Stopper? Or Firearm? The Hypothetical Dilemma.

[jyl]

This is a hypothetical question.

Assume that there was an inexpensive, foolproof, easy-to-use, personal device that would immediately, and without causing injury or destruction, stop any physical attack or assault. Let's call it a Stopper. A gang of armed men attacks an old lady, she merely reaches into her purse, triggers her Stopper, and the attackers are all unconscious. The black helicopters come for you, your Stopper puts the federales to sleep. Zombies surround your house, pull the Stopper out and they are all down. A Russian armored division invades Boise, the good folks of Utah trigger their personal Stoppers and all the Commies go limp.

You get the idea. Kind of like a phaser on wide stun.

Everyone can have as many Stoppers as they like, stash them away, they cost $20, there are hundreds of millions available, they never run out of juice, they don't need any government permission to function, they never actually HURT anyone.

Got that?

Now, here is the catch. To get the Stoppers, America has to give up all its firearms. Okay, the military keeps theirs so they can fight wars (though even a platoon of Rangers with Barrett .50s is easily defeated by a little old American grandma with a Stopper). And hunters keep their bolt actions and their over-unders to take deer and ducks.

But all the other firearms - gone. No American not hunting partridge or Pakistanis can have a firearm. Of any kind.

You get to make the call. Do we get the Stoppers, or the firearms?

[Burnin' oil]

I need firearms to stop the gang bangers armed with stoppers.

[Tervuren]

Firearms can have a more discriminatory nature than these stoppers.

Sometimes bad guys need to actually get hurt. Just like a 2yo needs consequences when he disobeys, makes a huge difference in life.

[crustychief]

Keep the firearms. It sounds like your stoppers would have us all asleep while another country invaded.

[BernieP]

How do we keep Stoppers out of the hands of criminals?

BernieP

[Porsche-O-Phile]

As a hypothetical I like the idea.

Would they be as cool to shoot? Could you go to the range with them? No firearms even for target fun in lieu of them?

[Dantilla]

Hypothetically, a good idea from a safety standpoint.

But so is a mass transit system that abolishes all privately-owned vehicles.

Cars are fun to drive, and guns are fun to shoot. Ain't freedom grand?

[masraum]

If the stoppers had some sort of moral omniscience that kept it from being used for robbery or date rape. Assuming it would only affect people who were in the act of commiting some sort of crime, assuming that it was terribly unrealistic, but awesome at the same time, then sure, lets get stoppers. Hell, give them to kids so they can defend themselves against bullies.

Since a stopper as described, without being imbued with some sort of god-like power could be used for bad purposes similar to a gun by those with less than honest/moral intentions, then I don't know. In that case, a gun would probably actually be better.

[stomachmonkey]

P-O-P is thinking along my lines.

Hypothetical.

Let's say a Star Trek type transportation device were invented. It costs like $50 and they are everywhere. In every home, on every street corner on the planet.

You hop in and are instantaneously transported to your destination.

But there's one catch. We need to give up all other modes of transportation. Cars, planes, boats, motorcycles.

No DE's, Tim gets to plow under his runway, no waterskiing or sailing on a nice day.

[pwd72s]

How about hunting with a "stopper"? Alaska Grizzly attacks covered by a "stopper"?

I'd prefer a phaser that could be set to kill or stun...as long as we dwell in the fantasy world.

[jyl]

That's kind of the basic issue I am trying to explore.

[on2wheels52]

Do you have to fill out a 4473 to obtain a Stopper?
And is there a BATS (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Stoppers) for the seller to deal with?
Jim

[pwd72s]

Originally Posted by jyl

That's kind of the basic issue I am trying to explore.

Why? Are you writing a sci-fi piece?

[Eric Coffey]

Originally Posted by BernieP

How do we keep Stoppers out of the hands of criminals?

BernieP

/thread.

[Burnin' oil]

So the question is whether I would give up my guns in exchange for personal security of everyone in the Country. The answer is "yes." But, I would not give up guns just for my personal security.

[nostatic]

The problem is that the tool doesn't control the intent. You're trying to legislate "safety" by looking at the hardware rather than the software...

[vash]

Can you operate a stopper with the sideways gansta hold?

Didn't think so.

[stomachmonkey]

Seems the Stopper would eliminate any threat from firearms anyway do what would be the point in giving them up?

[emcon5]

Depending on who is counting, there are between 200 and 350 million guns in the United States. Your scenario depends on the ridiculous assertion that you could somehow make all of them disappear.

Not going to happen. Criminals, certainly won't give theirs up, nor will a sizable portion of the population. Remember, there is no gun registration in this country, so even if a this came to pass, there is no way to know where they all are.

Even places where registration is required, compliance is usually very low (some estimate 70% non compliance for Canada's gun registration.

It is a pipe-dream inside another pipe dream.

[id10t]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?