What do you think?
Rate this book
The End of Killing: How Our Newest Technologies Can Solve Humanity’s Oldest Problem
Technology will make killing a thing of the past.
The gun is antiquated technology, and it is responsible for tens of thousands of senseless killings every year. Humanity has accepted that killing is an unavoidable fact of life―but Rick Smith argues that it doesn’t need to be this way and that we have the means to make the bullet obsolete in our lifetime.
Smith is the founder of TASER (now Axon), and in this book, he demonstrates that we are on the cusp of a world in which killing is neither required nor acceptable. That change won't come by way of stricter gun control laws. No, what holds us back from making an overdue and necessary shift in how we think about weapons is our skepticism about new technologies and their potential.
Smith has devoted his career to understanding why and how we kill each other. In The End of Killing, he reviews the history of weaponry and warfare as well as the latest technologies in crowd control, surveillance, and artificial intelligence. He delves into the big, thorny questions about how technology is creating more tools for police, homeland security, and military, and offering more options for our personal safety and our justice system. With clarity and conviction, he challenges the conventional wisdom on these subjects, showing how technologies that appear strange and scary at first can be the key to making the gun a relic of the past.
In our current impasse of dead-end debates about gun violence and police brutality, Smith offers us a clear roadmap into a safer future. Thought-provoking, insightful, and controversial, The End of Killing will make you reconsider the violent world you inhabit―and imagine the safer world on the horizon.
The gun is antiquated technology, and it is responsible for tens of thousands of senseless killings every year. Humanity has accepted that killing is an unavoidable fact of life―but Rick Smith argues that it doesn’t need to be this way and that we have the means to make the bullet obsolete in our lifetime.
Smith is the founder of TASER (now Axon), and in this book, he demonstrates that we are on the cusp of a world in which killing is neither required nor acceptable. That change won't come by way of stricter gun control laws. No, what holds us back from making an overdue and necessary shift in how we think about weapons is our skepticism about new technologies and their potential.
Smith has devoted his career to understanding why and how we kill each other. In The End of Killing, he reviews the history of weaponry and warfare as well as the latest technologies in crowd control, surveillance, and artificial intelligence. He delves into the big, thorny questions about how technology is creating more tools for police, homeland security, and military, and offering more options for our personal safety and our justice system. With clarity and conviction, he challenges the conventional wisdom on these subjects, showing how technologies that appear strange and scary at first can be the key to making the gun a relic of the past.
In our current impasse of dead-end debates about gun violence and police brutality, Smith offers us a clear roadmap into a safer future. Thought-provoking, insightful, and controversial, The End of Killing will make you reconsider the violent world you inhabit―and imagine the safer world on the horizon.
- GenresNonfiction
288 pages, Hardcover
Published May 21, 2019
37 people are currently reading
163 people want to read
About the author
Rick Smith
2 books1 followerRick Smith founded Axon Enterprise (formerly TASER International) in 1993. As the TASER device became ubiquitous in law enforcement, Smith pushed the company beyond weapons technology and toward a broader purpose of using hardware, software, and artificial intelligence to make the world a safer place. Under his leadership, the company―now called Axon Enterprise―has grown from a garage in Tucson to a NASDAQ-listed global market leader in conducted electric weapons, body-worn cameras, and software. Smith graduated from Harvard with a BA in biology and later earned a master’s in international finance from the University of Leuven in Belgium and an MBA from the University of Chicago.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
May 21, 2019
Before one dismisses this book based on its seemingly pollyanna title, I’d suggest one think of it as an opening volley in what promises to be a series of crucial debates that will play out -- one way or another -- in the years to come. I believe Smith, founder and CEO of TASER and Axon, did a great job of presenting an argument for the pursuit of a range of technologies and policies intended to curb violence, as well as anticipating, presenting, and debating many of the opposing arguments. The book’s tone is more pragmatic than its bold and controversial title might suggest. That said, I don’t agree with all of the author’s conclusions by any means; though I do agree these questions need to be thoughtfully considered and debated.
I’d put the technologies and policies Smith advocates for into three basic categories. First, those that are nearly inevitable given societal winds of change and the nature of technological development (e.g. nonlethals becoming the primary weapons of the law enforcement community, automated systems being deployed to curb violence in schools, and ending the war on drugs.) Second, those which may be laudable, but which are hard to imagine coming to fruition in the world we live in [or are likely to see in the foreseeable future] (e.g. nonlethals becoming the primary [or exclusive] weapons of the military.) Third, those which are so full of the peril of unintended consequences as to be, frankly, terrifying – if not dystopian (i.e. the use of surveillance and profiling technologies to ACTIVELY attempt to prevent crimes that haven’t yet happened.)
Instead of describing the contents of the book chapter by chapter, I’ll discuss its ideas through the lens presented in the preceding paragraph – starting with the seemingly inevitable technologies. The central thrust of this book is that nonlethal technology needs to be developed / improved such that nonlethals can take up a progressively greater portion of weapons deployment and usage, with the aim of ultimately replacing firearms (and other lethal weapons) with nonlethal weapons. It’s important to note that Smith doesn’t suggest such a replacement could happen at present. He acknowledges that nonlethals are currently not as effective and reliable at incapacitating a threat as are firearms, and he isn’t advocating that people be put at risk by having to defend themselves with an inferior weapon. However, it seems reasonable, given the tremendous technological advances that have occurred, that nonlethal weaponry could become as or more effective than firearms.
If that doesn’t seem reasonable, I would remind one that firearms aren’t – as a rule -- as instantaneously and definitively incapacitating as Hollywood portrays. One can find numerous cases of individuals still moving with a magazine’s worth of bullets in -- or having passed through -- them. (And that’s not to mention the lack of precision that tends to come with throwing a projectile via a controlled explosion.) The point being, one isn’t competing with perfection – so one doesn’t need to be perfect, only better than an existing [flawed] system.
Smith addresses the many dividends of nonlethal weapon usage over that of the lethal counterparts, and there are many. For one thing, killing isn’t easy on anyone (anyone who’s right in the head any way.) Even when a killing is legally justifiable and morally defensible (or even state-sanctioned) it often still results in traumatic stress. For another, there is the reduced cost of getting it wrong, and the adverse societal impacts (e.g. revenge killings) that result from wrongful deaths. Long story short, if one can produce a nonlethal that’s consistently as effective at incapacitating threat, it’s hard to make a rational argument for not fielding said weapon. The example of an automated system to respond to school shootings is an extension of the nonlethal weapons argument, as it’s ultimately based on nonlethals deployed by drone (or robotic system.) The chapter on the war on drugs (ch. 15) bears little discussion as it’s no news that that “war” has been a failure and a phenomenally ineffective way of addressing a societal problem.
That brings us to the laudable but unlikely category in which I put military use of nonlethals as primary (or exclusive) weapons. I’m not saying that military nonlethal weapon systems won’t continue to be developed, improved, and deployed. Given the degree to which war of late features non-state actors and unconventional warfare, it’s possible to imagine such weapons playing a dominant role in specific operations. After all, military members aren’t exempt from the psychological costs of killing. However, military forces deploying into a war zone with nonlethals as their primary weapons is almost impossible to imagine, especially considering the diversity of conditions and opponents for which a military needs to be ready.
In warfare, there is something called the “force multiplier” effect of wounding an enemy over killing an enemy. That is, if you wound someone, it takes two people to carry him or her, plus a chunk of a medic’s time. So, one can imagine four people being out of the fight because one person is severely wounded, versus the one person who would be out of commission (the dead person) if the individual were wounded. To be fair, Smith imagines technology (drones and robots) doing the heavy lifting. Still, it’s hard to imagine how one side in a conflict wins if they have to transport, warehouse, feed, and care for every enemy that is incapacitated while the other side is just killing away. Even if that one side is much more automated, it seems tremendously expensive – even for a relatively small-scale war.
That brings to me chapter five, which I found chilling. That chapter considers how artificial intelligence and surveillance programs (albeit with judicial oversight and other protections) could be used to anticipate crimes so that law enforcement could actively go forth to try to prevent them. (If this sounds a lot like the Tom Cruise movie loosely based on a PKD story, “Minority Report,” it’s because it essentially replaces the three pasty precognitives with computers and offers a bit more oversight. While Smith cautions against taking fictional stories too seriously, he employs some fictional scenarios that I believe might be as a pollyanna as the Spielberg film is dark.) At any rate, the word “actively” is crucial to my concern. I’m all in favor of what has historically been known as “preventive law enforcement” -- activities such as putting more patrols in high crime areas, youth mentoring programs, and programs that inform people and businesses about how to be harder targets. However, the idea of police going out and engaging people as though a crime has been committed when none has been conjures images of cities on fire.
First, such an approach is predicated on watching everybody – at least everybody’s online activity – all the time. Which seems both dystopian and of limited effectiveness. [What percentage of people who post on FB that they want to shoot someone are likely to do so?] What about the judicial oversight and related protections? When is a warrant issued to surveil or arrest a person? The warrant is issued based on something an artificial intelligence system already flagged, meaning a government entity is watching everybody’s behavior on a constant fishing expedition. I’m not fond of that idea at all.
Second, we aren’t nearly as good at forecasting the future as we think. Violent crimes are rare and often spontaneous events, and that puts them in classes of behavior we are particularly bad at making predictions about. And, we haven’t eliminated the trade-off between type I and type II error. Imagine there is a question about whether individual X is to be detained based on what the AI spit out. X either was or wasn’t going to commit a crime. We can imagine a four-way matrix in which two of the solutions are correct (i.e. 1.) X was detained and was going to commit a crime; 2.) X wasn’t detained and he wasn’t going to commit a crime.) However, since we can’t know the future [like, at all] the potential remains for mis-estimating whether X was going to commit a crime. So, we have two potential errors (i.e. 1.) X wasn’t detained but he was going to commit a crime [and thus did]; 2.) X was detained but he wasn’t going to commit a crime [wrongful detention].) So, we want to minimize the first error because any violent crime is unacceptable? We go out and shake down more high risk individuals. While we succeed in preventing crimes, we also end up with more wrongful detention. Our legal system’s requirements with regards evidence suggest that as a society we are averse to wrongful disruption of a person’s freedom. Hence, while a “preponderance of evidence” is sufficient for cases where one might lose money in a civil case, if one might be imprisoned, the standard becomes “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Wrongfully detaining an individual when a crime was committed may be sad, but doing it when there is only a suspicion that a crime might likely be committed is tragic.
Of course, under present standards one can’t detain a person for very long. So you let them go, and maybe they do the crime – whether or not they intended to in the first place (ever heard someone say, “if you’re going to treat me like _______, I’m going to act like _______?” I’ll admit that it’s a bit far-fetched but if the system spurs one crime in a million subjects detained that wasn’t going to happen, is that acceptable?) Alternatively, one could place surveillance on the individual. In which case, one is essentially living in Stalin’s Soviet Union. Congratulations. It seems to me this approach offers either huge costs for a marginal gain, or you go full dystopia and knock out crime at a horrifying cost. Neither way seems appealing, but – then again – I am not willing to pay any price to keep anything bad from ever happening to anyone.
I found this book to have some fascinating ideas and to spur my thinking on subjects I might not otherwise have considered. While there was a significant bit that I found unsavory, I also discovered some ideas that were intriguing and worth pursuing. I would highly recommend this book for those interested in issues of technology and policy.
I’d put the technologies and policies Smith advocates for into three basic categories. First, those that are nearly inevitable given societal winds of change and the nature of technological development (e.g. nonlethals becoming the primary weapons of the law enforcement community, automated systems being deployed to curb violence in schools, and ending the war on drugs.) Second, those which may be laudable, but which are hard to imagine coming to fruition in the world we live in [or are likely to see in the foreseeable future] (e.g. nonlethals becoming the primary [or exclusive] weapons of the military.) Third, those which are so full of the peril of unintended consequences as to be, frankly, terrifying – if not dystopian (i.e. the use of surveillance and profiling technologies to ACTIVELY attempt to prevent crimes that haven’t yet happened.)
Instead of describing the contents of the book chapter by chapter, I’ll discuss its ideas through the lens presented in the preceding paragraph – starting with the seemingly inevitable technologies. The central thrust of this book is that nonlethal technology needs to be developed / improved such that nonlethals can take up a progressively greater portion of weapons deployment and usage, with the aim of ultimately replacing firearms (and other lethal weapons) with nonlethal weapons. It’s important to note that Smith doesn’t suggest such a replacement could happen at present. He acknowledges that nonlethals are currently not as effective and reliable at incapacitating a threat as are firearms, and he isn’t advocating that people be put at risk by having to defend themselves with an inferior weapon. However, it seems reasonable, given the tremendous technological advances that have occurred, that nonlethal weaponry could become as or more effective than firearms.
If that doesn’t seem reasonable, I would remind one that firearms aren’t – as a rule -- as instantaneously and definitively incapacitating as Hollywood portrays. One can find numerous cases of individuals still moving with a magazine’s worth of bullets in -- or having passed through -- them. (And that’s not to mention the lack of precision that tends to come with throwing a projectile via a controlled explosion.) The point being, one isn’t competing with perfection – so one doesn’t need to be perfect, only better than an existing [flawed] system.
Smith addresses the many dividends of nonlethal weapon usage over that of the lethal counterparts, and there are many. For one thing, killing isn’t easy on anyone (anyone who’s right in the head any way.) Even when a killing is legally justifiable and morally defensible (or even state-sanctioned) it often still results in traumatic stress. For another, there is the reduced cost of getting it wrong, and the adverse societal impacts (e.g. revenge killings) that result from wrongful deaths. Long story short, if one can produce a nonlethal that’s consistently as effective at incapacitating threat, it’s hard to make a rational argument for not fielding said weapon. The example of an automated system to respond to school shootings is an extension of the nonlethal weapons argument, as it’s ultimately based on nonlethals deployed by drone (or robotic system.) The chapter on the war on drugs (ch. 15) bears little discussion as it’s no news that that “war” has been a failure and a phenomenally ineffective way of addressing a societal problem.
That brings us to the laudable but unlikely category in which I put military use of nonlethals as primary (or exclusive) weapons. I’m not saying that military nonlethal weapon systems won’t continue to be developed, improved, and deployed. Given the degree to which war of late features non-state actors and unconventional warfare, it’s possible to imagine such weapons playing a dominant role in specific operations. After all, military members aren’t exempt from the psychological costs of killing. However, military forces deploying into a war zone with nonlethals as their primary weapons is almost impossible to imagine, especially considering the diversity of conditions and opponents for which a military needs to be ready.
In warfare, there is something called the “force multiplier” effect of wounding an enemy over killing an enemy. That is, if you wound someone, it takes two people to carry him or her, plus a chunk of a medic’s time. So, one can imagine four people being out of the fight because one person is severely wounded, versus the one person who would be out of commission (the dead person) if the individual were wounded. To be fair, Smith imagines technology (drones and robots) doing the heavy lifting. Still, it’s hard to imagine how one side in a conflict wins if they have to transport, warehouse, feed, and care for every enemy that is incapacitated while the other side is just killing away. Even if that one side is much more automated, it seems tremendously expensive – even for a relatively small-scale war.
That brings to me chapter five, which I found chilling. That chapter considers how artificial intelligence and surveillance programs (albeit with judicial oversight and other protections) could be used to anticipate crimes so that law enforcement could actively go forth to try to prevent them. (If this sounds a lot like the Tom Cruise movie loosely based on a PKD story, “Minority Report,” it’s because it essentially replaces the three pasty precognitives with computers and offers a bit more oversight. While Smith cautions against taking fictional stories too seriously, he employs some fictional scenarios that I believe might be as a pollyanna as the Spielberg film is dark.) At any rate, the word “actively” is crucial to my concern. I’m all in favor of what has historically been known as “preventive law enforcement” -- activities such as putting more patrols in high crime areas, youth mentoring programs, and programs that inform people and businesses about how to be harder targets. However, the idea of police going out and engaging people as though a crime has been committed when none has been conjures images of cities on fire.
First, such an approach is predicated on watching everybody – at least everybody’s online activity – all the time. Which seems both dystopian and of limited effectiveness. [What percentage of people who post on FB that they want to shoot someone are likely to do so?] What about the judicial oversight and related protections? When is a warrant issued to surveil or arrest a person? The warrant is issued based on something an artificial intelligence system already flagged, meaning a government entity is watching everybody’s behavior on a constant fishing expedition. I’m not fond of that idea at all.
Second, we aren’t nearly as good at forecasting the future as we think. Violent crimes are rare and often spontaneous events, and that puts them in classes of behavior we are particularly bad at making predictions about. And, we haven’t eliminated the trade-off between type I and type II error. Imagine there is a question about whether individual X is to be detained based on what the AI spit out. X either was or wasn’t going to commit a crime. We can imagine a four-way matrix in which two of the solutions are correct (i.e. 1.) X was detained and was going to commit a crime; 2.) X wasn’t detained and he wasn’t going to commit a crime.) However, since we can’t know the future [like, at all] the potential remains for mis-estimating whether X was going to commit a crime. So, we have two potential errors (i.e. 1.) X wasn’t detained but he was going to commit a crime [and thus did]; 2.) X was detained but he wasn’t going to commit a crime [wrongful detention].) So, we want to minimize the first error because any violent crime is unacceptable? We go out and shake down more high risk individuals. While we succeed in preventing crimes, we also end up with more wrongful detention. Our legal system’s requirements with regards evidence suggest that as a society we are averse to wrongful disruption of a person’s freedom. Hence, while a “preponderance of evidence” is sufficient for cases where one might lose money in a civil case, if one might be imprisoned, the standard becomes “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Wrongfully detaining an individual when a crime was committed may be sad, but doing it when there is only a suspicion that a crime might likely be committed is tragic.
Of course, under present standards one can’t detain a person for very long. So you let them go, and maybe they do the crime – whether or not they intended to in the first place (ever heard someone say, “if you’re going to treat me like _______, I’m going to act like _______?” I’ll admit that it’s a bit far-fetched but if the system spurs one crime in a million subjects detained that wasn’t going to happen, is that acceptable?) Alternatively, one could place surveillance on the individual. In which case, one is essentially living in Stalin’s Soviet Union. Congratulations. It seems to me this approach offers either huge costs for a marginal gain, or you go full dystopia and knock out crime at a horrifying cost. Neither way seems appealing, but – then again – I am not willing to pay any price to keep anything bad from ever happening to anyone.
I found this book to have some fascinating ideas and to spur my thinking on subjects I might not otherwise have considered. While there was a significant bit that I found unsavory, I also discovered some ideas that were intriguing and worth pursuing. I would highly recommend this book for those interested in issues of technology and policy.
January 4, 2025
I feel bad giving this book a 2 star review, which is why I feel the need to type why I am. The author, Rick Smith, is a well intentioned entrepreneur who, like most successful entrepreneurs, took a technology invented by another to make himself a millionaire. However, the book suffers from a lack of focus as well as a naïve childlike overenthusiasm on the effectiveness of new technologies, making his arguments unserious.
The thesis of Smith's argument is future technologies will create a world where human beings will no longer kill one another. He argues that with better technology that is focused on nonlethality, we can remove the need to kill all together. The problem with this thesis is apparent to anyone who understands the moral to any science fiction story.
The moral of every science fiction story is that human nature is unchanging and that new technologies will not bring utopia, but instead challenges for societies to grapple. An example of a popular science fiction story that did just that is Minority Report, a Steven Spielberg film about a group of sisters who are able to predict when a murder takes place. This ability is used by a program within the police force to prevent all murder (hurray!). Except for one instance (boo!), where their ability was used by the head of the program to frame a murder on the protagonist. The film has a bunch of action here and there, Tom Cruise saves the day, yadda yadda yadda. It ends with the dissolution of the program because the justification of preventing murders is outweighed by real harms by the technology. The harms including but are not limited to the failure of the program to catch the real murderer, the power of government to misuse the technology, the trauma inflicted upon those who worked within the program, etc. This is a film that clearly argues against the vision that technology will bring utopia and instead will bring the opposite.
Smith doesn't see it that way. He argues the main takeaway from this film is that the program should have been saved because its failure rate is just .01%. He totally misses it. He doesn't understand the moral of science fiction stories and uses one in his book to argue why technology will save us. Yikes. One could go chapter by chapter with this type of faulty analysis in his book, but I think this is enough of example to capture the flaw with his main idea. Since his thesis fails right out the gate, the rest of his ideas are poisoned by the same set of flaws and it's redundant to discuss it further. Failing here, the book just can't grapple with the dangers of implementing new technologies in a serious way.
I believe the real motivation for this book was to persuade other like minded entrepreneurs that Smith's companies deserve a bigger seat at the investment table. His references and his admiration for other future centric CEOs like Elon Musk make that clear in my mind. However, it terrifies me that an individual who is so clueless as to the dangers of implementing new technologies can have an outsized say in how our society is shaped by these technologies. While I share his aspiration of living in a society that holds the value of life to a higher degree; after read his book, I am emphatically unpersuaded that technology alone will get us to that society.
The thesis of Smith's argument is future technologies will create a world where human beings will no longer kill one another. He argues that with better technology that is focused on nonlethality, we can remove the need to kill all together. The problem with this thesis is apparent to anyone who understands the moral to any science fiction story.
The moral of every science fiction story is that human nature is unchanging and that new technologies will not bring utopia, but instead challenges for societies to grapple. An example of a popular science fiction story that did just that is Minority Report, a Steven Spielberg film about a group of sisters who are able to predict when a murder takes place. This ability is used by a program within the police force to prevent all murder (hurray!). Except for one instance (boo!), where their ability was used by the head of the program to frame a murder on the protagonist. The film has a bunch of action here and there, Tom Cruise saves the day, yadda yadda yadda. It ends with the dissolution of the program because the justification of preventing murders is outweighed by real harms by the technology. The harms including but are not limited to the failure of the program to catch the real murderer, the power of government to misuse the technology, the trauma inflicted upon those who worked within the program, etc. This is a film that clearly argues against the vision that technology will bring utopia and instead will bring the opposite.
Smith doesn't see it that way. He argues the main takeaway from this film is that the program should have been saved because its failure rate is just .01%. He totally misses it. He doesn't understand the moral of science fiction stories and uses one in his book to argue why technology will save us. Yikes. One could go chapter by chapter with this type of faulty analysis in his book, but I think this is enough of example to capture the flaw with his main idea. Since his thesis fails right out the gate, the rest of his ideas are poisoned by the same set of flaws and it's redundant to discuss it further. Failing here, the book just can't grapple with the dangers of implementing new technologies in a serious way.
I believe the real motivation for this book was to persuade other like minded entrepreneurs that Smith's companies deserve a bigger seat at the investment table. His references and his admiration for other future centric CEOs like Elon Musk make that clear in my mind. However, it terrifies me that an individual who is so clueless as to the dangers of implementing new technologies can have an outsized say in how our society is shaped by these technologies. While I share his aspiration of living in a society that holds the value of life to a higher degree; after read his book, I am emphatically unpersuaded that technology alone will get us to that society.
January 1, 2020
I received this book in the mail unsolicited. I looked at the cover and immediately decided that I was not interested in reading it. Frankly, there was no discussion about why I should read it nor an ask. The book just showed up. Here I am at the end of the year and I had one more book to read to complete the 2019 Modern Mrs. Darcy Reading Challenge. The category was a book outside your (genre) comfort zone. I decided that
The End of Killing: How Our Newest Technologies Can Solve Humanity’s Oldest Problem
would fit the bill. Rick Smith, the founder and CEO of Axon (formerly TASER International) wrote the book. I was not sure what I would find in the book but I am glad I read it. It gave me a lot to think about. Read more
November 24, 2020
Rick Smith is the Elon Musk of the defense industrial base. I found his analysis on the utility of violence to be an exploration in philosophy, innovation, and the balance of legislation and free market to affect change. He approaches violence with the pragmatism of an engineer, noting that American lethality is now our biggest weakness. We are so good at killing that our enemies at war are able to use it against us, and our police forces are the greatest source of financial liability for many towns. Non-lethal substitutes offer optionality, reversibility. A way to turn back the clock when a mistake is made.
We have to overcome our own culture of romanticizing the life/death implications of violence and think about utility. Do you really need a lethal weapon at home? Or could a taser round accomplish the security needs for your family, while preventing a horrible disaster in the event of a misfire or mis perceived target?
I highly encourage a read to better visualize what war and policing can look like in a future without state sanctioned killing.
We have to overcome our own culture of romanticizing the life/death implications of violence and think about utility. Do you really need a lethal weapon at home? Or could a taser round accomplish the security needs for your family, while preventing a horrible disaster in the event of a misfire or mis perceived target?
I highly encourage a read to better visualize what war and policing can look like in a future without state sanctioned killing.
July 29, 2020
Thought provoking. A passionate and pragmatical call to embrace technology alternatives to guns and other lethal weapons. Smith tells stories of how things could be assume continued improving in existing technology. Repeatedly calls for society to evaluate new technologies / policies based on how it fares against the current situation rather than against perfection. Argues that rather than avoiding technologies that could be used inappropriately, we should invest in these heavily to insure they are built with appropriate controls. Reminds the reader that rather than the world being more dangerous we are much safer than we used to be (a la Pinker's Better Angels and Factfulness). I found the book a bit repetitive, and some of the ideas were overly simplified, but still worth a read. This would have been rated a 4-5 if it was a concise article or booklet.
August 16, 2022
This one's equally parts deeply inciteful and goddamned infuriating.
Smith has been working at this sort of thing for awhile; guy's the reason police even carry non-lethal weapons (for all the good it's done), and nearly everyone worth a damn who has had violence as part of their profession agrees with the guy.*
He's writing style is down-to-earth, concise and clear and again, why aren't more people listening?
*even Dan Grossman who has gotten so far from his original conclusions and persists in teaching that "warrior mentality" bullshit to police forces.
Smith has been working at this sort of thing for awhile; guy's the reason police even carry non-lethal weapons (for all the good it's done), and nearly everyone worth a damn who has had violence as part of their profession agrees with the guy.*
He's writing style is down-to-earth, concise and clear and again, why aren't more people listening?
*even Dan Grossman who has gotten so far from his original conclusions and persists in teaching that "warrior mentality" bullshit to police forces.
April 25, 2021
The book is perfectly written. It not only includes compelling stories and phenomenal content, but you can see that the person behind the book is beyond success with knowledge and ideals. There are clear paths to reduce violence and Rick points them out in this book. It’s a must read for anyone in security or police work and enlightening for people that are just interested in having more secure lives!
October 5, 2022
As a non lethal weapons instructor for the DoD, I found this book very refreshing and enlightening. I strongly agree with many of the ideas put forth in this book. For to long now people have been unwilling to compromise over solutions. This book does a good job of laying the ground work for lots of hard conversations to be had. We must come together from both sides and have real conversations on the betterment of our nation, our laws, and the means we have to enforce those laws.
April 21, 2020
This is an interesting and thought provoking book exploring some of the alternatives to guns and bullets and overall violence in the US and around the world.
As I was reading, I was wondering how the CEO of a busy tech company had time to sit down and write this well put-together book, and then it was revealed that Casper had something to do with it.
As I was reading, I was wondering how the CEO of a busy tech company had time to sit down and write this well put-together book, and then it was revealed that Casper had something to do with it.
August 25, 2019
Fascinating Read
Rick’s vision for the future of humanity is inspiring. Using Technology in law enforcement and military endeavors can change the world. This book is written like a Malcolm Gladwell or Cheryl Sandberg style siting several examples to justify his points.
Rick’s vision for the future of humanity is inspiring. Using Technology in law enforcement and military endeavors can change the world. This book is written like a Malcolm Gladwell or Cheryl Sandberg style siting several examples to justify his points.
June 1, 2019
This book is full of conversation starters, especially for people in criminology, technology, and public safety. Definitely a worthwhile and easy read.
January 7, 2020
Interesting look at how this tool came about, the thought process behind it, and where they want to take it.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews