> So here is the challenge:
> Can anyone think of a nonlethal form of weapon which might meet these
> qualifications, either currently in existence or which could be developed?
Ok, how about:
--the "laser taser" that has been discussed earlier is a prime candidate, assuming that it works. That would be a really nice all-round weapon.
--a combo weapon that consists of a stun gun (say 500,000 volt), a
pepper spray/mace mix and a "Phaser Pain Generator "
(see: http://www.espionage-store.com/covert3.html)
Certainly not ideal, but it could still help a lot in all sorts of
scenarios
where the attacker(s) only has/have short-range weapons like knives,
pipes, broken bottles etc., or is/are unarmed. Great against potential
rapists, for example. The Scorpion 200 is a step in the right
direction (but it's still fairly clumsy), see:
http://www.fly.cz/fscorpion.htm
--a dart gun with a (revolving?) magazine and variable gas pressure so that you can adjust the projectile's velocity according to the approx. distance of the target, if you have the time. Perhaps the projectile itself could be made so that only the needle can penetrate (the pellet's main body could flatten itself on impact, for example, thus forming a plug). The key issue is obviously the toxin; it has to incapacitate the attacker very quickly but be fairly safe at the same time, even if you hit someone with multiple darts. If this is feasible, then the dart gun could become quite a "hit".
--weapons that fire regular ammunition and have an integrated (laser) taser or dart gun. Perhaps the most viable option for cops etc. (the movie "Freejack" featured such guns, if I remember correctly).
(none of these could be called "ideal" -- Star Trek phasers are more or less ideal -- but they'd still be a significant improvement, and that's what counts). Check out http://www.familydefense.com/ btw, they've got lots of nonlethals & related stuff.
So, should we be developing nonlethal means of self-defense? Yes, of course we should! It would be a great way to make an extropic buck. I'd start a company right away if I had the necessary funding/expertise.
> retroman wrote:
> An inhaled anesthetic (or one that could be absorbed) would be a good
> candidate, but I can't think of any off the top of my head that would be that
> effective without risking lethal respiratory depression. Can anyone else?
>
> >My caveat against this technology is that it
> >will make kidnapping and rape crimes that will be much safer for the
> >assailant to commit with such weapons.
I beg to differ; mace, stun guns and air tasers are also great (potential) tools for rapists and kidnappers, yet in reality they're seldom used for criminal purposes.
> >It will be more difficult to
> >convict if the victim has not been physically harmed at all, so we would
> >either have to a) be much more prepared to be victims, and b) much more
> >prepared to convict someone on a lower threshold
You obviously need a new justice system (juries, go home!) and widespread camera/audio surveillance (private and/or state-controlled).
> >Any chemical solution will degrade with time.
Yes, but this could take years (it does with most types of mace/ pepper spray for example).
> >Any electrical charge will
> >dissipate over time.
A good battery (like the Duracell 9v alkaline that's often used for stun guns) will last for at least a year.
> >We've had this discussion before as well. My
> >conclusion was that any shock that you could deliver to a 300 lb.
> >linebacker enough to knock him out would likely kill a 90 lb. kid or
> >woman.
So I ask you again: what is the chance that you'll be attacked by kids & women (someone even mentioned grandmothers!??) wielding lethal weapons. Btw, when you're using a stun gun, you have a fair amount of control over the shock you're administering; approx 1sec blasts for "light" attackers and 5 secs or more for "tough guys". "Death by stun gun" is very rare indeed.