Re: Non Violent Weapons

>  hitting an armoured Marine in the eyeball would be bad news. I also
> > suggest a maximum range such as 1 band for wax and two bands for
> > rubber. Thoughts anyone?
>

I would think that for future purposes, non lethal weapons would take
the form of
energy typre weapons.

> The problem with any gas, neural disrupter etc. is that in a riot
> situation you're targeting a very large group of people. Even if only
1%
> of population is violently allergic to stumm gas, there are bound to
be a
> couple in any rioting mob -- and you want to avoid *any* casualties.
> Civilians suffocating in their own vomit is bad press.

Actually it depends upon teh situations. After six months in Haiti I
became quite
an expert in the use of pepper spray and went through cans of it.
Usually when
you disperse a crowd, or need to break up a crowd, you are dealing with
specific
individuals that need to be put down. When you are really trying to
break up a
riot before it happens, you go in and grab a few select individuals that
are
inciting the mob. In these cases you need a narrow ccurate shot intothe
face of
someone at like ten meters or less. Incidently the Haitains called
pepper spray
vodoo in a can.

As far as civilian casualties to allergies. Well once you have decided
to use
force (nonlethal weapons are still force), then you are taking a
decision taht
could lead to injuries or eath as any situation can escalate. If you
don't
wanttaht to happen you have to back off, or just sit tehre and take it.

Los