The Perfect Non-Lethal Weapon

Wouldn’t it be cool if we could design the perfect device for personal protection? Many might look upon this idea as un-realistic and overly idealistic but it occurs to me that well designed technology often derives from creative works of fiction decades in advance.

Right now the “perfect weapon” might seem impossible in terms of the laws of physics or thermodynamics but 20-30 years ago nobody would have imagined I’d be publishing this post to a worldwide network of machines, from a moving train, on a touch screen device more powerful that the most capable computer of that day.

Many factors would have to be overcome to build the perfect personal protective device. But I thought it would be interesting to try and list them here.

Reasonable Range

I don’t know what an acceptable range for such a device would be, but I’m guessing it would need to be something longer than the average taser. I don’t know exactly what complaints a gun owner would have about switching to such a device but I’m guessing range could be one of them.

A very quick scan of taser.com speaks of ranges between 15 to 35 feet. This chart gives a few references that seem to indicate the average handgun has a range of somewhere around 2,300 meters or ~7500 feet. Quite a difference.

If a device manufacturer wanted to build the perfect personal protective device, they would have to get to a range of something closer to a handgun.

Accuracy

In addition to range, I’d have to assume accuracy is also of major concern. Many tasers cast a large net or spray of small devices on wiring that I have to assume curtail accuracy.

The perfect personal protective device would have to be at least as accurate as a handgun.

Sufficient Power

To achieve such a range and accuracy, the device would have to be capable of storing and discharging a phenomenal amount of power. One can imagine that such a device, assuming it doesn’t involve the launching of a projectile meant to pierce flesh or armor, would involve some sort of incapacitating electrical, light emitting or auditory payload. For that to be possible, the device would need enough power to create such an event, multiple times at the pre-established range.

Load Capacity

As stated, the device would have to be capable of creating such an incapacitating payload more than once. Poor aim, a disproportionate number of attackers or differences in the anticipated resiliency of a target compared to his or her actual size etc. means you may have to fire off multiple shots.

Appropriate Effect

Assuming the goal of the weapon is to incapacitate, rather than kill, the device’s payload would need to be extremely effective and preferably cumulative. In other words, depending on the type of incapacitating agent being used, the target’s size, body chemistry, and armament may mean that multiple shots will be required to take him or her down. It may also have a factor in how long they stay down. If the average payload can incapacitate the average person that’s acceptable, but preferably, multiple discharges would take down above average targets.

The ideal weapon/payload would ensure that after a minimal number of discharges, any assailant would be rendered docile for more than enough time for a person to reach safety.

It is assumed that a cumulative weapon of this type would most likely, eventually, cause irreparable damage. But if death is not the default, many un-necessary deaths could be avoided.

Highly effective Safety Measures

In an effort to ensure the weapon cannot be turned on its owner and used to incapacitate them, more effective safety measures need to be developed. Perhaps “Smart gun” technologies currently being developed for traditional firearms could be employed here.

Plausibility

This is obviously a rather insurmountable looking list of requirements that no doubt many weapons researchers have already thought of. It would be interesting to know how much effort and how many resources are being applied to research in these areas. I’ve read a fair amount about some of the current tech being developed for military applications. One would hope those advances, like many others, are passed along to the civilian population.

This of course assumes that one believes the development of non-lethal weaponry has a place in personal protection. In the heat of an altercation or assault, one can assume that many variables could contribute to an un-wanted death. Unwanted on the part of the target certainly. But I have to believe there is a market of people out there that would also prefer not to have the death of another human being on their hands.

One can only hope.

Adding Color to Firearm Death Rates

Yesterday I posted a link to a table that listed the Firearm Death Rates, ranked by state.  I thought it would be interesting to see what this ranking would look like if I added some color to indicate the way that state tends to lean politically.

I used the Wikipedia definition of Red States vs. Blue States.

This of course was a pretty simple thing to do.  It’s not rocket science.  But it certainly shows a relatively stark contrast.

State Firearm Death Rates

The below link points to a chart that represents the firearm death rates by state for 2013, ranked by rate.

The people who pulled the data from the CDC make observations about those state’s gun laws that I haven’t personally researched.

But I thought the chart was worth saving.

The states at the top and bottom of the chart are interesting to think about, in terms of their “red”, “blue” or “purple” nature, from a political perspective.

http://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart15.htm

Update: I’ve uploaded a version of the VPC/CDC firearm death rate chart with colors indicating the political leanings of the state.

http://perfectlyfrank.me/2015/01/30/adding-color-to-firearm-death-rates/

Unstructured Conversation and the Gun Violence Debate

I would like to spend more time sensibly debating gun control and general measures for reducing gun violence. I have made a few attempts in recent weeks to start doing so by publicly talking about my angst on the subject and soliciting some comments.

Unfortunately those conversations didn’t go very well. Like so many of the other written dialogs I’ve seen on the web, they turned into pissing matches with both sides getting emotional about their positions, getting off topic and trying to talk circles around one another.

I’d like to make a serious attempt at breaking all of the issues down into manageable pieces, laying out the arguments for and against each discussion point, and try to at least ensure I’m clear on my position. It’s not so much my intention to influence others with this effort at the present time. Again it’s more about discovery.

I thought it would be interesting to begin to develop an outline or visual of some type, depicting all the typical arguments and discussion points. I don’t know if this outline will be useful for anyone but me, and I consider it a living document, but please feel free to check it out and comment.

My outline started out as nothing more than a list of terms I’ve brainstormed on. I’ll try to organize it a bit.

It’s the Sanctity of Human Life, Stupid

I’ve been doing some reading on an interesting political debate that I’d like to highlight here.

But before any possible detractors begin to assume I’m calling them stupid, let me take a moment first and stop you right there.

The “It’s the economy, stupid” mantra that permeated Bill Clinton’s successful 1992 presidential campaign was a slogan used internally by the campaign to remind themselves of one of their core messages. That was its original intent and that is my intent here when using the cliché as a template for purposes of titling this blog post.

It seems to me that both sides of the political aisle would do well to remember that most of our hottest debates get as heated as they do because they deal with respect for not only the American way of life but for human life in general.

Now, without further ado, a phrasing of the comparison.

How can liberals/conservatives argue for/against abortion rights and not apply the same philosophy to the right to keep and bear arms?

Below are a series of posts I found while Googling “gun control vs. abortion”.

• The Case for Comparing Gun Rights and Abortion Rights – Think Progress
• Gun Control, Abortion and Shameful Political Hypocrisy – Washington Times
• Guns vs. Abortions – Washington Post
• Guns, Abortion and Mistrust – New York Times
• A Guide for the Left: Using Abortion to Understand the Passion of 2nd Amendment Advocates – Forbes

Now, I am not making any endorsements for or against the comparison I am currently researching. I am collecting a series of articles here, producing a sort of “round-up” of interesting writing for and against a particular argument. Later on I may or may not write a post describing my interpretation and where exactly I fall on this spectrum.

I think the level of hypocrisy that exists in this debate is a fairly natural observation for most people. It had occurred to me long before I’d done much reading on the topics.

It should also be clear though that the hypocrisy exists on both sides and for both subjects. Just as it makes no sense for conservatives to completely disregard a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body it makes equally little sense for liberals to totally ignore a person’s right to own a firearm.

If you take that one step further on both sides you realize there is room for compromise and some legislation, if one can get over the idea that the other side will take advantage. Progressives (myself included) should be able to understand that life is precious. That if our intent is to save lives through gun control that we can and should do our best to promote life in other areas. I support a woman’s right to choose, but I also would like to see the number of abortions GREATLY reduced. I’d rather see us do so through education and adoption, but the goal is the same.

On the conservative side I’d also argue that gun control doesn’t have to mean the elimination of all guns in all situations, for all people. Limits that work, limits that prevent mass and accidental shootings should be achievable if both sides learn to put on the shoes of the other.

As I’ve said, I’m still processing all of this reading material and would still like to see both fewer abortions and fewer people shot. A few days ago I wrote that I’d like to see the elimination of virtually all guns. In a perfect world that is true. But when I think less emotionally about both of these subjects of individual rights, I realize I’d be willing to compromise on both of it meant more lives saved in the end.