Should we be developing nonlethal means of self-defense? (was

Delvieron@aol.com
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 21:14:21 EDT

Ah, the old firearms debate!

On the one side we have the right to bear arms, in other words the empowerment of the individual to protect their person, property, and freedom. On the other side we have gun control, with concerns about the loss of life due to guns, both threw accident and criminal activity. Legitimate concerns on both sides, I think; something often lost in the passionate heat of debate.

When discussing this issue in the past, I have fallen on the side of gun ownership with a strong caveat that this requires responsibility on the part of the gun owner. When it is pointed out by gun control advocates that guns are dangerous, my answer has been that they are intended to be. The point I make is this; that when someone threatens you or another with grievious bodily harm, there can be no room for error. You need the most effective means of defense possible, which at this time means a large calibre firearm. And you can not rely on law enforcement to protect you; in a free society police really are mostly limited to reaction, and thus when violence is threatened, it is up to people of good conscience on the scene to protect the innocent. This is why I have supported the right of people to carry firearms on their person and to keep firearms in their home.

Now then, lately I've been trying to reanalyze the gun issue in transhumanist terms. It seems to me that the transhumanist ideal would be to limit morbidity and mortality while preserving our protection from coercion, and that technology is likely to provide the best solution. In short, I suggest we need to develop a nonlethal means of stopping an aggressor which is as effective or more so than current firearms technology. What qualities would such weapons require?

  1. Range - We need at least one nonlethal weapon which can be effective at ranges rivaling those of firearms (handguns at the very least). If at all possible, you want to incapacitate an attacker before they can close into melee range. On the other hand, we would also like a nonlethal option for when an attacker has been able to reach melee range (martial arts training would help, but where the attacker greatly outmasses the defender, and/or has training as well, this is not always effective).
  2. Reliability - We need a weapon that can be trusted when needed, often times after long periods of disuse. It needs to work effectively with almost every use. This is related to point three.
  3. Simplicity - A weapon for defense of the general population needs to be simple to use. The more complicated the operation of the weapon, the more likely user error will occur in the heat of battle. Also, simple weapons tend to be reliable weapons.
  4. Stopping power - This is one of the most vital qualifications. The non lethal weapon needs to be able to stop any target a modern firearm could (and preferably better at it), and to be able to do so as quickly. We should not expect anyone to trade in a proven effective weapon for one of inferior ability, not when so much is on the line. Preferably, we want a weapon that only needs to hit approximately center of mass, can usually immobilize with one application, and completely incapacitates the aggressor. Also, the weapon needs to be able to penetrate some degree of obstacles (be effective through clothes, for example).
  5. Speed & Reusability - The weapon should be able to be brought into use rapidly, and be able to be reused several times in rapid succession in case the aggressor is missed the first time, is not completely incapacitated with one strike, or there are multiple aggressors.
  6. Accuracy - We want a weapon that can hit the target most of the time. This should be obvious. Precision would also be nice, but is slightly less important in a truly nonlethal weapon (indeed, the need for precision is inversely proportional to point 7).
  7. Safety & Reversibility - Nothing I know of is perfectly safe, but the ideal here is to make the weapon as safe as possible. This is especially important to prevent accidental harm. Likely we want a weapon which with time is completely reversible, and has low morbidity and mortality (it can be unpleasant though<g>). Ideally, the effect of the nonlethal weapon would not be mass dependent (we don't want a weapon that a big enough attacker can shrug off and/or that is dangerous to small children).
  8. Duration - Our nonlethal weapon's effects need to reliably last long enough for more permanent arrangements to be made to neutralize an aggressor.
  9. Portability - Our nonlethal weapon needs to be able to be light and compact enough for most of the population to easily carry on their person.

These are the main attributes I can think of that would be desirable in a nonlethal weapon. There have been attempts in the past to produce such weapons in the past, but so far I know of none that is really satisfactory when compared to a firearm. Tasers, mace, hardening foam, dart guns (for administration of hypnotics and/or paralytic agents), all have their foibles (as I am sure many in this list can point out). 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?

Glen Finney