Timeline for On what technology would futuristic non-lethal guns be based?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
44 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 2, 2018 at 23:23 | comment | added | pojo-guy | With any non-lethal round, you run the risk of failing to stop the perpetrator. A complaint by US forces in Iraq was that the standard military round did not have the stopping power needed to handle a fanatic on drugs, so upgrades to .45 caliber were requested. Police often end up shooting a non-cooperative suspect after tasering and pepper spray fails. Rubber bullets and pepper spray will not stop a prepared and determined attacker. | |
| May 24, 2017 at 3:03 | review | Close votes | |||
| May 24, 2017 at 12:52 | |||||
| May 22, 2017 at 21:40 | answer | added | Stephen Voris | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 21, 2017 at 7:02 | answer | added | Cem Kalyoncu | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 21, 2017 at 5:37 | answer | added | hyde | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 20, 2017 at 21:22 | history | protected | user3652621 | ||
| May 20, 2017 at 18:49 | answer | added | Stilez | timeline score: 3 | |
| May 20, 2017 at 17:16 | comment | added | Clockwork-Muse | Interestingly, good non-lethal weaponry is probably more likely to be used by at least some criminals, since it would allow them to do things like bust into a jewelry store, shoot everybody, then rob the place at their leisure. (This is because they need some way to control the behavior of people in the to-be crime scene, or risk people fighting back or alerting police. Today this is generally accomplished with the threat of physical violence/death, but things would be a lot safer/easier to manage if you could just put people on snooze for a few minutes...) | |
| May 20, 2017 at 7:46 | answer | added | user2979044 | timeline score: 4 | |
| May 20, 2017 at 3:32 | comment | added | user64742 | @Draco18s of course, that can vary but from what I understand a pacemaker can fail and not immediately cause problems. And to be honest, anyone trying to any force on someone elderly enough or sick enough to 24/7 rely upon a pacemaker like that ought to be ashamed of themselves. | |
| May 20, 2017 at 3:31 | comment | added | user64742 | @Draco18s that's like not calling it a 'bullet proof vest' because it fails against 30th century 50000 MPH military grade bullets.When we say a weapon is non-lethal we mean that the weapon itself can't kill a human under normal circumstances.That is to say,either a malfunction or a medical condition has to play into the situation.However,I would argue that someone with a pacemaker wouldn't be killed by a taser so much as need medical attention in the future.Most people with pacemakers only need them to aid their heart if it fails.A trip to the doctor to replace it is all that would be needed. | |
| May 19, 2017 at 21:44 | answer | added | Wayne | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 19, 2017 at 21:19 | comment | added | codebreaker | @treeNinja I'm definitely thinking of something portable you could use against a single person. I want it to be available for use by private citizens. | |
| May 19, 2017 at 20:40 | comment | added | treeNinja | Are you focused specifically on a person vs. a group? Water can be an effective tool for crowds, especially when the weather is cold. | |
| May 19, 2017 at 20:30 | answer | added | John | timeline score: 4 | |
| May 19, 2017 at 20:18 | comment | added | John | tranq guns also have a problem that body weight is only one factor to consider. | |
| May 19, 2017 at 19:57 | answer | added | danefondo | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 19, 2017 at 17:30 | answer | added | coblr | timeline score: 7 | |
| May 19, 2017 at 15:45 | history | edited | codebreaker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| May 19, 2017 at 15:36 | answer | added | Ville Niemi | timeline score: 23 | |
| May 19, 2017 at 15:33 | comment | added | codebreaker | @James Just updated my question, actually. Basically, I'm looking for something that could replace firearms used by law enforcement and for home defense. | |
| May 19, 2017 at 15:32 | history | edited | codebreaker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 462 characters in body
|
| May 19, 2017 at 15:31 | comment | added | James | I would argue that weapon selection is specific to the scenario in question. Please elaborate the use case for your weapons, otherwise I am concerned this is far too broad, there are many options for non-lethal projectiles. | |
| May 19, 2017 at 15:17 | answer | added | user25818 | timeline score: 4 | |
| May 19, 2017 at 15:04 | answer | added | BradC | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 19, 2017 at 13:17 | answer | added | DennisMe | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 19, 2017 at 9:08 | answer | added | Hugo | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 19, 2017 at 8:03 | answer | added | adaliabooks | timeline score: 7 | |
| May 19, 2017 at 7:26 | answer | added | motoDrizzt | timeline score: 6 | |
| May 19, 2017 at 5:44 | review | Close votes | |||
| May 19, 2017 at 10:53 | |||||
| May 19, 2017 at 5:12 | answer | added | Quwin | timeline score: 8 | |
| May 19, 2017 at 5:09 | answer | added | Henry Taylor | timeline score: 6 | |
| May 19, 2017 at 4:55 | history | edited | codebreaker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 11 characters in body
|
| May 19, 2017 at 4:52 | answer | added | Mea quidem sententia | timeline score: 5 | |
| May 19, 2017 at 4:52 | comment | added | RonJohn | The problem is that humans are both weak (try non-lethally stopping a grown man and a young child standing next to each other), and resilient (padded clothes, face masks, etc, etc). I hold little hope for truly effective in-real-life LTL weapons. | |
| May 19, 2017 at 4:50 | history | edited | codebreaker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 32 characters in body
|
| May 19, 2017 at 4:49 | comment | added | RonJohn | Don't forget the microwave-based Active Denial System. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System | |
| May 19, 2017 at 4:04 | history | edited | codebreaker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| May 19, 2017 at 3:57 | comment | added | codebreaker | @Draco18s Well sure. I'm just saying non-lethality is a top priority. Besides, I'm asking for a speculative future technology, so it will clearly be safer than anything we have now. | |
| May 19, 2017 at 3:55 | comment | added | Draco18s no longer trusts SE | @a4android and if you ask any law enforcement personnel they'll tell you that that there is no such thing as a non-lethal weapon. Everything is lethal under some circumstance. Tasering someone with a pacemaker will probably kill them. Someone with an allergic reaction to a tranquilizing agent could die from it. And so on. It might be rare, but there's still no guarantee that a weapon will never be lethal. So they use the term "less-lethal" for all of them. | |
| May 19, 2017 at 3:45 | comment | added | codebreaker | @notstoreboughtdirt It's pretty high priority that they won't cause death. They should be good enough for home defense and law enforcement use, but not necessarily for military. | |
| May 19, 2017 at 3:31 | comment | added | user25818 | Who are you targeting? And how important is it that they don't die? People equipped with well designed defenses might be tricky. | |
| May 19, 2017 at 3:26 | answer | added | user25818 | timeline score: 5 | |
| May 19, 2017 at 2:14 | history | asked | codebreaker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |