I dislike that they use &quot;non-lethal&quot; in the headline (though in the article they use the correct term &quot;less-than-lethal&quot;). There is no such thing as a &quot;non-lethal&quot; weapon.<p>When we call weapons &quot;non-lethal&quot; we discount the chance that they could kill a health-compromised target, or could be an out-of-spec copy that is too strong, or could be misapplied. Users are more likely to use violence in situations where they believe they have &quot;non-lethal&quot; means on their hands.<p>The term &quot;less-than-lethal&quot; keeps in mind the non-zero chance of death. All violent interactions need to consider the chance if death, should something go wrong (and with violence, things have technically already gone wrong).