• 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?

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.

There are dozens of instances of men being shot in the stomach, and still presenting a lethaal threat.
 
There are dozens of instances of men being shot in the stomach, and still presenting a lethaal threat.
And those same men would've reacted the same if they were shot with less lethal. Like I said, it's a matter of pain tolerance in a lot of cases. You seriously think someone who can walk off being shot will drop if the were shot with pepper balls or rubber bullets?
 
And those same men would've reacted the same if they were shot with less lethal. Like I said, it's a matter of pain tolerance in a lot of cases. You seriously think someone who can walk off being shot will drop if the were shot with pepper balls or rubber bullets?


How do you know ?

Some less than lethal rounds impart greater kinetic energy to the target as well as releasing incapacitates like MACE or pepper spray.
 
How do you know ?

Some less than lethal rounds impart greater kinetic energy to the target as well as releasing incapacitates like MACE or pepper spray.
Quite frankly, I don't. However, being a correctional officer and having watched use of force/police shooting videos, I've yet to see a guy walk off lethal force but gets dropped by less than lethal. If you have a video demonstrating your claim, I'd be happy to watch it.
 
Quite frankly, I don't. However, being a correctional officer and having watched use of force/police shooting videos, I've yet to see a guy walk off lethal force but gets dropped by less than lethal. If you have a video demonstrating your claim, I'd be happy to watch it.

I already posted a video in this thread:

Post# 70
 
I already posted a video in this thread:

Post# 70
That video doesn't show the effects of being hit with that vs being shot. What I'm asking for is a video where someone was shot, walked it off, but was stopped by less than lethal. Preferably in less time than lethal force.
 
Preferable if effective. Sonic and microwave come to mind.
To render sonic means ineffective all somebody has to do is put on earplugs.
As for a microwave weapon, that can obviously kill.
 
That video doesn't show the effects of being hit with that vs being shot. What I'm asking for is a video where someone was shot, walked it off, but was stopped by less than lethal. Preferably in less time than lethal force.

Sadly that less-than-lethal gun is a bit too powerful to test on a human or torture an animal with

But if you think it doesn't pack enough kenetic energy to stop an assailant/intruder, then I'm not sure who you think will be invading your home.
 
If someone breaks into my home I do not care about the lethality of my deterrent.
 
But you will after the incident is over.
Especially if you happen to kill the intruder with a supposedly non lethal munition.
 
Sadly that less-than-lethal gun is a bit too powerful to test on a human or torture an animal with

But if you think it doesn't pack enough kenetic energy to stop an assailant/intruder, then I'm not sure who you think will be invading your home.
You can look up plenty of police videos where less than lethal is used. Half the time, the subject isn't even phased. This is why, for my personal protection, I chose lethal. I'm pretty proficient in striking and grappling, so if I ever had to pull a weapon, I'm already at lethal force.
 
You can look up plenty of police videos where less than lethal is used. Half the time, the subject isn't even phased. This is why, for my personal protection, I chose lethal. I'm pretty proficient in striking and grappling, so if I ever had to pull a weapon, I'm already at lethal force.

The Taser is proven to be ineffective against many targets - I wouldn't stake my life on it.

MACE and Pepper Spray are wicked indoors but not outside where you mostly see the police operate. And the less than lethal gun video I posted shows a weapon too big to carry in addition to all the things a policeman has to carry anyway.

IMO, the video I posted shows a less-than-lethal weapon that is easily adequate indoors and at home defense type ranges.
 
I think it's more likely that the bar to obtain lethal weapons will drop further.

Any of us carrying a modern smartphone in our pocket is carrying a battery with enough energy to accelerate several bullets to a lethal muzzle energy. I predict that over the course of the next ~2 decades, the ability to extract this readily available electrochemical energy combined with additive manufacturing in anyone's home will make projectile weapons a difficult thing to control. And just like we had to figure out how to pilot 2 ton metal boxes at 70mph on highways without killing someone every morning, we'll sooner or later have to deal with that reality as well.
 
That would be wonderful.

Then all the weak & the old could defend themselves against all the horrible individuals who rob, sucker punch, loot, rape, & murder in this lawless nation.

And, of course, cops would not have to kill anyone in order to defend themselves against those horrible individuals.

No doubt that eventually such a weapon of self-defense will be invented, for in the coming decades, violent crime will become even worse in this fast changing nation. As they say, "Necessity is ...."
 
I'd be happy with a 100% effect, good in all situations, one shot threat ending device.

It would have to be affordable and simple to use.

Well then, Pocket Napalm is just the product for you. I haven't gotten around to developing it yet, but nothing says, "Don't do that" better than setting your assailant on fire, and it's non-lethal. The subsequent burns might be, but there have to be some compromises. I'm thinking about something the size of a big, disposable lighter with a 15' range. One shot, and it comes with hot dogs and marshmellows. A fire extinguisher is optional.
 
I think it's more likely that the bar to obtain lethal weapons will drop further.

Any of us carrying a modern smartphone in our pocket is carrying a battery with enough energy to accelerate several bullets to a lethal muzzle energy. I predict that over the course of the next ~2 decades, the ability to extract this readily available electrochemical energy combined with additive manufacturing in anyone's home will make projectile weapons a difficult thing to control. And just like we had to figure out how to pilot 2 ton metal boxes at 70mph on highways without killing someone every morning, we'll sooner or later have to deal with that reality as well.


So you think that the iPhone 30 will double as a gun ?
 
What if there were technological improvements of non-lethal means of self-defense?
Not relevant to the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment was created so that civilians would have arms that a militia would need in order to get together to defend this nation against invasions and possibly a tyrannical government.
 
Timothy Treadwell's last word after taking out and using his non-lethal bear-spray was: "Aaaaaaaarrrrrrgggggghhh!" As both he and his girlfriend were being consumed by the bear. Obviously the bear mistook Treadwell's non-lethal deterrent as a condiment.

When my life is on the line, that is neither the time nor the place for some politically-correct non-lethal deterrent.
 
Timothy Treadwell's last word after taking out and using his non-lethal bear-spray was: "Aaaaaaaarrrrrrgggggghhh!" As both he and his girlfriend were being consumed by the bear. Obviously the bear mistook Treadwell's non-lethal deterrent as a condiment.

When my life is on the line, that is neither the time nor the place for some politically-correct non-lethal deterrent.

Then that's your problem, assuming that your life is always on the line

Scared people like you tend to get others killed.
 
Then we'd have better non-lethal means of self-defense. I would expect the police the military to be the first to prove their absolute effectiveness in lieu of using deadly force, and to convert over entirely to their use. Until then, the rest of us should have the BEST means of self-defense.
The military prefers non-lethal, but wounds that require medical attention, because of the resources needed to attend to the wounded.

Anyway, the OP is sort of a false assumption, because non-lethal doesn't often equate to stopping power. I've seen people shot 5 or 6 times with relatively large caliber hand guns, and it did not immediately stop them. As well, I have seen people tased or pepper sprayed, and it did not immediately stop them.

So we'd have to know the specifics of this non-lethal wonder weapon.
 
Back
Top Bottom