Axon wants to make handguns obsolete for manstopping

Status
Not open for further replies.
My experience with TASERs and pepper spray is consistent with that mentioned by some of the other guys. Some years ago, the larger PD I retired from surveyed use of pepper spray and found it was about 85% effective. It is 100% effective on me. During in service training I was tased 4 times. It was 100% effective on me, as in immediately. Given the opportunity in successive TASER trainings, I politely declined to be tased again. But some suspects are a LOT tougher than me. For instance, I was arresting a big strong guy for DUI who required two full rides to finally give up. Another time I attempted to use the drive-stun feature on a suspect, nothing happened. I reported this to our TASER instructor and learned other officers had experienced the similar failures. He indicated dust sometimes infiltrated the battery compartment, leading to poor contact with the TASER unit.

Oh well, I'm glad to be retired after 30+ years full time, and several more as a reserve. You young guys can figure this all out now:thumbup:
 
As long as there are bad guys with no respect for property, life, or law enforcement, there will be firearms strapped to the hips of cops. And shotguns and patrol rifles in their cars. Anything else is just wishful thinking.

Fighting these gangs and drug cartels today with the best weapons money can buy, is at best a draw. To try and accomplish it without firearms would be pointless suicide. Besides, these animals have more than demonstrated through their relentless criminal actions, they do not possess lives worth saving. Let alone trying to save them by having law enforcement take on even greater risk trying to do it.
 
The Taser works, some of the time. And if that is his basis for making handguns obsolete and his technological claim to fame, he is going to critically fail in his endeavor.
It also KILLS people some of the time.

And if that is his basis for making handguns obsolete and his technological claim to fame, he is going to critically fail in his endeavor.
If the chief criterion is NOT killing people, it's going to fail similarly for THAT aspect as well.
 
The problem comes down to: speaking at a biological level, how do you stop someone against their will.

Drugs/sedatives - literally shut your brain down. They work, but anything that can sedate you can also kill you at a high enough dose (look at alcohol poisoning). Have fun figuring out that "Goldilocks" dose for a stop while you're in the field.

Beanbag rounds - blunt force trauma with better marketing.

Electricity/taser - actually a pretty solid option on paper. If you want to move, but your muscles can't receive motor signals from the CNS, you're not going to move. But getting the electricity to where it needs to go is the hard part. I did some experiments a while back as part of a study, where we stimulated subjects' muscles with electricity (at much lower voltages than a tazing, of course), and our subjects wouldn't feel a thing if the electrodes were off even by an inch the correct nerve.

Punching holes in vital organs - a time honored solution.

Energy weapons - ?????
 
Last edited:
OC and Tear Gas can work either by irritating the eyes and mucous membranes or by causing pain. If the eyes are induced to water enough and/or pain causes them to shut involuntarily, the resulting temporary blindness aids in disabling an attacker -- but the mechanism is not totally reliable. Individuals have different levels of sensitivity, but irrespective of that, it's easy to shield the eyes with glasses, goggles, or a helmet and that alone is enough to render OC mostly ineffective. Tear gas mostly works through the respiratory system and can be stopped by a respirator mask. I don't think tear gas is really a fight stopper, but more of an area-denial tool. There are other chemical weapons that have a more immediate debilitating effect, but they are either lethal or gravely injurious and generally unlawful.

In riot control, there can be a good effect from heavy water canons, but it requires a huge volume of water and a large apparatus to stop someone. Adhesive sprays like "sticky foam" have some potential to improve on this. The demonstrations I've seen showed poor results, but the concept is sound. By using an adhesive liquid, the force of the spray is persistent in binding the target whereas water just falls off and has to be sprayed continuously. By foaming the liquid, a small volume of liquid can be expanded to a large volume of foam, but the air bubbles don't add strength to the substance. Even with exceptional expansion, it still seems impractical to carry or deploy a sufficient amount of the material to stop a person and I think that will be hard to overcome such that it will be relegated to a special tool kept in a vehicle and deployed only in special opportunities. Even a futuristic version seems impractical for belt-carry.
 
I think most all of this "less than lethal" nonsense is being pushed by liberals and liberalism that has run amok in this country. The current mentality of liberals is to release the criminals, and condemn the police for arresting them in the first place. It's insane.
 
Whatever the motivation, we know that handgun "stopping power" leaves a lot to be desired.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top