The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Ramifications of a true non-lethal stun technology

electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
edited March 2015 in Debate and/or Discourse
A very common conceit in modern science fiction is the development of some type of truly non-lethal technology which renders people unconscious. For TV this keeps your rating adequately in check.

But what if we had this in real world? Current real-world stun technology is definitely not non-lethal. It's "less then lethal" and it usually doesn't reliably cause unconsciousness - because if it does, it usually has graduated to "lethal" or at least severely dangerous.

But what if we had this? For arguments sake let's say an electromagnetic device is developed which can be remotely projected at a human being, and immediately and painlessly causes a natural state of unconsciousness, similar to falling asleep.

What would be the ramifications of this on a social level? While such a thing would not be absolutely "non-lethal" (falling and hitting your head could easily kill you), it seems to me that such a development would fairly fundamentally change the nature and perception of police and government actions (not to mention have some pretty important gun control implications).

electricitylikesme on
«13

Posts

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User, Moderator, Administrator admin
    But what if we had this in real world? Current real-world stun technology is definitely not non-lethal. It's "less then lethal" and it usually doesn't reliably cause consciousness - because if it does, it usually has graduated to "lethal" or at least severely dangerous.
    You mean unconsciousness? Because I was flashing a mental image of using a cattleprod to wake someone up...

    8i1dt37buh2m.png
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Really depends on the range. A foolproof stun with the range of, say, half a football pitch would practically negate the need for police guns. A melee stun weapon would still be a useful tool, but range is always a factor too.

  • davidsdurionsdavidsdurions Your Trusty Meatshield Panhandle NebraskaRegistered User regular
    But then the bad guys get it and render all the police unconscious while they go about their illegal activity of choice.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    My first two thoughts:
    1) Police would get alot more trigger happy
    2) Holy shit crime wave (rapes and robberies become trivially easy)

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    But what if we had this? For arguments sake let's say an electromagnetic device is developed which can be remotely projected at a human being, and immediately and painlessly causes a natural state of unconsciousness, similar to falling asleep.

    What would be the ramifications of this on a social level?

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K5rhTuHm2SA

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    My first two thoughts:
    1) Police would get alot more trigger happy
    2) Holy shit crime wave (rapes and robberies become trivially easy)

    This.

    Police abuse would draw significantly less outrage. Its hard to get mad over a Rodney King or Oscar Grant or Michael Brown when the victim was merely stunned. This would also lead to communities were street protest is pointless. Police would just zap them all, citing 'noise complaints' or something similarly trivial.

    I think the combination of that with easier rapes and robberies would lead to a conservative shift in public opinion.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    I wonder what the military and medical applications of that tech would be.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    I wonder what the military and medical applications of that tech would be.

    Medical would be positive - painless surgery without the dangers of anesthesia. Military/Police would use it to make pacification of local populaces easier at home and abroad.

  • This content has been removed.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    I wonder what the military and medical applications of that tech would be.

    Medical would be positive - painless surgery without the dangers of anesthesia. Military/Police would use it to make pacification of local populaces easier at home and abroad.

    Indeed, purely brain-based unconsciousness would be a huge deal for medicine.

    Military is more along the lines of the dangers I'm thinking of: you'd basically weaponize the capability into an AWACS-type craft that would put whole towns to sleep I suspect. Even if you needed to target people accurately, we have drones and IR imaging which could do that.

    That's along the lines I'm thinking of here: certain classes of stun weaponry we might develop aren't just "tazer plus" - they feel more like they'd be a fairly fundamental reshaping of power relations in the modern world.

    Man, you would practically eliminate the need for drone-strike style attacks.

    Just fly a drone in, put the whole area to sleep then sneak in an extraction team to grab the people you are after.

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    police abuse would draw less outrage, but it would also be less... outrageous?

    I mean part of the current problem with police abuse is that it results in somebody getting killed or seriously injured. Trigger happy police armed with hypothetically-totally-safe-incapacitation-beams would still be a problem, but significantly less of a problem than those same police armed with guns, rubber bullets or even tasers. If rodney king had simply 'stunned' and then arrested there would likely never have been a controversy at all. Do we consider that a bad outcome?

    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    I actually wonder if police abuse would appreciably rise. Most of the problems with tasers is that a lot of police actually use it as if it was already the magical technology the OP posits.

    The potential rise in street crime would probably depend on how the tech was regulated and distributed. If it was illegal to own one and extremely expensive to acquire, that would cut down on their use by most of the public. Obviously criminals would still get them - especially organized crime - but muggers and rapists would probably continue to rely on threat of violence and actual violence to get what they want.

    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I actually wonder if police abuse would appreciably rise. Most of the problems with tasers is that a lot of police actually use it as if it was already the magical technology the OP posits.

    The potential rise in street crime would probably depend on how the tech was regulated and distributed. If it was illegal to own one and extremely expensive to acquire, that would cut down on their use by most of the public. Obviously criminals would still get them - especially organized crime - but muggers and rapists would probably continue to rely on threat of violence and actual violence to get what they want.

    I think it would lower the barrier for entry though. When you don't have to resort to physical violence, mugging becomes alot easier to imagine doing.

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    A society where the elite could put entire towns to sleep if they caused too much trouble would quickly turn into a dystopia. No reason to listen to the populace if you can pacify them without getting your hands bloody. It's a recipe for a a fluffy slipper stamping on a human face forever.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    You'd fall and hit your head and get an epidural hematoma and die

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    You'd fall and hit your head and get an epidural hematoma and die

    That was my other thought.

    People who spontaneously fall unconscious can really hurt themselves.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    I was playing arkham city and

    Batman has probably killed thousands of people

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • This content has been removed.

  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited March 2015
    A society where the elite could put entire towns to sleep if they caused too much trouble would quickly turn into a dystopia. No reason to listen to the populace if you can pacify them without getting your hands bloody. It's a recipe for a a fluffy slipper stamping on a human face forever.

    I think a society would have to be pretty fucked where towns being put to sleep would tolerate such a thing.

    redx on
    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    A society where the elite could put entire towns to sleep if they caused too much trouble would quickly turn into a dystopia. No reason to listen to the populace if you can pacify them without getting your hands bloody. It's a recipe for a a fluffy slipper stamping on a human face forever.

    So... what happens when they wake up and are even more pissed?

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • This content has been removed.

  • This content has been removed.

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited March 2015
    redx wrote: »
    A society where the elite could put entire towns to sleep if they caused too much trouble would quickly turn into a dystopia. No reason to listen to the populace if you can pacify them without getting your hands bloody. It's a recipe for a a fluffy slipper stamping on a human face forever.

    I think a society would have to be pretty fucked where towns being put to sleep would tolerate such a thing.

    That's the problem. If you can pacify entire towns from the air, who cares what the residents will put up with? If it gets bad enough, you just send it troops to bundle off the sleeping troublemakers. Do it enough and the residents will get the message.

    History is basically the story of rulers bashing the heads of "the people" until they give up. Consent doesn't matter that much when 100 armored knights on horse can put down an entire town with no casualties. There's a reason the human condition didn't improve until firearm-based tech got cheap and ubiquitous enough that rebel armies could go toe-to-toe with the forces of the King.

    Phillishere on
  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products, Transition Team regular
    For this not to kill tons of people there would need to be a 5-10 second period of awareness that it was happening so that you stagger and fall to the floor in a semi-controlled fashion and not just "lights out"

    Cause "lights out" over a town means a shitload of road fatalities, people falling onto their (currently hot) stoves, cracked skulls, dropped infants... All sorts of nightmare scenarios.

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Just put em to sleep forever and have them born and grown in sleep and give them a realistic grindy video game to play when they're asleep if you feel so bad for them

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Uh, there is a -lot- of kneejerk reaction going on here.

    Like I understand some of it.

    But some of it is a little zonkers.

    We're talking about a futuristic technology that could probably be traced via futuristic forensic technology and probably wouldn't enter the wide market up until that point. There is no reason to think that it couldn't, because this device wouldn't function like magic and would have properties intrinsic to its effect that could most certainly be traced back to an individual device.

    We also jumped from an effect on a single human to an effect on an entire town. But we have no data on just how long these people would remain unconscious (younger probably recovers faster). Putting an entire town to sleep would require either multiple air craft (which would probably show up on radar) or a wide range shot that you couldn't be sure could get everyone. Would it be able to shoot through stone walls? Would metal interfere? What if someone has had brain surgery and the part of their brain that this device acts on was surgically removed?

    Some of these "oh shit" scenarios some of you are postulating are just as silly as the "oh shit" scenarios that people like Stephen Hawking or Bill Gates are putting forth about artificial intelligence.

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    police abuse would draw less outrage, but it would also be less... outrageous?

    I mean part of the current problem with police abuse is that it results in somebody getting killed or seriously injured. Trigger happy police armed with hypothetically-totally-safe-incapacitation-beams would still be a problem, but significantly less of a problem than those same police armed with guns, rubber bullets or even tasers. If rodney king had simply 'stunned' and then arrested there would likely never have been a controversy at all. Do we consider that a bad outcome?

    Yes, somebody getting jailed for no good reason is less outrageous than somebody getting shot for no good reason, and I would rather have the former than the latter.

    However, somebody getting jailed for no good reason doesn't make the news, it doesn't drive public debate. People don't seem to care much about injustices until those injustices become horrific, so dialing back the repercussions of police corruption from "horror" to "merely shitty" is a really good thing for corrupt police.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • davidsdurionsdavidsdurions Your Trusty Meatshield Panhandle NebraskaRegistered User regular
    The OP asks what would the effect on society by if there was such a device that could render a human unconscious without injury (ignoring falling damage). The effect would be that the "oh shit" scenarios are suddenly possible and something to be concerned about. If we want to imagine a society that has the technology but doesn't use it, then you have to find a way for our current society to get to that point where they wouldn't use it. We currently do not have that society. We have a society that uses all the technology as soon as possible. Stun guns are real. Phasers set to stun are not. But if they were, they'd get used. And they'd be used by those in power, either the legal power or the illegal version. Both are frightening.

  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    So, what? The invention of a true blue stun gun results in either one of two possible scenarios? Either 100% abuse by the government and people in power or a significant increase in crime.

    That's a rather narrow set of outcomes for such an invention.

    In this case what's the difference between someone holding a gun at you and then mugging you or someone using a phaser set to stun, stunning you, and then mugging you?

    In both cases you still get mugged, in both cases the chances are you will never get back what was taken from you.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    So, what? The invention of a true blue stun gun results in either one of two possible scenarios? Either 100% abuse by the government and people in power or a significant increase in crime.

    That's a rather narrow set of outcomes for such an invention.

    In this case what's the difference between someone holding a gun at you and then mugging you or someone using a phaser set to stun, stunning you, and then mugging you?

    In both cases you still get mugged, in both cases the chances are you will never get back what was taken from you.

    It's a hell of alot easier with a stun gun, way less likely to get caught or for something to go wrong and it significantly lowers the psychological barriers to committing a violent crime.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    So, what? The invention of a true blue stun gun results in either one of two possible scenarios? Either 100% abuse by the government and people in power or a significant increase in crime.

    That's a rather narrow set of outcomes for such an invention.

    In this case what's the difference between someone holding a gun at you and then mugging you or someone using a phaser set to stun, stunning you, and then mugging you?

    In both cases you still get mugged, in both cases the chances are you will never get back what was taken from you.

    It's a hell of alot easier with a stun gun, way less likely to get caught or for something to go wrong and it significantly lowers the psychological barriers to committing a violent crime.

    I dunno, tranquilizer guns fit that bill and we didn't go too crazy over them

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    Trace wrote: »
    So, what? The invention of a true blue stun gun results in either one of two possible scenarios? Either 100% abuse by the government and people in power or a significant increase in crime.

    That's a rather narrow set of outcomes for such an invention.

    In this case what's the difference between someone holding a gun at you and then mugging you or someone using a phaser set to stun, stunning you, and then mugging you?

    In both cases you still get mugged, in both cases the chances are you will never get back what was taken from you.

    I suspect there is a non-negligible number of people who are okay with stealing, but not okay with murder, and would happily accept an opportunity to steal something without seriously injuring the victim.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    So, what? The invention of a true blue stun gun results in either one of two possible scenarios? Either 100% abuse by the government and people in power or a significant increase in crime.

    That's a rather narrow set of outcomes for such an invention.

    In this case what's the difference between someone holding a gun at you and then mugging you or someone using a phaser set to stun, stunning you, and then mugging you?

    In both cases you still get mugged, in both cases the chances are you will never get back what was taken from you.

    It's a hell of alot easier with a stun gun, way less likely to get caught or for something to go wrong and it significantly lowers the psychological barriers to committing a violent crime.

    I dunno, tranquilizer guns fit that bill and we didn't go too crazy over them

    I don't think they do at all.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    So, what? The invention of a true blue stun gun results in either one of two possible scenarios? Either 100% abuse by the government and people in power or a significant increase in crime.

    That's a rather narrow set of outcomes for such an invention.

    In this case what's the difference between someone holding a gun at you and then mugging you or someone using a phaser set to stun, stunning you, and then mugging you?

    In both cases you still get mugged, in both cases the chances are you will never get back what was taken from you.

    It's a hell of alot easier with a stun gun, way less likely to get caught or for something to go wrong and it significantly lowers the psychological barriers to committing a violent crime.

    I dunno, tranquilizer guns fit that bill and we didn't go too crazy over them

    I don't think they do at all.

    why not

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited March 2015
    Paladin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    So, what? The invention of a true blue stun gun results in either one of two possible scenarios? Either 100% abuse by the government and people in power or a significant increase in crime.

    That's a rather narrow set of outcomes for such an invention.

    In this case what's the difference between someone holding a gun at you and then mugging you or someone using a phaser set to stun, stunning you, and then mugging you?

    In both cases you still get mugged, in both cases the chances are you will never get back what was taken from you.

    It's a hell of alot easier with a stun gun, way less likely to get caught or for something to go wrong and it significantly lowers the psychological barriers to committing a violent crime.

    I dunno, tranquilizer guns fit that bill and we didn't go too crazy over them

    I don't think they do at all.

    why not

    The drugs in them are powerful and have a scary high chance of death. There's a reason why you only see them used on animals.

    Chemical anesthesia in general is a very dangerous business. There's a reason anesthesiologists are some of the highest paid professionals in medicine.

    Phillishere on
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    So, what? The invention of a true blue stun gun results in either one of two possible scenarios? Either 100% abuse by the government and people in power or a significant increase in crime.

    That's a rather narrow set of outcomes for such an invention.

    In this case what's the difference between someone holding a gun at you and then mugging you or someone using a phaser set to stun, stunning you, and then mugging you?

    In both cases you still get mugged, in both cases the chances are you will never get back what was taken from you.

    It's a hell of alot easier with a stun gun, way less likely to get caught or for something to go wrong and it significantly lowers the psychological barriers to committing a violent crime.

    I dunno, tranquilizer guns fit that bill and we didn't go too crazy over them

    I don't think they do at all.

    why not

    The drugs used in them are powerful and have a scary high chance of death. There's a reason why you only see them used on animals.

    Chemical anesthesia in general is a very dangerous business. There's a reason anesthesiologists are some of the highest paid professionals in medicine.

    Any non-magical stun technology will have a high chance of death

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    So, what? The invention of a true blue stun gun results in either one of two possible scenarios? Either 100% abuse by the government and people in power or a significant increase in crime.

    That's a rather narrow set of outcomes for such an invention.

    In this case what's the difference between someone holding a gun at you and then mugging you or someone using a phaser set to stun, stunning you, and then mugging you?

    In both cases you still get mugged, in both cases the chances are you will never get back what was taken from you.

    It's a hell of alot easier with a stun gun, way less likely to get caught or for something to go wrong and it significantly lowers the psychological barriers to committing a violent crime.

    I dunno, tranquilizer guns fit that bill and we didn't go too crazy over them

    I don't think they do at all.

    why not

    The drugs in them are powerful and have a scary high chance of death. There's a reason why you only see them used on animals.

    Chemical anesthesia in general is a very dangerous business. There's a reason anesthesiologists are some of the highest paid professionals in medicine.

    And they take several seconds, which is enough time for a human with a gun to shoot you with a real bullet.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    So, what? The invention of a true blue stun gun results in either one of two possible scenarios? Either 100% abuse by the government and people in power or a significant increase in crime.

    That's a rather narrow set of outcomes for such an invention.

    In this case what's the difference between someone holding a gun at you and then mugging you or someone using a phaser set to stun, stunning you, and then mugging you?

    In both cases you still get mugged, in both cases the chances are you will never get back what was taken from you.

    It's a hell of alot easier with a stun gun, way less likely to get caught or for something to go wrong and it significantly lowers the psychological barriers to committing a violent crime.

    I dunno, tranquilizer guns fit that bill and we didn't go too crazy over them

    I don't think they do at all.

    why not

    The drugs in them are powerful and have a scary high chance of death. There's a reason why you only see them used on animals.

    Chemical anesthesia in general is a very dangerous business. There's a reason anesthesiologists are some of the highest paid professionals in medicine.

    And they take several seconds, which is enough time for a human with a gun to shoot you with a real bullet.

    What if he misses with the stun gun?

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    So, what? The invention of a true blue stun gun results in either one of two possible scenarios? Either 100% abuse by the government and people in power or a significant increase in crime.

    That's a rather narrow set of outcomes for such an invention.

    In this case what's the difference between someone holding a gun at you and then mugging you or someone using a phaser set to stun, stunning you, and then mugging you?

    In both cases you still get mugged, in both cases the chances are you will never get back what was taken from you.

    It's a hell of alot easier with a stun gun, way less likely to get caught or for something to go wrong and it significantly lowers the psychological barriers to committing a violent crime.

    I dunno, tranquilizer guns fit that bill and we didn't go too crazy over them

    I don't think they do at all.

    why not

    The drugs in them are powerful and have a scary high chance of death. There's a reason why you only see them used on animals.

    Chemical anesthesia in general is a very dangerous business. There's a reason anesthesiologists are some of the highest paid professionals in medicine.

    And they take several seconds, which is enough time for a human with a gun to shoot you with a real bullet.

    Shoot em with a taser first then. Blammo, combo stungun, the future is here

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Trace wrote: »
    So, what? The invention of a true blue stun gun results in either one of two possible scenarios? Either 100% abuse by the government and people in power or a significant increase in crime.

    That's a rather narrow set of outcomes for such an invention.

    In this case what's the difference between someone holding a gun at you and then mugging you or someone using a phaser set to stun, stunning you, and then mugging you?

    In both cases you still get mugged, in both cases the chances are you will never get back what was taken from you.

    It's a hell of alot easier with a stun gun, way less likely to get caught or for something to go wrong and it significantly lowers the psychological barriers to committing a violent crime.

    I dunno, tranquilizer guns fit that bill and we didn't go too crazy over them

    I don't think they do at all.

    why not

    The drugs used in them are powerful and have a scary high chance of death. There's a reason why you only see them used on animals.

    Chemical anesthesia in general is a very dangerous business. There's a reason anesthesiologists are some of the highest paid professionals in medicine.

    Any non-magical stun technology will have a high chance of death

    Yes. The technology described is sufficiently advanced as to meet the description of magic.


    You can even use it against population centers without killing hundreds of people, but actually working against people in cars and buildings.

    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
Sign In or Register to comment.