever commit another crime, seek retaliation against you, get off on a dumb technicality, sue you, or anything else.
Besides, there is no excuse, none at all, to commit crime in our society. We are the richest, most prosperous, most opportunity filled country in the history of mankind. Anybody that commits a crime is just a lazy, evil, scumbag, that does not deserve to breathe and take up space. Screw 3 strikes laws, 1 strike and you're out permanently. The only people that believe in 2nd chances are people that have never been the victim of a crime.
2007-05-25 17:14:28 · answer #6 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
"Rob this home get stunned" has less of an intimidation factor than "Rob this home and your brains will paint my wall." I would own the stun phaser because it may come in handy but I would not give up my Glock.
Besides, any ol' fool knows the phased array personnel shield can block a phaser set to stun.
2007-05-25 18:03:54 · answer #7 · answered by Black Jacque Chirac 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Self-defense is not the ONLY reason I have firearms. Sometimes it's just fun shooting them. If they actually invented something like that, I would love to have one; but only in addition to a gun, not instead of one.
2007-05-25 18:33:27 · answer #8 · answered by LawDawg 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If I must resort to drawing my pistol, the person in my sights must die.
That being said, I would like to have one of your phasers to carry along with my pistol, because sometimes I only need to incapacitate, and I would rather do it as painlessly as possible.
2007-05-25 18:28:06 · answer #9 · answered by wuxxler 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. How would that put tasty animals on my dinner plate. Guns are not just used for defense and crimes people hunt with them too. Imagine stunning a deer and then finishing it off with a knife or rock.
2007-05-26 01:34:02 · answer #10 · answered by tmilestc 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋