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.

Comments

Saved!

[Paster Of Muppets]

Surely it would be possible to deflect the beam by carrying a charged sphere (or similar device) next to you to attract the charged/ionized particles...

Next gen. Non Lethal weapons

[JosKarith]

This is a massive growth area for all sorts of companies - usually ones who have been in the traditional defense markets for years until it became unpopular. Basically they carry on doing the same sort of thing as normal, just point to the non-lethal weapon line and say "Hey, at least these don't kill people"
Yeay, right. Cos' a jolt that'll put you down and twitching isn't going to stop a weak heart, or mess up a pacemaker.
It's like the pulsed "non-lethal" laser - the first shop vapourises a small section of the target's surface , and the next ignites the cloud of gases. On low power it knocks people down with mild burns(hope it didn't hit your face), on high it chews through brick walls.
Why are these so bad? Simple - by the simple act of labelling these as non-lethal the authorities greatly increase their ability to use them in all sorts of situations.
After all, a "democratic" government that authorised use of automatic weapons on a rioting crowd would have a few questions to answer - But hey, CS gas, Rubber bullets, tasers are all fine...

fake or not?

[Anonymous Coward]

While i'm inclined to agree with everyone else that this is a scam, I can't be too sure. So here's my assumptions about why it's fake (in addition to aforementioned free website/e-mail):
1) In the picture, the "soldier" doesn't look older than 14
2) The "soldier"'s shirt is not tucked in, nor are there any insignia on the shirt. A definite no-no.
3) The "soldier" is not wearing combat boots, nor are his pants tucked into the boots. Another no-no for real soldiers.
4) The "weapon" definately looks like a paper tube wrapped in gift wrap. Additionally, whatever that spring thing is at the end of the tube looks rusty. Call me a sticker but methinks that a weapon that shoots electricity would not have a rusty thing at the end.

Now here's why I think this could be real, just incredibly, incredibly stupid looking:
1) WHOIS indicates that the website has been registered since 1997. While not entirely unplausible, it seems unlikely that for just a joke someone would have registered the website that long ago, and would have reregistered it.
2) A Google search show some interesting things. Like the Pete Bitar who is the president/register/etc. is VP of American Aviation where his bio mentions this xtremeads thing. A little bizarre that a professional company would mention a fake project for the bios of their personnel.
3) The google search also found an article from the Inside Indiana Business that mentions the company and the president. Once again, it seems unlikely this guy could fool that many people. Although not entirely unplausible.

Anyways, those are my feelings, what do you all think?

Re:Look at the uses they're citing -- chilling

[TheRaven64]

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...

I do. Civilians attacking troops with deadly weapons (knives, thrown rocks etc.). At the moment they have three choices:

1. Fire back with lethal weapons. Kill civilians.
2. Don't fire back. Die.
3. Try to defend yourself with hand-to-hand combat. Possibly get injured, possibly get accused of brutality.

An area effect stun weapon would allow them to disable the protesters (who may well have real grievances, but who are currently a danger to themselves and others) without causing loss of life. Would you rather that they fired into a crowd?

This is a weapon designed to use in case of protests or riots. What kinds of governments need this sort of weapon?

Take 5,000 peaceful protesters. Add a sprinkling of drunk or over-psyched individuals. Watch your peaceful protest turn into a bloodbath as fights break out and others get trampled by those trying to escape. How would you suggest the police deal with this situation? Being able to knock everyone out and then sort them out later seems a lot better than the kind of tragedies that these things often degenerate into.

Would you want the LAPD to have this weapon?

You don't want them to have non-lethal weapons, but you're happy with them carrying guns?

Re:They can't afford a serverver.

[ericspinder]

Looks to me that they made the right choice for a server, after more than half and hour as a slashdot article, the server is still up and the large picture loads quickly. Granted, phrases like "We have succeeded with what could be termed a 2003 version of a short-range "Phaser on Stun"" and calling 20 feet "long range" doesn't inspire confidence, but it seem like a item which could be developed into something useful.