Delvieron@aol.com wrote:
>
> retroman wrote:
>
> >While I share your ideal, I have the caveat that an enemy you don't
> >kill, is still alive to come at you (or someone else) again. Considering
> >that most crime is committed by repeat offenders, I think this argument
> >needs weight here. I just don't care about the life of someone who
> >values my life so little as to attack me, so my transhumanist ideals do
> >not factor in...
>
> I see your point, but I think that overall there is no problem with
> using an effective nonlethal weapon on an enemy you may wish dead for
> several reasons. The purpose of a nonlethal weapon would be to incapacitate
> an attacker. Once incapacitated, further measures could be taken, up o and
> including execution if that were necessary. The good thing about using a
> ranged nonlethal weapon would be that it would allow you to incapacitate your
> attacker, but gives some leeway for mistakes (for example, missing and
> hitting an innocent bystander, a case of mistaken identity and/or
> misidentification of intention). I would suggest that this would be in all
> of our best interests as Transhumanists as it could be you or me who were
> that bystander or misidentified assailant. Friendly fire is a real danger,
> and I think it worthwhile to postpone execution of an enemy to avoid such
> tragedies.
>
> >My personal ideal is some sort of accurate squirt gun that fires a
> >liquid that evaporates (to be breathed in) or soaks through the skin, to
> >put an assailant to sleep.
>
> 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?
>
I know. The evidence from the Waco incident show how difficult it is to control the dosage a target receives. The CS gas (a chemical weapon banned under international treaty for use in warfare, but quite legal for a government to use against its own people under that same treaty for police purposes (i.e. we aren't that much better than Saddam in this situation)) that was used in those projectiles was meant to be used in open air situations. In the closed, indoor situation they were used in, they quickly overdosed the targets to lethal levels.
> >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. 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 of evidence.
>
> Yes, it would make abductions somewhat more easy; but they're already
> pretty easy for those who would do so (rohypnol comes to mind), but I think
> it is a downside that might be worth accepting.
I always find it sadly humorous when people who were once quite liberal, anti-war, anti-establishment, start talking about acceptable losses with other people's rights and lives.
> As for it making crimes more
> difficult to convict if the victim is not physically harmed....although I too
> am frustrated by how hard it is to convict rapists, I would never wish more
> harm on their victims. Another option would be to include in our list of
> qualifications for a nonlethal weapon some sort of flashy effect, like a
> large flash of light or loud sound, so the weapon could not be used in a
> stealthy manner, but I think this requirement is likely unrealistic.
The hand grenades known as 'flash-bang' grenades are not lethal under most circumstances (though I imagine that if you stick it in someone's mouth that would not be the case) but are quite effective in stunning/incapacitating most people, will rupture the eardrims of those closest, and basically enable a rather small person to dominate a oversized opponnent who has been stunned by such devices.
While I share your sentiment with regards to reducing harm to victims, the danger is that reducing harm also reduces evidence. While use of DNA evidence might counteract this, it is still highly suspect by most typical jurors (i.e. those too dumb to find an excuse to get out of jury duty). Reducing evidence in real crimes makes it either extremely hard to convict, or you must lower the burden ov evidence to the point that many innocent persons will go to jail based on false or incomplete cases.
>
> >No, well built weapons with wide design tolerances are reliable weapons.
>
> Point taken, but I think it might be easier to achieve wide design
> tolerances in simpler weapons.
I have found that the simpler a weapon is, the greater skill on the part of the user is required to use it reliably in an effective manner.
>
> >yes, a smart projectile, variable in impact based on body mass of
> >target.
>
> Could you elaborate on this idea; how would the impact be controlled?
The projectile, or the device (projector) must have some ability to sense the IR cross section of the target, and use ultrasonic or laser beam to sense the range, and vary the energy imparted. Ruby diode lasers are small enough that they are already being built into a normal pistol's grip, I would expect miniaturizing a receiver sensor would be of similar difficulty. IR sensors though that can measure cross section (i.e size) would be more difficult and problematic.
The only other possibility I see is to forcibly embed ID chips in people that have a transponder that transmits body mass, ID, and legal status information. Of course this is highly problematic from a civil rights perspective, so much so that I would be highly opposed to such schemes.
I've also envisioned bullet that would be rubber coated, with a very soft core of lead or other dense but soft material (to maintain momentum). Using high twist rates on the barrel rifling or other means of imparting high spin rates, such bullets would flatten out from centripetal force within 10-30 yards, and strike the target as a large flat object, like a big slap. Such an impact would not break the skin but would be significant enough to stun an attacker as much as a punch from mike tyson.
Mike Lorrey