Stun Control Legislation

[The Laughing Vulcan]

I wonder what the rules on weapons ownership will be in the future. Obviously phasers are ubiquitous in Starfleet, but what about normal daily life?

Earth is supposedly a peaceful paradise, so there would be no reason for anyone to be armed, but that will probably be different on the border worlds. Farmers would still need weapons to control pests. Police forces will still need to be armed, and I'm sure that civilians would have the same reasons for owning weapons as they do today.

But phasers have more than one setting. Would private phasers be limited to stun only. There would be no need for a kill setting for self defence. And what would happen in crimes of passion? Domestic flare ups temporarily halted when an angry wife stuns her husband into insensibility. Kid playing too much Manhunt on the holodeck going on the rampage in school stunning students and the faculty at random.

What would be the laws controlling this?

What would be the punishments?

 

[StolenThunder]

It should be worth keeping in mind that Star Trek has implied that being stunned isn't all that great for you, especially if it happens more than once. Beverly spoke about it in Starship Mine, perhaps? Others?

 

[Forbin]

Well, I can tell you that as a gun owner who has a .45 and a shotgun specifically for armed-burglar-defense, I would be exstatic if I could replace them with a Trek-style phaser locked on heavy stun! Hell, I don't wanna kill anybody! But current technology leaves me only lethal firearms as an option. Give me something that stops them in their tracks with NO chance of killing them and I'll be a happy homeowner.

I would think the laws for using a stunner frivolously would be akin to physical abuse laws. One should stun only to stop an attacker or a crime, not if the wife is whining about not being taken out enough, or if the hubby forgets the anniversary. Screaming kids running uncontrolled in a store or restaurant ... well, that's debateable .

Having said the above about defensive guns, however, I still rather enjoy my recreational target shooting, and I'd never want to government to tell me when and where I'm allowed to do so, or what specific gun I'm allowed or not allowed to use, or force me to keep my target gun at the range rather than at my home where my belongings belong.

 

[Triskelion]

Well, I can tell you that as a gun owner who has a .45 and a shotgun specifically for armed-burglar-defense, I would be exstatic if I could replace them with a Trek-style phaser locked on heavy stun! Hell, I don't wanna kill anybody! But current technology leaves me only lethal firearms as an option. Give me something that stops them in their tracks with NO chance of killing them and I'll be a happy homeowner.

I would think the laws for using a stunner frivolously would be akin to physical abuse laws. One should stun only to stop an attacker or a crime, not if the wife is whining about not being taken out enough, or if the hubby forgets the anniversary. Screaming kids running uncontrolled in a store or restaurant ... well, that's debateable .

Having said the above about defensive guns, however, I still rather enjoy my recreational target shooting, and I'd never want to government to tell me when and where I'm allowed to do so, or what specific gun I'm allowed or not allowed to use, or force me to keep my target gun at the range rather than at my home where my belongings belong.

Have you considered a taser?

I get the impression that one can replicate whatever they want, it's just that society at large no longer requires the use of such protections in the future.

 

[cultcross]

Police forces will still need to be armed, and I'm sure that civilians would have the same reasons for owning weapons as they do today.

Firstly, not all police forces are armed even today!
But you're right, I think whatever law enforcement agencies exist i nteh future would arguably have phaser access, if perhaps not quite as easily as Starfleet.

But phasers have more than one setting. Would private phasers be limited to stun only. There would be no need for a kill setting for self defence. And what would happen in crimes of passion? Domestic flare ups temporarily halted when an angry wife stuns her husband into insensibility. Kid playing too much Manhunt on the holodeck going on the rampage in school stunning students and the faculty at random.

What would be the laws controlling this?

What would be the punishments?

I think the limit to heavy stun would probably make sense - Probably punished assault would be today if improperly used. It has always seemed on Trek that stun settings have no noticeable after effects, so the punishment is unlikely to be severe. However, in British law today, the definition of 'actual bodily harm' can include causing unconsciousness, even without other injury caused. So maybe a slightly increased charge than common assault.

 

[M'Sharak]

Police forces will still need to be armed, and I'm sure that civilians would have the same reasons for owning weapons as they do today.

Firstly, not all police forces are armed even today!

As TLV is also a UK resident, I think he's aware of it.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Well, if Earth is the "crime free Utopia" it's alleged to be, I don't really see the problem of anyone having whatever weapon they choose.

That's the issue that gets distorted and ignored with the current debate: the focus is one whether people should be allowed to have weapons or not and not on preventing the reasons people have for using them on others. If those reason don't exist, the weapons are harmless.

Also, one has to suspect that people in the Trek universe are generally better educated and more responsible with them in the first place.

 

[cultcross]

Police forces will still need to be armed, and I'm sure that civilians would have the same reasons for owning weapons as they do today.

Firstly, not all police forces are armed even today!

As TLV is also a UK resident, I think he's aware of it.

dunno - he is in London

 

[cultcross]

Well, if Earth is the "crime free Utopia" it's alleged to be, I don't really see the problem of anyone having whatever weapon they choose.

That's the issue that gets distorted and ignored with the current debate: the focus is one whether people should be allowed to have weapons or not and not on preventing the reasons people have for using them on others. If those reason don't exist, the weapons are harmless.

Also, one has to suspect that people in the Trek universe are generally better educated and more responsible with them in the first place.

Although you could argue that in that case, they have no actual use, and given that accidents will inevitably still happen, and I don't doubt, crimes of passion, why have them at all? The reason to have them is removed, but the risk is not.

 

[Delta1]

It should be worth keeping in mind that Star Trek has implied that being stunned isn't all that great for you, especially if it happens more than once. Beverly spoke about it in Starship Mine, perhaps? Others?

A stun at close range had deadly effects in TUC. And if I am intent on killing you, I don't need a phaser set on kill. I can stun you, then strangle or bludgeon you to death at my leisure. I can also foresee legal stun-locked phasers taking the place of illegal date rape drugs. Why take the risk of being caught with GHB when your perfectly legal self-defense weapon can do the same thing?

(The second person pronoun was used to add vividness to the example; I don't plan on harming anyone on this board.)

 

[Delta1]

Although you could argue that in that case, they have no actual use, and given that accidents will inevitably still happen, and I don't doubt, crimes of passion, why have them at all?

I would think that would be up to the individual. The Federation's principles are based on "freedom and self-determination," are they not?

 

[Anthony Sabre]

Don't know how many Enterprise fans are in here but Broken Bow gave a little insight into this. Remember when the Klingon crash landed in that field? The farmer came out and "introduced" himself with a plasma shotgun or something.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Although you could argue that in that case, they have no actual use, and given that accidents will inevitably still happen, and I don't doubt, crimes of passion, why have them at all? The reason to have them is removed, but the risk is not.

Owning a weapon does not mean one intends to use it. Most people collect them as hobbyists.

 

[SeerSGB]

I would say a scaled back, "civilian", model of the phaser is likely available to the general population of the Federation. Something perhaps max-set to heavy-stun, or if it has a kill setting a very low power one; you might kill someone, but you can't vap the bodies and leave no evidence. Plus with Fed tech legal (note: legal) gun owners could/likely be required have their weapons DNA locked so only they could fire them, not to mention providing for a way of gun-registration.

After all, just because Earth is a "paradise", doesn't mean the rest of the Federation is as crime free, or that even the odd scumbag here and there isn't roaming the streets of Earth. Then there are the colony worlds or outposts that are frontier locales. Plus, Federation citizens do travel outside the confines of Federation territory or the long-arm of Starfleet law, self protection would still a be a issue.

 

[Timo]

I would think that would be up to the individual. The Federation's principles are based on "freedom and self-determination," are they not?

Not to the extent that they wouldn't arrest criminals and force them to undergo therapy. Obviously, the state still retains a hold over its citizens on what is allowed and what is not, and the concept of "crime" or forbidden behavior still very much exists. The Federation is not an anarchy by any means.

Owning a weapon does not mean one intends to use it. Most people collect them as hobbyists.

Including James T. Kirk. But the state might require that any collectible items be inoperable as weapons. If effective permanent deactivation of the real deal is not possible, then owning one might be strictly forbidden, even though clever replicas might be displayed.

I would say a scaled back, "civilian", model of the phaser is likely available to the general population of the Federation.

We have seen weapons in civilian hands in the TNG era, with nary a comment from our Starfleet heroes. On the frontier, this seems to go without saying. In TNG "Survivors", an elderly couple had a phaser-like handgun, albeit empty, and it was told that the entire colony had been able to arm its inhabitants to teeth when a threat emerged. The colony in "Ensigns of Command" was equally armed or armable, and this never was a point of contention when Data tried to exert Starfleet/government influence over the colony.

Whether such weapons would be stun-only or have the standard "kill" and "vaporize" functions is debatable. Theoretically, one could successfully fight a full scale war with stun weapons only - the killing of the enemy combatant brings no true added value to the act of winning. Conversely, if killing is deemed to have intrinsic value, then logic would dictate all-out genocidal approach to all wars, something that Starfleet or its opponents all seem to fall short of.

Plus with Fed tech legal (note: legal) gun owners could/likely be required have their weapons DNA locked so only they could fire them, not to mention providing for a way of gun-registration.

TNG tech would seem to allow for individual guns to be tracked, at least aboard starships. Perhaps such tech would allow the state to keep constant and detailed track of guns on civilized inhabited worlds, too. It would take a high-tech supercriminal to deactivate the tracking and to fire the phaser on illegitimate purposes.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Forbin]

Well, I can tell you that as a gun owner who has a .45 and a shotgun specifically for armed-burglar-defense, I would be exstatic if I could replace them with a Trek-style phaser locked on heavy stun! Hell, I don't wanna kill anybody! But current technology leaves me only lethal firearms as an option. Give me something that stops them in their tracks with NO chance of killing them and I'll be a happy homeowner.

I would think the laws for using a stunner frivolously would be akin to physical abuse laws. One should stun only to stop an attacker or a crime, not if the wife is whining about not being taken out enough, or if the hubby forgets the anniversary. Screaming kids running uncontrolled in a store or restaurant ... well, that's debateable .

Having said the above about defensive guns, however, I still rather enjoy my recreational target shooting, and I'd never want to government to tell me when and where I'm allowed to do so, or what specific gun I'm allowed or not allowed to use, or force me to keep my target gun at the range rather than at my home where my belongings belong.

Have you considered a taser?

Illegal for civilian ownership in NJ.

 

[Forbin]

Owning a weapon does not mean one intends to use it. Most people collect them as hobbyists.

Including James T. Kirk. But the state might require that any collectible items be inoperable as weapons. If effective permanent deactivation of the real deal is not possible, then owning one might be strictly forbidden, even though clever replicas might be displayed.[/quote

Being a collector and hobbyist doesn't mean you just hang them on the wall and stare at them. Most of us who collect firearms enjoy casual and competition target shooting too.

It would take a high-tech supercriminal to deactivate the tracking and to fire the phaser on illegitimate purposes.

Timo Saloniemi

Or Wesley.

Come on, all ya have to do is reverse the nadion pulse frammistat and disable the glominator bypass widget.