Slashdot Mirror
Next Generation Stun Guns?
RoyalCheese writes "Well, I've just been reading an interesting little article on New Scientist's website about new crowd control weapons that electrocute/stun the targets. Seems we will soon be at risk of being stunned by ionised air generated by laptop sized lasers..." Reader Spetiam adds "News.com.au reports on a new weapon that will be able to zap you from afar, wires not included: 'We will be able to fire a stream of electricity like water out of a hose at one or many targets in a single sweep,' XADS [Xtreme Alternative Defense Systems] president Peter Bitar is quoted as saying." So, this company has a free-hosting website and and a free-email address for their "president", and the photo looks like cardboard tubes wrapped with green camouflage tape. Hmmmm.
Yep, that's what I thought, another Homeland Security scam. Nothing to see here. Carry on.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Free website, anonymous email, cheap looking product. Am I the only one who sees this as just apipe dream by some 14 year old kid who got bored one day and fed it to a news source. I see no info that is credible at all.
Stay tuned for new sig...
I'm all for it. There are a lot of bastards out there who deserve to be stunned/electrocuted! :)
(I hate people)
But the (smaller) gun fires a single shot with a range is limited to 7m, which makes it nearly useless for crowd control, especially in hotspots such as Iraq...
Yeah, I seem to remember a lot of situations in Iraq where there was a crowd rioting, and everything would have been better if only we'd had a stun gun to take them all out at once...
Oh, no, actually that really only applies from Saddam Hussein's POV. Take out your crowd of demonstrators, you know? The insurgency in Iraq has been made up largely of well-timed attacks against weak points. They're looking for the spots where we're not vigilant. If we knew where they'd be next, we could use a stun gun I guess... But we don't.
This is a weapon designed to use in case of protests or riots. What kinds of governments need this sort of weapon? The nearest thing to a potential use I can think of in the US would be the Rodney King verdict riots, maybe -- and would you want that? Would you want the LAPD to have this weapon?
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
You now have a non-lethal means of effectivly silencing protest!
No longer will your govenment have to put up with protestors! Unruly tree-hugging anti-capitalists will stumble away even more confused than when they came in! But why stop there!
The mass tesla cannon(tm) can halt all kinds of protest! Even mass protestations against the president can be easily quashed in mid whine! Police forces can quickly and efficiently deal with dissenters without sparking media attendtion!
Coupled with new digital censorship, your government will now have the power to make sure the "Right" kind of society exists in your country!
Order today!
May the Maths Be with you!
XADS is developing two longer-ranged systems, one of which will have a range of 20 feet and the other 50 feet. The 20-foot range system will be able to be towed by a car and set up for mobile operations.
If you think 20 feet is long range, then the first prototype is likely to be about 10 feet or so, or has extremely limited power/time. It likely doesn't carry its own power supply.
But that doesn't mean the technology isn't viable, it just means that it needs a ton of development work and will probably be very limited in its capabilities.
Rubber bullets, tear gas, fire hoses, etc will probably still have a broader applicability to most situations. Either that or the other alternative weapons such as the sonic or light weapons that cause dizziness and nausea.
Power is always an issue, though. Anything that doesn't focus its power on a spot the size of a dime at 300 feet is, due the the laws of physics, going to require immense amounts of power - not hand carryable. Possibly backpack for short sessions.
-Adam
Yes, a story about "phaser guns" and a star trek refference is modded overrated, yet a post about sharks with friggen lasers is more relevant. More evidence slashdot mods smoke crack!
The vapourware company was presumably able to get its press release through the editorial board at New Scientist because they already knew that such products were out there, and the reporting is of the "look how soon they are getting it to market" variety.
My 2p's worth: Both proposals seem to have one flaw, at least for military application, for the same reason gas-based weapons have not been popular since the First World War: If the wind changes, the gas can blow back into your own trenches. I guess a quick-minded operator will switch off the current, but it seems risky.
Actually I would rather have this type of weapon at a check point than a gun that shoots bullets. I'd much rather shoot someone with a taser type of weapon and have them live than shoot them with an M16 and have them die. Having shot someone with an M16 let me tell you, its not a memory you like to have.
Personally, I'd have named the company Novel Alternative Defense Systems. ;-)
Murphy was an optimist.
Hat strap too tight
'Laptop sized' power unit apparently stuck in belt/pocket
Incorrect firing stance for a large weapon (knees locked, stance too narrow)
Power lead dragging ground, should be coiled and tucked
Uniform sleeves too short
sleeves left loose, not buttoned down
Pants cut too long, and not bloused to boots as mentioned above
Incorrect t-shirt under a field jacket
Gun strap too tight, should be resting at the hip to allow a more relaxed grip and faster sweeping when firing... the way it's resting, he would have to turn his entire upper body to sweep, rather than moving the weapon around his hips
This is one that could go on all day... sheesh
You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
Sure, specifying legal limits to its use. Perhaps only by order of a judge.
Any non-lethal means given to the police to subdue a dangerous suspect or suspects should be available.
RIOTs are clearly one area where large scale non-lethal intrevention is warranted. It would not be a violation of Freedom of speech or similar non-sense arguments. If a large group is violently breaking the law then give the police a means to control them.
Whats worse, being stunned or gased? Hell I think stunning may be useful compared to water hoses and rubber bullets.
Its all about context.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The web page calls this thing both a "phaser" and a "disruptor." They claim it's a molecular displacement attack (disruptor), but go on to say it works like a "phaser on stun." Does it use an phased energy amplification capacitance-and-release mechanism? Oh I don't think so. Where's my Star Trek technical manuals...
If they can't keep their terminology accurate, how can we take this seriously?
Your biggest worry is the lycos address?
Am I the only one who thinks a respectable company/research group would NOT call their technology "Xtreme" anything, let alone Xtreme Alternative Defense System To The Max Dude! (okay, I added the "To the max dude!" part, but it sounds like it should be there..)
Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
I think that's exactly his point
It is what I was getting at in an oblique way - they are developing weapons that can be used more casually so that the range of acceptable targets can be widened. Acceptable in this case will usually mean using it on someone who isn't threatening enough to endanger your life or health. And if you're not endangered then the reason for using your weapons is likely to be dubious, e.g. it's politically conveniant.
I too would probably rather be shot with a Taser than an M16. There may be valid uses for this technology (or at least as in comparison to uses of M16's), but there are a couple of points to bear in mind.
Firstly, to all those who are arguing how much better it is for Liberating Soldiers(tm), police and other assorted "good guys" to be armed with these rather than with firearms: This particular weapon currently has a range of about 20'/6m. There is no way that non-lethal weaponry like this is going to be issued for situations that are really dangerous. It will almost always be inferior to an enemy with lethal weaponry.
Which brings us to the second point, their target is therefore those that are not a threat. Note also, that this weapon's big selling point is that it can incapacitate large numbers of people. They may be a threat to economic or political interests, but they are not an enemy force. Weaponry is inappropriate.
Which brings us to the second point - why is it inappropriate? The legitimate use of the police force is to protect society from a criminal minority. The illegitimate use of a police force is for a minority to exert an excessive control over a majority. When this happens, you realize that the interests of the many are not being represented. Weaponry such as this is not attempt to rectify this situation, it is just giving [some] people a means to violate others with (far) fewer legal consequences.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Well, I've just been reading an interesting little article on New Scientist's website about new crowd control weapons that electrocute/stun the targets.
If you electrocute them you can't stun them. They would be DEAD! Electrocute means to kill by electric shock. Not just get a little jolt. I see this error everywhere but I am surprised to see it on slashdot.