Subsidizing development of advanced LTL technologies to increase (not force) options?

[cdk8]

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?

 

[Jeff White]

We are already spending huge amounts of money developing LTL technology. The military is investing huge sums in it and there are a lot of things already in the pipeline.

The thing is, there is little application for LTL for the private citizen. What do you envision besides what we have now?

I don't think anything is going to have more application then the OC we already have. Spray and run is what it's good for.

Even if you had a "phaser set on stun", how would you use it? Private citizens aren't going to be taking people into custody.

I just don't see much LTL being useful to a private citizen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The ultimate goal of LTL technology is controlling masses of people -- think about that.

 

[patmccoy]

Jeff wrote:

Even if you had a "phaser set on stun", how would you use it?

I think this would removed guns from private concealed carry for liability reasons. Once you "stunned" the aggressor, you are able to leave the area. (Asa we tell CCW students, stop shooting when the threat is over).

If the "phaser" (small and concealable as in Star Trek) was available, I'd not want to be the one trying to explain to the court why I used deadly force instead of the phaser.

Guns would still be used for hunting, target shooting, and available as a last resort to defend the country from " ...all foes, foreign and domestic."

 

[CLP]

If you were ever in the unfortunate situation which required you to use a weapon for your defense- why would you even consider a LTL weapon vs a weapon with much better stopping power?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Frankly, if your life is at stake, you don't have the luxury of thinking about what will happen AFTER the encounter is over -- because if you're not fully concentrating on the here-and-now there ain't a-gonna BE no "after."

 

[lemaymiami]

I've thought that our government should have less money over time.... Now if I could just convince everyone else to vote in that direction....

Every time some one says the "government" ought to fund something - they should be required to pay for it first, themselves... Yes, there are some very basic functions that need to be handled by government but that's all... All the additional bells and whistles are strangling us economically.

Yeah, I'm probably somewhat to the right of Attilla the Hun politically...

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I agree with Thomas Jefferson, "The government is best that governs least." And spends the least of my money.

 

[cdk8]

We are already spending huge amounts of money developing LTL technology. The military is investing huge sums in it and there are a lot of things already in the pipeline.

The thing is, there is little application for LTL for the private citizen. What do you envision besides what we have now?

I don't think anything is going to have more application then the OC we already have. Spray and run is what it's good for.

Even if you had a "phaser set on stun", how would you use it? Private citizens aren't going to be taking people into custody.

I just don't see much LTL being useful to a private citizen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Does the military have any central feeds where they discuss the developments of their ongoing R&D? With DOJ there are a few sites with concentrated info, but in regards to military I always find it harder to get the most up-to-date info on many of the (non-confidential) projects they do?? (for example, they have done some very intense research in regards to the longevity of medicine should production be halted by some catastrophic event...that's something that interests me very much, but I've struggled to find as much info on it as I would like.)

As for exactly what I envision, I'm not sure as I'm not the most creative person. But I think it is possible that people more creative than me could do some pretty cool things...from what I've read, directed sound weapons are very effective but are yet to be minaturized. And we have a ton of talent in this country.

While I would love to see nationwide carry with no limits in any State on carrying a concealed weapon, as of right now CC isn't an option for some citizens. Unfortunately, I suppose that creates a trap that anti-2A people would go for, arguing having one thing means you don't need or can't have another. That's certainly not what I am supporting here.

Do you know if the major R&D undertakings via the military are partly due to a higher developmental risk versus profit potential? Or is it more of a needs basis where in-house developing is often for specific applications?

 

[cdk8]

Jeff wrote:

I think this would removed guns from private concealed carry for liability reasons. Once you "stunned" the aggressor, you are able to leave the area. (Asa we tell CCW students, stop shooting when the threat is over).

If the "phaser" (small and concealable as in Star Trek) was available, I'd not want to be the one trying to explain to the court why I used deadly force instead of the phaser.

Guns would still be used for hunting, target shooting, and available as a last resort to defend the country from " ...all foes, foreign and domestic."

I wasn't looking at it from that perspective but it makes sense. It's unfortunate it would come down to that, through gun control politicians more concerned with an agenda than anything else. In my mind I'm thinking about more options that a user would decide if they wanted to do anything at all in the direction of the phaser and their own expertise would be respected in a court of law as one with sound mind to decide whatever they choose. I guess in real life it can't work that way.

 

[harrygunner]

Another Star Trek episode explored how if the price of war is low, war persists.

In the case of perps, they just might keep threatening life if the consequences are less than lethal.

 

[JohnKSa]

If you look at real-world, self-defense gun uses, what becomes immediately obvious is that guns are not effective fight stoppers because they are so effective as weapons when wielded by the average gun owner, but rather because they are a tremendously effective deterrent.

Do more than 90% of attackers give up/run when a taser is used, even if the barbs miss or it is otherwise ineffective at incapacitating them? No.

Do more than 90% of attackers give up/run when pepper spray is used, even when it doesn't hit them or doesn't incapacitate them in any way? No.

BUT it IS true that more than 90% of attackers do give up/run when a gun is used, even if the gun isn't fired, even if they are not hit or even if they are hit but not incapacitated.

Why? Because getting shot has long-lasting, potentially permanent, tremendously negative ill-effects. People realize that if there's any shred of rationality left to them and it provides strong motivation.

The best reason for using a gun as a self-defense weapon is because it's probably the one weapon that's likely to be effective even if you're not very good with it, even if it malfunctions, even if you don't even pull the trigger.

In a very real sense, firearms are, by far, the best and most effective LTL option for self-defense available. And you can INSTANTLY transition to using them as a lethal option if the situation demands it.

Disclaimer: In case it's not clear, I'm not saying that people should use firearms as a deterrent when it's not legal to do so and I'm not advocating that people should count on attackers running away when a gun is produced. I'm just commenting on how self-defense gun uses often play out based on the statistics.