Thursday, May 03, 2007

Further notes on Virginia Tech, Columbine Solutions

Technorati Profile

I posted the crossbow concept at several likely spots, and got just one comment, which poopooed it as it would be very hard to get the "go to sleep" mix just right.

Heck, this person or persons is/are out to kill everybody !

so the two part semi anesthesia is merely as last ditch effort to save his sorry butt so we can find out what makes him tick. If he dies, he dies. If they die, they die. Better them than us ! hopeful the deterrent effect is potent enough to nearly eliminate the problem.

Having it as a two part (or more) and restricting sales of type A or type B darts to owners of one bow requires that two people have to act in concert to use the weapon in a physically dangerous way. What's more, without doing an experiment, you don't know if you have an A or a B bolt. Since I think it would be unreasonable for any one person to own or need more than six bolts at a time, there would not be much opportunity to experiment. Remember, the bolts will fire in only the crossbow that recognises their unique RFID. It would leave quite a bit of evidence at the crime scene, if used out of proper context.

The bolts and bows would be sold in a manner that would drive the NRA nuts, in terms of registration and acquisition, but remember, these are NOT guns, and so fall outside the Second Amendment. They are design to immobilize, not kill. The only time you could get more ammo would be after an incident or when the chemicals expire, and they would be exchanged, one for one. Any officer of the law would be entitled to challange any person with such a weapon to a search, at any time, but only to determine if the weapon was theirs, and that the bolts matched the weapon. A few very limited rights in exchange for greatly reducing the sense of easy targets that killers now have. I'd carry one.

An armed Israel, reduced gunmen, but the extremists then invented the 20 year plan to indoctrinate their own children to become bombers. It's possible that could happen, but not likely, with a local psycho, Tim Mcveigh notwithstanding. He had the neo-nazis in place of the mideast extremists, for a social group backing his actions in his head.

You will of course be able to go to a range and check out a purple bow for use at the range with non harmful bolts. Range will include classroom and workplace mockups fitting the needs of the local community.

Don't try to poopoo an idea that is only 99% sound.

2 comments:

The Happy Rampager said...

I posted the crossbow concept at several likely spots, and got just one comment, which poopooed it as it would be very hard to get the "go to sleep" mix just right.

Heck, this person or persons is/are out to kill everybody !


What a stupid, irrational response. It's much more likely that they're not willing to trust their life to a technology that sounds rather iffy i.e. liable to 'not go right'. Plus there's an indication that the comment considers that the 'mixture' might do more than 'put someone to sleep'...since you didn't quote the comment in full (but you did blurt out that the person who wrote it 'just wants to kill people'), I don't know what exactly this fellow actually wrote.

There's a ton of problems with your concept, though my opinion of this may be influenced by the fact that you haven't really explained things that well. I.e. 'two part semi anesthesia' - unexplained. If the anesthesia is such an important feature, why do 'two people have to act in concert' to be able to effect 'relatively instant sleep'? Surely all bolts for this device should be able to deliver 'instant sleep'? Because it sounds from your initial description that an individual user can do little more than fire a dart that makes the assailant smell bad and that is supposed to stop him in his tracks - which is, after all, the chief purpose of guns when used/carried for defensive purposes. So if the 'instant sleep' feature is unavailable to individual users who, you never know, might find themselves facing assault on their own, then they're up shit creek, are they not?

Plus you also say that in your opinion it would be unreasonable to carry more than 6 bolts, which is suspect for a number of reasons, such as finding themselves in a situation where they're badly outnumbered and cornered, say, 7 to 1...how is a mere 6 bolts going to help them in that situation? since you can't anticipate all situations that a person might find themselves in that would necessitate self-defence, your limit on the number of bolts that a person can carry is decidedly unreasonable. It would be better to allow people to judge these matters for themselves, yes?

And one last thing (for now) - you talk about the 'deterrent effect' of these devices - I can tell you right now that the deterrent effect will never compare to the deterrent effect offered by firearms. The very act of choosing these devices over firearms says to an assailant, 'this pussy isn't that serious about stopping me from hurting him'. Resulting in assailants being much more likely to advance on their victims even when they're pointing this device at them (ready to fire a bolt that makes them stink), which in turn results in more chance that either the assailant or the victim is going to be hurt as a result of the incident.

SkiTheStars said...

Well, I guess we are on totally different wave lengths.

For starters, the "person out to kill everybody," is the attacker, not the defender.

At no point do I attempt to claim that this is a system that is better than a gun or even equal to a gun. It is not, and that is intentional. The idea is to have something that is not going to do harm in one person's hands, but, which will, in the hands of a group, slow down, stop, or deter, or possibly even kill the attacker.

You seem not to have grasp any of these points. Yes, you want to be safe ? Carry a shotgun and wear a bullet proof (resistant) vest.

The problem is that you will not be able to go many places. My concept is designed to deal with the situation by developing something which will be allowed on campus. AK-47's attract the eye....

As for being able to defend against multiple attackers as an individual, even if you have complete choice of armorments, you are unlikely to survive against 7 assailants if you are alone. This system is not intended for that situation.

As Heinlein pointed out, the best defense against such a situation is not to get yourself into it in the first place. Travel with buddies if going risky places, and why go anyway ?

We know what happened when nobody had anything. Yes, if they all had AK47 they'd of stopped him in his tracks. But if 20 students had these crossbow devices in the second classrooom, the odds are that the barrage as he opened the door would have brought him down too. In the first classroom, maybe not enough time to react.

But, look at it from the attackers point of view. He knows he might do one classroom, but he knows he's gonna get nailed in the second one. OK, so now he'll start lobbing hand made handgrenades into the rooms. It's always spy vs spy, but at least he has to work harder, and will probably be detected testing any bomb like device, if he doesn't blow himself up first.