From: Delvieron@aol.com
Date: Tue Sep 28 1999 - 19:14:21 MDT
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:19 MST