TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Are less lethal weapons a good compromise for a country that demands its Second Amendment rights but less bloodshed?

Guns are designed to kill but not all conflicts or confrontation need to end deadly. Weapons/ammunition like tasers and rubber bullets can incapacitate a person without ending their life. If these weapons are more prevalent in our society wouldn't we be safer? Or is the answer to criminals/mad men with guns really a society with more guns?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jan 19 2013: No, I do not see less lethal as a good solution. Less lethal options for law enforcement, riot control, or similar actions against disorderly crowds or mobs are a good option. A person out of his mind because of chemicals, mental disability or something similar might not be focused on killing, so there is time to consider other options. When you are confronted with deadly aggression, and fear for your life, you should have the right to neutralize the threat with and defensive means at your disposal to protect your life and the lives of those you love. You should also have the right to defend helpless people confronted by a similar situation if you observe it, and choose to engage. This requires a bit of courage and a willingness to put your decision to a legal test. Police are trained to do this sort of thing, private citizens are not. However, police cannot be everywhere, and so the argument continues. The proactive would rather make the decision themselves, or least be able to do so. Guns are a convenient lethal weapon.

    Guns are not for everybody. Some people are more uncomfortable with them than they are afraid of being defenseless without one. Statistics will tell you that private gun ownership is more likely going to do harm to you or your family, than to an attacker. I guess a lot depends on the circumstances in which you live. Having everyone carry a gun seems like it would lead to more trouble.

    A related question is the one they are wrestling with right now in the courts. How lethal to the masses do they need to be? Do you need to have the same number of bullets for defense as a military person being asked to take on an army? Do you need to have enough clips in your possession to kill 100 people? This sort of decision has the capacity to amplify the effects of a gun that fall mistakenly into the hands of a mentally deranged person or a criminal defending himself against police or other criminals.

    Two sides to the issue. Let the courts decide.
    • Jan 20 2013: I agree people should have the option of defending themselves however they see fit. But like it or not the market will choose unethical or inefficient means many of times. Assault weapons are designed for mass killing of humans, not game. Assault weapons cannot protect us from a tyrannical government. What is the point of an assault weapon? It only takes one good shot from a measly pistol to bring down an assailant. Or one good shot from a less lethal weapon. The latter option is more ethical as I see it.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.