Re: WEAPONS: Non-lethal protective technologies?

Chuck Kuecker (
Fri, 04 Jun 1999 08:14:54 -0500

At 04:51 AM 6/4/99 -0700, Mark wrote:
>But in the real world, current non-lethal weapons really aren't very
>effective; much easier to rent or buy a gun and threaten someone with it
>than zap them. I thought we were talking about Trek-style phasers here,
>which knock people out for at least a few minutes?

My business partner likes to 'test' stun guns on himself at gun shows - especially when there's a big knot of people watching the seller's demonstration of inch long hot sparks. The biggest effect I have seen him register is that his smile sometimes gets a bit tighter.

I think these gadgets have more deterrent effect due to the noisy and flashy arcs than their actual effect - but then I have no personal experience of their effect, being morally opposed to receiving ANY electrical shocks I can't avoid...

The amount of power needed to get a real 'stun' might border on lethal levels. Pain might be a better deterrent than actual 'stun' - this can be obtained with current limited 400 Hz AC at less than 100 volts. This I know - having gotten afoul of aircraft AC power more than once.

Any electrical device of this nature carries with it the risk of death to some individuals, however. We are a long way from Star Trek yet.

Chuck Kuecker