The Vortex Gun Coming Soon To a Protest Near You 295
An anonymous reader writes "Vortex technology has been used in everything from rocket-powered fire extinguishers to Nerf guns, but neither of those things are capable of giving the beat-down to hapless protesters. By giving spinning vortices an electric charge, though, pepper spray can be sent over 150 feet at between 60 and 90 mph. A vortex gun uses a pressure wave and a carefully designed barrel to fire donut-shaped rings of air that can hold themselves together over long distances. The military (starting with the German military during World War II) has been running experiments with using vortex canons to knock things over, but it's not a particularly efficient or effective way to go. What the gas rings can be used for is transporting other gasses (like pepper spray or tear gas or pesticide) long distances with a decent amount of accuracy, holding their cargo inside the calm center spinning vortex."
Re:free speech (Score:4, Interesting)
Nonviolence comes from all sides acknowledging a non-aggression principle: you don't use violence against me or my property, I won't against you. The traditional role of police is to respond to violence with overwhelming violence (or the threat of such): you punch me or smash my shit, they'll arrest you, and if you punch them too they'll come with guns.
But using weapons like this against peaceful protesters isn't what the police are for -- it's using violence against the nonviolent, and the victims (like any other victim of unprovoked aggression) have the right to respond in kind. Bullets, microwave-oven HERF guns, take your pick.
Re:"Starting with the Nazi military during WWII" (Score:5, Interesting)
The German Wehrmacht (and the other regular branches of the German military in WWII) had little to do with the Nazi party. The only "Nazi" military was the Waffen-SS, whose notable accomplishments include running death camps and overall pathetic performance in actual combat. The American stereotype of branding anything related to Germany in the 1933-1945 era as "Nazi" is just wrong.
Even the Wehrmacht had to at least toe the party line. If I remember correctly, Rommel, arguably the best general of WWII(on either side) was punished for not being a Nazi. It is important to remember that the assassination plot that came closest to killing Hitler was planned out and executed by Wehrmacht officers. But yeah, your average Wehrmacht grunt was not a Nazi. And the Waffen-SS actually had a fairly strong reputation on the Eastern front, and were known as very effective and fierce fighters.
Re:free speech (Score:5, Interesting)
No, there was no provocation from the protesters... in fact, I've never once seen a historically accurate account of any protest who's stated goals were to get tangled with the police, who have a 1,500 win, 0 loss record against protest movements.
Re:free speech (Score:5, Interesting)
They're coming up with ever-more creative ways to hurt peaceful protesters -- and let's be honest: Most of the time, they provoke, prod, cajoule, and taunt these people until one of them out of the dozen, hundred, or thousand there snaps, then they point and say "See! See! We're justified" and open up unholy horror on everyone nearby
"one of them" = police plant in the crowd, you mean
Re:Go Ahead. It won't make any difference. (Score:3, Interesting)
The only reason it didn't work for Ghaddafi this time was the fact that Europe wanted to shop it's fighter planes for export markets against the US F-35. A lot of countries will be replacing F-16's in the next 15 years and this was the perfect place to showcase the Typhoon and Rafael so they could earn their "proven in combat" badge to potential buyers. Now they can go to countries and say their planes are "combat proven now" while the F-35 is still in testing.
It worked for Iran in 2008. It's going to work now for Syria unless there is a similar international movement to arm the Syrian resistance and provide air support.
Re:Dangerous Denial Of Brutality (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd be looking around for a rifle if I saw that happening.
I hope you consider a camera first. Whether it is justified or not, shooting or threatening another person with a gun over a threat or use of violence doesn't make you any better than they are. You shoot that officer and your life is over, he's elevated to martyrdom by Homeland, and thousands more will suffer under 'enhanced' police powers to keep that from happening. If you want to make a difference, you take a good picture of him. You make sure that picture of what he's doing gets in front of every person in his community. Everyone he's supposed to be responsible for protecting. You make sure they know that man cannot be trusted. You make sure his personal, home mailbox is so choked with letters from concerned citizens he has to pay to keep a special PO box just so he can get mail. You make sure the police department is spending more than his salary paying off journalists to paint him in a good light, paying more to squelch the letters to the editor, and still more because every person in that community files a complaint for every single thing he does. You make him ineffective, gimp, useless -- a liability to the department he works for.
You make it so bad even his coworkers groan whenever they have to work with him. That's how you fight back: You don't pickup a damn weapon, you bury the bastards in their own bureauacracy. You make them beg to have everyone who sends a letter put on a special rectal exam at the airport list -- and each time they cross the line to protect this jerk, you're right there with a camera. You're right there with a letter, a pen, a microphone, a megaphone. You stay peaceful, you stay civil.
And after you've done all of this... Then you sit down with 3 other people who feel the same way you do and you say, "Okay, here's what we're going to do..."
Re:Great, what we really needed (Score:3, Interesting)
No, the thing that the protesters have lost is anonymity and the ability to tell just one side of the story -- theirs. Now, with citizen journalism and the abundance of video, they can no longer cry, "police brutality!" at every encounter. This is why many at OWS have attacked those carring cameras and have refused to allow access to news media (see Oakland.) They want to be able to instigate, and then play victim to gain sympathy.
You're right. The game has changed -- now the protesters can no longer have complete control of the narative.
Re:Great, what we really needed (Score:4, Interesting)
Very few (if any) cops want to be the guy who shot his sidearm into a crowd of protesters. Even if they don't wind up being prosecuted, it would make their life very shitty for a while.
Not to mention, they are human beings and, with normal human variance, possess a conscience, possibly even slightly more than the average citizen given their affinity for a dangerous job that primarily involves protecting other people.