Technology is getting close to non-lethals that can be just as effective as lethals at a distance. If tomorrow the US said the ownership, carry, and use of firearms are illegal, but you can own non-lethals, would you gladly give up your guns? What would be the argument to not make this move? For hunting, I think there'd be an easy solution to accommodate cultural/hunting necessities and it sidesteps the larger issue. For empowerment vs. an abusive militant government, I believe there is always some residual merit. However, it is somewhat of an antiquated idea in our day and age. The technology of the military has far surpassed what legally owned firearms can produce. What argument would there be to not end weapons that put lethal bullets through people?
1) don't agree that the technologies are that close as far as ease/effectiveness of stopping a physical attack 2) that it is non-lethal makes it by definition less of a deterrent to would be attackers
By virtue of the name, that would not appear to be the case. Sometimes you need to be able to kill: thieves, murderers and rapists need that deterrent.
I do not own a gun as I do not see the need to atm but I am against the government limiting my right to own one. Limiting our right to is how they try to oppress us.
No. Do you really think all those lethal weapons would just disappear? You would have a bunch of criminals running around with lethal weapons and responsible gun owners would be **** out of luck in a self defense situation. Also for hunting, I don't know how there would be an easy solution for that. How could you ban lethal guns but allow hunters to hunt?
1) I'm not an expert so I won't debate the effectiveness of items found here Let's just assume for now, if new tech had enough effectiveness to incapacitate, would you? 2) The concept of the deterrent is very interesting to me - doesn't it work both ways? If I am a soon-to-be criminal on the edge of doing something heinous and I am expecting lethal force, I may a) decide against it as I value my life. b) decide I need to take extra lethality to pull this off. My interpretation is that while deterrence indeed must happen, there is an element of escalating fear mongering by both sides. From what I understand, in most states, you can't kill a thief or rapist unless they are armed and/or have the intent to kill or you yourself will be charged with homicide (Texas, of course, is an outlier). Just for the first part of your last sentence, if you have a way to incapacitate immediately and effectively, do you really need to kill? (the latter part about deterrence, I would reply with the same as I did to Commodore) The best example I can come up with is my travel to other countries. I travel and have lived abroad a lot. US is by far the most violently charged country I've been to. In other countries, you just feel safer and at night, people roam streets. In the US, the escalation to lethal violence and that someone's life is on the line always feels right on brink. That tension imo doesn't lead to deterrence. It leads to more posturing, arming, and fear.
Yes there would be reluctance to relinquish weapons because there are too many guns out there now. The US put itself into a difficult situation. Just for discussion sake, let's assume everyone only carried non-lethals. Would this be a favorable situation to you vs. the current state of firearms now?
How has the USA put itself into a difficult situation? A majority of Americans support the Second Amendment. Also a majority of Americans do not fear for their lives.
So you've either never been to Haiti, Colombia, Mexico, half the Middle East or Sub-Saharan Africa or you're just not really paying attention abroad. Mid-sized Midwestern cities over here are some of the safest places on the planet.
Honestly that's a pretty naive statement. You obviously haven't been to any non first world country. To act like people in the U.S are constantly living in fear is just not true. In fact, I feel the most safe in places like here in Texas where I know a sizable majority of the citizens are carrying guns. The criminals are scared to do anything because they know any random dude around could be carrying and would blow their brains out if they tried everything. They would ESPECIALLY have more ease with their criminal activity if all those people were carrying these "non lethal" guns you're talking about.
I have been to many non first-world countries. I just didn't think I would have to bring them up in a comparison to the US.
That's a huge leap even for arguments sake just to say make all lethal guns disappear, because that would never happen. But even so i'd say no because I enjoy hunting and target shooting, and people who live out in the wilderness need guns to protect themselves from dangerous animals.
No such thing as non lethals, people have died from 12 gauge bean bags, tazers etc. They are called less than lethal or less lethal. Define getting close because nothing is close. Give me a Star Trek phaser and I might not replace my arsenal that I lost in a tragic boating accident. Until then, **** off.
No, I didn't mean to use hyperbole and if it came off that way, I retract it. I want to throw out that I am a native Texan btw. But that feeling of safety can't be denied. I have female friends who also lived/traveled abroad and they feel much safer at night in other countries (armed with just tazer or pepper spray, both of which I agree, are not effective enough in incapacitating in some situations). As a rational thinker, I know it doesn't help to go off individual accounts or people's feelings or even just what people want, so the only thing I could do was google stats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/race_and_crime_in_the_united_states On the topic of violence in the US vs. other countries, the only thing the stats show is that the US is much more violent per capita than other 1st world countries. The US commits about 3x-9x more homicides per capita than countries like Canada, France, Germany, Norway, etc. But I understand that violent crime does not equal gun-related. Let's count for homicides, since we're on the topic of lethality. When you count the number of homicides and number of gun-related homicides, 1/2 to 2/3 of all homicides are gun-related homicides. That means that the number of gun-related homicides in the US are already much greater than the total number of homicides per capita in most if not all 1st-world countries! But the most damning item is that year-by-year, only about 15% of homicides involve strangers. That means a large % of all gun-related homicides are killings by people who know each other! Something is wrong if gun-homicides are primarily used on people you know. I think that that is a clear indication that the convenience of a gun nearby predicates lethal intent and lethal results I am by no means a simple gun hater. I understand its merits culturally and as a provision against militant governments. I may even consider owning one if I move to certain areas of the US. I just cannot understand on a rational basis how gun-proponents can argue it's better for society past individual preference when looking at statistics.
Your conclusion about their threat of violence relative to America's is wrong, and doesn't negate the value of private citizen's self-protection through standard firearms.
Except that Texas has a higher per capita crime rate than a state like Minnesota which has a far fewer armed population. Having more armed populace doesn't necessarily equate to having lower crime. Anyway on the main subject of the thread. I agree with others that non-lethal weaponry isn't yet nearly as reliable as lethal means for a stopping someone. Further non-lethal weapons aren't always non-lethal and can do other damage. While I am certainly not a gun advocate I don't think the non-lethal weapons are an answer to either preventing crime or other issues dealing with guns.
Are any firearms now kept in or around your home? Include those kept in a garage, outdoor storage area, car, truck, or other motor vehicle. Minnesota Yes =41.7% No = 58.3% Texas Yes = 35.9% No = 64.1% http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html 22, Minnesota Population: 5,266,214 NICS background checks per 100,000 residents: 13,285 33, Texas Population: 24,782,302 NICS background checks per 100,000 residents: 9,936 http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/06/28/states-with-the-most-guns.html
