Re: Should we be developing nonlethal means of self-defense?

Delvieron@aol.com
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 04:15:57 EDT

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?

>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. 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.

>Any chemical solution will degrade with time. Any electrical charge will
>dissipate over time. We've had this discussion before as well. My
>conclusion was that any shock that you could deliver to a 300 lb.
>linebacker enough to knock him out would likely kill a 90 lb. kid or
>woman. being able to vary the shock at the point of impact by active
>measures on the projectile is very expensive and prone to unreliability
>(remember how many years it took to make AA missiles accurate).

True, any chemical solution will degrade and electric charge dissipate, but the question is how long? I was checking out one weapon on the web that used a lithium battery they claimed would hold its charge for 10 years, which if true I would find a reasonable amount of time. As far as shock goes in stun type weapons, I think the problem will more likely be that of needing differring strengths for different ranges as opposed to body mass.

>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.

>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?

Thanks for the response.

Glen Finney