Well, I can see such as ‘another club in the bag’ so to speak
What We Really Need for Effective Self-Defense: Reliable Non-Lethal Incapacitation.
Recently, Shooting News Weekly shared a quote from Open Source Defense. In short, they called for technological improvements in guns to make them easier to shoot, have higher capacities, and otherwise be more useful for the average human. I agree with the idea that weapons should continue to improve as technology advances.
On the other hand, humans have a tendency to get stuck in a paradigm that keeps us from moving on to better technologies. For example, there’s the famous quote from Henry Ford: “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” The automobile was a radical departure from using animal power to get around, and is better for nearly all use cases. But few had imagined that at the time.
To avoid that trap, I propose the industry should set goals and then determine what technologies need to be further developed or created from scratch to meet those goals. This kind of leadership by objective isn’t perfect, but it can help us avoid seeking “faster horses” in the gun world.
One of the biggest things anti-gunners misunderstand is the alleged desire among gun owners to kill people. While there are always a few nutters who fantasize about having an excuse to kill another human being (we can call them the “I wish an MF’er would” crowd), the vast, vast majority of gun owners only want to be able to stop a threat to their lives and those of people they care about.
If it were possible to stop the threat consistently and reliably without the attendant tragedy of ending another human life, that’s what virtually all of us would choose. We have some tools designed for non-lethal incapacitation, but sadly, They’re not reliable enough for life-and-death situations. TASER darts don’t always stick and things like OC spray can be affected by wind, sunglasses, the influence of drugs, etc. That’s why such weapons aren’t good answers to the threat of death or grievous bodily harm. We just can’t take a chance on them not working.
Still, we try to find ways to avoid needing to kill someone. Non-violent dispute resolution tactics like Verbal Judo are widely taught in the firearms community. Farnam’s “Rule of Stupids” (avoid doing stupid things with stupid people in stupid places) has long been taught to people who want to carry a gun for self-defense. Avoiding situations where you might need to use a gun entirely is the key here.
In the long run, it’s my hope that the industry takes this to heart as it seeks to improve weapon designs and invent new tools for self-defense. Instead of a faster horse — a gun that’s easier to shoot and throws more pieces of metal around — what we really need is something like Star Trek phasers. On one setting, people in that fictional world can reliably knock most threats out when it’s appropriate. The option to kill, however, is still available when it’s absolutely necessary. Kirk’s phaser was also good as a powerful cutting tool, a signal, a source of heat, and many other uses.
We’re probably nowhere near such a weapon yet, but it’s a good north star to guide the industry. Reliable incapacitation might not come from an energy weapon like we see in science fiction, but whatever the path it is that leads in that direction, we should focus on finding it.