Re: Non-lethal protective technologies?

Michael S. Lorrey (
Tue, 01 Jun 1999 14:13:12 -0400

Sasha Chislenko wrote:

> 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. I'd be happy to carry one though, especially if it's
> small and not too expensive. Should somebody help him collect money
> for a prototype? sounds like a good investment.

The difficulty with non-lethal protective technologies, like stun guns, is the dosage. The voltage/amperage that it takes to immobilize the biggest person has a high risk of killing outright the smallest person. Defaulting your settings for the smallest person will merely piss off the big person who is likely to hurt you most.

A good non-lethal tech would have to be a smart dart that uses body capacitance to measure the mass of the offender it has been injected in, to dispense the correct dosage of whatever it is using to immobilize that individual.

Promoting such technolgies, IMHO, once they get into the hands of criminals (as they will, since they are non-lethal technologies, it should be easier for a person to get ahold of them), will cause the rates of robberies and rapes to skyrocket, since criminals will love these technologies. They get to commit their acts while not harming their victims, which shows how considerate they are, right, so they are likely to be sentenced to far shorter sentences if and when they are caught.

Mike Lorrey