Timeline for In Star Trek why is there a kill setting on phasers?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 3 at 22:13 | comment | added | lucasbachmann | To be fair - it takes way more technological effort to get a phaser to NOT kill. | |
| Jul 3 at 21:39 | comment | added | Andres F. | @TheFallen people can die in a scifi series without necessarily being murdered by other people, and it doesn't have to be boring. Think PvE as opposed to PvP ;) | |
| May 4, 2021 at 2:40 | answer | added | Anthony X | timeline score: 0 | |
| Sep 5, 2016 at 4:54 | comment | added | Nu'Daq | Once in a while they run afoul of something which stun just doesn't cut it. | |
| Dec 18, 2014 at 15:04 | answer | added | Xalorous | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 27, 2014 at 5:21 | history | edited | Shevliaskovic | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| May 27, 2014 at 3:01 | answer | added | FuzzyBoots | timeline score: 5 | |
| Oct 23, 2012 at 17:30 | vote | accept | Kevin Howell | ||
| Jul 14, 2012 at 2:18 | comment | added | The Fallen | @Chad Guess you have a point | |
| Jul 13, 2012 at 20:50 | comment | added | Chad | @SSumner - You mean like if you did not need to worry about that red shirt since he will return to life in the next episode? | |
| Jul 13, 2012 at 5:44 | comment | added | Michael | How many different wars was the federation involved in? Those wars would have been one sided if the Federation weapons could only stun the onslaught of approaching enemies | |
| Jul 13, 2012 at 1:35 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackSciFi/status/223591523063836672 | ||
| Jul 12, 2012 at 20:44 | history | edited | dlanod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 12 characters in body; edited title
|
| Jul 12, 2012 at 20:39 | comment | added | CamelBlues | If we're talking about TNG, I would classify the series as a neo-conservative imperialist utopia. In that context, it makes sense that the phasers can kill. | |
| Jul 12, 2012 at 20:36 | comment | added | Kevin Howell | @BBlake Yes there is a lot of violence throughout the different series but I meant the vision that Roddenberry described of the future is supposed to be violence free. | |
| Jul 12, 2012 at 18:52 | comment | added | BBlake | There is little to no violence inside the Federation? Were you watching the same Star Trek I was? I saw a great deal of violence within the Federation over the years on Star Trek. | |
| Jul 12, 2012 at 18:22 | comment | added | The Fallen | Just think of how boring a sci-fi series would be if nobody died | |
| Jul 12, 2012 at 16:39 | comment | added | Gorchestopher H | Wow, there are already 30million answers to this... I'll withhold answering, but the real answer to this question is that the "setting" designates the safety level. If a cop could set his gun to "punch" he would have far more freedom to use it, as there would be less danger involved. We know that the "kill" level is necessary to do some things (stun a behemoth for example), so giving it the designation "kill" alerts you to the level of caution you should be exercising. | |
| Jul 12, 2012 at 16:35 | comment | added | Gabe Willard | For when Captain Picard wants to pop back to Earth for some recreational hunting. | |
| Jul 12, 2012 at 16:10 | answer | added | Sponge Bob | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jul 12, 2012 at 16:10 | answer | added | K-H-W | timeline score: 49 | |
| Jul 12, 2012 at 16:09 | answer | added | Mario | timeline score: 43 | |
| Jul 12, 2012 at 16:09 | answer | added | NominSim | timeline score: 26 | |
| Jul 12, 2012 at 16:06 | answer | added | Andrew J. Brehm | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jul 12, 2012 at 15:50 | history | asked | Kevin Howell | CC BY-SA 3.0 |