> 1. It appears that a non-offensive type of self-defense
> devise is desireable. Some type of armor perhaps?
> Or perhaps just non-lethal....the classic SF "stunner".
To fantasize a little bit... A personal armor, one that could be used on a
regular basis, would be wonderful. Imagine something that would protect the
wearer against anything from bullets to biohazards.
It would probably turn out that such an "armor" is at this point unfeasible
as an armor, but could perhaps be implemented as a system - a system of
'secure' buildings, hallways, streets, with secured entry and exit points
and all sorts of detectors. This is probably workable, although expensive.
Given the current probabilities of dying from a bullet in any given year
(1:~40000 US, 1:~100000 Europe), not many people would probably be
interested enough to warrant building such a system.
One day, in a thousand years, we might find that the only way to live
properly is to enclose oneself in a robotic outfit some 3 meters tall and 3
meters in diameter, with the robot's external sensors attached directly to
one's spinal cord. No need to move the body - move the robot. Thus, you are
protected against virtually anything modulo an atomic bomb.
Don't see it happening anytime soon, though...
> 2. It also appears that there is a significant interest
> in PREVENTING the average person from having any means
> of self defense. Similar, as it were, of predators
> dislikeing the concept of their prey having such a mechanism?
I think you're stretching it a bit. Speaking for myself, I would be very
interested in ENABLING the average person to any kind of self-defense that
is not likely to be used for aggressive purposes. But firearms aren't a
defense mechanism, they're an attack weapon.
No conspiracy theory here, at least not as far as I'm concerned.
Regards,
denis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:21 MDT