From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Availability of chlorpromazine and hypodermic dart guns?
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 02:00:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.195959.13543@ttinews.tti.com>
reid@metis.tti.com (Reid Kneeland) writes:

>
>In article <1992Aug14.161514.12308@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) write:
>>>In addition, I'd like to have one of those animal-incapacitating dart guns
>>>around.  I'd rather not have to deal with the morality/legality of killing
>>>somebody who was trying to steal my car stereo.
>>
>This got me thinking (it does happen occasionally).  Why couldn't
>someone design a drug-adminsitering weapon for self-defense?  I'd think
>that a load of pentothal (or whatever) would drop an attacker very
>quickly.  What would be the best drug to use?  Has anyone done this?
>How might it work?  Would a needle be necessary, or could it use a jet
>of DMSO (or something similar) to the face as a delivery mechanism?
>
     The stun gun and the taser, which operates on the same principle with
a needle and a short range, were both designed as non-lethal alternatives
to firearms.  Tasers are illegal for private citizens in most most areas,
and stun guns in many areas.  The police found that crooks could use them
against the police, incapacite the police officer (which is the point,
they rearely actaully want to kill any police) without risking a murder
or attempted murder charge.
     Mace is illegal in Washington D.C. and in a lot of other cities (and
throughout Canada, I understand.)  There has been noise elsewhere about
restricting or banning it, because it can be used against police.
     When you are told to put aside your gun and choose a non-lethal
alternative, consider that that non-lethal alternative may not be
available for very long either, especially considering that the more
effective the alternative, the more likely it has been that somebody has
wanted it banned.

>I'd think most people who keep guns for self-defense would use such a
>weapon IF it had stopping power and tactical advantages on a par with a
>good handgun (which Mace and stun-guns do not).

     The taser has the advantage of range above stun guns and stopping
power above Mace.  (They do, though, have serious disadvantages, and
are still less likely to be as effective as a firearm.)  We *have*
non-lethal alternatives, and they are just as likely to be outlawed
as firearms.  More so, in fact, because they don't qualify as "arms"
for protection from the government.

>Assuming it's
>needle-based, it would even penetrate many "bullet-proof" vests!

     To have enough force to do this would make it extremeley hazardous,
perhaps even lethal, to the unarmored.

>It
>wouldn't have to be guaranteed safe for the recipient, but it would
>probably be a lot safer than a .45.
>
>Would the gun-controllers want to ban it?  Or would they use its
>availability as additional justification for banning real guns?
>
     Some would, some wouldn't.  The people who want to restrict non-
lethal defense forms and gun banners often overlap, but they are often
not the same people.

========================================================================
| David Veal  PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu                                  |
|             University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.drugs