7 ms·

I don't have a lot to say about the functionality or specifications here, but I feel like there's a new conceptual issue raised by non-lethal, or notionally non

I don't have a lot to say about the functionality or specifications here, but I feel like there's a new conceptual issue raised by non-lethal, or notionally non-lethal weapons. Constitutional arguments are about the right to self-defense. That's not necessarily the same as killing someone, and you don't necessarily have a right to killing in and of itself, but only as a means to an end for self-defense. I suppose it depends on what flavor of defense of the second amendment you favor, but it seems like self-defense can be associated with incapacitation, need not necessarily depend on the capability of killing. If that's true, access to weapons for the purpose of self-defense that aren't capable of killing would seem to open up a lot of possibilities for regulating traditional firearms. If (I said if!) there are equally effective alternatives for the purpose of self-defense, then that constitutional right can be satisfied without the need for traditional firearms that are capable of killing. Insofar as they can replace traditional firearms, I find that promising, but obviously this brings a fair amount of unintended complexity; for instance non-lethal self defense may open up entirely new dimensions of cruel maiming and non-lethal suffering, it's may create complexities relating to whether something's actually non-lethal, it may have an effect of increasing the sum total of use of force by introducing non-lethal force into lower and lower stakes situations leading to a net increase of physical coercion, and there may be cultural resistance to the idea ever becoming mainstream because it would be too reformist and therefore liberal. I think these all have to be navigated, but I think the trade-off is worth considering. I also think that strong gun regulation is worth considering, and personally just don't endorse wide distribution of guns in any form whatsoever, so I consider this a workaround peculiar to the culture of America.

johncolanduoni 5y ago
My understanding is the US constitution’s second amendment has also been interpreted somewhat literally when it refers to a “well regulated militia”. From that perspective being able to have lethal weapons is still important, though given the fact that we don’t allow private citizens to have the gear to go toe to toe with a modern military I’m not sure exactly where that ends and more mundane self-defense begins.
- inkblotuniverse 5y ago
  The taliban can go toe-to-toe with USG using pickup trucks and fertilizer, so I'm sure americans can, too.
  - j2bax 5y ago
    Perhaps while we are making some attempt to not just go complete scorched earth on them they can, but if and when there is a threat they don’t have a whole lot they can do about an air strike or drones. I wouldn’t ever want to be on the opposing side of a world super power military…
    - lazide 5y ago
      You’re thinking of it from a normal military perspective - which is why normal militaries always consistently lose these types of conflicts. British, Russians, Americans in Afghanistan. Americans, French, Chinese in Vietnam, etc. For a counter example, look at Britain in India. The more people you kill (regular folk), the more the population turns against you, and less likely you’ll actually be able to stay long term, and the more you get stuck in an endless morass of guerrilla attacks. Because it motivates suicide bombers, desperation, hate. Even more true in a civil war. If you co-opt leadership while nominally supporting the locals and making their lives better, it can help instead. Or go full scorched earth, but that generally doesn’t work in a civil war unless there is only a small region rebelling.
    - afarrell 5y ago
      A scorched-earth campaign would prompt a lot more blue-on-blue attacks and assassinations from people who don’t like having their homes and mothers incinerated.
    - ShrigmaMale 5y ago
      Because scorched-earth counterinsurgency never works. It doesn't usually work tactically amd it never achieves long-term goals strategic or political unless you want the place to stay a smoking crater. This is basically the reason why the communist guerilla tactics pioneered by Mao and used by many others were so effective.
meheleventyone 5y ago
This isn’t really a new issue as non-lethal weapons have been a norm for ages. It would be interesting to look at how the introduction of pepper sprays and tasers changed police behaviour worldwide as they’re pretty ubiquitously carried now.
- glenstein 5y ago
  The notion that non-lethal (or less lethal) weapons might be considered functionally equivalent to their lethal counterparts is, I believe relatively new.
selfhoster11 5y ago
It's also problematic for another reason: the intent of 2A was to enable citizens to force a regime change even when said regime is resistant to verbal criticism. Lethal means would be required to safeguard that.
- JKCalhoun 5y ago
  You're going to get a lot of pushback on that without evidence.
  - selfhoster11 5y ago
    That seems to be an oft-repeated argument, that may or may not be true but is certainly believed by some and is therefore relevant here. I don't personally care.
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    From Britannica: “ The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, was proposed by James Madison to allow the creation of civilian forces that can counteract a tyrannical federal government. “ This seems to be what OP was alluding to.
- evgen 5y ago
  > the intent of 2A was to enable citizens to force a regime change No it was not and this is a common myth that is repeated by the 2A crowd. The primary intent of the 2A was to allow the individual states to field militias (the only land army available to the new nation who was still in conflict with its former rulers) without going broke. It was more about a fear of a standing army balanced against a fear of British invasion than it was a means for citizens to rebel against their own government.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
    Is the militia not any able bodied citizen capable of fighting for defense of self or state? The militia argument was completely broken in 2008 with DC vs Heller that specially said 2A is not a collective right, but absolutely an individual right. So, wether you can read the intention of people who just used guns to rebel against their government and form a new one was really to make sure that only the government could rule on appropriate arms - or not - it is moot now.
Youden 5y ago
Are the constitutional arguments about self defense? I've heard a few times that they're about rebelling against a corrupt government.
- GravitasFailure 5y ago
  One way to think about rebellion is as an act of self defense against a tyrannical government. Most of the pro-2A activity that I see these days seems to revolve around self defense arguments as opposed to earlier arguments (1980s or so) revolved around hunting/sporting. I'm not saying rebellion isn't a commonly cited part of the 2A, but it's probably one of the least persuasive arguments and doesn't get trotted out much in polite company.
- oxymoran 5y ago
  They are absolutely about rebelling against a tyrannical government. The founders were obsessed with safeguarding democracy against tyranny. That’s why there is the whole bit about the right to form a militia. The self defense aspect is just the logical extrapolation of that idea from from a population level to an individual level.
- timoth3y 5y ago
  > I've heard a few times that they're about rebelling against a corrupt government That's a relatively modern myth. The intent of 2nd Amendment is primarily the defense of the State. This is clear from the text itself and from other writings of the framers. In fact, in the Pennsylvania Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, Americans tried to use their firearms in just this way; to resist what they considered to be a tyrannical tax and imposition on their way of life. Washington called up the militia and put down the rebellion with overwhelming support of Congress, which contained many of the original framers. The leaders of the rebellion were tried and found guilty of treason.
GravitasFailure 5y ago
This is definitely an interesting line of thought worth exploring, but I do take issue your central point: There is no such thing as a non-lethal weapon, and even good less lethal weapons struggle to effectively stop determined assailants. A human truly determined to inflict harm on someone is astoundingly difficult to stop. The starkest examples I've come across are two officer-involved shootings: First was in Oregon, where a soldier going through a nasty divorce kidnapped his kids, got pulled over for speeding, got into a gunfight with the officer, injured the officer who proceeded to land a shot through his heart, then he continued shooting back, got back into the car, drove half a mile, pulled over, said goodbye to his kids, and died. The second was a man that got into a gunfight with multiple officers and didn't stop until he had about thirty bullets in him, so of course everyone assumed he was hopped up on PCP until the coroner report came back with negative results on the drug panel. Tasers are about as good as it gets right now if you want something that can decisively stop a person, but even then they're badly hampered by any kind of heavy clothing and rain. Their direct lethality is heavily debated, but people getting head injuries when getting zapped is pretty common, not to mention deaths tied to heart conditions and being under the influence of stimulants. Their ability to stop an assailant behind any kind of barrier is completely nonexistent as well, and if you do find a technology that can decisively stop someone through a sheet of plywood it will definitely be able to kill. Even trying to physically restain someone has a lot of room for injury and death, regardless of training and manpower, so I'm not confident that a weapon that can both compete with a gun in its ability to stop a threat and is guaranteed to not kill will happen before Tesla full self driving exits beta.
- mantaraygun 5y ago
  > people getting head injuries when getting zapped is pretty common This scares the shit out of me, more than getting shot by a cop. Cops use tasers a lot more freely than guns, very frequently using them when there is no plausible threat to themselves or anybody else. They're allowed to get away with it because tasers are "less lethal." All it takes is one bad fall to turn you into a brain scrambled imbecile who can't tie your own shoelaces anymore but much of the public doesn't seem to understand this and are unsympathetic to these sort of concerns. At least with guns, people understand the gravity of the matter.
KaiserPro 5y ago
> open up a lot of possibilities for regulating traditional firearms I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I suspect this argument wont fly. From what I can see the only arms that are prohibited are ones that don't have a legal use (ie sawnoff shotguns) I don't think one can technology one's self out of cultural issue. Sure its an enabling technology, but so are stun guns and tasers. However that has not allowed the USA to create a somewhat more normal gun regulation regimen.
- mantaraygun 5y ago
  > From what I can see the only arms that are prohibited are ones that don't have a legal use (ie sawnoff shotguns) Not really, the sawnoff shotguns thing is an anachronism. The National Firearms Act (NFA) which restricted sawnoff shotguns (not completely banned) was originally intended to restrict all handguns, presumably because they're concealable and useful for crime. To make a handgun ban meaningful, it was going to also restrict short barrel shotguns and rifles. The handgun restrictions got dropped from the NFA for political reasons, but the short barrel shotgun and rifle restrictions remained. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Backgrou... You can still acquire/manufacture a short barrel shotgun or rifle, but you have do paperwork for it and from what I've seen nobody really values short barrel shotguns enough for this to be common. However if you did do all the paperwork and made or bought one, then subsequently used it for self defense, that would be legal. Also they're legal in Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawed-off_shotgun#Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawed-off_shotgun#Canada
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  > I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I suspect this argument wont fly. From what I can see the only arms that are prohibited are ones that don't have a legal use (ie sawnoff shotguns) A couple things I could unpack there but to keep it simple… The most recent take by SCOTUS was 2008 Heller and 2010 McDonald that set up the language for guns that may be regulated as “dangerous and unusual”. The AND is very important. Dangerous is not to the target, they’re all dangerous to the target, but rather I read it as in hard to control or wider effecting or camouflaged or potentially harmful to the user. Unusual is easier to understand. A gun that might be dangerous and unusual is a 50BMG handgun or a machine gun or something generally not effective for defense of self/state or a cane gun. It’s hard to seriously rationalize that if gun control exists at all that an M240B LMG should have the same exact regulations as a Glock. We clearly have more use for the latter as a society, although there is vigorous debate that of varying reason. The other is that sawed off shotguns are not illegal. The DOJ at one point did want to ban guns, and tried to ban all guns with barrels less than 18” knowing full well this would be all handguns. They failed but did come away with a consolation prize of barrel length limits for rifles and shotguns. 18” for shotguns and 16” for rifles basically for no reasons that make sense. You can saw a shotgun barrel down all you like up until you get to 18”, where 17.9” is an SBS, short barreled shotgun, and still not illegal but does require a $200 tax to be paid. Funny though, this only applies to “shotguns” which is a smooth bore gun with a stock. A “shotgun handgun” is not a shotgun, and also not a handgun, but rather a “firearm”. But only if it was made that way. You can have or saw down any shotgun barrel to any length so long as it doesn’t have and wasn’t made with a stock. This gun http://primusdatabase.com/images/d/d3/Sawed-Off_Shotgun.jpg http://primusdatabase.com/images/d/d3/Sawed-Off_Shotgun.jpg is legal if the tape is covering a grip that hasn’t been modified, but illegal if it’s covering that someone sawed the stock off as well. You can buy a version of this gun with no stock and saw it down if you like. There is a world of stupid ATF NFA that you do not wish to know. https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1db1617798849b0d0a7d7b82459e8a2a-c https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1db1617798849b0d0a7d7b...
ajuc 5y ago
That's already how this works in some countries. If someone attacks you with a baseball bat or fists and you shoot them dead you might be sentenced for overstepping a reasonable self-defense. The same crime at gun-point and at knife-point carries much harsher punishment. This encourages reasonable (de)escalation instead of just going for 120% from the start. And saves lives. End result is - even in countries with relatively easy access to guns for hobby - nobody carries them for self-defense (criminals included), because they don't expect to need them, and in case of a self-defense situation they are more likely to cause problems than to solve them.
- nicbou 5y ago
  In Canada, the use of reasonable force is warranted. The keyword is "reasonable".
- panarky 5y ago
  The cheat code in the US is to say "I was afraid the guy with the [fists | bat | skateboard] was going to take my rifle and shoot me with it."
  - ajuc 5y ago
    Wouldn't the obvious conclusion be: "carrying a gun is dangerous for you"?
    - panarky 5y ago
      Since the guy carrying the gun winds up alive, while those around him wind up dead, seems like the obvious conclusion is that "carrying a gun is dangerous for everyone else who isn't carrying a gun".
      - cik2e 5y ago
        A more appropriate conclusion would be that "it's dangerous to brazenly attack someone who is carrying a gun". Perhaps they were encouraged by the fact that Rittenhouse was trying to avoid conflict and run away? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Rqv2tIg4E&t=319s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Rqv2tIg4E&t=319s The only "cheat code" here was used by the prosecutor to bring this case to trial.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
Not so sure about that, it was the anti-gun folk who were against finger-print-to-unlock firearms, because they thought having better security would result in more guns being owned.
seabird 5y ago
Attempting to defend yourself with something like this is going to get you killed. People are strong beyond most people's ability to understand -- some people can still be a threat with severe bullet wounds for incredibly long periods of time. It's going to take something much more compelling than this to bring up any serious discussion about less-lethal options.
jack_h 5y ago
I think you're misunderstanding the second amendment and self-defense. The second amendment doesn't enumerate the right to self-defense. Self-defense is an affirmative defense to a criminal charge (in this instance) which is within the purview of the states and not the federal government due to the tenth amendment. Heller held that the second amendment protected an individuals right to keep and bear arms for traditionally lawful purposes, which was later incorporated into the states in McDonald. One traditionally lawful purpose is self-defense, but the states get to define self-defense; of which there are already many differences between the states. I suppose the right of self-defense could be found in the fourteenth amendment - it certainly has a legal history going back thousands of years. Even so, it would be distinct from the second amendment. Think of it more like emergent behavior stemming from interactions in our dual sovereignty system of government. All that to say that no, I don't believe this would factor into any analysis when it comes to second amendment regulation cases. The second amendment would protect against regulating these less lethal weapons if Caetano is any indication though.

johncolanduoni 5y ago

My understanding is the US constitution’s second amendment has also been interpreted somewhat literally when it refers to a “well regulated militia”. From that perspective being able to have lethal weapons is still important, though given the fact that we don’t allow private citizens to have the gear to go toe to toe with a modern military I’m not sure exactly where that ends and more mundane self-defense begins.

inkblotuniverse 5y ago
The taliban can go toe-to-toe with USG using pickup trucks and fertilizer, so I'm sure americans can, too.
- j2bax 5y ago
  Perhaps while we are making some attempt to not just go complete scorched earth on them they can, but if and when there is a threat they don’t have a whole lot they can do about an air strike or drones. I wouldn’t ever want to be on the opposing side of a world super power military…
  - lazide 5y ago
    You’re thinking of it from a normal military perspective - which is why normal militaries always consistently lose these types of conflicts. British, Russians, Americans in Afghanistan. Americans, French, Chinese in Vietnam, etc. For a counter example, look at Britain in India. The more people you kill (regular folk), the more the population turns against you, and less likely you’ll actually be able to stay long term, and the more you get stuck in an endless morass of guerrilla attacks. Because it motivates suicide bombers, desperation, hate. Even more true in a civil war. If you co-opt leadership while nominally supporting the locals and making their lives better, it can help instead. Or go full scorched earth, but that generally doesn’t work in a civil war unless there is only a small region rebelling.
  - afarrell 5y ago
    A scorched-earth campaign would prompt a lot more blue-on-blue attacks and assassinations from people who don’t like having their homes and mothers incinerated.
  - ShrigmaMale 5y ago
    Because scorched-earth counterinsurgency never works. It doesn't usually work tactically amd it never achieves long-term goals strategic or political unless you want the place to stay a smoking crater. This is basically the reason why the communist guerilla tactics pioneered by Mao and used by many others were so effective.

meheleventyone 5y ago

This isn’t really a new issue as non-lethal weapons have been a norm for ages. It would be interesting to look at how the introduction of pepper sprays and tasers changed police behaviour worldwide as they’re pretty ubiquitously carried now.

glenstein 5y ago
The notion that non-lethal (or less lethal) weapons might be considered functionally equivalent to their lethal counterparts is, I believe relatively new.

selfhoster11 5y ago

It's also problematic for another reason: the intent of 2A was to enable citizens to force a regime change even when said regime is resistant to verbal criticism. Lethal means would be required to safeguard that.

JKCalhoun 5y ago
You're going to get a lot of pushback on that without evidence.
- selfhoster11 5y ago
  That seems to be an oft-repeated argument, that may or may not be true but is certainly believed by some and is therefore relevant here. I don't personally care.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  From Britannica: “ The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, was proposed by James Madison to allow the creation of civilian forces that can counteract a tyrannical federal government. “ This seems to be what OP was alluding to.
evgen 5y ago
> the intent of 2A was to enable citizens to force a regime change No it was not and this is a common myth that is repeated by the 2A crowd. The primary intent of the 2A was to allow the individual states to field militias (the only land army available to the new nation who was still in conflict with its former rulers) without going broke. It was more about a fear of a standing army balanced against a fear of British invasion than it was a means for citizens to rebel against their own government.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  Is the militia not any able bodied citizen capable of fighting for defense of self or state? The militia argument was completely broken in 2008 with DC vs Heller that specially said 2A is not a collective right, but absolutely an individual right. So, wether you can read the intention of people who just used guns to rebel against their government and form a new one was really to make sure that only the government could rule on appropriate arms - or not - it is moot now.

Youden 5y ago

Are the constitutional arguments about self defense? I've heard a few times that they're about rebelling against a corrupt government.

GravitasFailure 5y ago
One way to think about rebellion is as an act of self defense against a tyrannical government. Most of the pro-2A activity that I see these days seems to revolve around self defense arguments as opposed to earlier arguments (1980s or so) revolved around hunting/sporting. I'm not saying rebellion isn't a commonly cited part of the 2A, but it's probably one of the least persuasive arguments and doesn't get trotted out much in polite company.
oxymoran 5y ago
They are absolutely about rebelling against a tyrannical government. The founders were obsessed with safeguarding democracy against tyranny. That’s why there is the whole bit about the right to form a militia. The self defense aspect is just the logical extrapolation of that idea from from a population level to an individual level.
timoth3y 5y ago
> I've heard a few times that they're about rebelling against a corrupt government That's a relatively modern myth. The intent of 2nd Amendment is primarily the defense of the State. This is clear from the text itself and from other writings of the framers. In fact, in the Pennsylvania Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, Americans tried to use their firearms in just this way; to resist what they considered to be a tyrannical tax and imposition on their way of life. Washington called up the militia and put down the rebellion with overwhelming support of Congress, which contained many of the original framers. The leaders of the rebellion were tried and found guilty of treason.

GravitasFailure 5y ago

This is definitely an interesting line of thought worth exploring, but I do take issue your central point: There is no such thing as a non-lethal weapon, and even good less lethal weapons struggle to effectively stop determined assailants. A human truly determined to inflict harm on someone is astoundingly difficult to stop. The starkest examples I've come across are two officer-involved shootings: First was in Oregon, where a soldier going through a nasty divorce kidnapped his kids, got pulled over for speeding, got into a gunfight with the officer, injured the officer who proceeded to land a shot through his heart, then he continued shooting back, got back into the car, drove half a mile, pulled over, said goodbye to his kids, and died. The second was a man that got into a gunfight with multiple officers and didn't stop until he had about thirty bullets in him, so of course everyone assumed he was hopped up on PCP until the coroner report came back with negative results on the drug panel. Tasers are about as good as it gets right now if you want something that can decisively stop a person, but even then they're badly hampered by any kind of heavy clothing and rain. Their direct lethality is heavily debated, but people getting head injuries when getting zapped is pretty common, not to mention deaths tied to heart conditions and being under the influence of stimulants. Their ability to stop an assailant behind any kind of barrier is completely nonexistent as well, and if you do find a technology that can decisively stop someone through a sheet of plywood it will definitely be able to kill. Even trying to physically restain someone has a lot of room for injury and death, regardless of training and manpower, so I'm not confident that a weapon that can both compete with a gun in its ability to stop a threat and is guaranteed to not kill will happen before Tesla full self driving exits beta.

mantaraygun 5y ago
> people getting head injuries when getting zapped is pretty common This scares the shit out of me, more than getting shot by a cop. Cops use tasers a lot more freely than guns, very frequently using them when there is no plausible threat to themselves or anybody else. They're allowed to get away with it because tasers are "less lethal." All it takes is one bad fall to turn you into a brain scrambled imbecile who can't tie your own shoelaces anymore but much of the public doesn't seem to understand this and are unsympathetic to these sort of concerns. At least with guns, people understand the gravity of the matter.

KaiserPro 5y ago

> open up a lot of possibilities for regulating traditional firearms I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I suspect this argument wont fly. From what I can see the only arms that are prohibited are ones that don't have a legal use (ie sawnoff shotguns) I don't think one can technology one's self out of cultural issue. Sure its an enabling technology, but so are stun guns and tasers. However that has not allowed the USA to create a somewhat more normal gun regulation regimen.

mantaraygun 5y ago
> From what I can see the only arms that are prohibited are ones that don't have a legal use (ie sawnoff shotguns) Not really, the sawnoff shotguns thing is an anachronism. The National Firearms Act (NFA) which restricted sawnoff shotguns (not completely banned) was originally intended to restrict all handguns, presumably because they're concealable and useful for crime. To make a handgun ban meaningful, it was going to also restrict short barrel shotguns and rifles. The handgun restrictions got dropped from the NFA for political reasons, but the short barrel shotgun and rifle restrictions remained. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Backgrou... You can still acquire/manufacture a short barrel shotgun or rifle, but you have do paperwork for it and from what I've seen nobody really values short barrel shotguns enough for this to be common. However if you did do all the paperwork and made or bought one, then subsequently used it for self defense, that would be legal. Also they're legal in Canada: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawed-off_shotgun#Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawed-off_shotgun#Canada
SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
> I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I suspect this argument wont fly. From what I can see the only arms that are prohibited are ones that don't have a legal use (ie sawnoff shotguns) A couple things I could unpack there but to keep it simple… The most recent take by SCOTUS was 2008 Heller and 2010 McDonald that set up the language for guns that may be regulated as “dangerous and unusual”. The AND is very important. Dangerous is not to the target, they’re all dangerous to the target, but rather I read it as in hard to control or wider effecting or camouflaged or potentially harmful to the user. Unusual is easier to understand. A gun that might be dangerous and unusual is a 50BMG handgun or a machine gun or something generally not effective for defense of self/state or a cane gun. It’s hard to seriously rationalize that if gun control exists at all that an M240B LMG should have the same exact regulations as a Glock. We clearly have more use for the latter as a society, although there is vigorous debate that of varying reason. The other is that sawed off shotguns are not illegal. The DOJ at one point did want to ban guns, and tried to ban all guns with barrels less than 18” knowing full well this would be all handguns. They failed but did come away with a consolation prize of barrel length limits for rifles and shotguns. 18” for shotguns and 16” for rifles basically for no reasons that make sense. You can saw a shotgun barrel down all you like up until you get to 18”, where 17.9” is an SBS, short barreled shotgun, and still not illegal but does require a $200 tax to be paid. Funny though, this only applies to “shotguns” which is a smooth bore gun with a stock. A “shotgun handgun” is not a shotgun, and also not a handgun, but rather a “firearm”. But only if it was made that way. You can have or saw down any shotgun barrel to any length so long as it doesn’t have and wasn’t made with a stock. This gun http://primusdatabase.com/images/d/d3/Sawed-Off_Shotgun.jpg http://primusdatabase.com/images/d/d3/Sawed-Off_Shotgun.jpg is legal if the tape is covering a grip that hasn’t been modified, but illegal if it’s covering that someone sawed the stock off as well. You can buy a version of this gun with no stock and saw it down if you like. There is a world of stupid ATF NFA that you do not wish to know. https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1db1617798849b0d0a7d7b82459e8a2a-c https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-1db1617798849b0d0a7d7b...

ajuc 5y ago

That's already how this works in some countries. If someone attacks you with a baseball bat or fists and you shoot them dead you might be sentenced for overstepping a reasonable self-defense. The same crime at gun-point and at knife-point carries much harsher punishment. This encourages reasonable (de)escalation instead of just going for 120% from the start. And saves lives. End result is - even in countries with relatively easy access to guns for hobby - nobody carries them for self-defense (criminals included), because they don't expect to need them, and in case of a self-defense situation they are more likely to cause problems than to solve them.

nicbou 5y ago
In Canada, the use of reasonable force is warranted. The keyword is "reasonable".
panarky 5y ago
The cheat code in the US is to say "I was afraid the guy with the [fists | bat | skateboard] was going to take my rifle and shoot me with it."
- ajuc 5y ago
  Wouldn't the obvious conclusion be: "carrying a gun is dangerous for you"?
  - panarky 5y ago
    Since the guy carrying the gun winds up alive, while those around him wind up dead, seems like the obvious conclusion is that "carrying a gun is dangerous for everyone else who isn't carrying a gun".
    - cik2e 5y ago
      A more appropriate conclusion would be that "it's dangerous to brazenly attack someone who is carrying a gun". Perhaps they were encouraged by the fact that Rittenhouse was trying to avoid conflict and run away? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Rqv2tIg4E&t=319s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Rqv2tIg4E&t=319s The only "cheat code" here was used by the prosecutor to bring this case to trial.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

Not so sure about that, it was the anti-gun folk who were against finger-print-to-unlock firearms, because they thought having better security would result in more guns being owned.

seabird 5y ago

Attempting to defend yourself with something like this is going to get you killed. People are strong beyond most people's ability to understand -- some people can still be a threat with severe bullet wounds for incredibly long periods of time. It's going to take something much more compelling than this to bring up any serious discussion about less-lethal options.

jack_h 5y ago

I think you're misunderstanding the second amendment and self-defense. The second amendment doesn't enumerate the right to self-defense. Self-defense is an affirmative defense to a criminal charge (in this instance) which is within the purview of the states and not the federal government due to the tenth amendment. Heller held that the second amendment protected an individuals right to keep and bear arms for traditionally lawful purposes, which was later incorporated into the states in McDonald. One traditionally lawful purpose is self-defense, but the states get to define self-defense; of which there are already many differences between the states. I suppose the right of self-defense could be found in the fourteenth amendment - it certainly has a legal history going back thousands of years. Even so, it would be distinct from the second amendment. Think of it more like emergent behavior stemming from interactions in our dual sovereignty system of government. All that to say that no, I don't believe this would factor into any analysis when it comes to second amendment regulation cases. The second amendment would protect against regulating these less lethal weapons if Caetano is any indication though.