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.
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.
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.
What about use some type of net or something first? There has to be some mechanical meth rod of subduing someone without killing
What about use some type of net or something first? There has to be some mechanical meth rod of subduing someone without killing
What about use some type of net or something first? There has to be some mechanical meth rod of subduing someone without killing
Tranquillisers are no where near as fast or safe as they appear in the movies. It takes a few minutes for then to kick in, and they drastically slow breathing and heart rate, and can kill people with respiratory or heart diseases, even at the ‘correct’ dosage.
Tranquillisers are no where near as fast or safe as they appear in the movies. It takes a few minutes for then to kick in, and they drastically slow breathing and heart rate, and can kill people with respiratory or heart diseases, even at the ‘correct’ dosage.
Tranquillisers are no where near as fast or safe as they appear in the movies. It takes a few minutes for then to kick in, and they drastically slow breathing and heart rate, and can kill people with respiratory or heart diseases, even at the ‘correct’ dosage.
Police do have less-lethal options at their disposal and should use them *when appropriate*. However, if the Bad Guy is “playing for keeps”, how can you expect the police officer to do any less? Cops are humans, and nearly every one of them considers their #1 job to be “go home to my family at the end of my shift”. Their police duties are secondary to that.
How do you ask a cop to unnecessarily put his or her life in danger by entering into a physical confrontation with someone who is trying to kill them, but making them play by a different set of rules? How often do you expect toe cop to “win”? 8 out of 10 times? 9? “Bye, kids! Have a great day at school! See you tonight! …unless I run into some asshole with a machete and I have to subdue with kind, inoffensive words and a rubberized hypoallergenic pool noodle. Then… solid 80% chance daddy’ll be home tonight. Love you!”
This isn’t a video game. There are no do-overs. Lethal force should be met with lethal force.
Latest Answers