It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why can't police just use tranquilizer guns?

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Recently I was watching the TV show Chuck (funny show) on Netflix. He refused to use a gun and always used a tranquilizer gun on suspects.
The other agents still used a firearm most of the time. It got me wondering,why can't police just use these to take down a suspect/criminal?
They use tasers,and it would save so many lives if police would/could use non-lethal methods.




posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: EchoesInTime

Is it because the tranquilizer would not work quickly enough when dealing with an armed suspect? They would have time to open or return fire.

It would be a so much better alternative if the police could debilitate rather than kill.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: EchoesInTime

i think maybe because tranquilizers are drugs and without knowing if a person is on any medication/illegal drug, they wont be able to know if there are going to be serious interactions/side effects.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: EchoesInTime
Recently I was watching the TV show Chuck (funny show) on Netflix. He refused to use a gun and always used a tranquilizer gun on suspects.
The other agents still used a firearm most of the time. It got me wondering,why can't police just use these to take down a suspect/criminal?
They use tasers,and it would save so many lives if police would/could use non-lethal methods.


It would depend on the situation. Immediate reactions to lethal weapons dictate the same response, but suspects armed with bats, clubs or similar weapons could be contained with non-lethal means. Then there is a dosage issue, and if the suspect is on drugs, or over-the-top enraged, tranqs may not have the desired effect.

The scenarios I've seen played out and end in the death of the suspect don't always seem necessary, but it is easy to armchair QB when not privy to all info and not on scene.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: EchoesInTime

"1, Tranquilizer darts don't work quickly.
2. The appropriate amount of any tranquilizer must be computed based on the "target's" body weight. This is not possible in most emergency encounters.
3. The tranquilizer dart would have to be delivered from a distance and would have to be able to penetrate (possibly) multiple layers of clothing. Possible trauma from such a delivery system could be the same as being shot with a bullet.
4. Requiring the use of tranquilizer darts instead of current firearms is still an abridgement of Second Amendment rights."

Dug up that googling it. Make sense that they are a bit impractical!



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: blondegiraffe

Cops have no qualms firing a bullet into you. I doubt they would be bothered if the tranquiliser has adverse side effects.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Drugs are a calculated science when administered by doctors to specific patients. There are no drugs/tranqs which are a one size fits all.

So you have the potential for negative drug interactions, ineffectiveness, possibly killing someone, etc, etc

For the spy trade their work is in a grey or black area to begin with so for tranqs to be used by them, [which I highly doubt is very often if ever] its a little different.

Of course TV is another story. I remember that show they are tranq'ing people a few times an episode. But then again, they are killing people a few times an episode too in cop/military/spy shows.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   
probably because you would need different kinds of tranquelizers for different people, its not a case of one size fits all.

hieght and weight would be a factor to how much tranquelizer could be administered, or you could kill people.

i dont think its a feasable option for a split second decision



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Revolution9

Thanks for that info. I think that with today's technology they could come up with and appropriate dosage to use. They are able to take down a large bear and other large animals. If the suspect is on drugs or allergic they would still be able to receive medical treatment and not die. Of course in some cases,as in mass shootings I agree with lethal force to end the violence.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: blondegiraffe
a reply to: EchoesInTime

i think maybe because tranquilizers are drugs and without knowing if a person is on any medication/illegal drug, they wont be able to know if there are going to be serious interactions/side effects.


Therefore, they shoot to kill. Got it.

EDIT: and of course, someone already posted this above. (grumble grumble obama grumble)
edit on 15-8-2015 by enlightenedservant because: thanks for asking. i was determined to make a witty response to a specific post. but in the time it took to type it, someone else had "beaten me to the punch". this rendered my comment stale & made my joke fall flat



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: EchoesInTime

Even with animals there's still the factor of getting the dosage right. Game wardens use tranquilizers when they know which animal they're trying to capture. They don't stalk the woods with a tranq gun and hope it works on whatever animal they encounter. They still carry shotguns and sidearms.

What happens when a dart hits somebody in the eye? Throat? What happens when the tranq causes their internal systems to crash? What happens when a person is jacked up on something? It's not like police will know what drugs they've taken and surprise! Now they can't tell you because they're unconscious.

TV is not real life.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Of course I know that TV is not real life. Duh! I was just using that as an example. There are situations where tranquilizer darts/guns would be effective and save lives.

This was my first thread,thank you all for the replies.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Like anything else the government is involved in , they dont have the "funding"
or the reason to research alternate methods for subduing criminals.It does not make sense to them . What is in place works .No matter the outcome....



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: EchoesInTime

I echoed this same sentiment not to long ago, only I went a bit further.




Ban bullets. You can own a gun, you just can't have bullets. You can buy specialized "tranquilizer" projectiles.

Problem solved.

Cops don't kill, they just put you to sleep.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: EchoesInTime

Drug interactions, allergy, or accidental overdose are more risky, as "less than lethal" has a tendency to be used less discriminately.

We'd end up with more dead, brain damaged, or otherwise affected. Which would then fall on the taxpayer to remunerate.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   
just say no to tranqs & tasers...

billy club, sidearm & pepper spray are enough options...

Bad apples in society as there are in the LEO community...

promote the good, encourage it, don't degrade an entire society as bad due to those who are rotten, flips side the same, don't degrade the entire LEO community as bad due to those who are rotten...

What's happening now helps no one, but the rotten....



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 12:57 AM
link   
You are up against someone with a semi-automatic pistol and have to start loading single shot tranqualizer darts into your gun. Maybe I am thinking too much but I don't think we should be paying widow benefits to half the people in the country.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 04:47 AM
link   
a reply to: EchoesInTime

Why can't police just use tranquilizer guns? - excellent question. i suspect its because they are not lethal enough and therefore not 'authoritative' enough. I would also expect the authorities to say that the time it takes to be effective would place their lives at greater risk.




top topics



 
4

log in

join