New Rifle Tech Offers Variable Muzzle Speed 443
Ponca City, We love you writes "A gun that fires variable-speed bullets that can be set to kill, wound, or just inflict a bruise is being built by a Lund and Company Invention, a toy design studio that makes toy rockets powered by burning hydrogen obtained by electrolyzing water. The company is being funded by the US Army to adapt the technology to fire bullets instead. The new weapon, called the Variable Velocity Weapon System or VWS, lets the soldier use the same rifle for crowd control and combat, by altering the muzzle velocity. It could be loaded with 'rubber bullets' designed only to deliver blunt impacts on a person, full-speed lethal rounds, or projectiles somewhere between the two. Bruce Lund, the company's CEO, says the gun works by mixing a liquid or gaseous fuel with air in a combustion chamber behind the bullet. This determines the explosive capability of the propellant and consequently the velocity of the bullet. 'Projectile velocity varies from non-lethal at 10 meters, to lethal at 100 meters or more, as desired,' says Lund. The existing VWS design is a .50 caliber (12.7 mm) rifle weapon, but Lund says the technology can be scaled to any size, 'handgun to Howitzer.'"
Set rifle to stun! (Score:5, Insightful)
Great, a rifle with a stun setting!
I would not want to be the guy that tests the low setting (or the high one for that matter) to make sure it isn't fatal!
Oh, good. (Score:4, Insightful)
More 'non-lethal' force options - to use against 'undesirable' expressions by the domestic populations of 'liberal democracies' - that have lawfully assembled against the wishes of their 'representatives'. [guardian.co.uk]
This is worse than the sub-harmonic puke-ray, or the microwave brain-fryer.
Welcome to the movie, "Brazil."
Re:Oh, good. (Score:5, Funny)
I would bet I still have to spend a good long time in the hospital if I'm hit from the Howitzer, even if it is set on 'stun'.
Re:Oh, good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is in acknowledgment that anything propelled by a non-trivial amount of powder has the power to kill, even bean bags and rubber bullets or tasers.
Tasers propelled by gun powder? Shit, that would ruin anyone's day.
Re:Oh, good. (Score:4, Interesting)
You still don't point them at someone who is complying with the law and you only use them after other tactics have proven in-effective and there is a significant risk of injury to the officer or others.
Oh, of course not. What shit -- anyone "compliant" who doesn't meet a cop's standard of humanity will be met with taunting or other abuse designed to escalate the situation to one where the cop can call "resisting", then all bets are off. They can afford to pick a fight with anyone at any time and come out "clean".
And in California, our idiot voters a few years back voted in a law that allows taking your DNA as part of "processing" if you're arrested for anything (yes, the bastards think we're anything more than meat or vegetables), this without even being indicted or convicted.
Of course, if you're eventually not convicted of anything, you can "apply" to have your sample destroyed. Note -- you can "apply", not "fucking force the shits to verifiably destroy". What are the odds they'll really do so. Of course, in the meantime, they'll have used it to see if they can connect you to anything else, even the gumball you might have stolen fifty years ago.
Re:Oh, good. (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, of course not. What shit -- anyone "compliant" who doesn't meet a cop's standard of humanity will be met with taunting or other abuse designed to escalate the situation to one where the cop can call "resisting", then all bets are off. They can afford to pick a fight with anyone at any time and come out "clean".
You don't know what you're fucking talking about, and I find you offensive. Maybe this happened to you, or somebody you know, and it's gotten you irked. But I guarantee that I know more cops than you do, and *never* -- not once -- has this happened in my personal experience as an ex-police officer.
I'm not suggesting that it doesn't happen in the whole wide world, but using words like "anyone" and stating definitively that the defacto method for police of dealing with people is to trick them into resisting arrest, is ignorant and frankly tin-foilish.
As a rule (and I mean that -- rule), you use the least force necessary. If they are being arrested, you want to get them into the van/car and off to the station quickly and cleanly, and with the least paperwork. Resisting arrest entails additional paperwork, and if there's one thing cops hate, it's that.
So shut your stupid fear-inciting mouth, and start commenting on "facts" that you actually know something about.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then as someone who was unjustifiable beaten by the cops in their own home I can safely say you hang out with scum who should never have been given authority and the right to hurt another person on a wim and their illustrious word that the perp deserved it.
If you don't like it well tough put your head back in the sand and keep hanging out with the vermin, but if you lie with dogs.... well you know the rest I'm sure.
DP
Re:Oh, good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Then as someone who was unjustifiable beaten by the cops in their own home I can safely say you hang out with scum who should never have been given authority and the right to hurt another person on a wim and their illustrious word that the perp deserved it.
Great... you can use this method of thinking for absolutely anything. Examples:
1. A police officer does something wrong means they are all scum.
2. One jew does something wrong and this means they are all scum.
3. One child does something wrong and so they are all scum.
4. One human being does something wrong and so they are all scum.
5. One organism does something wrong and so every organism on the Earth is rotten to the core.
See how this works?
Anyone that had an iota of sympathy with you after being unjustifiably beaten would have lost that sympathy halfway into your first sentence, because you are a cretin.
Re:Oh, good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh, good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your exchange with GP brings to light an interesting issue. The biggest difference between you, "jahudabudy", and GP "maypull" is that maypull knows a bunch of cops and you apparently don't. I think that has a lot to do with your differing perspectives. Maypull has seen police officers in all sorts of situations other than that of an arrest, traffic stop, questioning, etc. (let's ignore that he was a cop for illustrative purposes), whereas you have not. More importantly, the cops know maypull and have seen HIM in all sorts of situations other than that of an arrest, traffic stop, questioning, etc.
I guess what I'm saying is this: as long as police officers are nothing more than law enforcement whose main interaction with the public is when a call goes out or when they see something they don't like, the image you have (of a power imbalance that can screw up your life on first contact) will be the prevailing one. If the police officers are active members of the community who get to know the citizens in their jurisdiction, the uniform becomes much less of an unwelcome presence--you see instead a friend (or acquaintance) who can help you out when you need it, and they see someone they are familiar with and are less likely to need to bring their authority to bear.
There is undoubtedly resistance to the idea of just walking up to an officer and having a chat, at least where I live. Some of that, I think, stems from the fact that the cops are usually in their cars rather than on foot. More comes from our modern lack of community where we live surrounded by strangers. I don't think there's an easy answer to uprooting the mistrust in police, but I'm betting that what I described above is the biggest part of the problem.
Re:Oh, good. (Score:5, Insightful)
You still don't point them at someone who is complying with the law...
Once you have enough laws you can point them at anyone.
Re:Oh, good. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a problem with "non-lethal." The problem is that, such as with Tasers, they are used far more often than philosophically intended. If Tasers were only used as proscribed, (i.e. as a substitute for a gun) they'd be great, but because of the "non-lethal" label, they get overused in situations when a gun would never be appropriate (such as when escorting a political protester from a public gathering, or shutting up a smart mouthed and cuffed suspect).
Re:Oh, good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Tasers are also intended to be used as a substitute for nightsticks. Shocking someone is generally considered quite a bit safer than beating them into submission using a heavy stick. Considering the wide range of uses they cover, I believe they're use is a good thing.
This compares in stark contrast to these new VWS. They sound significantly more dangerous than a taser, and the chances of shooting someone with the wrong setting or ammunition is quite a bit higher.
Pick up a taser and you know the result. Pick up one of these and the results may be quite a bit different.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oh, good. (Score:4, Informative)
What a bunch of BS. Here in Oregon, the cops outright murdered a number people by using excessive force. One was just peeing on the sidewalk and ran away. Officers chased him, caught him, and beat him so severely that it killed him. Several others were mildly psychotic and instead of just tackling them or using a taser, they shot them dead.
A few years ago a person known to the police to be unarmed was fired at by 21 rounds of bullets as he ran away. Amazingly none of the bullets hit him. And if you are in a car and try to get away, the officers will later say that they were afraid that they were going to be hit by the car and killed, so they sprayed 50 rounds of bullets into the car as self defense.
This kind of stuff goes on all over the US. Its not just local to here.
Less-pregnant? (Score:3, Funny)
Eh, almost all manufacturers and professional groups in the US now refer to them as less-lethal not non-lethal.
So, I guess that if I used a paper tissue instead of no condom at all, my girlfriend would get less-pregnant, eh? :-)
But then, again, I'm a slashdotter, so why the worry...
Re:Oh, good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, more realistically, more force options, to be used properly and improperly as befits human beings who are far less than perfect.
Something abused != Something bad. That is the more tired and idiotic argument of the 'all weapons should be lethal' crowd.
This is going to be an interesting innovation if it works as advertised. Should especially make the more dangerous situations (capture alive and hostage) easier to deal with since the soldiers will have guns that can shoot to kill or injure, allowing them to fire into situations they normally couldn't.
Re:Oh, good. (Score:5, Insightful)
You might be right for soldiers since they tend to have different objectives and priorities, but I'm not as sure about this for civilian police forces. Most police forces which I know of are trained that if they're going to shoot at all, they should be shooting to kill. There's generally good reasoning behind this too, because you probably shouldn't be shooting someone at all unless you or someone else is in immediate and serious danger from them. If that's the case, why put the outcome in doubt by trying to be non-leathal about it and making it much harder to avoid screwing up?
Irrespective of the mode, you're still propelling a projectile at someone. It's either going to kill them, hurt and stop them, hurt them without stopping them, or not affect them at all. If you're trying to tune things to get a specific outcome (hurting and definitely stopping) instead of one of the extremes, it'll be much harder to get it right and you're at a higher risk of screwing things up. The speed of the projectile certainly won't be the only deciding factor.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But it's not cheaper from a political embarrassment viewpoint. If the protesters in say, Egypt, could be put down by bullets without the word "protesters killed" in the local papers, it would happen.
Re:Oh, good. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a problem that is caused by the ideology of the Egyptian state (a certain religion, 3 guesses which one, same reason they refuse to let atheists get a job), not by the guns used the egyptian state uses to enforce it's religion on it's victims.
In saudi arabia the "morality police" who have been accused of anally raping people with sticks for not going to the mosque one of the 5 required times per day will probably get access to these guns.
The problem is the ideology, not the guns. As was aptly demonstrated yesterday, a bulldozer can be an effective weapon too, you can't forbid weapons. And yes, at least with these guns those people, even those oppressed, will live to see another day as opposed to dieing.
Too many variables (Score:4, Informative)
Apples and ordnance (Score:5, Insightful)
the same group of people who enthusiastically defend peer-to-peer file-sharing because of its myriad legal uses condemn less-lethal weaponry because some (not all) police officers will use them unethically
Don't you think weaponry should be held to a higher standard of scrutiny than file sharing?
I mean, when P2P is misused, what's the worst that can happen? A copyright holder misses out on a few bucks that he may or may not have ever gotten anyway. He lives on to fight another day, and he can even sue the pirates for damages if he manages to track them them down.
If a police officer misuses "less-lethal" weaponry, however, someone ends up in the hospital -- or the morgue. His family might have some legal recourse, but that won't ease his suffering or bring him back from the dead.
Oh, spare me the blanket generalizations (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, spare me the blanket generalizations.
"Same group"? What same group? Slashdot is a mass of unrelated people with opinions ranging from "pirates should walk the plank" to presenting sharing other people's property as some great fight for freedom. I'm in the former camp, for example. In regards to guns, again, you have the full spectrum, from people who are rabidly against guns, to people whose gun is their penis size symbol, whith some more sane shades in between. When it comes to Taser, you have again a whole range from people who think they're the greatest thing ever, to people who think they're a sign of the apocalypse. Again, with a lot of shades in between, it's not a dichotomy.
There is no "Slashdot crowd".
Besides, here's a fun, if more advanced concept: people can also
1. have wildly different opinions on different issues. Or
2. judge them differently, by how they fit a bigger concept.
E.g., if you judge both by how the powerful guys (government, corporations, etc) use them to bully the small guys, you have entirely different worries about the two issues. I haven't yet heard of anyone using a P2P program to torture, but the Taser for example has occasionally been used for torture or intimidation. Honestly, I can't imagine an oppressive regime's police going to a demonstration and shouting "disperse or we whip out the laptops with BitTorrent!" So from the point of view of, basically, how it affects your liberties, the concerns about the two are wildly different.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh, good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Which means our military is increasingly seeing it's own populace as being the target, not an enemy nation.
Either that, or they expect to fight enemies that embed themselves in civilian populations and use human shields. You know,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Yeah. Our military is moving from war fighting to crowd control.
Which means our military is increasingly seeing it's own populace as being the target, not an enemy nation."
That's a pretty big leap to say that because you think the military is moving away from war fighting and towards crowd control, that the military is seeing it's own people as the target. If you look at the past couple of conflicts/wars/skirmishes that our military has been used in, the time actually fighting is starting to decline, and
Re:Oh, good. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's even reflected in operation names. Used to be operation names were designed to mislead (or not lead, at least) the enemy should the enemy become aware of them - Operation Market Garden, Operation Overlord. The point was that the operation name was chosen with its impact on the target of that operation in mind.
Now we have names like "Operation Enduring Freedom."
Just who is the target of that name? Just who is it intended to mislead?
Actually, the names are chosen by PR jackasses to "sell" the operation to the american public (and, to a lesser degree, encourage the participating servicemembers to be more enthusiastic about the op). I was with the 7th Light Infantry Division in December 1989. Most of us were sitting around planning for xmas leave, when we were put on alert. We packed our gear, drew weapons, ammo, bayonets, and E-tools*, and sat around in the assembly area waiting for something to happen. After 36 hours or so of being "ready" , we were trucked over to the air force (to wait AGAIN), and flown in to Panama to back up the initial assault force for what we had been told was operation BLUE SPOON. But a funny thing happened on the way to the air force base--- it had suddenly become operation JUST CAUSE. I can tell you that we, the grunts with the rifles, had a serious case of the eye-rolls when we heard about that. Fucking stupid-ass political hack generals.
* the infantry was sometimes a rough place, even in the all-volunteer 80's. Bayonets had been taken away from the infantry after a few incidents of them killing one another in drunken altercations. Infantrymen, being a strange combination of thickheaded and resourceful, switched to fighting each other with E-tools (entrenching tool = folding army shovel, with a serrated edge). This prompted them to confiscate the E-tools and lock them up with the bayonets and rifles. I'm not sure if all this helped, as guys just resorted to whatever deadly personal items they had handy, but at least it introduced some variety to the infantry murder rolls.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh, good. (Score:5, Funny)
But a funny thing happened on the way to the air force base--- it had suddenly become operation JUST CAUSE.
Are you sure there wasn't an apostrophe there? E.g: "Operation Just 'Cause".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your talking about conspiracy theories, fascist governments, totalitarian regimes, etc.
THAT is not even the biggest concern with a weapon like this. No really. Not even close.
A weapon like this relies on *mechanical* means to vary the amount of force. Add the user's responsibility to check which setting it is *supposed* to be on and you have a recipe for disaster.
I guarantee you it will be LESS than a year after this is put on the streets that you will have the first case of an officer swearing up and do
Re:Oh, good. (Score:4, Interesting)
A weapon like this relies on *mechanical* means to vary the amount of force. Add the user's responsibility to check which setting it is *supposed* to be on and you have a recipe for disaster.
Even beyond that. If you fire a bullet on "stun" speed and hit someone in the breast bone the guy will be uncomfortable. If you fire the same bullet at the same guy and hit him in the eye, chances are the bullet will go all the way to the other side of his skull. Can the LEO guarantee the aim under pressure, when everyone is running like crazy and shots are fired? If not then he becomes a deliberate killer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Excellent point. I was also thinking about the forensic aspect of this as well. How could you prove that such a weapon was set to X level when the round was fired?
Re:Oh, good. (Score:4, Insightful)
So basically, you think people you disagree with have no right to free speech?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well entire religions (well, one specific religion) and it's adherents deny their critics right to life.
Google "asma bint marwan", read what happened, and then we'll see if you're consistently prepared to defend freedom of speech or not. In other words, do you forbid people from having islam as a religion, knowing that it forbids freedom of speech, or do you allow people to use violence (and thus all imams to incite this violence), and even murder, against freedom of speech because of "it's their religion"
Re:Oh, good. (Score:4, Insightful)
What more reason do we need? I don't mind other countries getting ahead, I don't want to go out of my way to hold anyone back, but, I certainly don't want to give anything up as far as my lifestyle so they can get ahead. I'm sorry, I'm just not that altruistic. I kinda doubt anyone is.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Quit teasing the college students. They might spit in your food.
Re:Oh, good. (Score:5, Funny)
Naw, life would be too dull if we didn't have hordes of idiots fawning over the Great Works of Che Guevera.
Also, if you switch to live ammo, Linux will die overnight, the makers of Mountain Dew will go out of business, and Slashdot will be full of people who RTFA. Can't have that, now can we?
Re:Oh, good. (Score:5, Funny)
You only need 2 settings.... (Score:3, Insightful)
What do we need in between those two settings?
Re:You only need 2 settings.... (Score:5, Funny)
Hell, on Star Trek, they only needed 2 settings, Stun and Kill.
What do we need in between those two settings?
- Poke
- Annoy
- Discomfort
- Stun
- Harm
- Maim
- Cripple
- Mutilate
- Dismember
- Terminate
- Massacre
- Disintegrate
- Erase
- Unmake
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
-Loose
-Prolapse
-Hideous Anal Volcano
-Fatal Intestinal Maelstrom
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Thank you Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
Woman killed by "non-lethal" plastic bullet (Score:5, Interesting)
Plastic bullet hits woman in eye, she dies:
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2004/10/22/postgame_police_projectile_kills_an_emerson_student/ [boston.com]
Set this variable speed bullet to "slow" and I bet it more than stings if it hits you in the eye.
Interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Informative)
It would be useless for trap shooting. You need higher velocities so you don't have to lead the clay as much, and so you break it when you hit it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Part of the challenge of sporting clays is knowing which method of leading you should use. Reducing the muzzle velocities would, on the two courses I've practiced on, give you one realistic option for leading. it would also be impossible to make shots on clays running away from you. Shots that track directly across would be even harder considering how far they have to be lead, and the fact that you fire almost the moment you see the shell entering your field of vision.
That would be rather hard to judge, con
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hmm you must not know much about shooting. Ad Topperwein shot quite a few without missing.
Actually, I know quite a bit about shooting, having gone clay, trap, skeet, and pistol shooting many times. My point was that the average person on the sporting range (even the guys who go weekly or whatever) aren't going to be able to hit a clay with a rifle. Sure, there are master marksmen, but they are master marksmen for a reason - because it's impossible to do unless you are skilled far beyond any normal person.
Also, even if your article is accurate in every detail, it states that "The assistants tossi
Phazers set to stun... (Score:5, Insightful)
So... hopefully no one forgets to flip the switch from kill to stun.
Re:Phazers set to stun... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, this kind of gun is an accident just waiting to happen.
So much for "don't point your gun at something you don't intend to kill."
Re:Phazers set to stun... (Score:4, Interesting)
The phrase has roots in Military Weapons Handling, where it's standard phraseology. We shoot to kill the enemy, not each other. In training environments, there is no enemy, so we take all precautions not to shoot each other.
Outside the military realm, it's just another phrase the civvies borrowed from us, but still carrying the same warning. The safest weapon is the one that is not pointed at anyone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Am I hopelessly old fashioned, or are there other people still alive who feel that there's something morally suspect about intending to kill people in the first place?
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the period in history to which you refer. Exactly when was it that guns weren't for killing people? There's nothing new about people killing each other. Morality is a whole 'nother issue.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Germany was a disaster after WWI, and something was bound to happen. Without Hitler, WWII might have been even messier. Or maybe WWII would never happen, and many great things (like computers) that we take for granted would never have been invented (necessity being the mother of invention).
If I were given the option to go back in time and kill Hitler I wouldn't, since I cannot predict the consequences.
Yay for offtopic :)
Overuse again... (Score:5, Insightful)
We had those growing up -- we called them BB guns.
4 pumps would not hurt a girl.
10 pumps to use on family members.
15 pumps for neighbor's kids
20 pumps for the kill.
Seriously though, I shudder with all of the implications of "nonlethal" technology in police hands. It rapidly leads to overuse. Remember the bean bag to the head that killed the girl celebrating the Red Sox victory? The current rash of taser (over)use?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Remember the bean bag to the head that killed the girl celebrating the Red Sox victory?
That wasn't a beanbag. It was something like a compressed pepper bullet. It's less than lethal when it hits something a hard, a little less so when it enters through the eye socket and splatters over the back of the skull.
Sort of like, say, the bullets fired from the gun this article talks about.
Ever wonder why you have to wear a face mask when playing paintball?
A nonlethal shot to the gut can become a lethal shot to the eye.
This worries you? (Score:5, Informative)
That gun is nothing. Take a look at this clip of Raytheon's latest toy. It's a pain-ray that when used properly will leave no permanent damage or marks of any kind:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1w4g2vr7B4 [youtube.com]
I wish I could find the entire 60 Minutes segment on this technology. What is incredibly disturbing is the angle 60 Minutes chooses to take; they do not address EVEN BRIEFLY the controversial implications of the existence of a weapon like this: the potential for physical harm (trampling in crowds), the possibility of it's use as a "perfect" torture device, philosophical questions about authority, etc.
Instead they immediately side with the proponents of this technology and frame the Pain Ray as the victim of a lot of governmental bureaucracy: "the soldiers/police are dying every day while this tool sits behind a lot of red tape".
Re:This worries you? (Score:5, Interesting)
there was (may still be) a lot more information about this online, especially as a bunch of civilians rather joyfully volunteered to subject themselves to it at a "non lethal weapon fair." of course the device was only set to its lowest setting and it was a prototype. the people got a nice sunburn and i believe they all worse eye cover and stood facing a certain "safe" angle.
this device doesn't worry me, it keeps me awake at night. imagine being disabled and in a crowd somewhere when a riot breaks out and this device is used. it is scary enough being in a crowd when a riot breaks out...you factor in the people being fried and "compelled" to run by that sensation to their skin/eyes and i consider that inhumane on many levels. i've been on crutches and in a wheelchair for a bad injury. in a crowd, here in the US i almost got knocked down and there wasn't a riot or anyone frying my skin. falling down in a mosh pit at a concert and getting trampled is pretty scary...i'll pass on this "non-lethal" device and just take a real damn bullet to the head any day. i even signed a piece of paper saying i would so i have to shut up and do the i can neither confirm nor deny now.
Still Have Them... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's called a "shotgun" and shells are available from blank to bean-bags, to birdshot, to buckshot, to slug, or even to HE Grenade for military users.
This looks like a solution in desperate need of a problem.
Re:Overuse again... (Score:5, Insightful)
taser misuse is drastically overstated. i'll grant there is probably isolated cases of cops abusing their powers, but they would do that taser or not. they are just bad cops, taking the taser away changes nothing.
I disagree. For example, in the instance of the elderly woman in the retirement home that made a big splash in the press, I seriously doubt the cop would have hit her with a baton or shot her with a pistol. The fact that is was a taser and just for "disabling without hurting" probably made a large difference in the way he made his choice.
That is not to say I don't think non-lethal options such as a taser are a bad idea or cause more harm than good; only that we should consider whether this new technology will cause more harm or good and whether training will change that.
I remember that story... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't have a link to the story, but the old lady was in a wheelchair. She had no weapons. The policeman hit her with a taser because she was upset.
Honestly, I think that the police need to be held to account for EVERY use of their weapons, lethal or otherwise. They account for every bullet. They should have to account for every taser zap, and there should be a commission of citizens that judge cases of police misconduct in every precinct, the way some do now.
Re:Overuse again... (Score:5, Insightful)
...all police get to experience the taser and pepper spray before they are issued the gear, so they know it hurts like a motherfucker.
Sorry, but this is completely untrue. I know a number of police officers and my brother used to be one. I just double checked with him. He was issued police grade pepper spray but neither he nor any of the other cops he knew had tried it on themselves. A couple of them had tried stun guns on themselves, but just horsing around, not as part of training.
i can't find the specifics of the case you are talking about, but i'm assuming since you didn't state she died, that she didn't. until you post a link to a news article i'm going to point out even old grannies can wield a knife.
Strangely I assumed typing "elderly woman taser" into Google would bring up the article. Instead it seems to bring up articles about dozens of different incidents. a good one [local6.com] is this one here. The woman was in a wheelchair and was wielding weapons, but since she was elderly and immobilized, without tasers they could have simply waited her out or used a different non-lethal solution instead of tasering her over and over again until she died. Read that article and tell me if you honestly think the cops would have killed her if they did not have tasers.
i will say one thing though. private security shouldn't be issued tasers. all the cases i can find where it was really misused has been private security guards.
Amnesty international's report on taser abuse lists hundreds of deaths, but the vast majority seem to be police (not private security) using them on people who did not pose an immediate threat to the officers or others.
Really, I think tasers can be a great benefit to law enforcement. I just think they have been deployed without proper training or guidelines for when they can be used, and this has lead to overuse and abuse. The same problem is a very real concern with other, new, less-lethal technologies.
Oops (Score:5, Insightful)
While this may seem like a great idea, I think the concept encourages the use of weapons in crowd control more. When that weapon used in crowd control can become lethal through carelessness, you're just waiting for disaster.
There have to be better means of crowd supression rather than using weapons that can be lethal.
Re:Oops (Score:5, Insightful)
Set the howitzer to stun! (Score:5, Funny)
Why exactly would I want to fire a 155mm projectile slowly?
Firing rubber chickens. That must be it.
Re:Set the howitzer to stun! (Score:4, Funny)
And punkin' chunkin.
Re:Set the howitzer to stun! (Score:4, Interesting)
I read about just that, a few years ago in a Dutch Navy publication. It was an article on the lack of big guns capable of coastal barrages on modern ships, and options to put them back on now that that type of warfare might become useful again. The idea is to have one (or a few) guns fire a few rounds in succession along different trajectories, so that they all arrive on target at the same time, creating a nice firestorm. One of the options discussed was a gun using technology similar to this rifle.
Re:Set the howitzer to stun! (Score:4, Informative)
Multiple Round, Simultaneous Impact is a feature that has been implemented on a number of artillery systems in recent years. The US armys Crusader (cancelled) project was one I remember, and there was a German one, and the Swedish Archer. Big howitzers have used different powder charges for high angle indirect fire for a long time. So do mortars.
I look forward to seeing this weapon system on upcoming episodes of Future Weapons (Discovery and Military channel)
Re:Why exactly would I want to fire a 155mm? (Score:4, Funny)
Only kidding ; )
I was just envisioning the pi//police wheeling out a 155 and pointing it
at a peacefull demonstration / protest:
"Don't worry, good people of Oceania, it is but set to stun"
"Did he just say run?"
"I'm not sure but i think we'd better."
Re:Why exactly would I want to fire a 155mm? (Score:4, Funny)
My rubber chickens are bigger than your rubber chickens.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry (Score:3, Insightful)
Opps, my bad
I thought I had it on stun...
I can see it now... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually I don't think the military cares about using this gun for crowd control. It has been pursing caseless ammunition for years because of cost and logistical advantages. I think the 'variable force' is just icing on the cake.
is it still a gun with all those bells & whist (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
you buy m-16s, sniper rifles, and pistols because of the specialized applications - I don't buy the one size fits all thing - a pistol is about 2 lbs, and a sniper rifle is good out to a kilometer or so - I doubt anything can fill both roles. Regardless, soldiers want reliability - I wouldn't trust a single complicated device to save my bacon
I can think of at least 2 places, where the military might like to have a multi purpose gun, Iraq and Afghanistan, just toggle it to 'stun' and fire away without worries that it wasn't the right guy, if you need lethal force because they're firing back at you, then you can switch the setting while hiding behind a building.
I doubt the locals will grok the whole non-lethal thing - they'd be totally justified in trying to kill some asshole who's shooting at them. Hell, if a cop just started
Lund says the technology can be scaled to any size (Score:4, Funny)
I can't wait to see the Howitzer that leaves a bruise.
Impossible to identify non-lethal attacks (Score:5, Insightful)
With such a weapon the supposed target would never be able to distinguish between lethal and non-lethal attacks, and any mistake can turn out deadly -- you will either have a cop unknowingly shooting lethal bullets, or fleeing person returning fire with a regular gun, believing that cops are trying to kill him. Or both at the same time. The right thing to do is to go into the opposite direction -- making lethal and non-lethal weapons so different that it will be impossible to take one for another even from a distance. Like the difference that exists now between a gun and a club, or between uniforms and equipment of soldiers (who always shoot to kill) and riot police (that is expected to never use anything deadly).
Spud gun (Score:3, Insightful)
So essentially it's a fancy potato launcher?
Nothing new here (Score:3, Insightful)
Liquid and gas-propelled projectiles are not new and have been used in a variety of weapons for over ninety years. The drawback to this scheme is hydrogen's energy density. It is not even remotely close to single or double-base smokeless propellants. This is unlikely to go anywhere.
Rule #1 of Marksmanship (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's PR spin. I really think they're hoping to get a contract to develop this technology for tank and naval guns, but are finding it a hard sell since the navy has a hard-on for rail guns for their future ships.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think I know why the military, specifically the Navy, is interested in rail guns. A nuclear powered ship is never short on electrical power. They are always short on storage. Take out the need to store gunpowder and you gain storage space. The reduced fire hazard is a major bonus.
Anything that wishes to compete with the rail gun must be able to run on electricity (or perhaps steam) to be compatible with the "electric navy" plan. Have selectable power/range. Also have size/weight/cost comparable with
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Interesting, but perhaps not what it seems. (Score:4, Insightful)
This technology really doesn't see best suited for hand weapons. A single external pack of liquid or gaseous propellant really doesn't seem like a good idea for an infantry weapon. At best it adds a further degree of complication to cleaning and maintaining the weapon, and at worst makes it more dangerous to use than current designs.
Police use? The money would be better spent on more training, I'd suspect.
Now a tank or naval gun might be a very interesting environment for a system like this. Because the propellant would be pumped separately from the projectile, shells would be smaller/lighter than conventional shells of a similar caliber. The autoloader could be smaller and lighter, thereby making the turret smaller. Likewise, it would be easier to compartmentalize the propellant separately from the fighting compartment. The tanks could conform to available space, taking up less interior room. Guns could fire in either a flat or arcing trajectory as well, making them more flexible.
The problem of having the propellant under pressure could be a serious fire hazard, of course...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As for the use of liquid prop
non-lethal Howitzer (Score:3, Funny)
I wonder how that one would work.
The fallacy in the claim of non-lethality is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Life or Death Violation of K.I.S.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to assume that the military is looking into this simply because they look into everything, not because they actually plan to deploy it. It's a terrible idea.
1. See the incident [google.com] a few weeks ago where a soldier was firing machine gun blanks into a crowd during a demonstration. He swapped mags--but unfortunately, the fresh mag was not filled with blanks.
2. A tactical shooting instructor I once had, a cop, told us about the bean-bag shotgun he kept in his patrol car. The barrel was wrapped with blue tape, and there was a strict policy, as "leave without pay and a reprimand in your file", against ever loading it with anything other than beanbag rounds. In a crisis, if you grabbed the blue barrel, you had to be certain you would be firing beanbags, not lead.
3. When you point your gun at a person and pull the trigger, you must be very certain about what the gun will do. This adds a whole 'nother level of complexity to what should be a simple, reliable design. Not only will soldiers and cops inadvertently fire this thing on "kill" not "stun", but there's also a question of whether or not it will fire at all--just as bad if the cop needs to make a bad guy stop.
4. When a bad guy sees a gun pointed at him, he needs to be certain that if he doesn't do as he is told, he will die. I don't want bad guys to see this gun, and decide to take a gamble that it's only set to stun.
5. Americans have, and should have, a deep suspicion towards inappropriate force being exercised under color of law. The way to deal with this is through the Second Amendment, which properly exercised results in soldiers, cops, and civilians[1] regarding each other with mutual respect and caution. If you can't trust your military or police, the answer isn't to give them weak weapons--the answer is to disband them, by force if necessary, and organize trustworthy forces.
[1] NB: Technically, the police are civilians (see for example Robert Peel #7 [magnacartaplus.org]), but I hope this gets my point across. I wish I knew a word for "out of uniform, unbadged civilians", but nothing comes to mind.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Amazing. I'm actually speaking from experience - we had an incident a few years back where troops were loading their magazines from a pile of "loose" rounds, in the middle of the night, without using any illumination. Unfortunately, a live round had somehow found it's way into the pile. I had a ch
Just great . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, instead of "I didn't think it was loaded!", or "I thought the safety was on1", it will be "I thought it was on the non-fatal setting!". Better to keep standard guns and non-lethals completely separate IMHO just for simplicity's sake. An actual firearm (regardless of what you think is in the chamber or what safeties or settings you think are on) should always be treated as if loaded and ready to kill whatever it's pointed at. When people failed to do that, there are always consequences.
Re:Wikileaks says Army prototype has 16 settings: (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Wikileaks says Army prototype has 16 settings: (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems appropriate: safe non-lethal weapons are pretty much science fiction.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nerf! (Score:3, Funny)
You forgot to include 'effective' in your list.
Nerf makes a whole line of "safe non-lethal weapons". I don't think the army is interested... :-)
T
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure they were given the whole 'you will be helping to secure America' bullshit / assuaging.
Much more likely they were given the whole 'you will be given a whole heap of money' line.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Why not? it's not like they've never helped make lethal weapons. In case you didn't know, the M-16 was originally developed my Mattel.
Re:It's interesting... (Score:4, Funny)
That high-pitched sound you hear is Eugene Stoner spinning in his grave.
Re:those of you who played Top Secret will remembe (Score:3, Informative)
The gyrojet was a solid propellant round which gained velocity as the propellant was burned; a missile rather than a bullet.
See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrojet [wikipedia.org]
From TFA:
So this would seem to work more like a conventional firearm, only one would se
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not really an advantage. What you don't want them to hear is the muzzle blast. This gives away the sniper's location. The muzzle noise can be minimized with a silencer, for either super or subsonic rounds.
The supersonic 'crack' is produced by the bullet shock wave as it passes by. Although it reveals the passage of a round, it doesn't emanate from the direction of the sniper. So it doesn't give away position. Eliminating the supersonic 'crack' sound might help if the first couple of rounds miss. But