From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@turbont.net)
Date: Thu Sep 30 1999 - 22:40:41 MDT
Delvieron@aol.com wrote:
>
> 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.
a) an armed law abiding civilian at a crime scene is five times less
likely to kill an innocent person than a cop at the same scene. While I
have heard of numerous occasions where a cop shoots or kills an innocent
at a crime scene, I personally have not heard of any civilian doing so.
b) considering the stats show that the Death Penalty, as a policy of
punishment under a judicial system, involving due process, right of
appeals, trial by jury, etc. has no impact on violent crime, while death
penalties meted out by law abiding individuals at the scene of a crime
do have a measurable impact, I would rather that we see more of the
latter and less of the former.
c) the stats also show that for every 1% of the law abiding population
that carries arms, there is a concurrent drop in crime of 2%. I have not
seen stats for those using non-violent means of defense, of course, but
I think we can assume that anyone NOT using a lethal means of defense is
obviously using a non-lethal means of defense, no matter what its
effectiveness.
>
> >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?
>
I know. The evidence from the Waco incident show how difficult it is to
control the dosage a target receives. The CS gas (a chemical weapon
banned under international treaty for use in warfare, but quite legal
for a government to use against its own people under that same treaty
for police purposes (i.e. we aren't that much better than Saddam in this
situation)) that was used in those projectiles was meant to be used in
open air situations. In the closed, indoor situation they were used in,
they quickly overdosed the targets to lethal levels.
> >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.
I always find it sadly humorous when people who were once quite liberal,
anti-war, anti-establishment, start talking about acceptable losses with
other people's rights and lives.
> 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.
The hand grenades known as 'flash-bang' grenades are not lethal under
most circumstances (though I imagine that if you stick it in someone's
mouth that would not be the case) but are quite effective in
stunning/incapacitating most people, will rupture the eardrims of those
closest, and basically enable a rather small person to dominate a
oversized opponnent who has been stunned by such devices.
While I share your sentiment with regards to reducing harm to victims,
the danger is that reducing harm also reduces evidence. While use of DNA
evidence might counteract this, it is still highly suspect by most
typical jurors (i.e. those too dumb to find an excuse to get out of jury
duty). Reducing evidence in real crimes makes it either extremely hard
to convict, or you must lower the burden ov evidence to the point that
many innocent persons will go to jail based on false or incomplete
cases.
>
> >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.
I have found that the simpler a weapon is, the greater skill on the part
of the user is required to use it reliably in an effective manner.
>
> >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?
The projectile, or the device (projector) must have some ability to
sense the IR cross section of the target, and use ultrasonic or laser
beam to sense the range, and vary the energy imparted. Ruby diode lasers
are small enough that they are already being built into a normal
pistol's grip, I would expect miniaturizing a receiver sensor would be
of similar difficulty. IR sensors though that can measure cross section
(i.e size) would be more difficult and problematic.
The only other possibility I see is to forcibly embed ID chips in people
that have a transponder that transmits body mass, ID, and legal status
information. Of course this is highly problematic from a civil rights
perspective, so much so that I would be highly opposed to such schemes.
I've also envisioned bullet that would be rubber coated, with a very
soft core of lead or other dense but soft material (to maintain
momentum). Using high twist rates on the barrel rifling or other means
of imparting high spin rates, such bullets would flatten out from
centripetal force within 10-30 yards, and strike the target as a large
flat object, like a big slap. Such an impact would not break the skin
but would be significant enough to stun an attacker as much as a punch
from mike tyson.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:21 MST