Oops sorry, I'll pull off my Afro Wig and striped bell bottoms now
I think I can safely speak for everyone here when I say, "Ken, please keep your pants on."
pax
Oops sorry, I'll pull off my Afro Wig and striped bell bottoms now
I think I can safely speak for everyone here when I say, "Ken, please keep your pants on."
stargazer,
Actually, he asks a good question ... for another thread.
(That's a hint, y'all.)
Quote:
... if truly reliable distance stunners were around, would the moral person use them instead of the potentially lethal rounds we use?
pax
I checked out the C2 at the store the other day and it seems like ismply a more ocmpact version of the LE model.
Pax said:I saw on TV once where a guy got shot with a firearm and didn't go down, so I'm not going to carry a gun anymore.
That same police officer was killed, in the same incident, with a single 22LR bullet. So, obviously, a 22LR is a far better defensive weapon that a 357mag.
Yes... I might want one as an adjunct, but not as a replacement, I don't think -- that "too many variables and negatives" thing... but for now I'll stick with OC as an alternative, and try to stay upwind.pax said:Used in law enforcement applications in typical LE encounters, they're a godsend. They can also be quite useful to a defense-minded ordinary citizen, even with the limitations mentioned above. But the technology still isn't there to completely replace the firearm as a defensive tool.
Yes, indeedy, although I wonder what the odds are of there ever being phasers with zero negative aftereffects: they'll end up being called less-lethal, not non-lethal, just like all that other stuff.If it were? I'd agree that a moral person would not choose to use lethal force if a lesser level of force would accomplish the same goals. Once the technology finally arrives, a phaser set to "stun" is what the good people will use.
Why would tazers be a good idea? It seems like the same concept.