Lethal vs. Non-Lethal
The mayor of Cincinnati has recommended police carry stun guns. This reminded my of an issue: I do not advocate citizens carrying pepper spray, stun guns, and other non lethals. It’s their right to do so, but I think it’s a bad idea. For the police, it’s likely a good idea that they carry them. As for why I take issue with citizens carrying non lethals, it’s a matter of carelessness.
I carry a gun. I know that because of that I will avoid getting into fights and other physical altercations. I don’t want to explain to the police that, in the end, I killed a man because he insulted my wife, called me a name, or some other stupid reason (even if I just stepped in and he became belligerent).
With non lethals, the finality is not there. I think that people (even me) would be more likely to just mace someone or Taser them because it will teach them a lesson and it won’t kill them. I think people are more likely to start zapping people when they view the tools as a painful inconvenience and not deadly serious.
The other thing is that, in the case of these things, there are some people who have a surprising resistance to them. Ask any beat cop and they’ll have a story about some guy who was pepper-sprayed/maced/Tasered and kept on fighting. They are not a sure thing. No one I know is resistant to 45 ACP.
Side note: I sprayed myself with pepper spray once and it was unpleasant. But I could still function. It was a dare among friends. Alcohol may have been involved.
December 8th, 2003 at 12:49 pm
You misclassified this post. It should have been listed as “humor.”
December 8th, 2003 at 12:55 pm
How is that? I meant it.
December 8th, 2003 at 1:18 pm
May have been involved? Heh heh. Real chemical mace is a bitch. Yowza.
December 8th, 2003 at 2:33 pm
Even if you don’t recommend them, it takes my cojones to absolute zero that Massachusetts requires a hundred dollar license for a citizen to own one. In my dictionary, citizen and pampered slave are not synonyms.
Yours,
Wince
December 8th, 2003 at 3:26 pm
Invoking the “logic” that people shouldn’t use nonlethal deterrents because they are too careless, but that it’s okay for these same people to carry lethal weapons because the nature of the weapon will inherently make them more careful is, on its face, idiotic. And any amount of time spent with actual other human beings ought to make this plain.
Do the several hunters per year who inevitably accidentally shoot themselves (and, sometimes, each other) not realize that their hunting rifles are deadly weapons? Or are they careless despite knowing this. My money’s on the latter, although you apparently disagree.
And in the case of the police, if the mace / pepper spray / taser / whatever proves ineffective, they would still have the gun to fall back on. It’s just that it would now no longer be a choice between zero force and deadly force — which is the current dichotomy, and which serves nobody’s interests.
All of that aside, your arguments against non-lethals are almost exactly identical to the anti-gun arguments you routinely dismiss on this very web site. Personal responsibility and all that.
With those things in mind, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you were joking. Oops!
December 8th, 2003 at 3:35 pm
OK, that probably came across nastier than I was intending; the apparent inconsistency of your stance confused me, and I’m having a bad day, and some of that came across in my post. I didn’t intend to be a jerk about it. I do stand by the substance, if not the tone, of my post.
I need a nap.
December 8th, 2003 at 3:48 pm
Invoking the “logic” that people shouldn’t use nonlethal deterrents because they are too careless, but that it’s okay for these same people to carry lethal weapons because the nature of the weapon will inherently make them more careful is, on its face, idiotic.
I said no such thing. I said that there would be more of a tendency to use non lethal implements in situations where it was unnecessary. Such a tendency is lessened when lethal implements are used. Afterall, most folks don’t want to kill anyone.
And i am not saying that people don’t have a right to carry non lethal weaponry. I just don’t think it’s a good idea.
And I am used to you coming across as nasty. No offense taken.
December 8th, 2003 at 4:26 pm
And I am used to you coming across as nasty.
Gee, I’m not sure I like that…
*adds to list of things to work on*
I still take issue with the idea that random person X will be more cautious with a handgun than with a stun gun, with all other circumstances being equal.
December 8th, 2003 at 4:30 pm
Gee, I’m not sure I like that…
Just ribbing ya. Not meant to be taken seriously.
December 8th, 2003 at 8:41 pm
I’m going to back up Uncle in this qustion. I used to have a CCW before my illness took that away from me.
Non-lethals are not a panacea. In reality, all they will do is really piss the person off. Civilian non-lethal options are not going to debilitate who you use them on. Hell, the industrial strength stuff the cops use don’t do the job a lot of the time. They are also not good for multiple perps.
But I will admit it takes a lot of something for a person to knowlingly decide ahead of time to end another persons life. If you carry, you have to decide that without question before you strap that gun on. Not everybody can do that.
February 10th, 2004 at 9:38 am
All of you guys need to get your facts straight…
#1: I know you spoke of stun guns, but I am going to assume you include taser guns in that statistic. If so this whole idea that “all they will do is really piss the person off,” is ludacris. They are 95% effective in dropping the person to the ground and the new ones can deliver up to 60 seconds of incapacitating shock. If they weren’t effective the state of Ohio wouldn’t have purchased 1,100 for their police department. Not only do they give you minute to get the hell out of there, but they don’t kill the person assuming you just made a mistake. They also don’t kill anybody you didn’t want to hit, unlike an accidental discharged of a 45 ACP.
#2: You say b/c handguns are lethal you are more likely to be apprehensive about using it. That is a good thing I agree, but in what situation would you use it? When is it ok to kill another person? IF there was a situation, wouldn’t it still be better to just incapacitate the person and beat the shit out of them. Hell with a handgun you will probably be defending your life and kill somebody and the jury will find out that the “poor” guy was on crack and didn’t know what he was doing. Then they decide you are the bad guy cause you killed this mixed up bastard.
#3 You say that people with Taser guns are more likely to use them when they are not necessary. Wouldn’t you be less likely to start a fight or be aggressive towards somebody if you knew they may shock your balls off. Worst case scenario is that somebody gets shocked and has a couple puncture marks on them. However if it is wrongful use the Taser’s are made so after use police can tell which Taser was used in the incident and trace it back to the registration. So there is not a lot of anomynity here.
Anyways, just check out the stats on Taser guns. Support the repealing of the concealed weapons laws and protect our Police Officers!!!
February 10th, 2004 at 9:40 am
Thanks for the info, bushman!
February 10th, 2004 at 9:42 am
Oh and only an uninformed person would support repealing CCW laws. They benefit the public good in every instance.
July 7th, 2004 at 1:15 pm
[…] n | Lethal vs. non-lethal revisited |By SayUncle| A while back, I opined that carrying non-lethal weapons could make someone be more inclined to […]
November 19th, 2004 at 1:32 pm
[…]
More on lethal v. non-lethal
|By SayUncle|
A few times I have opined that I think people, particularly police, carrying non-lethal weapons m […]