I waited for and then heard the stereotypical description: "he was a loner." I doubt we'll ever hear a lone gunman described as "the life of the party."

Which highlights, I guess, the importance of staying engaged with people - real people - not just chat rooms and blogs.

And, if you know somebody who's withdrawn and seems to be having violent fantasies, get help for them if you can.

Phil:

One big way that these Taser guns could be improved is by adding multiple shot capacity.

I'd hate to find myself in a gun battle against some heavily-armed psycho with only a single round. Forgive me, but I might be nervous enought to miss the first shot or two.

Additional range beyond 15 feet would also be helpful.

Yes, more shots and a greater range would both help a lot. (Ten times that 15 feet would be good.) Another thing that would help is if the weapon could fire more of a spray like a shotgun, requiring less precision in aiming -- but of course also increasing the chances that you're going to stun somebody else in the process.

Phil:

I agree nonlethal weapons are a good thing. If you pull the trigger and you're wrong, well, you can apologize to the guy later.

But Tasers are controversial to some people. NPR had two stories (here and here) on this awhile back.

There is the fear that these weapons will be abused precisely because they are nonlethal. Some guy cusses a cop during a traffic stop... he gets tased. Amnesty International claims that 74 people have died after being hit by a Taser. The real question in my mind is how many people (among suspects, victims, and the police) have been saved because of Tasers.

There should be strict rules for police use of these devices. My suggestion:

Tasers are to be used only when

1)Lethal force would be warranted, and

2)Using this merciful alternative would not increase risk to officers or others.

By the way, one of the NPR stories said that the police model has a longer range than the civilian model - 25 feet.

I was wondering if you'd touch on this story. After listening to the slobbering dogs in the media lapping up forensics reports to reconstruct this event for the tragedy-addicted public, I realized that I don't really care to hear the details of HOW. I am infinitely more interested in the WHY - which nobody seems capable of answering.

What is it about our modern world full of conveniences and the highest standards of living for the largest population of normal people in all of history (discounting royalty, disproportionately wealthy, etc) that it appears to be generating these abherrent outbreaks with increasing frequency?

Are these singular nutcases merely an exaggeration of what we collectively feel in an overworked and underappreciated cultural norm?

Is there a formula that can predict who is next most likely to snap, or are there so many variables that we literally have no hope but to wait and see?

Speaking as a self defense instructor with more than 15 years experience, I can agree that tasers and other less lethal weapons have their uses. Besides my own legally carried handgun, I also have chemical spray and an expanding baton with me.

But notice that the less lethal weapons are merely an adjunct to my main means of defense: the firearm. Based on my own experience, I would have to be mad to rely on less lethal weapons alone.

And why is that? Because someone might attack me or another innocent person with a firearm. Tasers and other such weapons are virtually useless when faced with a madman who is unconcerned about his own safety and desperate to hurt someone. To stop someone like that, firearms are needed.

A quick and dirty way to look at it is that less lethal weapons are useful only if the attacker doesn't have a gun.

I have come across inflated regard for less lethal weapons before, and it has always puzzled me. Where do people get these ideas? I think Star Trek is to blame. Set the phaser on STUN and Capt. Kirk was suddenly equipped with a firearm that would take anyone down with one shot, and without injuring anyone.

If anyone ever comes up with a weapon that works like that piece of fiction, then I will be the first in line at the gun store. Until then it is important to keep the limitations of less lethal weapons firmly in mind.

James

MikeD: What is it about our modern world? Instant communications that bring us greater volumes of news from everywhere, a deeper connection with other places due to faster and more frequent travel. Otherwise, relative to the size of the population, I doubt much has really changed. It's like an industrial process - there is some portion of humans created with a few screws loose and there always will be.

Could we really eradicate guns from our society even if we tried? When I was in college, I knew where to go to find whatever illegal drugs I might have wanted. If guns were outlawed and, especially in this country, given the number of fanatical gun buffs who would be all too willing to set up their own underground machine shops, I doubt you could keep guns out of the hands of anyone who really wanted one.

This idea on nonlethal defense is a good one for giving people the means to defend themselves against criminals or psychos, though the range and capacity arguments suggest it may not quite be ready for prime time yet. The committed gun advocates will argue that it won't protect against an overreaching government, though.

I don't know what the solution is or even if there is one. Sometimes, you just have to accept that there are no good options and try to live as best you can.

I started rambling there and forgot to mention, in this instance, there is a good chance that if a significant number of the victims were armed with these tasers, the perpetrator might have been stopped. But, if he knew that he faced such a likelihood, he might have simply adjusted his tactics and sprayed his rounds from beyond their range.

But if you had an equal (or greater) number of people armed with Tasers, wouldn't they have had a similar chance of taking the shooter down?

No.

A handgun has an effective range of several hundred feet, the taser you point out above is ineffective beyond 15 feet.

I am not a particularly skilled marksman. I get to the range maybe once every 2-3 months.

I can easily hit targets the size of dinner plates at twice that taser's maximum range.

People are a lot bigger than dinner plates.

That taser would be useful if the police wanted to subdue an unruly and unarmed drunk, it would not be useful on someone who had a firearm. You would be shot, repeatedly, long before you got close enough to use that taser.

I applaud your rational approach to finding a solution to the problem, this isn't it.

Stephen --

Well, I'm not really a big Taser fan per se, I just find the description of the capability intriguing.

I think comparing Tasers to firearms, as some of the commenters do, misses the point if you only take it one way. Several have noted that firearms are much, much more effective than Tasers. Granted. Many times over. But it isn't just a question of whether guns are more effective than Tasers; it's also a question of whether Tasers (or some alternative less-lethal weapon) would be more effective than nothing at all, which is what most people are using to defend themselves.

Which is why my answer to this:

Amnesty International claims that 74 people have died after being hit by a Taser.

...is the same as yours. Only I would put it his way: and exactly how many people have died after being hit by a nine millimeter?

Mike --

Are these singular nutcases merely an exaggeration of what we collectively feel in an overworked and underappreciated cultural norm?

I don't think so. I feel pretty put upon sometimes, but I can't think of when that has ever driven me even to want to annoy, much less hurt, much less kill a bunch of total strangers. I think what we have here is a sickness of the soul that has always existed enabled by powerful memetics (school shootings) and powerful technology (the weapons.)

James --

I think Star Trek is to blame. Set the phaser on STUN and Capt. Kirk was suddenly equipped with a firearm that would take anyone down with one shot, and without injuring anyone. If anyone ever comes up with a weapon that works like that piece of fiction, then I will be the first in line at the gun store.

Welcome to the Speculist. Seeing as we're also tracking the development of things like space elevators and personal self-contained fabrication units (the equivalent of the replicators on Star Trek), practical stun weapons with greater ranger and applicability don't seem that big a reach for the near to mid term.

Deep Thought --

But, if he knew that he faced such a likelihood, he might have simply adjusted his tactics and sprayed his rounds from beyond their range.

Which, in this instance, would have slowed him down quite a bit. These killings were execution style, in close quarters. He was lining people up to kill them. Take that option away from him, and he kills fewer people.

Phil - maybe but, I'm not under the impression he was particularly pressed for time. It might help in other cases where the killer would be pressed for time. It's probably not a bad idea to be armed with something but, all I'm saying is it wouldn't likely prevent mass killing by a determined killer.

I think comparing Tasers to firearms, as some of the commenters do, misses the point if you only take it one way. Several have noted that firearms are much, much more effective than Tasers. Granted. Many times over. But it isn't just a question of whether guns are more effective than Tasers; it's also a question of whether Tasers (or some alternative less-lethal weapon) would be more effective than nothing at all, which is what most people are using to defend themselves.

Self defense advocates and firearm enthusiasts are well aware of the slippery slope since we have seen it in action. There are powerful lobbying groups that are devoted to seeing the complete abolishment of privately owned firearms. Most of the media and some politicians have a great deal of sympathy for their views.

It is extremely dangerous for someone to propose that a less lethal weapon fill a role for which it is spectacularly unsuited. Soon the claim will be made that tasers or other similar toys can do the job, so we might as well suffer even further restrictions on firearms.

You say that tasers are better than facing a mad gunman with nothing at all. I say that it is folly to even suggest that people should be forced by law to face a mad gunman with anything less than their own firearm.

James

James:

Phil didn't suggest that "people should be forced by law to face a mad gunman with anything less than their own firearm."

Phil's not arguing for gun control at all here. He's just saying that nonlethal weapons may become an important new form of self-defense. I hope he's right. And I think he's right.

I agree with "Deep Thought" that Taser guns are not yet ready for primetime. We really do need a stun weapon that's as effective as the Star Trek version. I think we will see it happen.

Here's where I will agree with you. If we see a Star-Trek-level stun gun created - one that's has the same range and multishot capability of a firearm, then I think that firearms will be more restricted.

And frankly, if I can have a Star Trek stun gun, I'll pass on the Saturday Night Special.

You oversimplify-

"Guns are the problem. ...Restrictions on guns are the solution"

"Guns are the solution. Restrictions on guns enable these kinds of tragedies."

And the non-lethal solution is a good start, though I''ve no problem with executing the threat.

I've read about a demo of a handgun that required a biometric intrerface to operate and another that required the insertion of a chip- sort of a high tech trigger guard.

- Surely either could be disabled by an envirnmental grid, or fence ala RFID
- Seems like requiring these kind of enhancements to handguns in conjunction with publishing/distributing the disabling technology would open the door to gun free zones. (Exempting law enforcement and select others)

To me it's like cars required to have seat belts, except we would have to retrofit or remove from circulation all the obsolete versions.

Further- speaking of RFID technology. How about a GPS chip required on every licensed gun. In many "tragedies" the guns are obtained legally- and then transported and used illegally. The disabling technology above address the use- a GPS chip addresses the transport. And lest you think this is undoable- if Walmart can track every sock in it's inventory worldwide- we can track every gun. Sure bad guys will hide their guns and the street value of clean, untrackable guns would rise- but this guy bought his weapons recently and apparently legally. No back alley, secret gun from a truck or blacked out SUV for him. Just like a lot for the gun using wack jobs of recent memory.

Why is it harder to get a driver's license than a gun? And why is insurance to own/register/drive a car so pricey compared to the insurance required of gun owners?

MDarling proposes all sorts of techno-fixes, but they won't work for the simple reason that the firearms without that gadgets are already widespread. Furthermore, firearms owners know well that each complication increases the probability that the weapon will not work when it is most needed. Finally, the fixes can be hacked.

All of the above ignores the quite relevant constitutional individual right to carry firearms - obviously, ones that work.

.......

On the overall thread... non-lethal weapons with the capabilities of firearms would indeed make the world a better place. I'd trade in my protection weapons for them any time. Unfortunately, they remain fiction at this time, and there is no reason to expect a quick breakthrough.

The human body is remarkably resilient, and can continue to function efficiently and lethally *after* being killed! In other words, even if you shoot someone in the heart with a gun, they still have around 15 seconds of fully functional time in which to shoot or stab you, before they die. Weapons like tasers in theory could be *more* effective in a defense situation because they instantly disrupt the nervous system, but in fact they don't often work - even if you hit the target from within the short effective range. Rodney Kind withstood multiple taser jolts and continued to fight.

Well- in the interest of encouraging the more creative and technologically wise to think about it- I only proposed two techno improvements- and that's all there is- end of discussion.

Wait - here's another. An acoustic sensor, coupled with a powerful visual identification software that detects the presence of an unauthorized gun - or gun shot in the case of acoustic sensing.

And then immobilizes the humans in the environment asap. And sequesters the gun. And. And.

I've read about a demo of a handgun that required a biometric intrerface to operate and another that required the insertion of a chip- sort of a high tech trigger guard.

Except that neither one can stand up to the pounding and incredible stresses that a gun suffers every time it fires, making the gun useless in short order.

Another thing to keep in mind is that these computerized disabling devices work on batteries. If the batteries run dry, or something is wrong with the electronics, then we want cops or law abiding citizens to be unarmed?

How about a GPS chip required on every licensed gun.

Licensing guns has, in the past, been used to confiscate those same guns. (See the California Gun Ban for a big example.)

Why is it harder to get a driver's license than a gun?

This is an outright falsehood, a complete lie. Do you think any 16 year old can legally get a gun? A felon after they serve their sentence? Because they can get drivers licenses, but they are specifically barred from purchasing guns.

MDarling is actually proposing some of the "solutions" favored by the anti-gun lobby. Speaking as a professional, they would also cost lives if our politicians were ignorant enough to take them seriously.

James

Well- in the interest of encouraging the more creative and technologically wise to think about it- I only proposed two techno improvements- and that's all there is- end of discussion.

Proposing something that does not work is a sign of someone being "technologically wise"? Speculating about devices that would render useless the very guns needed for defense is an "improvement"?

Phil didn't suggest that "people should be forced by law to face a mad gunman with anything less than their own firearm."

You are right, Stephen, and I misspoke. I apologize to Phil.

It is important to remember that I have been actively trying to help people protect themselves for more than a decade. I have seen legions of unrealistic proposals over the years, most of them cynical ploys by the anti-gun lobby to try and reduce the public perception of the role that firearms play in defending innocent lives.

These ploys usually follow a similar pattern. A completely unrealistic or even patently false claim is made where the absolute need for a firearm to resist an armed attack is challenged.

Claiming that tasers or other less lethal weapons can provide any reasonable measure of protection against someone armed with a handgun certainly fits this pattern.

James

James --

I apologize to Phil.

No harm, no foul. But I ask you to take my word for it on the following:

...cynical ploys by the anti-gun lobby ...Claiming that tasers or other less lethal weapons can provide any reasonable measure of protection...certainly fits this pattern.

We ain't them, and this ain't one of those ploys. :-)

Phil, you're saying there's a difference between a less-lethal weapon and a firearm. But any superpowerful less-lethal weapon would effectively become a deadly weapon, too. Imagine a superTaser that could incapacitate multiple people, at long range:

How easy would it be to rape someone on a college campus if you had such a device? And mass murders would be easy, too - just "freeze" a bunch of people, then stab or bludgeon at your leisure. Hell, it might even be MORE effective than a handgun, since there would not be any gunshot to alert people.

So I doubt, once the equivalence becomes clear to everyone, that the anti-gun lobby will be fine with people carrying extremely effective less-lethal weapons.

What about using technology not to make guns less effective at being guns, but make domestic terrorists less effective at being terrorists. Let's face it, the flip-side of all the wonderful technology is the ability to passively monitor everything we do in public. It's not actively doing anything against the law, and if you think you're going to stop it you need to follow the money back to who benefits. (hint: sales/marketing actually MAKE money by keeping metrics about everything on everybody, government tends to have a strong interest too)

Police issued a warrant to examine the shooter's medical records. So if they piece together various bits of information to determine he was "troubled," will there be a heuristic way to determine similar trends? Where is the narrow-focus AI mining the data warehouse of public behavior and incidents of crime? I know, we've seen the movie about letting computers predict who is going to commit crimes, but seriously, isn't there a way to short-circuit this violence be liberally applying countermeasures BEFORE a disaster?

(btw, why is the comment textarea so narrow?)

MDarling: If you would think about this carefully, you would probably realize that you don't really want guns to be licensed like cars. Why? See what a law enforcement officer had to say about it here.

No- I don't want guns to be licensed like cars. And I'm not sure that licensing is what's required. My quesiton and implied point is that as a society we regulate some activities and not others. Why?

Yes - felons can get a driver's license and supposedly not a gun. LIkewise 16 year olds. But we regulate cars and driving.

It seems that James and many opposed to regulating guns are opposed to anything that imposes responsability to act or change on gun owners. Why?

James- are there regulations on guns that you support? Or should they be more like... clothes- no regulation, just the free market.

It seems that James and many opposed to regulating guns are opposed to anything that imposes responsability to act or change on gun owners. Why?

Earlier you made the statement that it was harder to acquire a drivers license than a firearm. That was false, a complete lie. And it is a lie that has been presented as truth by the anti-gun lobby for decades, a malicious piece of propaganda.

MDarling seems to be starting from the premise that guns are hardly regulated at all. That virtually anyone who wants a firearm can simply wander into a pawn shop or gun store and acquire anything that they need. This is yet another falsehood, another lie.

Felons are not allowed to own or possess firearms, and they are barred from living in a house where another person owns a gun. It is illegal for a previously convicted felon from even trying to purchase a gun, and there are mandatory sentences if they make the attempt.

There is a national background check before you can purchase a gun. Valid ID must be presented before the purchase. It is illegal to buy a gun for someone who is barred by law from owning or possessing a firearm, and the penalties for doing so is worse than that for many offenses which prevents someone from ever owning a gun.

In many states, people of reduced mental competence are banned from owning or possessing guns. (The Virginia Tech shooter should have been in this category, but laws protecting medical records kept him from being flagged when he purchased his firearms.)

It is illegal in a few of our big cities to buy ammunition unless you have a special license. The purchase is even recorded and turned over to the police. It is a violation of our Constitution for the authorities to keep records of gun purchases because of the very real fear of confiscation, but the anti-gun lobby found a loophole.

Heck, many states have a law where someone who is accused of a misdemeanor domestic violence charge, someone who has not even been convicted, is barred from owning, purchasing or possessing guns! "Guilty until proven" simply doesn't apply when dealing with firearms.

The idea that there isn't enough legislation is absurd.

James- are there regulations on guns that you support?

I heartily approve of banning felons from owning or possessing firearms. I even agree on keeping straw purchases illegal. I don't think that people who are judged mentally incompetent should own firearms, either.

But it is absurd for those who are not even convicted of a crime to be banned from owning firearms.

Keep in mind that gun control measures have been tried before, and they simply do not work. Some of the most violent cities in this country have been experimenting with them for the past 5 decades, and the number of violent crimes simply rises faster than in areas where there are less restrictions. Not only that, but violent crime tends to drop faster when a concealed carry law is put in place.

This does beg the question: What are people like MDarling trying to do? They obviously don't propose more gun control measures because they are concerned about the lives of innocent people.

James

First I'll quote MD:

It seems that James and many opposed to regulating guns are opposed to anything that imposes responsibility to act or change on gun owners. Why?

Now I'll quote James:

This does beg the question: What are people like MDarling trying to do? They obviously don't propose more gun control measures because they are concerned about the lives of innocent people.

Tsk, tsk. What a bunch of dirtbags we have reading this blog -- people trying to avoid all responsibility and/or take away the rights of others while pretending to have other concerns.

I don't buy it, and it's one of the many reasons I try to stay off (conventional) politics around here. To quote yours truly:

As with most political debates, virtually everybody goes in already knowing the answer.

Plus there's this presumption of bad will on the part of those with whom we disagree that I just can't stomach. Fellas, you aren't going to convince each other of anything, and you're chewing up my bandwidth on political crapola that I value almost as much as porn spam.

So let's give it a rest, eh?

Okay, that was too harsh. What I meant to say was "political crapola that I value only slightly more than porn spam."

And, of course, the real impact on bandwidth is negligible.

There.

I feel better.

I think that the big problem with the smart gun RFID/GPS/micro imprinted bullets/whatever argument has absolutely nothing to do with the constitution, or politics. Instead there's an enormous practical problem= guns and ammunition are very, very simple to build.

There are few simpler mechanical devices than a simple STEN submachine gun, and every muffler shop in the country has the necessary materials and tools to build one from scratch. With a blueprint from the internet and maybe $1-200 worth of tools and steel from home depot, any reasonably mechanical person with enough time could churn out functional firearms.

But...what if we regulate ammunition instead?

The chemistry needed to make nitrocellouse or lead styphnate is an order of magnitude simpler than that needed to manufacture most drugs (LSD, synthetic opiods, etc...and you can see how successful efforts to completely eliminate clandestine drug manufacture are.

Simple guns and ammunition and the very, very bottom rung of complexity as far as science and engineering and can be made from virtually nothing. Heck even the most backwards of countries can churn out cheap tube submachine guns, pipe shotguns and AK’s.

Ok- apologies for introducing the stink of political speculation, or even the appearance of same. (mixed metaphor aside).

And drivers licensing may be a poor example (I still have bad feeligns about my licensing challenge years ago when I moved to Colroado- took 3 visits to the DMV, each a week a apart, each with long lines to get my drivers license. Took 1 visit and some waiting to get both my gun and my private carry permit) to speculate on the point - but the point is still useful: some things are regulated, (including guns - I never meant to suggest they aren't) and some are not. Some things are regulated more than others. Why? and How? And is there a way to make the US a better place, specifically in the context of gun violence as being discussed, with other regulation than what we have?
If so- is it more regulation we need? Less regulation? Different regulation or is the regulation we already have as good as it gets? FWIW- I'm not aware of any proposed increased gun control legislation that I would support- logic would suggest some uniformity nationwide woudl be useful. (natch Colorado rules for everyone is my vote)

I understand and will respect the desire to stick with the more intellectually pure and potentially answerable non-political specualtion on the site. But if a speculist is one what contends with what might be, social organizations need to ...well, organize. And though thet gets politicized- I'm convinced there is a worthy intellectual exercise in thinking about that organization.

And in case my other point about smarter people than I should be thinking about technological solutions to bad guys with weapons needs reinforsement- regulate the ammunition is not something that had ever occurred to me.

But if a speculist is one what contends with what might be, social organizations need to ...well, organize. And though thet gets politicized- I'm convinced there is a worthy intellectual exercise in thinking about that organization.

You're absolutely right. That's the razor's edge we walk. Here's what I consider key: if a political discussion / debate breaks out here, is it markedly different -- because of the forward-looking content -- from one that you might find in the comments section of Powerline, Huffpo, Daily Kos, LGF, etc.? If so, great. If not, it would probably fit better in one of those spots.

The trick is that a discussion that starts out looking ahead can get sucked back into present-day political struggles pretty easily. That's what I want to avoid.