One line of thinking to oppose non-lethal weapons is: if relatively few very brave citizens protest against their government, several things may happen:<p>- the government takes them off the street; the protest fizzles out.<p>- the government takes them off the street; the silent minority becomes angry and rises against the government.<p>- the government listens to the protesters, and makes some concessions.<p>For the &quot;take them off the street&quot; option, the &quot;revolution&quot; outcome probably is more likely if the government uses lethal force.<p>So, with non-lethal weapons, it it less risky for the government to go for the &quot;take them off the street&quot; option and because of that, it is less likely that they will go for the &quot;listen and make some concessions&quot; option.<p>So, yes, most people would rather confront a non-lethal weapon, but for the greater good, it may be better if the government doesn&#x27;t have that option.<p>Another line of thinking is that non-lethal weapons do not replace lethal weapons where possible, but replace situations where, previously, police officers would try to resolve problems by talking or by waiting for them to cool down a bit. Net effect is that the police will use more force and hence become less trusted, making them more likely to use violence, making them less trusted, etc. looking at some of the &quot;police officer shooting citizen&quot; videos, I think the US has gone through quite a few iterations of that cycle.<p>So, in those situations, the choice (according to this line of reasoning) is not between a bean bag and a real bullet, but between a bean bag and an officer asking &quot;what&#x27;s up?&quot;<p>I think both lines of reasoning have some truth in them.