<i>False positives...</i><p>The only valid reason to draw a firearm is defense of life. If there are security robots around, one doesn&#x27;t need to defend oneself or one&#x27;s companions. (It&#x27;s true that life may be threatened by tools of violence other than firearms, but robots might be trained to look for those as well.) Besides, by &quot;incapacitate&quot; I don&#x27;t mean double-tap, rather something reversible like an enveloping foam etc.<p><i>...intent...</i><p>This is unnecessary scope creep. Firearms have one legitimate use, killing. They are not props to use to bolster one&#x27;s argument, even though the current state of jurisprudence allows police to use them as such. Keep it in your pants until it&#x27;s time. Cops brandishing firearms are barely less of a danger to the public than anyone else doing so.<p><i>The bot can&#x27;t always already be at the scene...</i><p>It&#x27;s true that many locations, at least at first, will not have these robots installed. However, those places that have them, will have enough of them to control extreme numbers of armed humans. Capital costs might be higher than human security, but robots don&#x27;t need doughnut breaks. So &quot;arriving at the scene and figuring it out&quot; is also scope creep, and incidentally not something humans are good at either. The robots will always be on the scene already, so they&#x27;ll always be ready to take action.