TED Conversations

Brian Ruckman

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

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?

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    edward long 100+

    • 0
    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!

    • Brian Ruckman

      • 0
      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

        edward long 100+

        • 0
        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!

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.