Our Federal government spends a fortune on stupid stuff. They will subsidize some of the strangest things, and purchase some really useless products...so they have quite a lot of [{formally} our] cash on hand. For example, a billion dollar blimp that not only is incapable of alerting us to an incoming cruise missile attack, but a blimp with an affinity for wreaking havoc on poor Amish folk in the Pennsylvanian countryside, necessitating an armed chase with several F-16s. Or spending several million dollars to develop a robot that plays music. And who can forget the billions of dollars given to ongoing useless projects designed to, "making teh guns saferz," using well thought out safety initiatives such as providing firearms to gang members.
While Less-Than-Lethal tech is usually referenced in regards to LE use, it has applications that goes beyond this IMO. (LTL being defensive products that are less lethal than a firearm.) Many modern LTL implementations have made huge advancements over what was available just a few decades ago, but certain limitations still exist, which may be related to the incapacitating effects, speed/ease of deployment, redundancy, the user exclusionary factor, the ability to rapidly incapacitate multiple bad guys at once, and simple effectiveness. Obviously, that can equate to lethal force being the only appropriate response to stop/prevent loss of innocent life.
What if larger bodies of money were available to those developing new and experimental LTL technologies? From a development perspective, could it offset some of the financial risks of those trying radically new things? They offer X-prizes for all sorts of developmental feats...could this be worthwhile of such a prize?
What if more money was made available when it came to implementing these technologies?...and they were NOT politically-charged? (Current DOJ systems seem to have so many catches that I feel many place greater emphasis on politics/agendas than they do safety.)
I consider LTL as something that can compliment (but not replace) firearms, but I also think that developing future LTL could present safe, effective, and viable options in responding to situations that today can only be appropriately responded to with lethal force. I find it frustrating when many anti-gun people or lawmakers automatically assert that LTL should have been used in place of a gun in a situation that they were not present at. So I am thinking that the goal could be more options, with the decision of which option to use being determined by a specific individual in a specific setting based on their discretion (and more or less, isn't support of discretion & allowing the individual to decide the best response what SYG laws are for?)
Do you think increased R&D in this area could further expand such options?
While Less-Than-Lethal tech is usually referenced in regards to LE use, it has applications that goes beyond this IMO. (LTL being defensive products that are less lethal than a firearm.) Many modern LTL implementations have made huge advancements over what was available just a few decades ago, but certain limitations still exist, which may be related to the incapacitating effects, speed/ease of deployment, redundancy, the user exclusionary factor, the ability to rapidly incapacitate multiple bad guys at once, and simple effectiveness. Obviously, that can equate to lethal force being the only appropriate response to stop/prevent loss of innocent life.
What if larger bodies of money were available to those developing new and experimental LTL technologies? From a development perspective, could it offset some of the financial risks of those trying radically new things? They offer X-prizes for all sorts of developmental feats...could this be worthwhile of such a prize?
What if more money was made available when it came to implementing these technologies?...and they were NOT politically-charged? (Current DOJ systems seem to have so many catches that I feel many place greater emphasis on politics/agendas than they do safety.)
I consider LTL as something that can compliment (but not replace) firearms, but I also think that developing future LTL could present safe, effective, and viable options in responding to situations that today can only be appropriately responded to with lethal force. I find it frustrating when many anti-gun people or lawmakers automatically assert that LTL should have been used in place of a gun in a situation that they were not present at. So I am thinking that the goal could be more options, with the decision of which option to use being determined by a specific individual in a specific setting based on their discretion (and more or less, isn't support of discretion & allowing the individual to decide the best response what SYG laws are for?)
Do you think increased R&D in this area could further expand such options?
Last edited: