Axon wants to make handguns obsolete for manstopping

[BlueHeelerFl]

Even in Star Trek phasers are not 1 shot stoppers. In a Next Generation episode an assassin did not go down after 2 or 3 stun blasts, and had to be hit with the phaser set to kill

 

[ATLDave]

I remember when the inventor of the Segway claimed it would completely reshape our cities.

 

[GEM]

Just as an aside, in a Combatives class, we had the opportunity to see if the old hand held stunners would do anything. So we were zapped. It was an unpleasant ouch but no way disabling. A later class, the SWAT teaching it offered to tase us. I almost took him up on it but having some cardiac issues, decided I would pass. I got hit by lightning once and didn't want to give Zeus another chance.

 

[cheygriz]

Type lll disruptor!

 

[Riomouse911]

I’ve been in LE in Ca for over 28 years. I’ve gone from mace to oc, sap to straight stick to pr-24 to ASP to Wilmuth, “dust buster” tasers to X3 tasers, etc.

Some of this stuff works on most. None works on all. There are 300,000,000 variables in the US alone and no two people respond the same way to force twice.

An escalating progression of force options up to and including deadly force will be necessary until total human mind control by a universal government is achieved. ... And since that will never happen outside of a sci fi movie, these guys wishing away the need for last resort options to stop deadly violence will remain in the news touting to the unknowing reporter their latest creation.

I’ve been lucky; lots and lots and lots of times the handgun cleared the holster or the shotgun/rifle came out of the rack, but I’ve never been in the position (either by physical positioning or situationally by the actions of a suspect) to have been forced to shoot anyone on duty. I’ve been there when peers had to shoot numerous times as a peer, an IA investigator and a supervisor. In one instance in 1993 I had brains and blood splattered across my face from a guy with a buck knife who suddenly attacked a Det doing a murder-for-hire interview and was shot by the Det through the head...I couldn’t shoot because the second Det was between the suspect and me. It’s an experience I wish on no one.

I really wish that something would come along and do what this guy wants, but reality keeps me from getting my hopes up too high. Saying that, I pray I don’t have to go through all that comes from a shooting before I hang it all up for good.

Stay safe.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

I'm confused. Are we talking about a "better" form of LLF or doing away with LF entirely?

IMHO any attempt at LLF is just that, and nothing is optimal. I personally dont believe there is such a thing.

As for doing away with LF, well, that's just silly.

 

[OrangeCat]

I'm confused. Are we talking about a "better" form of LLF or doing away with LF entirely?

IMHO any attempt at LLF is just that, and nothing is optimal. I personally dont believe there is such a thing.

As for doing away with LF, well, that's just silly.

I can't actually find the other article so bear with me in case I'm bringing something from the mirror universe I seem to visit from time to time.

But from some of the other things I've read about his ideas is to infact make lethal force obsolete at least from a law enforcement perspective.

As I remember from the aforementioned Earth 2 article he intends to achieve this through a mix of "hard" (taser, bolo, oc, and other less than lethal methods) and "soft" (ai surveillance, face recognition, and other societal controls). It really goes into some technological and ethics issues that I'm not 100% sure he's worked through but that moves well beyond the scope of this forum.

The problem with this article is that it seems more like an opportunity to plug his company than a genuine interview.

 

[CeltKnight]

Tazers can work well, but they need some spread between the barbs, The more spread, the more muscles are likely to be disabled. If they're very close together, not so much.

I was present when people tried it out, none could last more than a fraction of a second before slapping the mat to end it. I decided not to be a test dummy. lol

That does help, as the barbs not being close together is essential, otherwise you just get a little pain, kinda like a drive-stun. Problem is, you need a certain distance to get that spread, the barbs aren't very accurate, bad guys (and good guys) don't tend to stand still, and there are WAY too many variables for those two little barbs to hit like they should. Most failures I saw or dealt with in Use-of-Force reviews had to do with one barb going wide, or hitting a belt buckle or some such. For what it's worth, though we had more than one case of someone getting a proper hit with good dispersion, taking a full ride from an apparently properly working unit, and fighting through it. MOST won't fight it off in those circumstances, but SOME can so, again, not anywhere near a sure thing. In demos and training folks succumb fast to it as they aren't fighting. Think how awesome pepper spray is in training but how lousy it can work on the street.

Don't get me wrong, I WANT these alternative weapons to be available. I want them to be there for when officers do have an opportunity to employ them so no one has to get hurt or got through the aftermath hell of shooting someone. But when I've seen them used and reviewed reports and video (coastal party town) at my old job, I was not at all impressed.

 

[labnoti]

I'm confused. Are we talking about a "better" form of LLF or doing away with LF entirely?

IMHO any attempt at LLF is just that, and nothing is optimal. I personally dont believe there is such a thing.

As for doing away with LF, well, that's just silly.

I don't think doing away with LF is a good goal. The way Smith envisions things, he might ultimately desire to do away with LF, but I don't think he's laboring under a delusion that will happen in 10 years -- it's just an ideological vision. But the practical goal that he's described is for a technology that is a better manstopper than current handguns. I'm sure the direction Axon is persuing under his leadership is LLF that is better than current handguns. Regardless, persuing tech that is better at manstopping than current handguns makes a lot of sense and is not at all science fiction or fantasy. This thread has proven it is easy to shoot down ideas for a better manstopper that are too unfamiliar to us, but improving belt-carry manstopping tech in practical ways is not unprecedented at all. It happened with the revolver. It happened with metallic cartridges. It happened with smokeless powder. We're still arguing whether it happened with semi-automatics, the .357, the .40, polymer, HST's and on and on. Right now the DoD is trying to improve manstopping tech in a squad weapon from the current state of the M4. Will it involve composite cases, telescopic cases, caseless? A lot of these improvements have been rather small increments, but there have been disruptive, world-changing improvements in belt-carried manstopping tech. The gun and then the repeater (revolver) were probably the biggest leaps forward. We need another big leap forward. Because the goal of belt-carried man-stopping technology is "stopping" and not "killing," LLF tech is not in any way excluded. Killing is not a requirement. Will there be practical tech that bests handguns in the next 10 years? That doesn't seem unreasonable. Will it be less lethal? It's possible, but not likely unless it's completely different than any LLF we've seen so far.

 

[Pat Riot]

Blather.

 

[theotherwaldo]

I've seen tasers deployed six times over the last forty years.
I've seen it work perfectly once - the guy took both barbs in the back and did a perfect porpoise.
I've seen it work fairly well three times - staggered the target, left them uncoordinated and not interested in fighting anymore.
I've seen them fail twice - once, I think, because the guy took both barbs in his arm, the other took a barb in his collar and the other in his cheek. That just made him mad.

My opinion: tasers, tear gas, rubber bullets, bean bag loads, all have a pretty poor success rate against an enraged or drugged-out opponent.

It's unlikely that Mr. Smith's will result in any better results.

I kind of like my Father's approach to Less Than Lethal: "Once you break their collar bones and knee caps, folks tend to settle right down."

 

[PzGren]

During Dallas PD's police academy, the officers to be all get maced and tased. One thing that my son learnt from it, is that being tased leads to very painful muscle spasms that get worse with muscle mass. All the guys that participated in the 1,000 lb weight lifting competition, suffered much more than the little wimps.

My son has employed the taser several times with good success.

 

[CommanderCrusty]

Well, I have seen way too much video footage of three or four officers pointing their lethal handguns at some fool with a knife or a pipe but they just can’t bring themselves to shoot. I’m yelling at the screen, “Taze him! If you aren't going to shoot the man, then just freaking TAZE HIM!”

 

[Deanimator]

I can hit a man sized target at 200 yards with a S&W Model 14 and the crappy 130gr. GI .38 ball equivalent .38 Special. Try that with something "non-lethal".

 

[Fiv3r]

I can hit a man sized target at 200 yards with a S&W Model 14 and the crappy 130gr. GI .38 ball equivalent .38 Special. Try that with something "non-lethal".

I don't think anyone disputes that their needs to be a lethal ranged option. To play devil's advocate, why would a police officer ever need to take an extreme distance shot? I think the SWAT sniper is always going to be a major component, but I am envisioning a situation where a police officer or officers encounter an unruly perp that needs to be contained yet does not deserve an administered on site death sentence.

Case in point, last year a severely deranged man attacked the local government building with a baseball bat. I don't mean he attacked the people inside, I mean he literally started to bust in the windows and doors while ranting and raving. The people inside were in danger but not his target. The police couldn't get close enough to safely subdue him by other means and he was shot half a dozen times and bled out on the street. The guy was a psychotic danger to himself and others, but its unfortunate that the only viable options the police had were "Stop!" and BANG.

I am always of the mindset that police officer's first priority after doing their duty is to get home safe to their families. One of my very good friends is a cop for our city. I know him and his wife and their kids well. If it came down to him or a guy swinging a bat, I want him to take that shot with his Glock. However, I don't see harm in at least exploring further avenues of less than lethal methods for police officers to use. I know my friend would much rather stop someone who is a threat and get them help rather than kill them. He joined the force to help people.

Anyway, until they figure it out, it seems that the most reliable way of ending an altercation is a 124-230 grain projectile hitting CNS or pulverizing a hip...maybe.

 

[herrwalther]

I remember when the inventor of the Segway claimed it would completely reshape our cities.

Dean Kamen used the Segway as a test platform for self stabilizing gyros in wheel chairs. He had no intention of making them a commercial product. Jimi Heselden who bought the patent from Kamen had other ideas, and drove one off a cliff.

Axon and its CEO are making pipe dreams. 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.

 

[JTHunter]

Once, at a local gunshow, I took an 18" electric baton that was on a display table of a man trying to sell those handheld things they used to try and get women to buy. This thing had pointed studs all up and down the length and two more on the end. I took the baton and pushed the 2 points on the end up against my thigh and pushed the button. The seller didn't see what I was doing until it was too late to stop me, then he got really ticked off when it didn't faze me at all. I handed it back and walked away.

 

[gwpercle]

I look forward to arguing about the most appropriate setting for my star trek blaster if I want to use it for bear defense. Or will I need a separate woods blaster?

Set phasers to stun Mr. Spock !

 

[tmd16556]

I look forward to arguing about the most appropriate setting for my star trek blaster if I want to use it for bear defense. Or will I need a separate woods blaster?

For bears you really need a fully operational Death Star.

 

[JohnKSa]

What these "visionaries" fail to understand is that a HUGE part of the value of firearms as defensive weapons is that they are potentially lethal. If the attacker has any shred of rationality left, that's a tremendous advantage on the part of the defender. And if the attacker is completely irrational, the ability to break them down even if they're impervious to pain or their nervous system is all screwed up by artificial substances is invaluable.

I don't want to face down an attacker who is thinking: "If I attack this guy and fail, I could be rendered helpless but fortunately without being seriously hurt." I want him thinking: "If I attack this guy and fail, I could wind up planted." And if he's not thinking or is hopelessly messed up on some high octane drugs, I want to be able to stop the attack conclusively without having to wonder if he's going to hop back up and try again as soon as the effects of some non-lethal "weapon" wear off.

 

[labnoti]

So what you're saying is the death penalty is a deterrent. That makes sense, but it doesn't change the facts that most people shot with a handgun survive. We also have a problem where handguns far too often fail to stop an attacker before they're able to do further damage after the handgun is begun to be employed to stop them.

 

[JohnKSa]

So what you're saying is the death penalty is a deterrent.

Not really. Not in the sense that there's a small possibility of fatal punishment by the state at some point in the future depending on being caught and after a long and complicated process. That kind of thing might deter people or it might not--probably not very much, IMO.

On the other hand, the realization that death is a real and immediate possibility in the next few seconds can be a real priority rearranger. When faced with a significant and imminent possibility of death, the vast majority of humans will instinctively take Plan B without stopping to consider their chances. The fact that the human race is still around, the huge percentage of psychological stops and the fact that something like 90% of successful defensive gun uses don't even involve a shot being fired are hard to explain any other way.

That makes sense, but it doesn't change the facts that most people shot with a handgun survive.

It's not that fatality is certain or even likely, it's that it's a real and imminent possibility. Besides, even among the gun community, the relatively low lethality of handguns not widely known and understood.

We also have a problem where handguns far too often fail to stop an attacker before they're able to do further damage after the handgun is begun to be employed to stop them.

Of course. They don't deter everyone. Some are not concerned with death, some are not rational, some feel they have no other options. In those situations, things can become very difficult for the defender given the reality of trying to break a person down by destroying them a couple of ounces per shot.

But that doesn't change the fact that the potential lethality of firearms is a big part, probably the biggest part, of what makes them such a valuable defensive tool.

 

[guyfromohio]

As long as we are talking about making firearms obsolete and not illegal, then great! I’d love to see more effective non-lethal options. Keep working on it. Not every stopped threat needs to die. Of course, I write this in the context of a robust and protected 2nd Amendment.

 

[silvermane_1]

Phaser.

Specifically in the 40 watt range.

You're thinking of a pulse rifle there Agarn.

 

[BigBore44]

I have no interest in my family and friends being disarmed and forced to carry less lethal when the BG’s won’t be. I also believe that once the BG attempts to do serious physical violence or attempts to take a life, they willingly forfeit their right to live. I’m admittedly biased. But I don’t care. Let God sort them out.