Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: What Non-lethal Technology Has the Best Chance of Replacing the Gun?
Wycliffe writes: Most cops are not out to kill someone, but when someone reaches for a cellphone or their glovebox, the cop may assumes the worst and try to protect themselves from dying. Guns are used to immobilize the target, and aren't even that good at it when a person is charging. What other potential devices could be used to protect a cop so that guns are unnecessary? Foam? Lightweight body armor? Nets? Robots? 'M.A.N.T.I.S.' paralyzing gas? Force field? What non-lethal technology out there has the best potential to be more effective at immobilizing a target and/or protecting a cop than a gun?
The one with the highest profit margin.
"Most cops are not out to kill someone..."
[Citation needed]
Common sense, the human brain? Reform of policing so citizens actually trust the police?
Of course sometimes force, even lethal force, is needed. The best non-lethal immobilizer we have at the moment is the taser, although that can sometimes be lethal.
But it seems to me that training in de-escalation can go a long way to not needing immobilizers.
3D printed laser drones should be the perfect solution, as long as they aren't running systemd.
I wonder how much it will cost in Bitcoin.
No, guns are used to STOP the target. Which looks a lot like "immobilize", but isn't quite. "Stop" includes a lot besides "prevent it from moving".
Such as "maim" or "kill", to provide a couple examples....
As for me, I think I'll go with Frederik Douglas' advice "a good revolver and a steady hand"....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
You have to wonder what the effect would be on the criminally minded if they believed that the worst case scenario with the police was that they would be immobilized.
love is just extroverted narcissism
What will be more effective than a gun?
How about a polite request.
Just as the pen is mightier than the sword, lemonade is generally preferable over lemons. Let's get rid of the hostility, or at least have one side (the people who are getting paid... the cops) at least do their part in trying to remove at least one side of the cause for hostility.
Remember the old phrase "to serve and protect"... notice how that phrase mentioned "protect" second, as if that was the secondary role.
That's the faulty premise in the question.
How about "What can we do so that cops shoot people who aren't doing anything wrong less often?"
Prosecute them. Hold them to a HIGHER standard than the rest of us, not a lower one.
*ducks*
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
I thought tasers were already the de facto standard for non-lethal immobilization. The dirty secret is that they don't actually work very well, as in wearing a neoprene wetsuit under your clothes would pretty much render you immune to them.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
People need to embrace the power of dialouging and negotiation instead of violence. Recently there was a jumper on top of a building in SF. Police talked him down by bringing his housecat to the scene.
It starts with the youth. Teach children to express themselves through language instead of acting out. Set a good example!
Make love, not war.
Hey, is that you Julian Assange?
They already have the only weapon they really need...a radio. They can call backup, nobody else they run into can really do that, and the few that can, can't do it like they can on the scale they can.
There really is no need for every cop to be armed at all when they can call in armed backup as needed.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Many would be shooters wouldn't try anything if they knew it was 2 against 1. It would give the arresting officer much more confidence in his safety and thus he would less likely to draw his sidearm.
We should go back to the model where police are always out on patrol in pairs.
"What non-lethal technology out there has the best potential to be more effective at immobilizing a target and/or protecting a cop than a gun?" Education.
Now say it again...
Absolutely nothing physical is "non-lethal" (remind yourself of the recurring joke about banning dihydrogen monoxide). The only choices are between "less lethal" and "more lethal".
If you want to return to non-lethal you'll have to try non-physical alternatives. Once upon a time our cops had this nice non-physical alternative for protecting themself (*and others*) that was called "de-escalation". Another good one was called "community policing".
Maybe they could go back to using those again.
Have the police run into criminals with their cars, like the officer who hit the guy that stole a rifle from Wallmart. Effective and non lethal.
Tasers already exist. Yet, cops shoot to kill instead of stun to disable. Why do we need another non-lethal weapon that won't be used?
The problem with using it is legal and ethical.
Look at North Korea. Their police rarely have a need for guns, and in fact, most conflicts that occur seem to be at the behest of the government and not the other way around. Their policing is proactive, reducing the number of conflict events.
You just have to remove all personal freedoms and justify everything as being better for society, for a given definition of better. Our two major political parties in the US have already been making inroads on this, we just need to take it a step further.
Sarcasm aside, guns are not meant to 'immobilize a person'. They're meant to kill. The goal of a LEO using a gun is to eliminate a threat, by killing it. That's not only to protect the LEO, but also others. As far as that goes, guns are pretty good. Not great, but not bad.
As far as sci fi solutions go, even the most imaginative writers of our time cannot separate risk from policing with access to any fantasy tech or magic possible. Look at Star Trek with the ability to detect and identify individual life forms from light years away, a transporter that can move people thousands of miles, a weapon that can stun nearly any life form into unconsciousness with no risk to the target (which makes you wonder why they don't just use it on all suspects from the start), and they still can't manage prisoner transfers 10 out of 10 times, where the guy is already in chains!
Nope, you're going to have to go the brainwashing/programming route.
This question is illustrating for the problem the US has. The solution is not technological, it's psychological. Law enforcement agencies in many other countries rarely need to use their guns or tasers so why do US police officers kill so many people?!
Not having trigger happy cops, not creating trigger happy criminals that have nothing to lose because of your ridiculously long jail terms could be a start. Legalizing all kinds of mundane things like drug use would also help greatly. And, obviously, the number of guns in the US is a major factor in this; if the chances of a criminal having a gun would be much lower, the police could approach everybody much less agressive than they do now.
Example: so far in 2015, in Germany only one man was killed by police. In the US, which has FOUR times as many people, over THREE HUNDRED times as many people have been killed by police.
0x or or snor perron?!
There going to be situations when lethal force is the only choice. Thats that that.
Vast majority of situations don't need to be.
And the only way to improve odds of non-violent conflict resolution is training the cops that want to do that right thing and weeding out those that don't.
This isn't an overnight panacea but i'm afraid there simply isn't one.
A dubstep version of "Call me Maybe" ought to do the trick
Do you mean like this one? Call Me Maybe
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
They are used to kill people. Look at the force continuum used by PDs. Guns are in the lethal section. If an officer is shooting his gun, he's trained to and willing to kill someone at that point. Now a ton of things need to change with respect to the officer and his willingness to shoot someone for little to no reason (eg Tamir Rice's killer or Lonnie Swartz), but as long as officers are given the ability to kill people there really isn't an effective replacement for guns.
Honestly better recruitment and enforcing use of de-escalation techniques is probably the best bet.
The only practical solution currently is rubber bullets. The cops get to keep the ease of use and most of the stopping power of a gun but the lethality levels go way down.
> So you whackos want to disarm cops too now?
Yes. It's time to take away their SWAT gear.
It's one thing to have a special action squad for the occasional well armed robber or kidnapper but it's gotten to the point where it's the day to day SOP.
There are plenty of liberal weenies crying for the disarmament of the American citizen right now. They've forgotten about the need to demilitarize the cops.
If you are afraid of civilians with guns then you need to be even handed about it and take them from cops too.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I thought this sounded promising. If you feel like you're on fire, it is a strong incentive to stop/drop/roll. https://youtu.be/dmuyLIrSjxI
We just need to get this into a handheld size.
I would have a hard time respecting a cop without a gun
So do you have respect for the cop or are you actually scared of his gun?
Trolling is a art,
Guns are used to stop something. They happen to be effective at killing too, but something that is dead is stopped.
I don't think that anything will replace the gun as a general-purpose tool. Guns are simple- basic Newtonian physics. The nature of how the projectile is launched might evolve over time (as it already has, starting with loose powder poured in through the muzzle to the modern cartridge ammo, to the upcoming caseless ammo where the charge is bonded to to the round like "Metal Storm" uses) but the basic premise of throwing a solid object with a lot of momentum to cause damage to a target is too widely applicable to be easily replaced by any one other thing. It's effective against persons. It's somewhat effective against persons with body armor (broken ribs and the like). It's somewhat effective against people in concealment (shooting through barrier), and it can be effective against machinery (automobile radiators, tires, etc). It's simple. It's inexpensive. It takes very little training to use.
Trying to replace bullets and guns with another technology simply won't happen because nothing else is as reliable or as simple. If something else were, we'd already be using it.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I believe the narrative of this question to be false. An officer cannot start shooting unless and until their life or the life of another is clearly and imminently in danger. Reaching for the glove box? Yeah, no-go on that one. Pointing an actual gun at an officer? Yes, lethal force is justified. Pointing a gun at a third party (hostage situation, for example), yes, lethal force is justified.
So the question should be - When an alleged criminal is putting the life of an officer or a third party in direct harm with their own firearm, what non-lethal methods will immobilize a target? I don't think there is any other option. When a bad guy is high on meth or other drugs, for instance, gun shots often don't even work until there have been several of them.
When an officer's life, or the life of a third party, is directly threatened, I wouldn't want a cop using anything other than lethal force.
But it does have some drawbacks for the victim. It can set gasoline on fire rather easily, and can cause heart attacks in people with heart issues. It also can be abused - being basically a form of torture. Foam is the safest - you can apply it to a persons's limbs, not their heads, so you can avoid ingestion. It basically is the equivalent of a long distance handcuff.
But the cops don't care about the victims, they care about their own interests. Without legal action (court or legislatative), I see Tasers continuing their prime spot in non-lethal defense.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Tell me this is a joke.... It's a joke right? A lame attempt at humor? Wait, you are SERIOUS?
As long as there are bad people with guns intent on doing harm, you will need good people with guns to stop them. There are no other options for cops, but to be well armed and proficient in the use of force, deadly force when required. Non lethal options need to be available, but you cannot replace firearms with them in today's world.
Even without the 2nd amendment in the USA, keeping firearms out of the hands of "bad people" is impossible, so there will be no *replacement* for guns in the hands of the police. With the 2nd amendment there will be literally MILLIONS of guns in circulation, making them easily obtained though illegal means. We might disarm the police though law and practice in some places, but they will be backed up by well armed police carrying firearms and many of the disarmed will pay with their lives because we denied them the means of protecting themselves and us. Taking guns from cops is stupid in almost all cases IMHO.
There is no replacing the gun in the hands of cops with any of the technologies we now have, and if we force it to happen, the police and the public will pay in blood for our foolishness. There is NO REPLACMENT for the gun in the police's hands right now, and I suspect that there will NEVER be a nonlethal alternative to a firearm.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The answer, obviously, is a hot grits cannon.
Those justifications are crazy.
With non-lethal weapons, police are vastly more likely to use them at the hint of any trouble.
Guns are much better because actually firing on someone requires a lot more thought.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
But how will eurocops do anything with a soccer ball?
Seriously baseball sucks, but at least the games don't end in 0 0 ties.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Shatner albumn
Someone you trust is one of us.
It does not matter what the form it takes. Lethal force in the form of a hand held mechanism is not going anywhere. It is here to stay. Sometimes the only appropriate answer to someone trying to do harm is to shoot 'em dead. It isn’t just cops that should realize this. If you are of the capable capacity you should consider being armed for you and your community's sake. When seconds count the police are only minutes away.
... why would they want to whip out some half assed non lethal weapon? As far as they're concerned the person is going for a gun and they want to stop them before the weapon is turned on them.
The fear of the gun is supplementary to the respect of the cop so there is no need for an exclusive 'or' statement.
In 1996, a man named Martin Bryant became the worst killer in Australia's history. After walking into a cafe in Port Arthur, Tasmania, he killed 35 people and wounded 23 others with a semiautomatic rifle and another semiautomatic assault weapon. As a result, Australia enacted one of the largest gun reforms in recent history — and gun deaths plummeted. The changes remain the gold standard for advocates of gun control today.
Correct one is what technology will protect the public? Answer is less paramilitary training of cops. Less training to twitch react and kill somebody. Less freedom to put themselves in the way as an excuse for lethal force. A LOT more training on how to use firearms. A lot of training and expectation to defuse situations that a firearm is their last resort.
Accept that slightly more cops will die while far more of the public will live. That is part of their job that they chose to do. They should be held to a higher bar regarding using force for their personal safety than the public not a lower one. The butcher's bill for cops shot in the line of duty is 26 this year. Comparatively cops in the US kills far far more people than all other first world countries combined at approx 3 a day. The UK had 4 fatal shootings by officers in 4 years. Canada killed 14 people in 2014. In contrast police have killed 2 17 year old girls "in fear for their lives" one through the side door of a stolen car and one with a butchers knife in the PD's lobby.
No sir I dont like it.
This should incapacitate someone pretty quickly. It worked on South Park.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Why are you asking us here at Slashdot? There are billions to be made for a nonlethal weapon that works well enough to not jeopardize the lives of officers in cases where the suspect has an actual gun (you know, the whole "don't bring an X to a gun fight" thing). With this much money on the line, people a lot smarter than us in the world of weapons technology have spent untold hours researching and testing this problem.
Better known as 318230.
The answer, obviously, is a hot grits cannon.
Yes, but only Natalie Portman can fire it, so what's the point?
The armed forces have been spending big bucks on researching this sort of thing for a long time. They, too, do not actually want to kill people, especially when it is some brainwashed kid sent out on a suicide mission. While obviously prepared to kill, their ideal is a complete victory with no casualties on either side. So they have spent a lot of money on researching pain rays, stopping foams etc.Unfortunately with essentially no success. It seems that anything capable of stopping somebody armed and ill-intentioned has a high probability of killing them.
Which make sense. The human body is not a single co-ordinated machines, but a number of semi-autonomous subsystems working on a team job - of making the body of which they form part a success in the world.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
It's an arms race. Police in other countries generally don't need to be so heavily armed because the populace is generally less armed, hence only the most serious crimes involve guns.
Whenever I read "if guns are outlawed only criminals will have guns" I think of how successful other countries have been in driving up the bar to there being a gun involved in crime. In places where gun control is enforced a typical 7/11 robbery does not involve a gun, they are reserved for high end bank jobs and the like because they are simply too hard to obtain and the penalty for using them can be made correspondingly high.
Nullius in verba
Ok, so why would you have a hard time respecting a cop without a gun?
Trolling is a art,
Granny used to use rock salt and bacon rind.
n/t
Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
There will likely come a time when directed energy weapons will replace guns.
A smart weapon that can detect what it is shooting at and adjust the power level as needed to stop, but not kill, would be a very valueable tool to have.
It could do everything from disable a car to stop a fleeing person, be it a 300lb body builder or a 10 year old child. All without killing them.
We may or may not see it in our lifetime, but I have a hard time with the word "never" when it comes to technology. That "never" has been broken too many times.
Isn't every crime involving a firearm in the US already punished with far more severe penalties than crimes without? Doesn't seem like that's been a very effective disincentive.
I would have a hard time respecting a cop without a gun...
Please tell me exactly where in my post I said "I absolutely can not ever in a million years respect a cop without a gun."
No, I explicitly said I would have a hard time respecting, not that I could not respect.
There is no reason a copy shouldn't carry a gun just like there is no reason civilians shouldn't be able to carry a gun.
You're putting words in my mouth. You wrote "I would have a hard time respecting a cop without a gun... that movie 'Mall Cop' comes to mind." and I was simply wondering if you held more respect for the uniform & law or the tools they carry around.
I have my answer, thanks.
Trolling is a art,
The "poo-stick" ala upright citizens brigade,
Reminds me of the traditional British unarmed-bobby approach: "Stop! Or I shall have to yell 'Stop!" again!"
Mod parent +5 funny! It's a good joke. Wait, it is a joke, right? Right?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
There is no training because there is no requirement for it. A police state does not need justification. The US has most of the bad things that I thought we fought the USSR about in the cold war. It is very sad.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
There are plenty of non-lethal options already available, it's just that cops still bring a gun to every confrontation. 99% of the time it's the only gun at the scene, and massively increases the chances of either officer or suspect getting killed.
Police officers should be required to leave the gun behind AND have an armed buddy stand back away from the heat of the confrontation to cover their back, call for help and importantly provide accountability.
As far as sci fi solutions go, even the most imaginative writers of our time cannot separate risk from policing with access to any fantasy tech or magic possible.
Nope, you're going to have to go the brainwashing/programming route.
By that theory, an modern civilization which has less violent crime, less killings by police, and less killing of police is impossible (without brainwashing). How do you explain the non-US parts of the world?
Sure, we cannot make everything perfect, but "better than what we have here" is is terribly low bar to step over.
Go opposite direction - replace baseball bats with guns. At least then baseball will make some sense.
Education and community/individual outreach. Both by, for, of and to the police officers themselves - current and prospective - as well as of, to, for and by the public at large.
That's all.
It's not a quick fix, it's not an easy answer, and it's not one that will work unless the individuals who want reform are willing to get off their butts and do something to make it happen, as opposed to wailing and gnashing their teeth and expecting someone-/everyone-else and/or "the government" to do it for them. It won't work or happen overnight, either, but it is, unquestionably, the only reasonable, workable, and practical answer that will have any positive impact on crime as well as both public and officer safety.
"Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
Squad Leader: Maniac has responded with a scornful remark.
automated assistant: Approach, and repeat ultimatum in an even firmer tone of voice. Add the words, "or else".
--- Mercutio was right.
The question asked was "What non-lethal technology out there has the best potential to be more effective at immobilizing a target and/or protecting a cop than a gun?"
As stated, the answer is nothing.
While less-lethal devices certainly have their place, ultimately a police officer needs to be able to use deadly force to protect himself and others.
We've already been through this with the now-widely-issued Taser, and I should hope some lessons have been learned.
The Taser was originally sold as a non-lethal replacement for the service pistol, as a defensive weapon. Instead we've seen Tasers widely used as compliance devices -- in other words, as a replacement for the billy club. Instead of thumping or choking an uncooperative subject, now you can zap him until he cries uncle! Rather than issue Tasers as a replacement for firearms, it's now common to see a cop with a Taser on one side of his belt and a Glock on the other -- and when they need to actually defend themselves, the Glock is what they reach for.
Not exactly. Police have no legal obligation to protect others. In fact many, many courts have ruled as such.
They do, however, have the same right to defend themselves as the rest of us.
throw cash at people to distract and mollify them.
so how do you go about disarming a couple 100million people? realistically? how do you effectively disarm 100 million people?
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. This works for a whole country as well...
Officers don airtight headgear, and spray a 2-liter canister of thioacetone on the suspect. That should prove most effective.
You laugh, but hot grits can really soak up a lot of heat, those things can burn the crap out of ya...
Nothing will replace "the gun", unless it is a phaser type weapon. Get rid of the firearms, take them away from the law enforcement offices, soldiers etc...and you think the criminal element, will just give them up also? About as nutty as trying to keep idiots who want to shoot up a bunch of people, out of a gun free zone.
Why will making guns illegal be any more effective than making drugs illegal has been?
sig: sauer
'I watched thousands of hours of soccer, I almost saw a goal!' Homer Simpson
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
As opposed to shooting them in the back?
You are so funny, Mexico has extremely strict gun laws. A peaceful gun-crime free paradise, isn't it
When I travel in asia there are a couple nice peaceful countries with a fraction of the crime rate of USA but the cops have submachine guns.
and a couple thousand people at least have been electrocuted to death by Tazer, but Taser Intl. sends clouds of lawyers and money toting persuaders to get coroners and judges to rewrite cause of death.
not as non-lethal as most imagine. more like usually non-lethal
plank with a nail in it?
I live in an upper middle class suburb. Occasionally somebody gets upset about a ticket for rolling through a stop sign. Otherwise we don't have much controversy. The police even responded when somebody stole a toy car from my porch. I imagine that most of the officers have never even drawn their weapons. On the other hand, there are places not so far away where, if I were a cop, I'd want to walk around with my weapon constantly drawn. Those of us in the suburbs do know how to behave and to comply with police orders. If they are unlawful we'll deal with it later. Of course most of us also know deescalation techniques that we would use if the cop was having a bad day. But that's partly because the secondary consequences (ruined careers mostly) of an arrest are so severe that we aren't going to challenge authority. If somebody's life is already hopeless they aren't going to respond in the same way. And those people live in high crime areas. I really don't think police can solve this problem.
It's hardly a no win situation. It's the norm in a lot of professions. If I abuse the privs that come with my job, nobody's going to paper over it and pretend I didn't do anything wrong. If you hand someone authority over life and death, why should it be different?
It's like the line in Austin Powers II when #2 says "Virtucon alone makes over 9 billion dollars a year!".
If you're some idiot with a grudge that's more important to you than your own freedom and well-being, maybe guns still matter. But all the smart self-serving criminals have found ways to take more than their fair share and just payed congress and the courts to make it legal. And I bet the distribution of wealth now is far more skewed than any time since guns became useful tools of death and intimidation.
By and large the US can enforce its laws, so can western European countries, so can Australia. There are any number of reasons why we're not Mexico. It's a numbers game. Reducing the numbers and types of problematic guns in problematic places in the hands of problematic people will make things better (not perfect, better). I think there's significant upside to that, it's certainly worth research and trial.
Nullius in verba
Nothing beats a WiFi jammer. Your neighbour is a a****e? Students in the next flat are making too much noise? Say bye bye to Youtube. ]:->
It's called a Lasso.
"As opposed to shooting them in the back?"
Here in Arizona, that generally stops the crime in progress.
They are better armed and equipped than I was, for the most part, while I served in the military.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Brave New World had the right idea.
There will likely come a time when directed energy weapons will replace guns.
A smart weapon that can detect what it is shooting at and adjust the power level as needed to stop, but not kill, would be a very valueable tool to have.
It could do everything from disable a car to stop a fleeing person, be it a 300lb body builder or a 10 year old child. All without killing them.
No one wants to carry something of unproven technology with unknown reliability when it could be a matter of life-and-death that it functions.
Modern smokless-powder automatic and semi-automatic firearms are the pinnacles of a development cycle dating back to the first muskets and pistols. One can itemize each and every step that went into the original and successor designs for both the weapon and for the ammunition to end up where we are now. Any future weapon must be that reliable. Any future weapon must be that inexpensive. Any future weapon must be that effective. If it isn't, police will still carry conventional firearms along with it, like how cops still carry pistols when they might also carry tazers.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
The answer, obviously, is a hot grits cannon.
Yes, but only Natalie Portman can fire it, so what's the point?
The point is having a justification for using taxpayer dollars to clone Natalie Portman.
Police work is not particularly dangerous. It's not even in the top ten, coming in well below professions such as fisherman (>8x as dangerous), logger (6x), garbage collector (2x), roofer (>2x), and airline pilot (>4x); none of whom are so prone to going on 'roid-raging power trips and murdering people as the police are.
Sources:
http://www.bloomberg.com/graph...
http://www.bankrate.com/financ...
http://www.businessinsider.com...
Imagine all the people...
...to use deadly force to defend others. You're correct that there is no legal obligation to protect others. That does not prevent police from doing so and lethal force may be needed to do so.
No one wants to carry something of unproven technology with unknown reliability when it could be a matter of life-and-death that it functions.
They aren't going to, the day after they are invented... but time and technology marches on and both concerns would be addressed at some point.
I'm strangely ok with that...
Can I have a copy?
The biggest problem with the current system is simple: The only consequence seen by cops that don't follow the rules is that evidence that could be used to convict guilty people is thrown out. This means if they abuse innocent people, there are no consequences! What we need is a system that provides meaningful consequences for misconduct, and retains evidence now thrown out unless there is reasonable doubt that it wasn't planted.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The quote is now "Most cops are not out to kill someone". I think most cops initially join the service because they want to help people. I suspect they get jaded after years of dealing with people at there worst. The other problem is the "most" apparently necessary in that sentence, implying some cops DO want to kill people. My need a system to identify and remove those cops from the field. Put them behind a desk where they don't have much opportunity to kill people.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Actually, we need to give them all sidearms that are fingerprint activated or in some other way keyed to their biometrics, so that they can no longer use "he tried to grab my gun!" as an excuse to execute people. That and mandatory body cams that can not be disabled or turned off by the cops would solve a good part of the problem.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
As long as they have both tools available, we'll see cops use the lethal tool and claim they mistook it for the non-lethal one. "Thought I was firing the taser and fired my gun" and "Accidentally loaded lethal shotgun shells instead of bean bag rounds into the shotgun" are both excuses that cops have used for killing people. Apparently the incompetence defense is alive and well.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
It's funny. You answer your own question in your very first sentence. Thousands of people join the military every year and become soldiers, sailors, marines, etc. When they sign on the dotted line and take the oath, they become subject to the UMCJ; which subjects them to a significantly higher standard of discipline than any civilian is required to adhere to.
Imagine all the people...
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/ar... Boy you are going to need a thicker sheet of foil now.
As long as the bad guys have guns, cops will need guns. Sure, most of the time something less than lethal is needed, but for those times when you're facing a bad guy with a gun, only a gun will do.
Women's education. It's not a technology, necessarily, but it will fix most societal ills that lead to the use of guns, both by the good guys and the bad guys.
"Germany doesn't have "police brutality"
Almost a million Google hits for "police brutality in germany"
So the 2000 complaints each year about police brutality are not true?
http://www.dw.com/en/preventin...
"Why will making guns illegal be any more effective than making drugs illegal has been?"
You won't find anybody willing to swallow a gun, not even if you put it in 2 preservatives.
"When I travel in asia there are a couple nice peaceful countries with a fraction of the crime rate of USA but the cops have submachine guns."
Yes and each time one of those submachine guns is used the result is dead tourists a mile away, like so many times already.
"No I know what countries I'm not going to plan a trip to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..."
Exactly! If you want to live, Monaco and Lichtenstein with 0 murders are the go-to-countries then.
Yep, I can explain why some places have lower violent crime and such. It /is/ a sort of brainwashing, but it's very long term and unguided; it's the impact of growing in a given area and being subject to it's mores and cultural specifics. This is the route that we'll need to go to actually make it safe, shown as possible by demonstration of these other less violent cultural groups. In short, when it's considered culturally unacceptable to use violence or commit crimes, we'll push the stats down far more than with laws and punitive punishments.
Remember though, the goal here is to come up with something that replaces the gun and is better at protecting police and 'immobilizing people' without hurting them. Assume all guns are removed from the hands of law enforcement. Now, how do you achieve the above objective without forcing some freedom-stripping compliance?
Sadly, there is no good mechanism for forcing a specific culture on a group of people in a polite way. The only way it's ever worked in the past is via conquering and forcing it at the end of a metaphorical (and all too often, literal) blade. You can pick psychological or physical force, but one way or another, it comes down to the elimination of personal choice and whether it's justified for the good of the ruler or the good of society, it's all the same in the end to the man on the street.
Like I stated before, you're gonna need to force change on the culture, and the only manageable way to select for the preferred outcome is, indeed, by force.
Exactly as I said above:
Sarcasm aside, guns are not meant to 'immobilize a person'. They're meant to kill. The goal of a LEO using a gun is to eliminate a threat, by killing it. That's not only to protect the LEO, but also others. As far as that goes, guns are pretty good. Not great, but not bad.
Once idiots expect to be killed for messing with the police an armed population the smarter ones learn to behave, the dumber ones self select for removal from the gene pool. In the long run this is what is called a win-win.
Full disclosure: I live in Russia. But I see that power spoils everywhere, not only in Russia.
Do NOT give the police anything non-lethal including the traditional rubber batons.
When the cops use the lethal weapon they always know that their illegal activity may produce the evidence in form of a dead body (or at least some gun wounds that are required to be reported by doctors), and then there WILL be a due process where they should prove that the dead body has been produced legally. If there is some method to incapacitate people without killing them and producing corresponding evidence - the cops WILL use this method against any suspect.
2 Simple rule changes. All officers must wear body armor. No officer may initiate force greater than used against them. In other words. You may not touch someone until touched. You may not hit someone unless hit. You may not fire on someone unless fired upon. There were 126 officers killed in 2014 and police killed 1107 people. So who is really at risk here. We the people suffer much more harm from the cops than the cops do from us. A significant number of the police deaths could have been prevented if they had worn body armor. Proper armor would reduce the need to "protect themselves" by killing a kid with a pellet gun. Yes these rules would make policing more difficult. Instead of killing people shoot/spray/dust them with tracking aids. Then chase them slowly relentlessly until they give up or become aggressive and force must be used. The idea is to train the cops to talk people into giving up peacefully instead of needing to resort to violence. If the cops knew they could not push people around the job would not appeal to the wrong kind of people. Probably not a workable idea but it would be nice to try.
That sticky foam has a lot of potential but will surely cause a few deaths in use. Imagine a gunman barricaded in a home and the foam sprays in and fills the room right to the ceiling. No air is more than a trivial problem. Smaller canisters of foam are bound to go off inside squad cars now and then just as mace and pepper spray have caused lethal wrecks inside squad cars.
Yes, RoboCop notwithstanding, remote-controlled robot go-betweens could cut down considerably on the amount of gun deaths and injuries caused by police.
Why are the police in the USA always so hair-trigger ready to tase/tackle/shoot someone? Because they are worried (sometimes with justification) about being shot or injured themselves. Whenever they see something that triggers their threat alarm, they have a few hundred milliseconds to decide whether the threat is real, and if so, how to defend themselves -- and if they get it wrong, they could end up dead, or alternatively end up killing an innocent person. Humans being what they are, it's no real surprise that both types of mistake get made, with the latter happening more than the former.
But what if, hypothetically, the policeman was immune to all damage? Then he wouldn't even need to carry a gun; he could just calmly walk towards someone who was emptying a clip into him, and when all the bullets had been shot, handcuff the guy and take him to jail.
Of course that's not practical, but the next-best thing is, or will be at some point in the not-too-distant future: instead of the policeman sending himself into harm's way, he'll send his unarmed bot over to investigate. Via the bot, he'll be able to talk remotely to the people in the (car/building/whatever) and determine whether or not they are a threat. If they are co-operative he can tell them what he needs them to do to resolve (or at least, secure) the situation; if not, he can call for backup. In no case does he have any fear for his own safety, and thus he has no (rational) reason to shoot anyone.
In the worst-case scenario, someone shoots the robot, in which case the police department has to repair it or buy a new one, but by that time the shooter's name, face, and license plate have already been captured and uploaded, so it's just a matter of time until the shooter is caught anyway.
We already use this sort of technology for bomb-refusal and hostage situations, it's just a matter of time before it becomes practical for everyday interactions. Robots aren't quite fast or dextrous enough yet, but in a few years they will be.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Use Nukes.
Non lethal my ass.
Guns are lethal.
aaaaaaa
What about a pointed stick?
Yes, and they are openly admitted to as being something to work on, throughout the ranks of the police force. Major changes are made in the police forces concerned, and the level of professionalism increases. Compare that with the US where these cases are fought tooth and nail by the concerned police department, and little to nothing comes of them.
You are making the case against the US's police force and for the German police force's way of handling things. I don't know if that was your intention...
I agree with you; it's our culture that needs to improve. We need to lose the "Clint Eastwood" mentality of "I can fix this by killing the bad guys"; in real life, that trick never works. For one thing, we're really bad at figuring out who the bad guy is. Also, bad guys deserve a trial not a summary execution.
But I think it's more complex than you seem to imply. Southern towns in the mid-1900s were very friendly, peaceful places full of gentle people who loved their families... until someone dark-skinned was accused of a crime. Then the ropes were thrown over a tree limb.
And today, the police officer who puts his live on the line to protect kids from a shooter may be the same one who shoots an unarmed dark-skinned suspect. We're all full of prejudices which we cannot see and hotly deny. Europe is much less violent than the US, except that recently the immigration issues are causing peaceful people who love their families to commit violence (often because they somehow think this protects their families).
I don't know the perfect solution, but "more guns" doesn't seem to be it. "Fewer guns" seems to help but is not enough on its own.
A megaphone. Use the megaphone to tell the guy that if he does not drop the weapons, he will be sprayed with the non-toxic chemical (that was developed in Israel). That non-toxic chemical is an editble chemical that smells worse than a skunk's spray, and persists for days.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
They shoot non-toxic foam that expands, and is sticky, then hardens into soft and rubbery in 10-20 seconds.
Cop shoots perp who soon is covered, sticky and cumbersome as the foam builds up. If he fell over = stuck to the ground.
He might overheat, since foam is an insulator. It would be soft enough to manually remove from mouth/nose.
Biggest problem would be the mass a cop would have to carry. At 1 pound per cubic foor he could easily carry 20 pounds, plus the 10 pound ejector.
A car could carry lots = good crowd control weapon.
clean up = a problem.
The need for a gun is indicative of failure.
It's really hard to devise something that will reliably incapacitate a person without a risk of killing that person.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It's painfully obvious what replaces the gun. Teaching, nurturing, and environment.
Many people are absolutely trustworthy, even with nuclear weapons at their fingertips. Other people are so dangerous they have to be locked in cages, with extremely limited, controlled levels of contact with others.
Granted, some of the difference is related to dysfunctional brain processing, such as genetic defects, or psychological / physiological trauma. Another problem is unnecessary stress. Many animals will begin lashing out at those around them if enough stress is introduced into their environment.
The only argument for a gun ban (the goal of all gun control efforts) is that guns are immediately available, and most killers claim that, had they been able to "cool down" they would not have acted. That's true most of the time after a homicide -- no doubt the pressure cooker perp in Boston would say the same thing. Or the knife, club, and stone crowd. A lot of animals feel confused after a lash-out incident. Generally, they weren't expecting the cascade towards rage to creep up on them in such an insidious way.
The worst solution -- as usual -- is the one being proposed by the progressive democrats and the gun control advocates. It's childish flailing at a serious issue, the worst possible way to find a solution. Gun control always "progresses" to a ban, and they keep denying their true intentions -- they are liars. Gun control is rarely, if ever, a factor in murder of any kind. It's easily bypassed, as seen in the myriad nations that have complete gun bans, or with the substitution of another tool, such as a stone, club, or box cutter. Other nations with total gun bans often have homicide rates far in excess of any level seen in the US.
The US homicide rates are as low as they were in the 1950's, well before NICs, and well before the peak seen during the reign of Bill Clinton and Oprah, when the people of the deep blue, democratic party strongholds were lashing out at each other in record numbers. As we saw the other day, the current President blames all of America, not the perpetrator. This is a common trait among progressive democrats.
Mental illness -- at least the easily detectable kinds -- are also a negligible issue. Many mental health professionals have warned that sensationalising these stories, and blaming the mentally ill, just makes things worse. In the midst of the Confederate flag absurdity, two doctors said that it was a statistical coin toss -- about the same as the general population -- as to whether any of their patients would harm another person. The NICs system, developed in the 1960's by the two parties, and the NRA, already has several paths to removal of the 2nd amendment right. Somehow, the progressive democrats believe that more is better.
Far more likely is the sad reality that we are living in a time of a primitive, 6 B. strong human primate infestation of the planet. Most have never seen a science book, or any book, other than a religious text. The interpretation of the teacher is often anti-science, anti-reason, and anti-America. Many human primates are being pushed and prodded to compete, sometimes violently, and consume greatly, for the benefit of a small group of self-proclaimed wealthy elites.
If we can find a way to destress the human primate population with low-cost, widely available food, sex, and interesting activities, a lot of stress of any kind would go away. Widespread food production, easily obtained sexual gratification, interesting activities for human primates (posting opinions on slashdot, etc) should dramatically reduce the desire to lash out on the innocent. Not to zero, but a great improvement. Welcome, Internet.
The sad truth is we've spent trillions on "great society" programs, we have a horrifically expensive education monopoly, we have junk products everywhere, poverty rates that have remained stagnant or increased for every demographic other than the elderly since the mid-1960's, angry groups and individuals lashing out with w
There is not such thing as "Non-Lethal". They are now called "Less than Lethal" but that is not so good a term, either.
A weapon capable of stopping a large animal or human, before they do serious damage, is going to have a possibility of lethal results.
And even when we have better technology, it will probably still be true. Just less likely, hopefully.
I think the police should carry something besides a gun, but when people are afraid of each other it will always be dangerous.
I also think that people tend to think nothing will ever harm them, particularly when they are young. That makes them do stupid stuff that is dangerous.
There might be no cure for stupid...
Today, yes it is...
In the future, it should be easy peasy...
Flying used to be hard, today is it easy... time moves on...
Imagine a beowulf cluster of those!
This space intentionally left blank
http://pauldotcommunity.blogsp... http://ababilseo.web.id/vvbett... http://ababilseo.web.id/nusant... http://ababilseo.web.id/tangka... http://ababilseo.web.id/gebyar... http://ababilseo.web.id/bandar... http://pauldotcommunity.blogsp... http://makelar-seo.logdown.com... http://makelar-seo.logdown.com... http://sweeper.faa.im/agen-bol... http://sweeper.faa.im/mau-berm... http://makelar-seo.logdown.com... http://makelar-seo.logdown.com... http://quiteganasomniapa.blogs... http://quiteganasomniapa.blogs... http://quiteganasomniapa.blogs... http://quiteganasomniapa.blogs... http://quiteganasomniapa.blogs... http://quiteganasomniapa.blogs... http://quiteganasomniapa.blogs... http://makelar-seo.logdown.com... http://makelar-seo.page.tl/Geb... http://makelar-seo.page.tl/Ban... http://makelar-seo.page.tl/viv... http://makelar-seo.logdown.com... http://makelar-seo.logdown.com... http://makelar-seo.logdown.com... http://sweeper.faa.im/sekarang... http://sweeper.faa.im/vivobett... http://quiteganasomniapa.blogs...
A problem can be where if even one of the bad cops is so politically connected that testifying against them does nothing other than end the careers of those who tesitfy. I've seen that and all the honest cops could do was keep their heads down for nine years until a change in government meant that the corrupt could finally be put on trial and imprisoned.
All very nice little personal definitions but if you want to communicate effectively I suggest using what the dictionary provides to avoid confusion and ridicule.
Not as such and repeating this personal definition just makes you appear like that guy that writes about a dozen senses because he calls each combination a new sense without any reference to the way that other people describe things.
Exactly... and, aren't drugs like meth and heroin (and even weed) illegal? AFAIK, it isn't very hard to obtain any of them (so I have heard, I personally do not partake). Laws do not pertain to criminals. And the lawful aren't a threat. So, I just do not understand the logic behind disarmament of the American citizen, other than some conspiracy-theory end-game oppressive Federal government takeover. Though I dare Feinstein and Obama to practice what they preach, and make all of their personal safety squads gun-free. They won't, of course.
bugs2squash is making references to "how successful other countries have been in driving up the bar to there being a gun involved in crime", without any citations. Most of those "studies" have been proven to be backed and cherry-picked by the anti-gun establishment. Not that the pro-gun crowd is any less innocent in this manner...
Look at the highest gun crime areas in the US: Detroit and Chicago being two of the biggest offenders. Both cities have strict anti-gun laws and neither have concealed carry. Proof that disarmament and laws do not help stop gun-related crimes, and may even increase the number of them. Unexpected consequences.
Meanwhile back in reality police and supermarket staff do not implement such stupid shit for plastic knives despite whatever that utterly clueless person who put together that FAQ wrote. I'm an Australian, not someone like you raving on about a fantasy Australia out of "Mad Max", and that proof of age thing does not apply to cutlery although I have seen it applied for chef's knives. So no chef's knives for kids but if you are over 18 you can buy a fucking great big sword if you want to (http://www.warsword.com.au/).
Your own link contradicts you
Such dishonesty of link spamming with links that contradict the point they are pretending to reinforce, presumably in the hope that people will trust you instead of following the link, is somewhat disgusting.
I really do not get why people such as yourself lower themselves to such a level of dishonesty over what should be a trivial issue.
It looks like you gambled on nobody from Australia contradicting you and then gambled on nobody following the link put up as "proof".
I'm sure your parents raised you to be a better person than this. Stop that backsliding and make them proud instead of this pointless dishonesty over a mere hobby.
Sarcasm aside, guns are not meant to 'immobilize a person'. They're meant to kill. The goal of a LEO using a gun is to eliminate a threat, by killing it. That's not only to protect the LEO, but also others. As far as that goes, guns are pretty good. Not great, but not bad.
Most cops would prefer to have a suspect come quietly. They don't want the danger or the paperwork that comes with shooting a gun. If they had an effective way to magically put the suspect safely cuffed into the back of their car then they would prefer to use that to using their gun.