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
the problem with tranq guns is that for hte most part you don't actually ever see Tranq guns used in reality the way we use them in fiction.
Because Tranquilizers aren't actually a one size fits all thing that just knock people out; either you get the dosage right or you risk either not doing a damn thing or seriously injuring someone
Just pour a bunch of fast hardening gelatin on the neighborhood; they won't starve because they can just eat their way out, and they can get oxygen from hardened air bubbles. When they start emerging from the top pour on another layer.
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.
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
Did you even read the OP?
+2
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
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
Did you even read the OP?
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).
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
Did you even read the OP?
Yeah. Instant paralysis can cause fatal injury. To me this is no different from injury directly caused by the mechanism itself.
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.
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
Did you even read the OP?
Yeah. Instant paralysis can cause fatal injury. To me this is no different from injury directly caused by the mechanism itself.
Are you being disingenuous, or is that seriously your threshold for high risk of death?
I mean, I wasn't clear but the real issue was if it would generate a huge crime spree due to capturing those characteristics of being surefire, nonlethal, and most importantly removing a block many desperate people would otherwise have. This last issue I have the biggest beef with since I think the population that would be conscientious enough to research the least lethal way to incapacitate someone would also be conscientious enough not to mug people - or if not, only a handful of those kinds of people would exist.
When people are sociopathic enough to mug somebody, they've already made that leap in not caring about the safety of their victim and are now later grappling with the issue of their own personal safety.
If I were to use the power of greyskull fiat, I would make a beam that encased the victim in a special foam, and I'd use a special solubilizing agent to get at their money. The foam would be noise dampening but air soluble. In about 5 minutes the foam would disintegrate. Kind of like if Spiderman turned to crime.
In developing this or any sort of stun weapon, there comes a point where people prone to committing crime with it will accept the early access version and not really care about upgrading. For muggers they're pretty much still using an early Fist or Bat alpha when we already have more advanced non-lethal technology available.
So yeah, no crime spree.
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.
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
Did you even read the OP?
Yeah. Instant paralysis can cause fatal injury. To me this is no different from injury directly caused by the mechanism itself.
Are you being disingenuous, or is that seriously your threshold for high risk of death?
For me, a high risk of death is like 5%. That's actually really high. Go any higher than that, and they had better be dying anyway
For the general population, though, you can do a bunch of absurdly fatal stuff and call it non-fatal.
Paladin on
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.
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
Did you even read the OP?
Yeah. Instant paralysis can cause fatal injury. To me this is no different from injury directly caused by the mechanism itself.
It's alot different in that it's far less likely to kill you.
You seem to have no grasped the question the OP is asking or the explanation on actually current anesthesiology given to you.
Nor apparently has Trace.
God knows why the two of you don't get it. Everyone else in the thread understood the topic.
It's a thought exercise. The world's militaries and polices are pouring billions into researching non-lethal technologies. The OP's simply asking what would it mean if they succeeded in inventing a really good one.
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
Did you even read the OP?
Yeah. Instant paralysis can cause fatal injury. To me this is no different from injury directly caused by the mechanism itself.
It's alot different in that it's far less likely to kill you.
You seem to have no grasped the question the OP is asking or the explanation on actually current anesthesiology given to you.
Nor apparently has Trace.
God knows why the two of you don't get it. Everyone else in the thread understood the topic.
You can't make inferences about the social impact of a stun gun without going into its mechanics. One part of this will be its development cycle. We are in the development process of making the concept of a stun gun in reality because we have several non-lethal weapons available. Mace, tasers, tranquilizer guns, blunt objects. All vary in mechanism, effectiveness, and safety.
They aren't perfect, but don't you suspect that currently existing technology would actually cause a fraction of this crime spree? Otherwise, on what precedent are you basing this hypothesis? Seems to me that the bar of perfection is actually pretty low for non-lethal crime.
And levy your criticism in such a manner that is actually productive.
Paladin on
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.
0
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
does the development of this technology supersede the development of recording technology? because catching abuses of power on video is quite the thing these days and I rather bet people would -still- get bent out of shape over it. And also security cameras catching criminals. Unless these things come with magical camera jamming technology too.
does the development of this technology supersede the development of recording technology? because catching abuses of power on video is quite the thing these days and I rather bet people would -still- get bent out of shape over it. And also security cameras catching criminals. Unless these things come with magical camera jamming technology too.
Maybe we should drop some more cellphone cameras on Ukraine? The millions of ones they have there right now don't seem to be stopping the Russians. It's like they don't even care about being caught abusing their power.
Could it be that consent isn't that big an issue once a government decides to go full bastard?
+1
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
does the development of this technology supersede the development of recording technology? because catching abuses of power on video is quite the thing these days and I rather bet people would -still- get bent out of shape over it. And also security cameras catching criminals. Unless these things come with magical camera jamming technology too.
Maybe we should drop some more cellphone cameras on Ukraine? The millions of ones they have there right now don't seem to be stopping the Russians. It's like they don't even care about being caught abusing their power.
Could it be that consent isn't that big an issue once a government decides to go full bastard?
hey that's a good one. Let's conflate war transgressions with a country armed with nuclear missles with possible futuristic stun technology.
edit: also have you taken a look at the Russian economy lately? not doing so hot.
does the development of this technology supersede the development of recording technology? because catching abuses of power on video is quite the thing these days and I rather bet people would -still- get bent out of shape over it. And also security cameras catching criminals. Unless these things come with magical camera jamming technology too.
Maybe we should drop some more cellphone cameras on Ukraine? The millions of ones they have there right now don't seem to be stopping the Russians. It's like they don't even care about being caught abusing their power.
Could it be that consent isn't that big an issue once a government decides to go full bastard?
hey that's a good one. Let's conflate war transgressions with a country armed with nuclear missles with possible futuristic stun technology.
Do you have a point or are you just trolling the thread now? Does speculation make you angry? Do you own stock on a company that makes knock-out guns or something?
Yes. If governments have mass deployable technology that allows for effective stunning, it will be used to suppress protest and insurrection. That's pretty much a given.
0
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
does the development of this technology supersede the development of recording technology? because catching abuses of power on video is quite the thing these days and I rather bet people would -still- get bent out of shape over it. And also security cameras catching criminals. Unless these things come with magical camera jamming technology too.
Maybe we should drop some more cellphone cameras on Ukraine? The millions of ones they have there right now don't seem to be stopping the Russians. It's like they don't even care about being caught abusing their power.
Could it be that consent isn't that big an issue once a government decides to go full bastard?
hey that's a good one. Let's conflate war transgressions with a country armed with nuclear missles with possible futuristic stun technology.
Do you have a point or are you just trolling the thread now? Does speculation make you angry? Do you own stock on a company that makes knock-out guns or something?
Yes. If governments have mass deployable technology that allows for effective stunning, it will be used to suppress protest and insurrection. That's pretty much a given.
Russia is being punished by literally the entire world at this point. So badly, infact, that they're courting North Korea as a friend and North Korea is going "ehhhh". The fact that they're still going at it doesn't mean a thing when the entire world knows and has basically destroyed Russia's economy for the next two decades.
And Ferguson is really not a look at the successful use of current non-lethal technologies. More like a look at bad policing which resulted in huge protests and riots and shows exactly where such a stun gun type of technology would probably fail most publicly. In an open riot.
Unless you think they could just stun them one by one by one and hide them in their jail of n+1 cells.
does the development of this technology supersede the development of recording technology? because catching abuses of power on video is quite the thing these days and I rather bet people would -still- get bent out of shape over it. And also security cameras catching criminals. Unless these things come with magical camera jamming technology too.
Maybe we should drop some more cellphone cameras on Ukraine? The millions of ones they have there right now don't seem to be stopping the Russians. It's like they don't even care about being caught abusing their power.
Could it be that consent isn't that big an issue once a government decides to go full bastard?
hey that's a good one. Let's conflate war transgressions with a country armed with nuclear missles with possible futuristic stun technology.
Do you have a point or are you just trolling the thread now? Does speculation make you angry? Do you own stock on a company that makes knock-out guns or something?
Yes. If governments have mass deployable technology that allows for effective stunning, it will be used to suppress protest and insurrection. That's pretty much a given.
Russia is being punished by literally the entire world at this point. So badly, infact, that they're courting North Korea as a friend and North Korea is going "ehhhh". The fact that they're still going at it doesn't mean a thing when the entire world knows and has basically destroyed Russia's economy for the next two decades.
And Ferguson is really not a look at the successful use of current non-lethal technologies. More like a look at bad policing which resulted in huge protests and riots and shows exactly where such a stun gun type of technology would probably fail most publicly. In an open riot.
Unless you think they could just stun them one by one by one and hide them in their jail of n+1 cells.
Well, at least you started discussing the topic in the OP and stopped playing imagination nanny. Very good!
Let's go even further. What happens in your example if the technology can be employed on a broader scale than needed to "stun them one on one?" What if it could be deployed from air?
Would there be, as the OP says, any social ramifications of that? What do you think?
0
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
does the development of this technology supersede the development of recording technology? because catching abuses of power on video is quite the thing these days and I rather bet people would -still- get bent out of shape over it. And also security cameras catching criminals. Unless these things come with magical camera jamming technology too.
Maybe we should drop some more cellphone cameras on Ukraine? The millions of ones they have there right now don't seem to be stopping the Russians. It's like they don't even care about being caught abusing their power.
Could it be that consent isn't that big an issue once a government decides to go full bastard?
hey that's a good one. Let's conflate war transgressions with a country armed with nuclear missles with possible futuristic stun technology.
Do you have a point or are you just trolling the thread now? Does speculation make you angry? Do you own stock on a company that makes knock-out guns or something?
Yes. If governments have mass deployable technology that allows for effective stunning, it will be used to suppress protest and insurrection. That's pretty much a given.
Russia is being punished by literally the entire world at this point. So badly, infact, that they're courting North Korea as a friend and North Korea is going "ehhhh". The fact that they're still going at it doesn't mean a thing when the entire world knows and has basically destroyed Russia's economy for the next two decades.
And Ferguson is really not a look at the successful use of current non-lethal technologies. More like a look at bad policing which resulted in huge protests and riots and shows exactly where such a stun gun type of technology would probably fail most publicly. In an open riot.
Unless you think they could just stun them one by one by one and hide them in their jail of n+1 cells.
Well, at least you started discussing the topic in the OP and stopped playing imagination nanny. Very good!
Let's go even further. What happens in your example if the technology can be employed on a broader scale than needed to "stun them one on one?" What if it could be deployed from air?
Would there be, as the OP says, any social ramifications of that? What do you think?
A.) More than one person gets knocked out
B.) The electromagnetic waves get broken up and it becomes useless. Or the device is so powerful it irradiates the entire town.
No changes socially because knocking out entire towns for the purpose suppressing protests will just lead to more protests and eventually you'll have
A wide-scale sleep ray or whatever would basically be a WMD. I mean, for the US military, it's easy to think of putting a couple blocks to sleep and then getting the 15 guys you really wanted, because if they really wanted to they could've blown up that half of the city anyways.
Imagine if anyone else had that tech, though. A guy knocks out a building, walks in with a standard handgun, and can do as much damage as he wants without the police even getting a call until it's all over (even all the '2nd Amendment solutions' in the world wouldn't help). Or imagine trying to provide security for the President...you couldn't. Rob any bank or art museum, kidnap anyone you want.
Maybe imagining some terrorist group getting their hands on something like that is a little extreme, but would the federal government even trust local police departments with something like that? Any device getting into the wrong hands could mean major consequences, the smart thing to do would be to lock them down almost as much as nukes.
This technology would be massively useful for all sorts of crimes.
Er, I would guess, ahaha. Ha.
You can't keep a riot asleep indefinitely without either hospitalising rioters or letting them die. You can hope that they just give up before it's too late, I suppose.
It would also disrupt local industry. If you cover too much area, too much will be disrupted.
This technology would be massively useful for all sorts of crimes.
Er, I would guess, ahaha. Ha.
You can't keep a riot asleep indefinitely without either hospitalising rioters or letting them die. You can hope that they just give up before it's too late, I suppose.
It would also disrupt local industry. If you cover too much area, too much will be disrupted.
Not but it is conceivable you could shackle the problematic ones up in jail, and then just drive all the rest home. Breaking the coordination would accomplish a lot.
+1
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
This technology would be massively useful for all sorts of crimes.
Er, I would guess, ahaha. Ha.
You can't keep a riot asleep indefinitely without either hospitalising rioters or letting them die. You can hope that they just give up before it's too late, I suppose.
It would also disrupt local industry. If you cover too much area, too much will be disrupted.
Not but it is conceivable you could shackle the problematic ones up in jail, and then just drive all the rest home. Breaking the coordination would accomplish a lot.
depending on how big the protest is, that's a lot of driving people to their homes after knocking them unconscious. Honestly if people started seeing other people just drop down to the street for no reason what so ever they'd probably assume the worst and go goddamn ballistic.
A wide scale sleep ray is, yeah. I guess it would count as a potent weapon (but not a WMD). But how would it work? How much power would it consume? Is it like a flame thrower or is it a tiny little phaser that can create a beam wide enough to knock out an entire roomful of people?
If you did have a town wide stun system there would end up being a shit ton of death from incidental sources. Not just falling over but things like surgeons falling asleep in surgery, car accidents, and the like.
If you're trying to detain a suspect using a magical non-lethal weapon you wouldn't need to put them to sleep, you'd just need to inconvenience them enough into submitting.
Like the Active Denial System (ADS) and the Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD). The former fires a high-powered beam of energy that heats up everything it comes into contact (like a microwave), the latter uses sound to to cause temporary pain (or permanent hearing damage). Basically, miniaturize either and you'd have your hand-held non-lethal weapon. Consciousness is required because you need to feel the pain.
Honestly, if criminals or deviants got a hold of that technology it would still be better than what we have now: it would reduce deaths due to firearms. Yeah you still have robbers and muggers and what have you, but at least they aren't killing people.
There are two ways we can look at this. The first is imagining some sort of plausible technology that instantly can make a person fall asleep. That will come with limitations, though. There are still the dangers of what happens when the dude falls asleep (do they fall down and get concussions? Does it cause some type of permanent brain damage?) that would be present. And if we're not literally using magic, then those concerns will mitigate abuse to such extent that the world won't actually end.
Look at the wide-scale availability of guns, which can immediately neutralize a target, or be used to threaten such targets. Look at nuclear weapons, which can raze entire cities from across the globe. Look at drones, which can find and kill a single target from pretty much anywhere. Look at tasers, which can drop a target to the ground usually without killing or permanently harming them. These all represent the same sort of massive social effects as the OP's new tech. And none of them have plummeted us into a permanent dystopia. We are not living in Shadowrun. Or 1984. All of these techs have some serious problems associated with them, but the entire population is not literally gunning everybody down in the streets. We have not nuked all the world's cities. There are still limitations on when and how the police tase people. Muggers are not roaming the streets tasing people by the millions and stealing their wallets. Because the real world is not quite that fragile. Similarly, if the tech in the OP existed in any realistic way whatsoever, there would be problems, but it would not mean the end of civilization as has been suggested by several people in this thread.
We can look at this the other way, though, and suppose that there is actually a new magical technology that is super cheap and available, completely unregulated, and can be used by both the government and the populace to immediately and unfailingly drop an arbitrarily large number of people from a great distance into a deep sleep, and they wake up with no negative side effects and there is no chance of serious harm. And we can discuss that, but we should be aware that it's basically the same as discussing what would happen if the Unforgiveable Curses from Harry Potter were suddenly real.
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.
I keep trying to imagine this from the other side.
Say for a moment that we lived in a world where a true non-lethal stun technology existed already, but firearms did not.
Imagine the panic if someone suggests the idea of a weapon capable of spewing dozens of lethal projectiles in seconds.
"People could put these 'guns' on drones and kill entire villages in minutes! Right now, if people protest, the worst they need to worry about is an unexpected nap. If police were to carry lethal weaponry, who would ever dare protest anything? Guns will cause more mugging; with a stun weapon, a person can try to fight back, but if the would be mugger has a gun the victim wouldn't dare fight back for fear of getting killed!
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
There are two ways we can look at this. The first is imagining some sort of plausible technology that instantly can make a person fall asleep. That will come with limitations, though. There are still the dangers of what happens when the dude falls asleep (do they fall down and get concussions? Does it cause some type of permanent brain damage?) that would be present. And if we're not literally using magic, then those concerns will mitigate abuse to such extent that the world won't actually end.
Look at the wide-scale availability of guns, which can immediately neutralize a target, or be used to threaten such targets. Look at nuclear weapons, which can raze entire cities from across the globe. Look at drones, which can find and kill a single target from pretty much anywhere. Look at tasers, which can drop a target to the ground usually without killing or permanently harming them. These all represent the same sort of massive social effects as the OP's new tech. And none of them have plummeted us into a permanent dystopia. We are not living in Shadowrun. Or 1984. All of these techs have some serious problems associated with them, but the entire population is not literally gunning everybody down in the streets. We have not nuked all the world's cities. There are still limitations on when and how the police tase people. Muggers are not roaming the streets tasing people by the millions and stealing their wallets. Because the real world is not quite that fragile. Similarly, if the tech in the OP existed in any realistic way whatsoever, there would be problems, but it would not mean the end of civilization as has been suggested by several people in this thread.
We can look at this the other way, though, and suppose that there is actually a new magical technology that is super cheap and available, completely unregulated, and can be used by both the government and the populace to immediately and unfailingly drop an arbitrarily large number of people from a great distance into a deep sleep, and they wake up with no negative side effects and there is no chance of serious harm. And we can discuss that, but we should be aware that it's basically the same as discussing what would happen if the Unforgiveable Curses from Harry Potter were suddenly real.
But tasers don't actually work as a good stun gun, which is the whole issue. And I don't just mean from a stunning perspective. They are in general unwieldy technology.
Taser work like great stun guns, as in, "I'm gonna tase you if you don't give me all your money."
However, it has become more of a crime fad than a crime epidemic.
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.
Taser work like great stun guns, as in, "I'm gonna tase you if you don't give me all your money."
However, it has become more of a crime fad than a crime epidemic.
No, that's a taser working like a normal gun, not like a stun gun.
Even if stun guns were all magic, I think that this would be how people would use 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.
Taser work like great stun guns, as in, "I'm gonna tase you if you don't give me all your money."
However, it has become more of a crime fad than a crime epidemic.
No, that's a taser working like a normal gun, not like a stun gun.
Even if stun guns were all magic, I think that this would be how people would use them.
See, I don't agree at all since you can just stun someone and take their shit without having to ever threaten anyone. That's the way in which it lowers the barriers to action in general. Hell, this is the way it's used in fiction. IT's the way tasers are used, even though tasers are really bad stun guns.
The easier it is to incapacitate someone without hurting them, the more likely peolpe are to use it cause compliance is fucking hard.
Taser work like great stun guns, as in, "I'm gonna tase you if you don't give me all your money."
However, it has become more of a crime fad than a crime epidemic.
No, that's a taser working like a normal gun, not like a stun gun.
Even if stun guns were all magic, I think that this would be how people would use them.
See, I don't agree at all since you can just stun someone and take their shit without having to ever threaten anyone. That's the way in which it lowers the barriers to action in general. Hell, this is the way it's used in fiction. IT's the way tasers are used, even though tasers are really bad stun guns.
The easier it is to incapacitate someone without hurting them, the more likely peolpe are to use it cause compliance is fucking hard.
I dunno, the article says that threatening is the usual mo
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.
Taser work like great stun guns, as in, "I'm gonna tase you if you don't give me all your money."
However, it has become more of a crime fad than a crime epidemic.
No, that's a taser working like a normal gun, not like a stun gun.
Even if stun guns were all magic, I think that this would be how people would use them.
See, I don't agree at all since you can just stun someone and take their shit without having to ever threaten anyone. That's the way in which it lowers the barriers to action in general. Hell, this is the way it's used in fiction. IT's the way tasers are used, even though tasers are really bad stun guns.
The easier it is to incapacitate someone without hurting them, the more likely peolpe are to use it cause compliance is fucking hard.
I dunno, the article says that threatening is the usual mo
Taser work like great stun guns, as in, "I'm gonna tase you if you don't give me all your money."
However, it has become more of a crime fad than a crime epidemic.
No, that's a taser working like a normal gun, not like a stun gun.
Even if stun guns were all magic, I think that this would be how people would use them.
See, I don't agree at all since you can just stun someone and take their shit without having to ever threaten anyone. That's the way in which it lowers the barriers to action in general. Hell, this is the way it's used in fiction. IT's the way tasers are used, even though tasers are really bad stun guns.
The easier it is to incapacitate someone without hurting them, the more likely peolpe are to use it cause compliance is fucking hard.
I dunno, the article says that threatening is the usual mo
Threatening them with a violent, painful action.
A violent, painful, incapacitating action. Would you act any differently if someone shoved a taser or a stun gun in your face? What about a gun that just really hurt but leaves you in control of your faculties?
Paladin on
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.
Taser work like great stun guns, as in, "I'm gonna tase you if you don't give me all your money."
However, it has become more of a crime fad than a crime epidemic.
No, that's a taser working like a normal gun, not like a stun gun.
Even if stun guns were all magic, I think that this would be how people would use them.
See, I don't agree at all since you can just stun someone and take their shit without having to ever threaten anyone. That's the way in which it lowers the barriers to action in general. Hell, this is the way it's used in fiction. IT's the way tasers are used, even though tasers are really bad stun guns.
The easier it is to incapacitate someone without hurting them, the more likely peolpe are to use it cause compliance is fucking hard.
I dunno, the article says that threatening is the usual mo
Threatening them with a violent, painful action.
A violent, painful, incapacitating action. Would you act any differently if someone shoved a taser or a stun gun in your face? What about a gun that just really hurt but leaves you in control of your faculties?
People don't freak out and comply when threatened with a gun or taser because it's going to incapacitate them for a short time.
They freak out because it's going to hurt them a lot and potentially leave lasting damage or even kill them.
Taser work like great stun guns, as in, "I'm gonna tase you if you don't give me all your money."
However, it has become more of a crime fad than a crime epidemic.
No, that's a taser working like a normal gun, not like a stun gun.
Even if stun guns were all magic, I think that this would be how people would use them.
See, I don't agree at all since you can just stun someone and take their shit without having to ever threaten anyone. That's the way in which it lowers the barriers to action in general. Hell, this is the way it's used in fiction. IT's the way tasers are used, even though tasers are really bad stun guns.
The easier it is to incapacitate someone without hurting them, the more likely peolpe are to use it cause compliance is fucking hard.
I dunno, the article says that threatening is the usual mo
Threatening them with a violent, painful action.
A violent, painful, incapacitating action. Would you act any differently if someone shoved a taser or a stun gun in your face? What about a gun that just really hurt but leaves you in control of your faculties?
People don't freak out and comply when threatened with a gun or taser because it's going to incapacitate them for a short time.
They freak out because it's going to hurt them a lot and potentially leave lasting damage or even kill them.
Would you fight back if someone pointed a stun gun at you? What if you woke up in an ice bath without your kidneys?
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.
Posts
the problem with tranq guns is that for hte most part you don't actually ever see Tranq guns used in reality the way we use them in fiction.
Because Tranquilizers aren't actually a one size fits all thing that just knock people out; either you get the dosage right or you risk either not doing a damn thing or seriously injuring someone
EDIT: Oh hey everyone mentioned this already
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.
Did you even read the OP?
Did you?
Yeah. Instant paralysis can cause fatal injury. To me this is no different from injury directly caused by the mechanism itself.
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.
Are you being disingenuous, or is that seriously your threshold for high risk of death?
When people are sociopathic enough to mug somebody, they've already made that leap in not caring about the safety of their victim and are now later grappling with the issue of their own personal safety.
If I were to use the power of greyskull fiat, I would make a beam that encased the victim in a special foam, and I'd use a special solubilizing agent to get at their money. The foam would be noise dampening but air soluble. In about 5 minutes the foam would disintegrate. Kind of like if Spiderman turned to crime.
In developing this or any sort of stun weapon, there comes a point where people prone to committing crime with it will accept the early access version and not really care about upgrading. For muggers they're pretty much still using an early Fist or Bat alpha when we already have more advanced non-lethal technology available.
So yeah, no crime spree.
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.
For me, a high risk of death is like 5%. That's actually really high. Go any higher than that, and they had better be dying anyway
For the general population, though, you can do a bunch of absurdly fatal stuff and call it non-fatal.
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.
It's alot different in that it's far less likely to kill you.
You seem to have no grasped the question the OP is asking or the explanation on actually current anesthesiology given to you.
Nor apparently has Trace.
God knows why the two of you don't get it. Everyone else in the thread understood the topic.
You can't make inferences about the social impact of a stun gun without going into its mechanics. One part of this will be its development cycle. We are in the development process of making the concept of a stun gun in reality because we have several non-lethal weapons available. Mace, tasers, tranquilizer guns, blunt objects. All vary in mechanism, effectiveness, and safety.
They aren't perfect, but don't you suspect that currently existing technology would actually cause a fraction of this crime spree? Otherwise, on what precedent are you basing this hypothesis? Seems to me that the bar of perfection is actually pretty low for non-lethal crime.
And levy your criticism in such a manner that is actually productive.
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.
Maybe we should drop some more cellphone cameras on Ukraine? The millions of ones they have there right now don't seem to be stopping the Russians. It's like they don't even care about being caught abusing their power.
Could it be that consent isn't that big an issue once a government decides to go full bastard?
hey that's a good one. Let's conflate war transgressions with a country armed with nuclear missles with possible futuristic stun technology.
edit: also have you taken a look at the Russian economy lately? not doing so hot.
Do you have a point or are you just trolling the thread now? Does speculation make you angry? Do you own stock on a company that makes knock-out guns or something?
Yes. If governments have mass deployable technology that allows for effective stunning, it will be used to suppress protest and insurrection. That's pretty much a given.
Russia is being punished by literally the entire world at this point. So badly, infact, that they're courting North Korea as a friend and North Korea is going "ehhhh". The fact that they're still going at it doesn't mean a thing when the entire world knows and has basically destroyed Russia's economy for the next two decades.
And Ferguson is really not a look at the successful use of current non-lethal technologies. More like a look at bad policing which resulted in huge protests and riots and shows exactly where such a stun gun type of technology would probably fail most publicly. In an open riot.
Unless you think they could just stun them one by one by one and hide them in their jail of n+1 cells.
Well, at least you started discussing the topic in the OP and stopped playing imagination nanny. Very good!
Let's go even further. What happens in your example if the technology can be employed on a broader scale than needed to "stun them one on one?" What if it could be deployed from air?
Would there be, as the OP says, any social ramifications of that? What do you think?
A.) More than one person gets knocked out
B.) The electromagnetic waves get broken up and it becomes useless. Or the device is so powerful it irradiates the entire town.
No changes socially because knocking out entire towns for the purpose suppressing protests will just lead to more protests and eventually you'll have
that
Imagine if anyone else had that tech, though. A guy knocks out a building, walks in with a standard handgun, and can do as much damage as he wants without the police even getting a call until it's all over (even all the '2nd Amendment solutions' in the world wouldn't help). Or imagine trying to provide security for the President...you couldn't. Rob any bank or art museum, kidnap anyone you want.
Maybe imagining some terrorist group getting their hands on something like that is a little extreme, but would the federal government even trust local police departments with something like that? Any device getting into the wrong hands could mean major consequences, the smart thing to do would be to lock them down almost as much as nukes.
Er, I would guess, ahaha. Ha.
You can't keep a riot asleep indefinitely without either hospitalising rioters or letting them die. You can hope that they just give up before it's too late, I suppose.
It would also disrupt local industry. If you cover too much area, too much will be disrupted.
Not but it is conceivable you could shackle the problematic ones up in jail, and then just drive all the rest home. Breaking the coordination would accomplish a lot.
depending on how big the protest is, that's a lot of driving people to their homes after knocking them unconscious. Honestly if people started seeing other people just drop down to the street for no reason what so ever they'd probably assume the worst and go goddamn ballistic.
A wide scale sleep ray is, yeah. I guess it would count as a potent weapon (but not a WMD). But how would it work? How much power would it consume? Is it like a flame thrower or is it a tiny little phaser that can create a beam wide enough to knock out an entire roomful of people?
How long do these people stay knocked out for?
I imagine faraday hats would be all the rage
?
Like the Active Denial System (ADS) and the Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD). The former fires a high-powered beam of energy that heats up everything it comes into contact (like a microwave), the latter uses sound to to cause temporary pain (or permanent hearing damage). Basically, miniaturize either and you'd have your hand-held non-lethal weapon. Consciousness is required because you need to feel the pain.
Honestly, if criminals or deviants got a hold of that technology it would still be better than what we have now: it would reduce deaths due to firearms. Yeah you still have robbers and muggers and what have you, but at least they aren't killing people.
Look at the wide-scale availability of guns, which can immediately neutralize a target, or be used to threaten such targets. Look at nuclear weapons, which can raze entire cities from across the globe. Look at drones, which can find and kill a single target from pretty much anywhere. Look at tasers, which can drop a target to the ground usually without killing or permanently harming them. These all represent the same sort of massive social effects as the OP's new tech. And none of them have plummeted us into a permanent dystopia. We are not living in Shadowrun. Or 1984. All of these techs have some serious problems associated with them, but the entire population is not literally gunning everybody down in the streets. We have not nuked all the world's cities. There are still limitations on when and how the police tase people. Muggers are not roaming the streets tasing people by the millions and stealing their wallets. Because the real world is not quite that fragile. Similarly, if the tech in the OP existed in any realistic way whatsoever, there would be problems, but it would not mean the end of civilization as has been suggested by several people in this thread.
We can look at this the other way, though, and suppose that there is actually a new magical technology that is super cheap and available, completely unregulated, and can be used by both the government and the populace to immediately and unfailingly drop an arbitrarily large number of people from a great distance into a deep sleep, and they wake up with no negative side effects and there is no chance of serious harm. And we can discuss that, but we should be aware that it's basically the same as discussing what would happen if the Unforgiveable Curses from Harry Potter were suddenly real.
I keep trying to imagine this from the other side.
Say for a moment that we lived in a world where a true non-lethal stun technology existed already, but firearms did not.
Imagine the panic if someone suggests the idea of a weapon capable of spewing dozens of lethal projectiles in seconds.
"People could put these 'guns' on drones and kill entire villages in minutes! Right now, if people protest, the worst they need to worry about is an unexpected nap. If police were to carry lethal weaponry, who would ever dare protest anything? Guns will cause more mugging; with a stun weapon, a person can try to fight back, but if the would be mugger has a gun the victim wouldn't dare fight back for fear of getting killed!
But tasers don't actually work as a good stun gun, which is the whole issue. And I don't just mean from a stunning perspective. They are in general unwieldy technology.
However, it has become more of a crime fad than a crime epidemic.
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.
No, that's a taser working like a normal gun, not like a stun gun.
Even if stun guns were all magic, I think that this would be how people would use them.
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.
See, I don't agree at all since you can just stun someone and take their shit without having to ever threaten anyone. That's the way in which it lowers the barriers to action in general. Hell, this is the way it's used in fiction. IT's the way tasers are used, even though tasers are really bad stun guns.
The easier it is to incapacitate someone without hurting them, the more likely peolpe are to use it cause compliance is fucking hard.
I dunno, the article says that threatening is the usual mo
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.
Threatening them with a violent, painful action.
A violent, painful, incapacitating action. Would you act any differently if someone shoved a taser or a stun gun in your face? What about a gun that just really hurt but leaves you in control of your faculties?
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.
People don't freak out and comply when threatened with a gun or taser because it's going to incapacitate them for a short time.
They freak out because it's going to hurt them a lot and potentially leave lasting damage or even kill them.
Would you fight back if someone pointed a stun gun at you? What if you woke up in an ice bath without your kidneys?
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.
I might win, or I might get knocked painlessly, safely unconscious.
All current weapons run the risk of long term harm and lots of pain. That is a different matter.