Re: Non-lethal protective technologies?

den Otter (
Sun, 30 May 1999 18:47:13 +0200

> From: Sasha Chislenko <>

> So there should be a lot less reasons to object carrying a phaser
> stun than a conventional gun. Somehow I doubt that it would be
> permitted.

One would probably need a similar permit as for the air taser, and of course the countries that don't allow stun guns, like good ol' Holland and Britain, certainly wouldn't allow this thing -- the very idea that private citizens could effectively defend themselves gives those govs (and a good portion of the sheepish public) the shivers. But hey, screw 'em all!

> I'd be happy to carry one though, especially if it's
> small and not too expensive.

Yes, me too. Boyohboyohboy, just think of all the tactical (&fun) possibilities one would have with this gun. Due to the non-lethal option, lack of incriminating traces (spent casings, bullets etc.) and (afaik) the nice side-effect of some short-term memory loss in the victim, you can go and zap anyone who bothers you, and get away with it. And what to think of a new, ultra-realistic, "phaser game" to replace paint ball and those lame laser games?

Should somebody help him collect money
> for a prototype? sounds like a good investment.

A good investment indeed. It may not be the "ideal" weapon, but it's damn close. This should sell like crazy. Any ideas on how one, not having much money, could still get involved and profit from this development? If this isn't a golden opportunity, nothing is.