Why are these not more commonly used? And it seems like the concept could be developed further to really obstruct someones ability to move. Instead of four or five beefy cops jumping on someone to restrain them, just fire a net at them. Or maybe four or five nets. Then stand back and wait for him to tire himself out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=rxrIus60JXY&feature=emb_logo
Good question.
Because there's no National Netgunman's Association promoting netguns for police use?
Also, because there are people like that jackass promoting "Killology" instead of non-lethal procedures.
Ibtl I guess.
But I asked this question a few years ago when I first saw them. They seem like a good idea in general.
I thought they'd be a possible use in a school shooter situation....possible use, not fool proof, not every time, etc.
I was thinking they could be in the classroom and the worst downside would be kids shooting each other with them.
In reply to jamscal :
I was not thinking in a highly critical situation. But more in cases where some guy who really does not want to be restrained. It seems like most of the videoed incidents are of minor situations that turn into something larger because a person resists and law enforcement uses force to an extreme to subdue them. There would be far fewer complaints if all the guy was fighting was a net. The gladiators used nets, although then once the guy was tangled up he got a multi pronged spear through the stomach.
And I do not think this is a political thread unless someone decides to make it one.
The problem I see with a net gun is that the weights on the corners would have to carry significant energy to pull the net out more than 10'. That introduces a whole new round of potential for injury.
Frustratingly, "suspects" can close a 20' gap to a police officer in not much more than the blink of an eye.
Tazers offer good stopping ability when deployed correctly, but they don't seem to be used correctly pretty often.
In reply to KyAllroad (Jeremy) (Forum Supporter) :
I was talking with a friend about taser guns today. Seems to be much more effective. But I'm not sure if the electric charge can cause major health/deadly issues though.
KyAllroad (Jeremy) (Forum Supporter) said:The problem I see with a net gun is that the weights on the corners would have to carry significant energy to pull the net out more than 10'. That introduces a whole new round of potential for injury.
Watching that video, it looks like the gun is launching the edge weights and they're pulling the net along. If you fire it into a crowd instead of at an individual, the weights are almost certain to hit people.
It also appears to be a fairly large one-shot weapon.
Large, heavy, short range, easily defeated by almost any obstacles and hard to use and potentially dangerous if anyone else is near.
Tasers can be effective (the newer "safer" ones less so), but can be very ineffective with types of clothing and even body fat / type.
I don't know, E36 M3 never worked that good for Wile E Coyote.
The usual description is "less than lethal" stuff. Pepperspray, taser, bean bag shotgun shells.
i'll leave it with that to avoid getting political.
TJL (Forum Supporter) said:The usual description is "less than lethal" stuff. Pepperspray, taser, bean bag shotgun shells.
i'll leave it with that to avoid getting political.
There is no politics here. Just an interesting method of restraining someone who does not want to be restrained.
All the tools you listed involve using a projectile or a liquid to cause pain or trauma. A net gun does none of that. Just harmlessly reduces the amount of resistance a single person can offer which would in turn reduce the amount of force required to restrain them. Win win
I think you may be underestimating people ability to F things up and peoples willingness to sue.
I suspect lawsuits for things like strangulation, tripping and hitting things, falling off things etc. Heck, someone with a knife, gets tangled, falls, stabs himself, guess who pays?
To be clear, not a horrible idea, but far from ideal. The bolo is a similar concept, with similar issues.
As a weird aside. Certain technologies where imagined in the original Star Trek simply to make shooting and story development easier. E.g. the transporter was so they did not have to shoot "shuttle to surface" scenes. Faster than light (many, many times) travel, so you don't have to spend a lifetime traveling to another star. Every alien is very humanoid, to make makeup easier. The phaser stun is an easy way to disable someone. A similar thing can be seen in movies / TV where they hit people over the head to knock them out, very dangerous in real life, and doesn't really work, but makes story development much easier.
Chloroform you say? Well.......
This made it on to a few of the local news stations around Thanksgiving last year. I'm not sure it was the same company, but a product like this was being peddled to various municipal police departments around the state. Interesting less than lethal, but you're still poking hooks into someone.
Net guns don't actually work worth a damn is why. Even in the clip the guy slowed down and positioned himself properly then threw himself forward to make sure it actually went on him right.
Net guns: Possibly effective in a very, very specific situation, which can't reliably be predicted to be the one in which the user will find himself. Oh, and what happens when the subject is too close? Another piece of gear to carry just in case ...
Spiderman gun: Around the legs, maybe OK. Suspect falls headfirst into the pavement, cracks his skull - not so good. Better than being shot? Maybe. Around the neck ("Gee, how'd that happen?"), not so good. References to lynching in the editorials, etc.
No need to re-invent the wheel. A solution for this type of problem has existed for centuries. Just issue every cop a lasso and teach them how to use it.
To me, the answer is pretty simple: If someone is threatening my life, I'd rather have 13 rounds of .45 than one shot with a cast-net that might be a pancake or might be a banana.
Also, the idea of "catching people with nets" might not fly with some segments of our population.
Or maybe people could just do what the cop tells them to. Works for me every time
In reply to Justjim75 :
Like Philando Castile was doing what the cop was telling him to?
I dont think a net gun would have been better in that situation, or changed the outcome, only better training and better cops, which requires time and money. Less lethal (not less than lethal as was mentioned earlier, meaning there is still a chance that death will occur) is ineffective more often than it works, and i agree that incedents like that and whats happened recently illustrate the need for changes but a friend who is a cop and i believe the net gun is impractical at best. Trying to stay apolitical and on topic and realize my first statement may not have been that.
You'll need to log in to post.
