• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Less than lethal weapons: A Threat?

saltydude

saltydude

Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
3,252
Likes
329
Location
INVISIBLE
Feedback: 4 / 0 / 0
It apperars to me that our society is approaching a crossroad when it comes to weapons & defence. We seem to be so caught up in holding people accountable & liability lately that were losing grasp of potentially serious issues.
The powers to be are constantly removing law enforcements ability to uphold / defend the law, or their lives with deadly force.
From what I've read, Mayor Menino shot down Boston PD's ability to use AR-15's. What message does this send to criminals?
Granted when a situation can be diffused without resuting in a fatality, (great) But what is the cost?
We now have stun guns, tasers, 12G bean bags, rubber bullets, flash bangs, tear gas, pepper spray, pepper balls, EMP's, directed energy/ sound waves, etc.
I guess my question is that if they take the firearms away from law enforcement, what does it spell for the future in terms of public safety or civilian & private firearm ownership? [thinking]
 
Last edited:
saltydude said:
It apperars to me that our society is approaching a crossroad when it comes to weapons & defence. We seem to be so caught up in holding people accountable & liability lately that were losing grasp of potentially serious issues.
The powers to be are constantly removing law enforcements ability to uphold / defend the law, or their lives with deadly force.
From what I've read, Mayor Menino shot down Boston PD's ability to use AR-15's. What message does this send?
Granted when a situation can be diffused without resuting in a fatality, (great) But what is the cost?
We now have stun guns, tasers, 12G bean bags, rubber bullets, flash bangs, tear gas, pepper spray, pepper balls, EMP's, directed energy/ sound waves, etc.
I guess my question is that if they take the firearms away from law enforcement, what does it spell for the future in terms of safety or civilian & private firearm ownership? [thinking]
Click to expand...

Yeah, because the bean bag worked so well for the girl at Fenway a few years ago. Just let them have their guns to defend themselves. I do agree that going after LEOs rights does not bode well for us. Then again.....Mumbles is 300 lbs. of shit in a 200 lbs. sack.
 
" They " can Add on all the Non lethal toys to a cops toolbag they want. I don't see any police giving up their firearms.
" They " have also been trying to take our privately owned firearms for decades. It isn't working out so well for them , with citizens or criminals.

As for the actual usage of Non lethal tools , they're for cops , not citizens , for the most part. True - I can have pepper spray , but I can't carry a club. I don't see tazers for sale , if you cross a dozen towns getting to work you've crossed a dozen different sets of knife laws ...

I'll keep my firearms until I can't.
 
Believe it or not, Menino, Bloomberg, and Helmke aren't the spokespeople of the entire nation. They're the minority. I still have yet to hear one sane, non-criminal say that the police should give up their guns. If it ever comes to that, I have a feeling that you'll see a lot of police officers protesting it. Can you imagine the dissent they'd run into if an officer responding to a call is told "We're sending you to a bank robbery. Suspects are armed with automatic weapons. You can't even have a sidearm, but we did give you these pepper balls that if you shoot at them, will really piss them off and make you their prime target." I don't see them taking that sitting down. Just because Menino is crazy doesn't mean the rest of the country is. I have a feeling his opinion would change in a heartbeat if he had to walk the beat with street cops for just one day.

Also remember that the only less lethal weapons realistically available to us peasants is pepper spray.
 
Last edited:
Also remember that the only less lethal weapons realistically available to us peasants is pepper spray.
Click to expand...

It's not about the availability of less lethal weapons to civilians. It's more about the restriction on LE to do their job without fear of reprisal.
 
saltydude said:
It apperars to me that our society is approaching a crossroad when it comes to weapons & defence. We seem to be so caught up in holding people accountable & liability lately that were losing grasp of potentially serious issues.
The powers to be are constantly removing law enforcements ability to uphold / defend the law, or their lives with deadly force.
From what I've read, Mayor Menino shot down Boston PD's ability to use AR-15's. What message does this send to criminals?
Granted when a situation can be diffused without resuting in a fatality, (great) But what is the cost?
We now have stun guns, tasers, 12G bean bags, rubber bullets, flash bangs, tear gas, pepper spray, pepper balls, EMP's, directed energy/ sound waves, etc.
I guess my question is that if they take the firearms away from law enforcement, what does it spell for the future in terms of public safety or civilian & private firearm ownership? [thinking]
Click to expand...
E N G L A N D
 
SecondAmdFirst said:
Yeah, because the bean bag worked so well for the girl at Fenway a few years ago. Just let them have their guns to defend themselves. I do agree that going after LEOs rights does not bode well for us. Then again.....Mumbles is 300 lbs. of shit in a 200 lbs. sack.
Click to expand...


I believe that was a .68 pepperball round. Bad, bad story.

But less lethal (NOT 'less than lethal', for the media types!) munitions are great tools that allow for more options, and bridge that gap between OC and deadly force, where the only measure in between is intermediate/impact weapons that require you to be inclose proximity, without any reactionary gap whatsoever. But they should never be a replacement for other measures, just an ADDITIONAL tool to bridge a gap.
 
All that expensive high tech crap is for LEO's controlling crowds.

It may be fun to use a focused sound weapon on a crowd of unruly teenagers on a friday night , but probably no more fun than turning a firehose on them.

The .gov / police / are thinking about major demonstrations and unruly -ness. Without all these other options they are left with firehoses , dogs , tear gas and riot batons. None of that makes for good television.

As for the idea of arguing that they have taken guns from the Police so we need to take them from civilians is not reality. Picture those kindly English Bobbies , the nice unarmed Police. They have both their own full auto weapons and access to soldiers when they want them.

Remember that kid a few years ago who jumped a turnstyle in the subway ? He was dropped with multiple head shots - while running. They are a lot of highly skilled & armed English police out there.
 
I see another issue with requiring LEO to carry multiple less than lethal weapons.When my sister was on patrol (thankfully she is a detective now) she was required to carry baton, taser, OC and of course her sidearm (many carry a knife and backup sidearm as well).
The mental exercise that they must go through in order to determine and use the minimum level of force nessary (only allowable) for a given situation is definitely a concern.
 
Lethal weapon is a moonbat term, please don't use it.

the degree to which an object is lethal is purely decided upon by the person wielding it.
 
saltydude said:
It apperars to me that our society is approaching a crossroad when it comes to weapons & defence. We seem to be so caught up in holding people accountable & liability lately that were losing grasp of potentially serious issues.
The powers to be are constantly removing law enforcements ability to uphold / defend the law, or their lives with deadly force.
From what I've read, Mayor Menino shot down Boston PD's ability to use AR-15's. What message does this send to criminals?
Granted when a situation can be diffused without resuting in a fatality, (great) But what is the cost?
We now have stun guns, tasers, 12G bean bags, rubber bullets, flash bangs, tear gas, pepper spray, pepper balls, EMP's, directed energy/ sound waves, etc.
I guess my question is that if they take the firearms away from law enforcement, what does it spell for the future in terms of public safety or civilian & private firearm ownership? [thinking]
Click to expand...

Sounds like he wants to model the police force after what they have in England... I can see it now a drug dealer in possession of an illegal firearm say a full auto AK-47 and a officer trying to arrest him carrying a taser. How do you think that would play out...
 
Mike, I believe that terrible incident (which SHOULD NOT have happened) was about the time when the term "less than lethal" turned to "less lethal". Can only hope that the training and protocol changed as well.

Though I prefer your term - "usually not lethal".
 
Ask this person's family is there's a such thing as a "less than lethal" weapon:
Click to expand...
The term in LE circles is "Less lethal", not "less than lethal" - a subtle but very real distinction.
 
I think I am right that Tasers are legal for civilians in most states. Even in CA, it is legal to own and carry one openly or concealed without a license. I don't think even the latest Taser is close to being a replacement for a pistol as a self-defense tool, but they are getting better, and represent the best available alternative for someone who is not comfortable carrying a firearm, IMHO.

As for LE, it makes good sense to me to have effective less lethal alternatives available, particularly ones that avoid the need to go hand to hand.
 
CMF said:
I think I am right that Tasers are legal for civilians in most states. Even in CA, it is legal to own and carry one openly or concealed without a license. I don't think even the latest Taser is close to being a replacement for a pistol as a self-defense tool, but they are getting better, and represent the best available alternative for someone who is not comfortable carrying a firearm, IMHO.

As for LE, it makes good sense to me to have effective less lethal alternatives available, particularly ones that avoid the need to go hand to hand.
Click to expand...

I agree, my point was more about that some officers are required to carry so many different options, that it can be a mental challenge to quickly determine which one to use, and to draw and deploy such a weapon. My sister who is 5' 4" with a small waist had major issues fitting all of her gear on her belt. trying to draw quickly when things are so cramped can slow down an officer.
 
Climbnsink said:
There is an argument that all the less lethal tools allow the cops to be more brutal not less.
Click to expand...

I've noticed there's a heavily reliance on them in order to simply gain compliance. We truly live in a warped society when spectators giggle at the sight and sounds of a civilian being electrocuted. There intended purpose should be to subdue individuals where deadly force would be inappropriate.
 
saltydude said:
It apperars to me that our society is approaching a crossroad when it comes to weapons & defence. We seem to be so caught up in holding people accountable & liability lately that were losing grasp of potentially serious issues.
The powers to be are constantly removing law enforcements ability to uphold / defend the law, or their lives with deadly force.
From what I've read, Mayor Menino shot down Boston PD's ability to use AR-15's. What message does this send to criminals?
Granted when a situation can be diffused without resuting in a fatality, (great) But what is the cost?
We now have stun guns, tasers, 12G bean bags, rubber bullets, flash bangs, tear gas, pepper spray, pepper balls, EMP's, directed energy/ sound waves, etc.
I guess my question is that if they take the firearms away from law enforcement, what does it spell for the future in terms of public safety or civilian & private firearm ownership? [thinking]
Click to expand...
You only have to look to England where the Bobbies are unarmed except for nightsticks and it is very difficult for the average person to obtain a handgun (if not impossible) for personal protection. Coincidentally, the violent crime rate is rather high and there is even legislation pending to ban knives. Apparently the local thugs have resorted to knives as the weapon of choice in the absence readily obtainable firearms, go figure!
 
On a lighter note...

We can't have a "Less Lethal" thread without this.. [laugh]




-Mike
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Buying more than one firearm
2
Replies
43
Views
1K
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Gov. Youngkin Vetoes Virginia Democrats’ ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban
Replies
21
Views
635
rudiewhitebwoy
rudiewhitebwoy
Report: Americans Own over 700 Million Ammo Mags with Greater Than 10-Round Capacity
Replies
23
Views
547
1sern
1
Video: Threat of gun violence stressing out Americans
Replies
12
Views
373
thesyguy
thesyguy
CO Democrats’ ‘Assault Weapons’ Legislation Bans 9mm Pistols With Threaded Barrels
Replies
0
Views
112
Reptile
Reptile
Back
Top Bottom