[trvrsalom]

As nice as it would be to have a reliable nonlethal alternative to firearms, there simply are no nonlethal weapons capable of stopping someone who is presenting an immediate threat. Tranquilizers and anesthesia are administered by an anesthesiologist, a doctor trained to determine a dosage based on a person's body mass. Too much of a dose, or even administering it too quickly can cause serious complications, or even death. Even under the controlled environment of an operating room 1/20 patients die under full anesthesia a year.

Sadly, the most reliable method of stopping a person presenting a threat is with a firearm.

[rfrey]

Could you clarify what you mean by 1/20 patients dying? I looked at http://patient.info/health/anaesthesia-death-or-brain-damage and it said the risk of death (England and Wales) was 1/100,000 full anesthetics.

[pyromine]

Definitely questioning that 1/20 figure, I had full anesthesia with a surgery earlier this year and I'm pretty sure I'd be informed of that kind of risk.

[walrus01]

For reference, what happens when you use "knock out gas" in a contained space:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisi...

[dTal]

...everyone's reliably incapacitated, and most people survive? (potentially everyone with adequate medical care which was not provided in that situation)

That seems strictly better than shooting to kill.

[pavel_lishin]

130 out of 850 people died. That's a 1 in 6 casualty rate - about what you'd get playing Russian roulette.

[duaneb]

I mean nukes are reliable too. Doesn't mean they should be used. The culture of lethal force means innocent people die.