New Technology allows you to do new things in new ways, and hence actions may be against the principal of an existing law, but not captured by it's definition.
Then it's a shoddily-written law that targets the methods of doing the action, without addressing the action itself. Actions should be punishable; methods should not be, unless there's a special reason to change the punishment based on the method used to perform the action.
You also can't be as vague as saying "No peeping" because that's how people get off with excuses like "I wasn't peeping, I was peeking".
If I were a lawyer, or otherwise versed in the appropriate legal terminology, I would've used it. As it is, I stuck to vernacular English.
And those exist. The penalty for unlicensed drone use is not the same as manslaughter for example
I'm not talking about penalties. I'm talking about a threshold of occurrences before I think something should be done about the problem.
No laws existed against blinding people with lasers because why would you have a law for something that hadn't been invented?
Bullshit; a law exists. Assault and battery would both apply, and possibly aggravated assault, to emphasize the life-changing damage that blinding someone would cause.
so the authorities cracked down and banned them.
That doesn't seem to be true, at least in the U.S. Lasers of various powers are widely available. The change, as I perceive it, is that the novelty value wore off, and most people in society began to recognize that using a dangerous tool as a toy is irresponsible. That being said, I can still go to a pet store and buy a class-1 laser as a cat toy. I can buy a class-3 in a store, marketed for pointing to stars.