This device was predicted by Asimov in one of his stories. Called a neural whip, it was used to protect space travelers from wild beasts and savages. I guess regular folks rated a blaster.

I don't think anyone could object to this weapon being used against rioters, criminals, etc. Of course, non-lethal methods are superior to killing and maiming people. But this ultra-lefty (sorry, FrankC) has big problems with it. Sure, if used as directed, there will be no problem. But you can say that about any weapon, even nukes.

What about using it against legal, peaceful protestors. It leaves no evidence to prove you used it illegaly. The same can be said for torture. And what about using a low-yield version to attack political opponents by makeing them uncomfortable or uneasy? Or used full-strength to take out hecklers, or legitimate but embarassing questioners at press conferences? Or using it against a political opponent or his followers at one of his rallies? Also, since it is "safe",
there will be a temptation to use it on women, children, handicapped people, should they prove troublesome. What about the device causing a stampede or other accident, and injury to innocents?

The very fact this weapon leaves no scars makes it ideal as an intimidation device. There is no accountability. And of course, sooner or later, criminals, especially rapists, will use it, as they already use Tasers.

I guess these are all moot points, Pandora's box is open, the cat is out of the bag, you can't ban a new invention. The other side will deploy it. And so on, and so on. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.