Conservatives claim any new gun control regulations are a serious impediment to their ability to defend themselves and their families. Liberals claim guns are destructive to the fabric of society by way of equipping murders with the most efficient tools to kill. Both sides have valid points to make, and the Constitution, for better or worse, guarantees that Americans have certain rights regarding the bearing of arms.
Curiously, though, little attention has been paid to the types of weaponry that could be used to defend oneself from home invasion or other attack. What about non-lethal weapons? Tasers have made huge advancements in recent decades and are available to civilians right now. These weapons will effectively incapacitate an attacker without killing.
The military has been deploying advanced weapons that use sound and microwaves to cause intense pain to attackers without causing permanent harm to a single hair on their heads. These promising technologies are being used to defend military bases, warships, and even civilian shipping in waters with higher than usual piracy.
Why aren’t these technologies being made more widely available? If a non-lethal option can get the job done of self-defense, why would lethal self-defense weapons even be necessary? Does any American civilian deserve the right to kill as he or she judges “in self-defense” — especially if other options are effective and available?
Criminals can be reformed so long as they remain alive. Blood never washes from the hands of someone who kills. It is with great sorrow that one must acknowledge that self defense is from time to time necessary. But thanks to technology, it needn’t end with bloodshed.