• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What if there were technological improvements of non-lethal means of self-defense?

Artymoon said:
That's very cool and looks to be very effective at dispersing a large number of people quickly.
Click to expand...
There are videos out there too of attackers shot IN vital spots but it still doesnt kill instantly, doesnt STOP immediately. They keep firing, attacking. One in particular always sticks with me. Guy robbing a convenience store, clerk shoots him, robber shoots him back, robber leaps back over counter, runs out of store and across parking lot, where he collapses and dies.

I dont care a bit about killing. I want STOPPED. Much less complicated that way too.
 
zsu2357 said:
Well I'm sure criminals would really appreciate that. There is nothing like politicians that like try to make safer working environments for criminals. I bet it really gives you a warm fuzzy feeling huh?
Click to expand...

Oh it's not for their benefit, it's for the homeowner's.

IMO the best option is the one that allows me to walk away with my ass intact.
Click to expand...
Less than lethal rounds will do that...and importantly the person you shoot can walk away too.
 
Rich2018 said:
Because the passing of one gun law can repeal several others.
Click to expand...
The operative word is can but how often. A gun law in OR. gets changed only if the administration changes. The votes are stacked, hell in a few years there probably won't be voting here the way it's going.
 
Less lethal rounds like rubber bullets sometimes are lethal. If you kill someone in a self defense situation using a less lethal round, you may have trouble explaining that that you felt your life was in danger, since you chose a less effective means of defense. It may be claimed that your choice shows you assumed the situation didn't warrant lethal force, and the death of your assailant was negligent or malicious on your part.
 
zsu2357 said:
HEH. Did you ever watch the Stargate series? Three hits from a Zat disintegrates that is mine.
Click to expand...
I really liked that show but the last 2 seasons were a little hard to watch. But I do like the concept of one shot stuns the second kills. Allows for a none lethal option and then more if rhe first option isn't effective.
 
="Rich2018, post: 1073736554, member: 32644"]
Oh it's not for their benefit, it's for the homeowner's.
Click to expand...
Politician, criminal breaking in I don't either cares about the homeowner. Politicians want your vote, criminals want what you have.

Less than lethal rounds will do that...and importantly the person you shoot can walk away too.
Click to expand...
Do you think someone would break into your home or accost you at the ATM or getting into your car using a pepper gun? No importantly I will walk away, he won't.
 
Chillfolks said:
I really liked that show but the last 2 seasons were a little hard to watch. But I do like the concept of one shot stuns the second kills. Allows for a none lethal option and then more if rhe first option isn't effective.
Click to expand...
Yeah but the third one gets rid of evidence. To bad it was left hanging if I recall.
 
Lursa said:
There are videos out there too of attackers shot IN vital spots but it still doesnt kill instantly, doesnt STOP immediately. They keep firing, attacking. One in particular always sticks with me. Guy robbing a convenience store, clerk shoots him, robber shoots him back, robber leaps back over counter, runs out of store and across parking lot, where he collapses and dies.

I dont care a bit about killing. I want STOPPED. Much less complicated that way too.
Click to expand...
No doubt. Even a gun may not end the threat in time on some occasions. Which is why for me, new tech for LTL is very interesting but I will always prefer a gun.
 
Antiwar said:
What if there were technological improvements of non-lethal means of self-defense?
Click to expand...

There won't be. As a medical expert on the subject once said (paraphrased). "The gap between lethal levels of force and the level of force necessary to disable someone is very narrow".
 
zsu2357 said:
Yeah I would take one, but lose the yellow. But I would not hand in my real ones.
Click to expand...

Why not ?

The operative word is can but how often. A gun law in OR. gets changed only if the administration changes. The votes are stacked, hell in a few years there probably won't be voting here the way it's going.
Click to expand...

Yes "can", and IMO a new law should aim to be comprehensive and replace all excising laws on the subject. That way we don't get a myriad of laws.
 
Antiwar said:
What if there were technological improvements of non-lethal means of self-defense?
Click to expand...
Whatever technology that will be, it needs to work as quickly and effectively as lethal means of self defense.
 
Rich2018 said:
No it's now

Why do you say lethal means are quicker than non-lethal means ?
Click to expand...
Because a round to the head or upper torso will end the threat quicker than a taser or OC spray. In what scenario is non lethal quicker and more effective than lethal?
 
Maccabee said:
Because a round to the head or upper torso will end the threat quicker than a taser or OC spray. In what scenario is non lethal quicker and more effective than lethal?
Click to expand...

And a less than lethal round to the torso will end the threat quicker that a bullet wound in the stomach.
 
Rich2018 said:
And a less than lethal round to the torso will end the threat quicker that a bullet wound in the stomach.
Click to expand...
No, it wouldn't. There are dozens of videos of less than lethal rounds failing to stop the threat. It really depends on the person's pain tolerance. If someone will drop taking a rubber bullet to the stomach, he'd also drop taking a live round to the stomach. Even if you're scenario is true, I can take faster follow up shots to more effective target areas with lethal than I can with none lethal. So the shot to the stomach might not stop him, but follow up shots to his upper chest or head will most definitely will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom