Silly questions perhaps but with some obvious connections to the various gun threads:
If there existed a remote control which would in some manner (pick one) instantly or near instantly kill anyone that you pointed it at, how do you think it should be handled by society?
How would the following factors influence your standpoint:
Range of the remote (a few feet or a mile?)
Battery power (enough for one “off switch” without changing batteries/buying a new one or thousands)
Accuracy (you always hit the one you’re aiming for or it takes a lot of skill)
To me, the main factor would be one of forensic evidence. If there isn’t any, it would need to be banned. If there’s no way to even theoretically armor yourself against it, I wouldn’t be surprised if the weapon ended up like the nuclear bomb – something that is so effective that it’s worthless for practical purposes and goes unused even by the military.
What if it left a clear indentification that would prove with 100% certainity who did it?
What if it had the same forensic evidence potential as a common handgun? Meaning you could reduce the evidence but it would be almost impossible to not leave any.
What if there is no way within given parameters of range, line of sight to protect yourself?
What if it is possible but impractical of varying degrees?
The reason nukes are “worthless” is that they’re only very effective at something that has very little practical value, destroying vast areas (making them uninhabitable and unproductive) and killing vast amounts of people (without discrimination aside from locations, kids and fluffy bunnies die too whether you like it or not). They also have a very negative PR connotations.
I don’t see how that is different than a gun or any other weapon. As such it would need to be controlled as one. However I would label it a higher category than civilian weapons (shotguns, rifles, handguns), and make owning one require the same kind of legal authority that military hardware requires (RPG grenades, class III weapons, etc).
