E-Shotgun
I don&#x27;t have a lot to say about the functionality or specifications here, but I feel like there&#x27;s a new conceptual issue raised by non-lethal, or notionally non-lethal weapons.<p>Constitutional arguments are about the right to self-defense. That&#x27;s not necessarily the same as killing someone, and you don&#x27;t necessarily have a right to killing in and of itself, but only as a means to an end for self-defense. I suppose it depends on what flavor of defense of the second amendment you favor, but it seems like self-defense can be associated with incapacitation,  need not necessarily depend on the capability of killing.<p>If that&#x27;s true, access to weapons for the purpose of self-defense that aren&#x27;t capable of killing would seem to open up a lot of possibilities for regulating traditional firearms. If (I said if!) there are equally effective alternatives for the purpose of self-defense, then that constitutional right can be satisfied without the need for traditional firearms that are capable of killing.<p>Insofar as they can replace traditional firearms, I find that promising, but obviously this brings a fair amount of unintended complexity; for instance non-lethal self defense may open up entirely new dimensions of cruel maiming and non-lethal suffering, it&#x27;s may create complexities relating to whether something&#x27;s actually non-lethal, it may have an effect of increasing the sum total of use of force by introducing non-lethal force into lower and lower stakes situations leading to a net increase of physical coercion, and there may be cultural resistance to the idea ever becoming mainstream because it would be too reformist and therefore liberal.<p>I think these all have to be navigated, but I think the trade-off is worth considering. I also think that strong gun regulation is worth considering, and personally just don&#x27;t endorse wide distribution of guns in any form whatsoever, so I consider this a workaround peculiar to the culture of America.