[daenz]

>Why aren't [non-lethal weapons] ever suggested

They are suggested. Many people carry mace/pepper spray. Tasers are finicky and require a fortunate prong placement in the attacker, and the attacker to not be wearing thick clothing, or it just doesn't work. Stun guns require you to be upclose and personal with the attacker. If you're a smaller/weaker person, this is extremely risky.

Most non-lethal weapons are for you to get away from an uncommitted attacker as quickly as possible, not to stop a serious threat in its tracks. If someone has a weapon and intent on killing you, a firearm is your best bet in stopping them.

[Apocryphon]

Makes me wonder why we haven't seen more advancements in this space in the last few decades, especially with the U.S. military overseeing multiple occupations where sublethal weaponry would've been helpful. No startups trying to invent sci-fi stun guns at all?

Years ago I once made a joke that Tesla could pivot into that by inventing a "lightning gun." Given Musk's descent into attention-grabbing memelordom, I'm surprised he hasn't suggested such a possibility yet, to unilaterally solve all these controversies in the news, himself.

[everforward]

It's very hard to create a force that will incapacitate someone without a substantial risk of killing them.

Sufficient blunt force to some area to stun someone will kill them if it hits elsewhere.

Tolerances for electricity are different between people (Tasers do kill people).

Mace and pepperballs don't fully incapacitate someone.

Lightning guns (or really any directed energy weapon) have problems with exponential decay.

Tranquilizer guns might work, although I don't know how wide the dosing range is.

It's a hard problem. People still die from anesthesia, which is basically trying to keep someone incapacitated in a very controlled setting.