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?

  • Jan 21 2013: Think of it this way.

    The Second Amendment could be like the right to eat all the cake you want. Give too much cake to your kids and maybe they will develop type 2 diabetes. Should we ban cake? Some people can use cake responsibly, so I do not think we should ban it.

    Maybe we use a sugar substitute? (A "less lethal" approach) So we make it acceptable to only eat cake? So it is acceptable to shoot someone because it is less lethal?

    Here is an idea; educate and diagnose. Educate the public on the use and penalties of misuse of guns. Diagnose and treat the mentally ill to limit violent outbursts.
  • thumb
    Jan 21 2013: I see another young man has wiped out a Family.

  • thumb
    Jan 20 2013: As a UK person I am outside of this, appart from our own Dunblane.
    As I see it US citizens have guns to protect themselves from a belligerent government. Personally I think this is a good idea, & as government guns are modernised, so must guns available to the public. Presumably there is already a law that prohibits killing unarmed civilians. Governments can get out of hand & massacre their citizens, legally.
    When this idea originated most people believed in God. He ensured that folks behaved by getting us to love one another & assuring us of eventual come-upprance for sins. The average US citizen appears to have sent God packing, so they are free to indulge their blood lust whenever they feel inclined. This is not going to end well.

  • thumb
    Jan 20 2013: how many topics were opened to discuss what leads to violent killings? what to do to not have people around whose mind are twisted enough to shoot strangers randomly? what have we done to create such people? what made them this way? how many conversations we have about that?
    • Jan 20 2013: Is there something specific in American society or just civilization as a whole that you think leads to citizens committing these brutal, nonsensical killings? I wonder if there is not an underlying dissatisfaction or mental illness plague. Of course that just gets to the next question of what is causing it. Then again maybe its just because there are these type of weapons that enable a wannabe mass shooter.
      • thumb
        Jan 20 2013: there is something specific about every society. take the recent case. the guy goes to the school to shoot the teachers and the school psychologist. nobody seem to follow up on this lead.
        • thumb
          Jan 20 2013: Yes, I haven't seen any article where there were any specific targets except his mother but wouldn't the psychologist try to get involved right from the start?
      • thumb
        Jan 20 2013: Kriz has brought up probably the main issue "Mental health" Whether there is sufficient community based services available to people who suffer from the wide range of conditions. Is there Respite Houses where a person who is heading into an episode can go to or the family can take them there so they can ride out the episode.

        Is there money to pay for it?
  • thumb
    Jan 20 2013: Why don't they teach/train P.E teachers to teach the kids in your schools disarm and neutralize tactics of assailants, swarm tactics. Mental health nurses are trained to swarm a patient if the person is heading into a spiral.
  • 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.
  • thumb
    Jan 19 2013: You mention just two choices as a solution to criminal/madmen predators: non-lethal weapons; or more guns.
    Q: Would more non-lethal weapons make society safer? A: IF, I say IF, we replace all lethal weapons with non-lethal there would be fewer deaths by firearms. That would require a Constitutional amendment to change the Second mendment to read, "the right to keep and bear non-lethal arms." Not likely to happen.
    That leaves your second solution. Q: Would more lethal weapons reduce the predation of innocent citizens by criminals/madmen? A: In individual cases it sure would if the innocent citizen was armed and trained in threat control using equal force opposition. As those individual statistics are compiled the result would be less INNOCENT bloodshed. Thank you!
    • Jan 20 2013: So you agree less lethal weapons would cause less death but oppose it because it's not likely to happen? The big IF in your answer is whether innocent citizens will go through training in threat control. The other big IF that you leave out is whether that gun the innocent citizen bought will only be used for said purpose and will not EVER get in the wrong hands.
      • thumb
        Jan 20 2013: You make valid points sir. But you missed my points:1) I do not agree with your statement saying "you agree less lethal weapons would cause less death but oppose it . . . ". I said nothing to lead you to believe I oppose replacing ALL lethal weapons. I merely said that it would be impossible to implement so in reality it is not a viable option and it would be inappropriate to support or oppose it. 2) Your 2 big "IFs" are reasonable questions, but even if they both get negative answers that would not constitute justification to repeal the right of US citizens to keep and bear arms. There are no perfect systems. Risks must be mitigated and accommodated. Thank you!