I post this here because it is less serious a topic than the gun area deserves. I was looking at a travel clock that I have and thinking that the way it folded reminded me of the Captain Kirk era communicator from star trek. this led me to think about the small hand held "phaser" the small one, not the pistol shaped one, and the way that phasers could be set on "stun." This led me to the thought, would an actual "stun gun" be more preferable to society, if it could be developed, than the firearms we have today.
This may seem silly since, of course, a stun gun would not be lethal. However, let's say the stun gun can reliably immobolize a person for several minutes with a simple press of a button or pull of a trigger. How much havoc would this ability really cause? Would the anti-gun elements in society still be opposed to the stun gun and would they have more cause to be? A modern firearm has a definite line in the sand aspect to it. Pull the trigger, and that bullet is going on a line and will cause permanent damage to whatever it hits. Pulling that trigger on a modern firearm has a real moment of decision behind it that a stun gun would not have.
A weapon that simply knocks you out for several minutes, the only damage would be the impact with the ground after you collapsed, broken bones or a possible concussion, would be capable of a lot more mischief in general, wouldn't it?
Of course, the falling damage could be midigated by proximity to the victim, catching them as they fall.
Now imagine a stun gun in the hands of a criminal. kidnapping, rape and robbery would be mutch easier and less dangerous for the perpetrator than an actual firearm. Press the button/pull the trigger, and your victim is out. You can go through their pockets, remove them to the site of their captivity or have your way with them, without the noise, or mess of actually having to put a piece of metal through their body.
Think about hooliganism. Imagine teenagers with a stun gun driving down the street, stunning random people. Or, imagine stunning a person in another car while it is moving.
So, even non-lethal alternatives to firearms may not be better than the actual firearm. Would the anti-gun crowd be any happier with non-lethal stun guns?
This may seem silly since, of course, a stun gun would not be lethal. However, let's say the stun gun can reliably immobolize a person for several minutes with a simple press of a button or pull of a trigger. How much havoc would this ability really cause? Would the anti-gun elements in society still be opposed to the stun gun and would they have more cause to be? A modern firearm has a definite line in the sand aspect to it. Pull the trigger, and that bullet is going on a line and will cause permanent damage to whatever it hits. Pulling that trigger on a modern firearm has a real moment of decision behind it that a stun gun would not have.
A weapon that simply knocks you out for several minutes, the only damage would be the impact with the ground after you collapsed, broken bones or a possible concussion, would be capable of a lot more mischief in general, wouldn't it?
Of course, the falling damage could be midigated by proximity to the victim, catching them as they fall.
Now imagine a stun gun in the hands of a criminal. kidnapping, rape and robbery would be mutch easier and less dangerous for the perpetrator than an actual firearm. Press the button/pull the trigger, and your victim is out. You can go through their pockets, remove them to the site of their captivity or have your way with them, without the noise, or mess of actually having to put a piece of metal through their body.
Think about hooliganism. Imagine teenagers with a stun gun driving down the street, stunning random people. Or, imagine stunning a person in another car while it is moving.
So, even non-lethal alternatives to firearms may not be better than the actual firearm. Would the anti-gun crowd be any happier with non-lethal stun guns?
