During the early days of my police career, military and civilian, there were two kinds of force: lethal and non-lethal. Over the years—and this happened relatively rapidly—that evolved into two different kinds of force: lethal and less-lethal. 

We originally thought firearms exclusively projected lethal force and everything else, which in those days consisted almost entirely of batons and chemical spray, most commonly called “Mace,” was by default non-lethal. We knew batons, improperly applied, could cause death, but that was rare. We vaguely knew “Mace” could cause death in people allergic to it, or otherwise susceptible to respiratory distress or additional uncommon conditions, but that was even rarer than death by baton.

But as people began dying from baton blows—I’m not going to talk about how that happens—and from even more powerful capsicum—pepper—based sprays, and wrongful death lawsuits become more common, non-lethal became less-lethal. Somewhere in that timeline Tasers were invented in two types that exist today: direct contact and ranged weapons.

Both deliver a low-amperage electric charge that has the potential to temporarily incapacitate a violent attacker. The problem with direct contact devices is one needs to be in grappling range and be able to put the electrodes on bare skin. It’s a bad idea to get that close to violent people, particularly if they’re armed with something other than a firearm.

Ranged Tasers are also problematic because their range is limited to the length of the wires connected to the two barbs they fire. Manufacturers claim 25 feet, though practical accuracy is surely less. As the Tueller Drill demonstrates, the average person armed with a knife can cover 21 feet or more in 1.5 seconds. The average police officer can’t draw and put a round on target that fast.

Both types suffer additional problems. Some people are essentially immune to Taser effects, and there’s no way to know who they are in advance. We can’t know what “temporary incapacitation” means with any individual. Some may drop and bounce up again within seconds. And with ranged Tasers, unless both barbs penetrate the skin and stay there, no charge is transferred. Clothing obviously gets in the way. It’s common for the police, facing a suspect with a non-firearm weapon to employ a distance Taser only if a second officer is covering them with a firearm in case the Taser fails.

Tasers are less effective than their manufacturer would have us believe. The Indianapolis Police found their Tasers effective only 54.7% of the time. 

Anti-liberty/gun cracktivists, and some well-intentioned but uninformed others, have long advocated taking guns away from the police, arming them only with less-lethal weapons. They commonly wouldn’t allow Normal Americans even that much. Surely, we have the technology to safely incapacitate without the danger of inadvertent death? 

Graphic: William Shatner Sally Kellerman Star Trek 1966. Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain.

They’ve watched too much Star Trek where Phasers—whatever those might be—have two settings: stun and kill. We have no idea how Phasers, which are apparently particle beam weapons, manage that. Various Star Trek episodes suggest “stun” doesn’t always work on every alien, and sometimes neither does “kill.” Nor can Star Trek’s writers explain how small, man-portable weapons can possibly store the energy necessary to repeatedly do what Phasers do.

We are only now developing Lasers sufficiently powerful to down drones, mortars, rockets and possibly, cruise or other missiles, and they require the specially designed power generation capabilities of destroyer-class or larger warships or large trucks and generators to power their beams. They also don’t disintegrate their targets, which rain down debris when disabled. Absent nearly unimaginable breakthroughs, there are no such man-portable weapons on the horizon. Even if there were, how could a particle/coherent light beam powerful enough to pierce metal, do anything other than deadly damage to a human being?

Less-lethal weapons, if they’re going to replace firearms, must be no less effective and reliable. But even mortal gunshot wounds may not immediately stop a determined attacker. Around 80% of people shot with handgun ammunition do not die, and many aren’t immediately incapacitated. There are many cases on record of people hit with ridiculous numbers of bullets who were not immediately stopped and who later recovered.

Without question, a 100% effective and reliable less-lethal weapon would be a very good thing, but they don’t exist and the chances of developing one are small. That’s why those who suggest there are alternatives to firearms when deadly force is lawful and necessary are either ignorant or maliciously lying.

Become a subscriber and get our weekly, Friday newsletter with unique content from our editors. These essays alone are worth the cost of the subscription. 

Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, life-long athlete, firearm instructor, retired police officer and high school and college English teacher. He is a published author and blogger. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.