In a message dated 10/2/1999 10:47:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
<< The problem with the shotgun blast idea is that the spreading phenomenon. Round lead shot does spread, but not by much because of its ballistic stability and simple aerodynamics. Needles, on the other hand, would generate much more drag (more surface area to a given mass) than can be overcome by inertia, and there will be more chaotic turbulence, causing much greater spreading. It might even be so bad that the shooter might hit himself with one or two needles looping around.>>
Good point. How about either two stage ammo or sabots? Either we could fire a large, aerodynamic round with a proximity detector built in that will release a grouping of needles just before impact, or we could have it fire as a sort of shotgun effect except with the needles contained in tiny aerodynamic sabots that would be shed on impact (maybe pancaking?), allowing the needles to enter. This kind of ammo might actually be designed to provide a slight kinetic kick to throw your attacker off balance, giving the drug in the needles time to take effect.
A future strategy that is worth investigating. It makes me think again of the idea of increased invulnerability. Ideally what we want is a world where it is so hard to harm each other as to make it impractical to use force against one another (as I have often found, you get similar results by going to opposites extremes....if you have mutually assured destruction violence is less likely <though accidents moreso> and if you have mutually assured invulnerability violence is less likely). The problem with universal invulnerability is that it has always been easier to destroy than preserve (that's entropy for you), so to make invulnerability a reality would take devotion of a great deal of resources and it would always have to be on the bleeding edge of innovation. As I was taught, in a fight, the easiest thing to do is kill, the next easiest is to maim, but the hardest is to immobilize without harm.
Thanks for the input, Mike.