Back in reasonable conversation land:
Tyndmyr wrote:Level of pain, risk of shorting, etc likely varies between models, of course.
I'm really surprised at how ineffective stun guns are after poking around youtube and chuckling at a bunch of idiots stunning themselves. Surely it varies by make and model a bit, but yeah, I suppose they're not remotely as effective as I presumed.
Is the model used by law enforcement different? I was under the impression that those dropped people for significant periods of time. I watched videos of people who aside from gritting their teeth barely seemed phased.
Usually, yes. Even among tasers, there are a number of law enforcement specific models, usually with greater capabilities, and tasers are at the high end of the quality range in mass produced electroshock options. You can buy a stun gun over the internet for $15, if you want. High end taser models can run in excess of a thousand. As you'd expect, the difference in quality is immense. Probably a lot greater, IMO, than the variation between firearms, though that does exist.
The taser shot, for instance, is designed to induce a pulsed current with low overall amps, etc(IIRC, there's a higher initial charge to initiate the current, then it's rapidly dropped for safety reasons). This allows them to maximize the disabling effect with fairly low probability of injury or death. Most commercial stun guns are just straight current. There are practical limitations to what you can do with that without making it significantly life threatening. Typically, they advertise a ridiculous voltage, while keeping the amps quite low. It's brute forced, while the taser is designed to essentially jam neural communications.
Tyndmyr wrote:Sure. Training is great...but knives are inherently different from guns in their use. With a gun, it's mostly point and click. Knives require a little more finesse. Also, they tend not to stop people rapidly in most circumstances, since they almost invariably kill through blood loss(for instance, stabbing through someone's skull would be extremely difficult, zombie movies aside). A fast stop is gonna be better than a slow one.
Question: Isn't one of the factors to a guns use in self defense the psychological stopping power of being shot? Surely a similar phenomenon exists for knives?
And yeah; if we're talking about a lethal weapon capable of killing innocent bystanders thousands of feet away, I don't think requiring a bit of training is a bad thing. To that end, I don't think someone with a knife for self defense would/should be incapable of using it properly.
Honestly, most people instinctively use a knife poorly. Slashing is very common, but it tends to inflict surface wounds only against most target areas( the skull and rib cage tend to protect fairly well against those). Slashing is also a lot more likely to accidentally strike someone else. Now, slashing wounds can still be quite nasty...blood loss and tissue damage is a big deal...but it's crap for stopping people.
In the end, though, regardless of laws, if you're gonna carry something to protect yourself, you will be VASTLY better off if you learn how to use it before you need to do so, sighted or not. Security is something that is practiced, not merely bought.
Tyndmyr wrote:albeit in the more effective, more expensive side of the range.
Just a point; surely the price point is A ) somewhat moot, and B ) fairly similar?
Tyndmyr wrote:A ranged shot can technically be made at contact range without actually being quite in contact with the weapon so it's slightly superior to most...but as you say, range is of fairly limited benefit here.
If you're willing to accept that in the hands of a blind person, a gun is only reasonable at contact range, then I feel you should be willing to replace 'gun' with 'ranged taser' in all scenarios. I (we?) have found a bunch of videos of stun guns doing nothing; I have also found a bunch of videos of tasers completely dropping someone.
Mostly explained this above, but yeah, that's pretty normal. Tasers have a few benefits...the actual shot is limited, and while it can still fail, if it DOES work properly, it tends to be much more impressive than a stun gun because they tend to be designed a ton better.
I also differentiate between contact range and contact because with a taser, you could be in contact with your offhand, and thus, know exactly where they are while shooting with your other hand(this is not uncommon training for close range firearm use as well. Pushing them off you/stepping out of the line of attack can allow you to draw and fire when surprised). The range is quite close, but the weapon may not actually be in contact. For a stun gun, weapon to body contact is required.
So, while a taser still isn't a firearm, it's definitely a lot superior to a stun gun.
sardia wrote:Tyndmyr, what makes a blind person unable to run as despite being able to shoot? They aren't paraplegics.
PS: Who would win in a gunfight, a paraplegic or a blind man? The answer coming up next on Deadliest warrior.
We're talking averages. On average, it would be more difficult for a blind individual to run away from an attacker than a sighted person.
It certainly isn't impossible, but we can expect people who are more perceptive(regardless of blindness) to be able to start running sooner, notice avenues of escape and obstacles faster, etc.
Also, I look forward to the first time someone duct tapes a handgun to some servos and a couple of EEG readers. Could probably strip out a mindflex for a prototype. I fully endorse giving paraplegics android parts.