Like, instead of tasers, live ammunition, etc, why isn’t there some sort of investment in making tranquilizer guns to incapacitate criminals?
In: 1212
The discussion ebb and flow is interesting:
“Why can’t we replace the killing bullet guns with something less lethal like tranquilizers? ”
“It will only tranquilize x%, it may kill others”
“How about this other less nit picky option? ”
“That one has a better percent, but still may kill in certain situations”
But really, is it morally worse to kill when not intending to when using something other than the more likely to kill bullet (that was originally going to be used)?
I guess I’m thinking too logically and not compassionately. Using something less lethal sounds good. Even if it does still kill. Less is less.
Latest Answers