Non Lethal Weapons
There is more to no lethal weapons than just pepper spray and tasers. No lethal weapons have a reason, but are more lethal than they are said to be. This is happening the more they advance. No lethal weapons help to calm rioters by the improvements that are made. There are also injuries that come with no lethal weapons.
There are many advancements in the development of no lethal weapons. These advances have increased the interest of no lethal weapons. Lethal landmines were banned with the Ottawa treaty; however, new mines are being enhanced to use rubber balls, electric wires, and chemicals (SV; however, SV.) (Nick Lewer). For example, there is a no lethal weapon that uses three no lethal weapons in one; it uses pepper spray, electric shock, and video surveillance (SV; SV.). Another no lethal weapon uses microwaves; it penetrates through skin; it uses water molecules to vibrate inside the body (SV; SV; SV.). These are only a few of the many developments of no lethal technology.
No lethal weapons are used for a number of reasons. When dealing with civilians, military forces and policy makers are looking for an alternative to lethal force. Police and prison services are also interested in no lethal arrest and restraint techniques (Nick Lewer). For example, the use of no lethal weapons on an aircraft could be used to take down hijackers. When dealing with civilians, law enforcement doesn’t want to kill the citizen, but slightly injure them. These are a few of the many examples to use no lethal weapons.
People have their own reasons for the use of no lethal weapons. According to Sgt. Crispin Castillo, “If we simply kill a criminal, we will not know why he did what he did and we will not be able to gain kn...
... middle of paper ...
... a challenge for medics to treat.
There are advances happening with non lethal weapons that could change the future. The reasons for the use of non lethal weapons grow with every day. Effects or injuries of these so called “non lethal weapons” is making them more lethal than non lethal. Non lethal weapons are advancing and by this advancement it is making them more lethal than non lethal, but these weapons are also serving a purpose.
Works Cited
Lewer, Nick. “Non-lethal weapons: operational and policy developments.” Lancet (2003): S20. eLibrary. Web. 29 Oct. 2013.
Starr, Amory, and Luis Social Justice Fernadez. "Legal Control and Resistance Post-Seattle." eLibrary. Bigchalk.com, 1 Jan. 2009. Web. 29 Oct. 2013.Hlavac, Cpl.
Tyler. "It's the Option Between Doing Nothing and Deadly Force." eLibrary. Bigchalk.com, 9 Mar. 2011. Web. 29 Oct. 2013.
Not all murders involve guns. According to data from the United States Department of Justice, in the year 2008, 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States. However, only eight percent, or 436,000 of these crimes were committed by criminals that were armed with any kind of firearm (Agresti). Even with laws that ban guns from being purchased, a killer could easily obtain a gun by stealing it. In 2010, there were approximately 300 million guns known to be owned by American citizens (Agresti). On the topic of suicide, if somebody has a strong intent on ending their life, and they cannot access a gun, they will find another way to accomplish the task, without using a gun (Lunger, 77). The presence of guns in the hands of the general public is a key element to prevent crime. Steve Agresti has ...
...Suzy. Remote Weaponry: The Ethical Implications. Vol. 25. N.A.: Society For Applied Philosophy, 2008. Web. 17 Apr. 2014. .
...ive and more powerful if these weapons were in action. With these facts stated, I believe that chemical warfare should be un-ban and affectively used in today’s warfare.
Over the years, our nation has witnessed countless cases of police brutality. It has developed into a controversial topic between communities. For instance, deindustrialization is the removal or reduction of manufacturing capability or activity can lead to more crimes when people are laid off. Police officers are faced with many threatening situations day-to-day gripping them to make split second decisions; either to expect the worst or hope for the best. The police are given the authority to take any citizen away for their action that can ruin their lives. With that kind of power comes great responsibility, which is one main concern with the amount of discretion officers have is when to use lethal force. The use of excessive force might or
Chemical warfare is the use of chemical agents to injure, incapacitate, or kill enemy combatants. First seen during World War I (WWI), the devastating effects of widespread chemical warfare were eventually deemed inhumane by an international consensus and chemical agents were subsequently banned from use. Still, despite the tendency of the modern warrior to overlook antiquated tactics, the threat of chemical agents in the theater of war cannot be entirely discounted by today's Soldier. By analyzing the application, evolution, and overall legacy of chemical weapons in the Great War we can work to minimize the danger they pose in current conflicts and those of the near future. For it is only by understanding the past that we can understand the present and shape tomorrow.
As long as there have been men and women on this planet there has been violence. This is an immutable fact. In all likelihood, there will always be violence within the human race. Robert Heinlein said, "Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms." Indeed this is plausible. The premise of these arguments is that giving a creature with a proven track record of violence a phenomenally powerful tool of destruction is less than wise. As an alternative, this paper proposes to limit access to such powerful devices (semi-automatic firearms) through the use of tracking methods, restricted sales, and heavier penalties for illegal possession of firearms. The firearms most specifically addressed are semi-automatic weapons including repeating rifles and handguns.
By teaching police officers alternatives to shooting to kill, they experience higher risks with their lives. Police Commissioner, Ray Kelly, said, “It would be "very difficult" to train officers to shoot to wound” (Jacobo, 2016). Police officers are viewed as “predators” and “an occupying army” rather than allies (Valey, 2016). This is a perception that needs to change because it counteracts the mission of police officers
Things That Kill People More Than Guns and Why I Don’t Care. Logical Outlook. 13 June 2013. Web 02 February 2014. http://thelogicaloutlook.blogspot.com/2013/06/things-that-kill-more-people-than-guns.html
As a result, “Nearly all agree that when an officer is facing a deadly threat, the proper response is to use deadly force”(Lind). Yes there are many people out there that can be a deadly threat to police officers because the way they are acting but, there are many innocent people that do not affect anyone and still have to be a part of the problem for no given reason. Although a police officer’s proper response is to use deadly force upon someone, there should be other alternatives or ways they can use before going into deadly force and possibly cause someone to lose their live. I certainly do understand that there are certain situations where a cop is coming across someone that is pointing a gun or knife at them and approaching towards them. So therefore them using deadly force would possibly be the right thing to do if they have too, but before using deadly force they should at least try deploying tasers or using bean bag guns to attempt in taking them
3) Though the claim that death penalty serves as a deterrent is valid, it is controversial in its soundness. It is sound that criminals fear the death penalty. Indeed, death penalty is fearful, as it is irrevocable and takes away the life and future of the criminal sentenced to it. However, the evidences supporting the second premise that is the core function of the claim for the deterrence argument is too excessive. In the letter, the author first presents his own experience to prove that the fear of death penalty deters offenders from carrying a gun. However, using an experience as a proof for deterrence for such a complex and serious punishment as the death penalty is extreme. While supporters of the author may respond with the author’s credibility as a police officer for thirty years, personal experience and insight can’t be extrapolated with possibilities of bias...
It is safe to say that tasers are not as lethal as guns, but they can still cause serious damage to individuals. This is because not everyone has the same body, and not everyone will have the same reaction to 50,000 volts of electricity. In the text, “Taser Controversy Refuses to Die” by author Matthew Davis, “the ‘less - than - lethal’ weapons have involved one 74 deaths in the United States and Canada” (5,1). Tasers are known as weapons that are not as dangerous as guns, but they somehow still cause a noticeable number of deaths in just the United States and Canada.
Marshall, Burke . "The Protest Movement and the Law." Virginia Law Review 51.5 (1965): 785-
Knapp, Peter, Jane C. Kronick, R. William Marks, and Miriam G. Vosburgh. The Assault on Equality. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 1996.
Capital punishment is a topic constantly debated because of moral principles and effects on society. Many would argue that the possibility of death prevents crime. Others would argue that execution is unjust. Flamehorse’s article, "5 Arguments For and Against the Death Penalty,” provides common reasons held by society with a short analysis. Other articles such as“4 Out Of 5 Texas Dentists Advocate The Death Penalty,” produced by TheOnion, promotes capital punishment through a satirical metaphor. The reasons may be factual or morally based because society operates on these principles. Once the reasons are evaluated, it may be possible to develop a stance throughout the paper. This will contribute to various hypothetical examples and the course of action to handle said example. However, individual interpretation is subjective meaning that everyone has a different idea in mind.
safety involved in the use of these weapons. Can we really make a weapon that