Paulipod 0 #1 November 25, 2004 Just curious, as Ive seen and entered into a few debates now.... how would you all feel on this as an idea.. (I know it may not be technically possible - just the principle) Would all you Pro-gun owners support a ban on all fatal ammunition - in support of a instant acting tranquiliser bullet that renders your attacker unconcious? If not - why not? as this would allow you perfect defense (probably better than a bullet as a flesh would would still knock them out) Just curious... Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #2 November 25, 2004 There is no such thing as a projectile being 100% not lethal, there is less-then-lethal ammo and such, but sometimes it'll kill. Hit someone with a weak heart and health problems with a tranq that's powerful enough to bring down a 300lbs drug usering former college linebacker and that's enough drugs to possibly kill that weaker scrawny guy holding the knife running at you. Its these sorts of liberal thinkings that people get from movies and TV that are full on bullshit that get LEOs killed and hurt since they're forced to use these contraptions in real life.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Falko 0 #3 November 26, 2004 QuoteIts these sorts of liberal thinkings that people get from movies and TV that are full on bullshit that get LEOs killed and hurt since they're forced to use these contraptions in real life. Do you have examples? Are policemen in the US forced to use "new" kinds of weapons that are less effective than a handgun? Would be hard to imagine... Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pleifer 0 #4 November 26, 2004 QuoteQuoteIts these sorts of liberal thinkings that people get from movies and TV that are full on bullshit that get LEOs killed and hurt since they're forced to use these contraptions in real life. Do you have examples? Are policemen in the US forced to use "new" kinds of weapons that are less effective than a handgun? Would be hard to imagine... Umm, yea there called bean bags. They are shot out of a shotgun and are supposed to be non lethal, but nothing is 100% But these have got law enforcement into trouble also, being they cannot incapacitate, just slow the perp, down for a minute. _________________________________________ The Angel of Duh has spoke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #5 November 26, 2004 It probably would add an extra step for the deer hunter._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #6 November 26, 2004 QuoteWould all you Pro-gun owners support a ban on all fatal ammunition - in support of a instant acting tranquiliser bullet that renders your attacker unconcious? If not - why not? as this would allow you perfect defense (probably better than a bullet as a flesh would would still knock them out) Then very shortly it would become somewhat socialy acceptable to shoot someone out of "anger" since you just KNOW the ammo won't REALLY harm them..... Nope. Guns are meant to kill. If I am in fear of my lifeI want to know that I have a chance of killing the person trying to kill me.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #7 November 26, 2004 QuoteThen very shortly it would become somewhat socialy acceptable to shoot someone out of "anger" since you just KNOW the ammo won't REALLY harm them..... That's really terrifying when you think about it. QuoteNope. Guns are meant to kill. If I am in fear of my lifeI want to know that I have a chance of killing the person trying to kill me. Amen. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Falko 0 #8 November 26, 2004 I like the idea! Quote(I know it may not be technically possible - just the principle) Why wouldn't it be technically possible? There are scales who can determine your body fat percentage. (AFAIK they do it by measuring electrical resistance of a weak current induced in your body) Why not use a similar technique in a bullet, or "little torpedo" for that matter? My guess is it also wouldn't be too difficult to determine the "mass" of the hit body. These 2 values should be enough to estimate the amount of tranquilizer required to effectively disable the attacker. Just brainstorming: - Bullet hits offender - gives medium electric shock to create an initial stunning sensation - simultaneously estimates body weight and body fat percentage - injects the correct amount of tranquilizer ...all in a split second. Could work.... not? This will give the attacker a higher probability of survival. "So he can live to tell where he has hidden the other hostage." Quote(probably better than a bullet as a flesh would would still knock them out) That's a very good reason! Even leg or arm hit would do the job! Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #9 November 26, 2004 QuoteJust brainstorming: - Bullet hits offender - gives medium electric shock to create an initial stunning sensation - simultaneously estimates body weight and body fat percentage - injects the correct amount of tranquilizer ...all in a split second. Could work. It wouldn't be a cheap bullet. Plus, since it would be exceptionally complex (it would need to be able to measure speed of the bullet since the release of the shock/tanquilizer would depend on the inertia after the impact of the bullet on the body) But all the technology to make it both work and be cheap would also change everything else. It probably wouldn't need the gun in the first place. Technological advancement tends to change everything and ways of thinking at the same time. It's the old Star Track Fallacy._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #10 November 26, 2004 QuotePlus, since it would be exceptionally complex I'm for keeping it simple stupid aka kiss. There will be enough chance of missing the target by the user as it is. I really don't want to allow someone to close the gap between us because the little thing malfunctioned or did nothing to the angel dusted idiot. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #11 November 26, 2004 Here's my standard for new-fangled contraptions for use in or on firearms: If the police and the military have to use it, then I will consider using it myself. Until then, I will protect my life the same way my civil servants do.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #12 November 26, 2004 QuoteI like the idea! Quote(I know it may not be technically possible - just the principle) Why wouldn't it be technically possible? There are scales who can determine your body fat percentage. (AFAIK they do it by measuring electrical resistance of a weak current induced in your body) Why not use a similar technique in a bullet, or "little torpedo" for that matter? My guess is it also wouldn't be too difficult to determine the "mass" of the hit body. These 2 values should be enough to estimate the amount of tranquilizer required to effectively disable the attacker. LOL! I would love to see you trying to manage these calculations in the middle of being carjacked, or when someone and his buddy, armed with pipes, knives or bats, is beating down your front door... QuoteJust brainstorming: - Bullet hits offender - gives medium electric shock to create an initial stunning sensation - simultaneously estimates body weight and body fat percentage - injects the correct amount of tranquilizer ...all in a split second. Could work.... not? Ohhhh! You meant a $700 SMART bullet! Why didn't I realize that you meant a microprocessor-equipped, four-inch long cartridge filled with electronics and "knockout liquid" that would somehow penetrate a thick leather jacket, a sweater and an undershirt, and then enough skin to administer this exam and subsequent dose of anesthetic, without, say, puncturing the aorta or a lung or something, or rupturing a kidney or lacerating the liver... Ridiculous. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #13 November 26, 2004 Quotelacerating the liver For some reason, that phrase always cracks me up. Its a serious thing, with serious problems and death and such, but damnit if it just doesn't sound funny to me for some reason. I think its a visual I have of an old lady working behind the counter at Luby's serving liver to a young man of 90 years tearing the liver in her hands instead of cutting it...anyways. As of right now, the only fairly reliable non-lethal way to subdue a perp is to bang him around with an ASP, but then you get video induced lawsuits where they don't show the beginning of the video where the perp pulled a knife on the cop... --"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #14 November 26, 2004 Quote Its these sorts of liberal thinkings that people get from movies and TV that are full on bullshit that get LEOs killed and hurt since they're forced to use these contraptions in real life. The problem I've seen with most of these wonder solutions is that LEOs are exempted from having to use them, which of course makes you wonder about their efficacy. At least it's been several years since I've heard the song and dance about personalized handguns that can only be used by the owner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #15 November 26, 2004 QuoteAt least it's been several years since I've heard the song and dance about personalized handguns that can only be used by the owner. I was reading about a new push for that a couple of years ago. Kinda scary actually, you figure the system will work perfectly fine, then a LEO will be killed because of a mal on the system. That's on mal too many for something like this.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #16 November 26, 2004 QuoteI'm for keeping it simple stupid aka kiss And this idea will malfuntion quite a bit. too complex. too many variables. I was trying to voice against over-technologizing something i feel doesn't need to be fixed in the first place. I like K.I.S.S. It's Popular Science/Mechanics vs. Real World Experience._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rmsmith 1 #17 November 26, 2004 QuoteIf not - why not? as this would allow you perfect defense (probably better than a bullet as a flesh would would still knock them out) Who did our forefathers consider to be, "them?" "The people always have some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness. This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector." Plato (c. 427–347 BC), Greek philosopher. Socrates, in The Republic, bk. 8, sct. 565 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Falko 0 #18 November 26, 2004 QuoteLOL! I would love to see you trying to manage these calculations in the middle of being carjacked Not me. The bullet. Ever heard of signal processing? These microchips are all around you, everywhere. And they're pretty cheap in mass production. So that price... QuoteOhhhh! You meant a $700 SMART bullet! is highly exaggerated. But yeah, ridiculing the idea of smart weapons, or smart bullets in this case is easy. Why bother with advancing technology? Shoot to kill, aim for the head, pull trigger, splat! QuoteWhy didn't I realize that you meant a microprocessor-equipped [....] Maybe because you lack some imagination? Relax, noone wants to take away your bullets and handguns. QuoteRidiculous. Imagine a SWAT team trying to arrest a Terrorist who has knowledge about what his brothers in crime are planning, their whereabouts etc. He's more worth alive than killed, because his knowledge will help arresting even more of his kind. Still he's armed and a lethal threat to the LEOs when they attempt to detain him. I can see "smart" weapons to be a good alternative to handguns in this case. But I digress... this is not what the original post is about. I don't own or need a gun, but I can see why people vote no on exchanging their handguns with non-lethal weapons. If "smart" tranquilizing handguns would prove to be reliable and working, and people have seen the results, I'm sure many people would give it a try. Ich betrachte die Religion als Krankheit, als Quelle unnennbaren Elends für die menschliche Rasse. (Bertrand Russell, engl. Philosoph, 1872-1970) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #19 November 26, 2004 QuoteWhy didn't I realize that you meant a microprocessor-equipped, four-inch long cartridge filled with electronics and "knockout liquid" that would somehow penetrate a thick leather jacket, a sweater and an undershirt, and then enough skin to administer this exam and subsequent dose of anesthetic, without, say, puncturing the aorta or a lung or something, or rupturing a kidney or lacerating the liver... You forgot "that doesn't disintegrate once the charge is ignited" - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #20 November 26, 2004 QuoteThere is no such thing as a projectile being 100% not lethal, there is less-then-lethal ammo and such, but sometimes it'll kill. Hit someone with a weak heart and health problems with a tranq that's powerful enough to bring down a 300lbs drug usering former college linebacker and that's enough drugs to possibly kill that weaker scrawny guy holding the knife running at you. Its these sorts of liberal thinkings that people get from movies and TV that are full on bullshit that get LEOs killed and hurt since they're forced to use these contraptions in real life. Wait, liberal thinking? I'm left of center, but VERY pro-gun. Ok, so someone is naive, does that mean they are liberal? Liberal thinking has to do with a person's mental orientation toward how society should treat its people in regard to welfare, prison, etc.... It's laughable how the conservative right will whine about how the universities are filled with liberals, yet use arguments about naivete / ignorance and attach that to liberalism. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. You do understand the deduction, right? Universities = learning institutions Liberals congregate at universities (according to the right) Conclusion = Liberals are more educated / less ignorant I have been to and graduated from a state university, so I disagree with the thought that universities are full of liberals; there were as many conservatives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #21 November 26, 2004 QuoteQuoteIts these sorts of liberal thinkings that people get from movies and TV that are full on bullshit that get LEOs killed and hurt since they're forced to use these contraptions in real life. Do you have examples? Are policemen in the US forced to use "new" kinds of weapons that are less effective than a handgun? Would be hard to imagine... It's ok if cops kill, just ask my neighbor the former Officer Lovelace that killed a woman at a Walgreens in a suburb of Phoenix. So unfortunately that's not an issue with the state. They are now using tazers, and they use them for amusement apparently. Chandler recently tazered a 13 year old girl who was unarmed, they thought she might kick them. Tucson tazered an unruly 13 year old while she was handcuffed in the back seat. Of course these fine oficers were fully exonerated. I imagine things might be different where you're from, but here the government doesn't care if cops kill people - they call it deterrence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paulipod 0 #22 November 26, 2004 The question I was trying to answer was not really if it was technically possible.... but the idea which was looked at in one reply of :- Is it the fact that the gun is potentially lethal that is the reason for carrying it.... or ... is it that really people want to defend themselves? Cus to defend yourself a tranquiliser type weapon would do the trick (again ! forget the science!) Bodyflight Bedford www.bodyflight.co.uk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #23 November 26, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteIts these sorts of liberal thinkings that people get from movies and TV that are full on bullshit that get LEOs killed and hurt since they're forced to use these contraptions in real life. Do you have examples? Are policemen in the US forced to use "new" kinds of weapons that are less effective than a handgun? Would be hard to imagine... Umm, yea there called bean bags. They are shot out of a shotgun and are supposed to be non lethal, but nothing is 100% But these have got law enforcement into trouble also, being they cannot incapacitate, just slow the perp, down for a minute. The college girl in Boston is what I think of when I think of bean bags. She was killed when Boston won the World Series when she was acting peacefully in a demonstration. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #24 November 26, 2004 QuoteThe question I was trying to answer was not really if it was technically possible.... but the idea which was looked at in one reply of :- Is it the fact that the gun is potentially lethal that is the reason for carrying it.... or ... is it that really people want to defend themselves? Cus to defend yourself a tranquiliser type weapon would do the trick (again ! forget the science!) Arizona and I think West Virginia are the most gun owning states in the nation, or at least the laws allow for the least hindrance in owning guns. So to answer your question I say: I don't know! Motive to own and/or carry depends upon the individual. There is a dirty harry mentality, and there are responsible gun owners, so take your pick. Right, a person could carry a tazer, but that is one shot unless you get the type where you have to touch someone with it. I don't carry, but I own plenty. I used to carry, but it isn't wise to do so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #25 November 26, 2004 Ohhhh! You meant a $700 SMART bullet! Why didn't I realize that you meant a microprocessor-equipped, four-inch long cartridge filled with electronics and "knockout liquid" that would somehow penetrate a thick leather jacket, a sweater and an undershirt, and then enough skin to administer this exam and subsequent dose of anesthetic, without, say, puncturing the aorta or a lung or something, or rupturing a kidney or lacerating the liver... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Clothing could confuse a "smart" bullet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
