Less lethal or lethal weapons more effective?

[usafjay1976]

Hello everyone, just found out about this site and thought I'd try it out.

To start off, I am a proud American and a gun owner. I have no issues with law abiding U.S. citizens owning any type of firearm. That said, I've been having a debate about lethal and non lethal firearms. Naturally, I support guns as being the best way to deter and stop a criminal. The other person does not. What are your opinions on less lethal weapons on why they do not work and why that is not an option over owning a gun? I've used arguments such as they are not always effective, short ranges on less lethal weapons, and that sort of thing but I wonder if there is anything else I might be missing? What are your inputs? Happy Thanksgiving to everyone!

 

[Manedwolf]

The basic idea for me:

Carry both. If an attacker just wants to punch you in a fit of drunken bravado or somesuch, you use the nonlethal weapon, as it wasn't a lethal assault.

But if you do not carry a lethal weapon you're trained with, then there's always the possibility that when you use only nonlethal force against someone more dangerous, that they'll respond with deadly force and kill you.

In other words, you don't want to be using pepper spray against someone who is going to respond with bullets. You'll lose.

I regularly have both a firearm for the worst case scenario, and Fox Labs OC for anything less than that.

 

[Car Knocker]

Welcome to THR.

I'm having a little problem with some of your terminology:

lethal and non lethal firearms

I'm really not sure what a non-lethal firearm is - can you provide an example?

Are you asking about Tasers, stunguns, or pepper/Mace/tear gas sprays? Or, perhaps, beanbag rounds for shotguns?

 

[Spencer]

Are you asking about Tasers, stunguns, or pepper/Mace/tear gas sprays? Or, perhaps, beanbag rounds for shotguns?

Yeah I think the former is what he was talking about.

Well you can guess which ones are more EFFECTIVE but...

 

[FTF]

That said, I've been having a debate about lethal and non lethal firearms.

NON-lethal firearms are hard to come across. Tasers, rubber bullets and mace can all be lethal given the right conditions. That makes them 'less than lethal".

Less than lethal firearms are useful in situations where deadly force is not immediately needed. I use the situation where some mentally unstable 16 year old is running down the street with a steak knife. Officers have him surrounded. If they yell at him to drop the knife and he doesn't... what do they do? Wait until he charges one of them and then shoot him? OR, taser him at 30 feet and sort it out later? As an officer, I think I would like the option of tasering instead of shooting.

Of course, as a non-sworn citizen, I don't carry less than lethal weapons. I'm not expected to seek out and detain law-breakers if they break the law against others and I'm not around. I'm mostly concerned about my own safety and less than lethal weapons don't figure into that equation. At least in my eyes! If someone is going to mug me or try to kill me, I doubt I'll have time to call the cops to use their firearms, tasers or OC... that's why I CCW... my personal protection is up to me.. the courts have ruled so

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

After The Less-Lethal

After you use less-lethal weapons for defense, you have to come up with other force to keep the antagonist subdued or at bay. Or, you've got to run. There is no guarantee your antagonist won't rise up and continue the pursuit of you and your goodies. (S)He'll be REALLY pissed, too!

Woody

It isn't about a "fair" fight. It's about protecting your life. There is no such thing as "excessive force", or "escalating the level of violence" when your life is at stake. Carry THE force you'll need to prevail. You won't have time to shuffle through your bag of tricks to find the "perfect" tool.

 

[usafjay1976]

Sorry for the confusion, it's late here. By less lethal, I do mean stun guns, tazers, etc and as for lethal, I mean firearms/guns. I support responsible gun ownership 100%. The point this person I've been debating with is that less lethal is more effective because it stuns the criminal and does not kill him. Then the police can come and take him away and he can get a trial, that kind of thing. I'm just curious how effective non-lethal weapons are. I've seen videos and that sort of thing, but I would never rely on a less lethal weapon vs a firearm to protect myself.

 

[isp2605]

http://frontpage.dallas.net/~shinder/SurviveL/April1999/survive0499.htm

 

[FTF]

Understood... lol it's always late on the intenet.

Ask your friend if he would be willing to bet his life that a spray of mace or a taser would deter a raging meth addict with a 12 gauge.

Sure, it's effective. Sure, it's better to 'stun' a criminal than to kill him. BUT... put yourself in that position... if a bad guy has a gun or deadly weapon pointed at you... would you really be debating which level of less than lethal or non-lethal force to use? Bottom line is that you need options.. and unfortunatley, deadly force is always going to be one of those... you can't hamstring the cops to the degree they are afraid to do anything... then why even have them?

but I would never rely on a less lethal weapon vs a firearm to protect myself.

That is the difference. It's not your job to protect others... or to even protect people from themselves.. that IS the cops jobs. Not like they do it I guess, but that's the point.

 

[Standing Wolf]

The point this person I've been debating with is that less lethal is more effective because it stuns the criminal and does not kill him. Then the police can come and take him away and he can get a trial, that kind of thing.

I've never heard of a non-lethal weapon guaranteed to stun a criminal into submission.

 

[GRIZ22]

Lees lethal weapons are needed when deadly force is not justified. I know of some law enforcement agencies that not only require their LEOs to carry non-lethal weapons (pepper spray) on duty but also require them to carry them off-duty if they are carrying a firearm.

 

[isp2605]

I've never heard of a non-lethal weapon guaranteed to stun a criminal into submission.

+1. Read the link I posted. In it are examples where you are 100% correct.

 

[stephen m]

Just gotta ask, why are we so worried about a criminals well being? Is your

debate partner taking the stance that the criminal has more of a right to live

than you or I do? As far as I'm concerned, when someone threatens or

initiates violence, then all bets are off and they forfeit all. Any academic

discussion about the means give the wrong doer to many rights. I think we

need to worry more about how to stop the threat the quickest instead of the

safest for the perp.

 

[GRIZ22]

It seems that some here are of the opinion every criminal should be dealt with with deadly force. If the criminal is not doing something that warrants deadly force I am not going to use it. Non-lethal weapons make it easier for you. I'm not coddling the criminal. I'm not going to be sitting in a cell somewhere saying "I showed that BG".