This is not to debate the value of guns. This is to propose that moderized, non-lethal alternatives exist and can be futher optimized for personnal protection. I've seen stun guns for sale for $20 that leave burn marks and knock you out for 15 minutes. The average buyer probably questions the effectivenss of this....thinking spray bottles are more practically effective for those trying to deal with a close-in assailant.

We need an adaptation of the police force taser, which shoots a dart over distance. Make that a multi-shot and you'll attract alot of gun owners. It's a much more versatile, effective weapon that can be used with less last second hesitation. I suppose the stun gun probes should be maintained in the event the encounter takes place close in or as basic backup in case the taser doesn't take.

The government is so concerned about the use of guns....let them fess up some money to make this happen. Even offer a "turn in hand guns with no questions asked" program and receive a nice taser. That might work. Perhaps a turn in your pesky unreliable handgun for a home security system rebate check is another possibility.
-- Bob Wade, May 10 2002

Exactly what you want http://www.halfbake...tric_20Spider_20Web
I could use some government fund to get it started [bing, May 12 2002, last modified Oct 04 2004]

After a few days of watching that Wisconsin kid bomber skipping around in his shackles, I'm leaning to guns for all idiots and just shoot me.
-- reensure, May 10 2002


So let's get this straight, you think it would be a good idea if people were going around with machines capable for firing multiple darts, and if they had *less* hesitation about using them?

Yay! Gun control flamewar!
-- pottedstu, May 10 2002


//turn in hand x with no questions asked//

The word you're looking for is armistice.
-- yamahito, May 10 2002


Police use tasers because they have truncheons (and the strength to use them), pistols, and other officers as backups. Additionally, much of the defensive value of a firearm comes from its deterrent effect. Even if a .22lr pistol would only be 60% effective at stopping an attacker if fired, few attackers who see a gun pointed at them will decide to try those odds. By contrast, criminals who see a taser pointed at them are less likely to be deterred by it; by contrast, a taser has only slight deterrent value, since criminals recognize that they can attack a taser-holder without risk of death.
-- supercat, May 10 2002


You know - that mailbox pipebombing kid's plan was to make a "happy face" pattern. That's one reason he's //skipping around in his shackles//
-- thumbwax, May 10 2002


I got it...

Get a super soaker and fill it with some thick sticky- slippery wet liquid and then add alot of blue dye and attach a small tazer to the gun with two wire leads to the tip of the sprayer...

yeah... ;)
-- oxygon, May 10 2002


I think you need to be careful tossing around the term "lethal" here. Tasers can be lethal. There are many recorded cases of death caused by a taser hit.

Just as guns can be non-lethal. One is not likely to die if shot in the knees.
-- waugsqueke, May 10 2002


//Just as guns can be non-lethal. One is not likely to die if shot in the knees.//

Really? I hadn't realized such injuries would cause immortality.
-- supercat, May 10 2002


I honestly believe a modernized, "home owner" version of the taser is a much more useable, practical weapon.

There are many scenarios to consider....which don't necessarily require "lethal force".

This is a sure way to "stop the party" without having to consider a much higher level of lethal consequences of your actions.

Actual data shows that one of the best home deterents is a dog. We all know the dog doesn't kill most of the time and can be easily defeated.

Imagine the home taser as a "doberman in waiting".

The revolver is more like a "bomb waiting to go off".
-- Bob Wade, May 10 2002


I'd like a doberman in waiting for my wedding.
-- yamahito, May 10 2002


"Well it's a nice day for a taser dart wedding, yeah"?
-- Bob Wade, May 12 2002


It's a matter of choice. It's never a great moment in someone's life to have to defend against an assailant. Survival sometimes depends on drastic measures. Guns don't kill, people do. Self defense is a choice. Gandhi didn't choose self defense and he was shot, in the final analysis.
-- rcai, Nov 13 2002


//guns don't kill, people do//

Yeah, but if I had to, I'd rather use a gun than a piece of wet lettuce.
-- yamahito, Nov 13 2002


I am all for home defense but there are plenty of good "less than lethal" solutions. The problem that I see is that I don't want to go against an armed attacker with a taser.

This is why I keep a Mossberg 500A 12 Gauge. This sounds a little overkill, but the first round shoots three 75 cal. rubber balls (feels about like a full speed base ball each). Then comes six rounds of the real ammo. Followed by 6 more from my side-saddle.
-- SunTzu, Aug 15 2003


Worried about them not being scared of a tazer? Make it look like a gun. Double barreled shotguns should be easy to do, but others will be difficult.
-- my-nep, Nov 25 2003


[pesky unreliable handgun] ........yours, maybe.....not mine.

.75 cal rubber balls? Ooooohhhh, SunTzu, you're mean. I like that idea. Kinder to use double ought buck.....

The thought of a double barreled shotgun taser sounds like a good idea, though. I'll take two.

Ever read any Larry Niven? The "tasp" was a weapon that paralyzed the target by overstimulation of the pleasure centers of the brain.
-- normzone, Nov 25 2003


//Actual data shows that one of the best home deterents is a dog. We all know the dog doesn't kill most of the time and can be easily defeated.//

Burglars know that even if confronted by an armed homeowner, they'll probably be able to allowed to run away since the law tends to frown upon shooting people--even crooks--in the back. Dogs have no such legal restrictions on their behavior.
-- supercat, Nov 25 2003



random, halfbakery