Slashdot Mirror
New Rifle Tech Offers Variable Muzzle Speed
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.'"
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!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
2. Medium Stun - causes unconsciousnes from 5 to 15 minutes. Long exposure causes irreversible neural damage, along with damage to epithelial tissue.
3. Heavy Stun - causes unconsciousnes from 15 to 60 minutes depending on the level of biological resistance. Significantly heats up metals.
4. Thermal Effects - causes extensive neural damage to humanoids and skin burns limited to the outer layers. Causes metals to retain heat when applied for over five seconds.
5. Thermal Effects - causes severe outer layer skin burns. Can penetrate simple personal force fields after five seconds of application.
6. Disruption Effects - penetrates organic and structural materials. The thermal damage level decreases from this level onward.
7. Disruption Effects - due to widespread disruption effects, kills humanoids.
8. Disruption Effects - causes a cascade disruption that vaporizes humanoid organisms. Any unprotected material can be penetrated.
9. Disruption Effects - causes medium alloys and structural materials, over a meter thick, to exhibit energy rebound prior to vaporization.
10. Disruption Effects - causes heavy alloys and structural materials to absorb or rebound energy. There is a 0.55 second delay before the material vaporizes.
11. Explosive/Disruption Effects - causes ultra-dense alloys and structural materials to absorb or rebound energy before vaporization. There is a 0.2 second delay before the material vaporizes. Approximately 10 cubic meters of rock are disintegrated per shot.
12. Explosive/Disruption Effects - causes ultra-dense alloys and structural materials to absorb or rebound energy before vaporization. There is a 0.1 second delay before the material vaporizes. Approximately 50 cubic meters of rock are disintegrated per shot.
13. Explosive/Disruption Effects - causes shielded matter to exhibit minor vibrational heating effects. Approximately 90 cubic meters of rock are disintegrated per shot.
14. Explosive/Disruption Effects - causes shielded matter to exhibit medium vibrational heating effects. Approximately 160 cubic meters of rock are disintegrated per shot.
15. Explosive/Disruption Effects - causes shielded matter to exhibit major vibrational heating effects. Approximately 370 cubic meters of rock are disintegrated per shot.
16. Explosive/Disruption Effects - causes shielded matter to exhibit light mechanical fracturing damage. Approximately 650 cubic meters of rock are disintegrated per shot.
Careful What You Wish For....
Couldn't quickly find Judge Dredd clips featuring the Lawgiver 2's "Double Whammy", "Armor Piercing", "Full Auto", or "Signal Flair" munition options...,
however, I did find the "Grenade" clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8O0KMzTYFk
More info on the Lawgiver 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawgiver
This could prove interesting for various sports that use guns such as trap shooting, skeet and general target practice. Because a slower bullet could mean less accidents, for example, if you somehow managed to shoot your foot you would only suffer a small fracture rather than having a broken busted-up foot.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
So... hopefully no one forgets to flip the switch from kill to stun.
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?
Slashdotter, ID #101. UIDs are in binary, right?
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.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Why exactly would I want to fire a 155mm projectile slowly?
Firing rubber chickens. That must be it.
Let's hope that nobody makes a mistake when supposed to switch from lethal to non-lethal bullets...
Rubber chickens? Crowd control! RTFA!
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Could it be crowd safety? Could it be soldier safety? Me, I'm thinking money. You?
Considering the French just had an embarrassing moment where a soldier used live ammo in a demonstration, I don't think you need to be the Great Karnack of some defense think tank to guess how this will work out.
no,no,no,no... i can just see some idiot forgetting to change the settings from "kill" to "stun."
its an accident waiting to happen. if you want to kill people - by all means design to kill. if you want to "control" people - stay the hell away from building something that can accidentally terminate them.
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'.
This is worse than the sub-harmonic puke-ray, or the microwave brain-fryer.
Welcome to the movie, "Brazil."
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Opps, my bad
I thought I had it on stun...
Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
I totally want a realistic looking gun with real bullets that just causes whelts.
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
The ZF-1
It seems to me that having such a variable weapon option will empower a future officer or national guardsman to exercise a bit less restraint when engaging criminals or rioters (specifically peaceful ones). I can already hear in my head the following court defence: "Well, see your honour...The gun was set to crowd control. Not to kill. So it really was not my fault right?" When you point a weapon at someone, you have to be conscious of the fact that that individual could die. Anyone with gun training know that, or should anyway. I feel very uncomfortable with people relaxing that view. I know they mentioned the Army was interested, but I am just looking forward into future issues. Just my two cents...
my mom posts on slashdot.
I know it's late! Anyways, how about more than half the posts here being from types who never heard, fired, or even seen a gun beyond their video games and sci-fi.
What is the airspeed velocity of the bullet I just shot at that unladen swallow?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Now that's killing with style. If the cops want me subdued, I think they've already proven that six big guys w/ batons and pistol butts can do it. Eventually....
Think William Gibson's Neuromancer, for those that don't get the reference. If you haven't read the book, get off /.
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
if you're in a situation where you need a gun, do you honestly have time during your reaction to mess with setting it once it gets so fancy? good grief, you'll be fussing with the interface and making up your mind while your attacker prevails.
~WBGG~ "And I'm so sad like a good book I can't put this Day Back a sorta fairytale with you" ~Tori Amos
And finally I see "Johnny Knoxville" written all over this.
Should heed the proverb: It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.
And "crowd control" is a leading euphemism if ever there was one. Three's a crowd.
...that now we've got toy companies helping the military make 'non lethal weapons'
What ever happened to the word 'no' and moralistic integrity on the part of the American business these days? I'm sure they were given the whole 'you will be helping to secure America' bullshit / assuaging.
In the hands of well trained soldiers trying to capture and not kill a valuable target these would be a good thing. Kick in the door, toss in a flash bang grenade and start shooting on the 'stun' setting.
Yes, you do have time. Set your phasers on stun. That was in 1967. Oh, wait! That was in 2400 something. Oh, wait! I'm so confused.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
You've got to maintain your cool: "Gentlemen, set your phasers to stun."
both the user and target get the same effect in non-lethal mode!
if u want to stop a running suspect, call for backup and use it on both urself and suspect.
buhahahaha
I can't wait to see the Howitzer that leaves a bruise.
What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
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
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".
It's an old and lame idea. It was originally called the Gyrojet. Accuracy is horrible, reliability poor, and the ammo is prohibitively expensive. Yet another "new" idea.
You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Top Secret? The Gyrojet is a real gun.. But still nothing to do with the story..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrojet
that's not really the point, why buy m-16's sniper rifles, special crowd control guns, and hand guns when you can have a 'one size fits all' multi-weapon? the concept behind this gun lets you switch from one purpose to another without buying separate guns.
i still think it's a pork barrel project, even if the rounds don't heat the gun as much as gun powder, hydrogen propelled bullets have their own problems..
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.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Just what we need! Another way to cripple, kill, and maim! And all for just a few measly billions! Of our tax money!!!!!!
oh i forgot, you said 'in the heat of battle you wouldn't have time'
i hate to break it to you but, if they're firing back at you, if you didn't get behind that building, you're either on the ground pretending to be dead, or drowning in a pool of your own blood.
but the cowards that they are they prefer roadside bombs, because they they cant be captured/killed or interrogated if they aren't shot dead... it still might find practical use.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Do you want a gun that is more likely to jam or one that works good?
cuz they put live rounds instead of blanks in their guns. With these now they only have to forget to set to stun, or have a switch malfunction.
While I think it's a neat concept and I wish them the best of luck with it, I certainly wouldn't want to be one of the advanced beta testers on the ground. There are so many elements in the field that can't be accounted for that even at this point and time some of the most tried and true designs are being improved on. I think something like this is going to have failure rates too high for combat/LE use for a long long time and the first guys out there are going to get a hard lesson in advanced technology.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Do you want a sentence that makes no sense or one that works well?
:-)
Sounds like a good way to oppress the masses.
"Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far
Whoops... I coulda sworn I had it on the "bruise" setting.
yes but the OP calls it a gun... i'm arguing semantics
~WBGG~ "And I'm so sad like a good book I can't put this Day Back a sorta fairytale with you" ~Tori Amos
I think the point of this rifle is to make it legal to use for croud control.
So we aim at you, you don't know what comes out it's other end
G
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).
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Oh I saw your point. I was just pointing out that the training soldiers get is pretty intense, and while yes they do make mistakes, giving them a non lethal option isn't necessarily a bad thing.
So essentially it's a fancy potato launcher?
This could prove interesting for various sports that use guns such as trap shooting, skeet and general target practice. Because a slower bullet could mean less accidents, ...
Won't work.
Change the speed and you change the trajectory. The bullet strikes at a different height (and is also differently affected by crosswinds).
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I think I prefer the current setup of having seperate less-than-lethal and full-on lethal weapons. Current standards and practices require less-than-lethal rounds (beanbags, etc) to be used only in specifically designated (usually painted green or some other stand-out color) weapons. This allows people to easily identify lethal or less-than-lethal weapons. Do we really want a weapon that does the job of both, with a risk of failing (not firing at all, under-firing when using lethal force, over-firing when using less-than-lethal force)?
Personally, not a fan of this idea.
If you were offended by anything I said... No, I'm not sorry. Please lighten up.
A weapon designed to only wound is illegal according to the Geneva Conventions. I guess the middle settings are only used on "illegal combatants"?
> Lund says the technology can be scaled to any size, 'handgun to Howitzer.'"
Sergeant, set that howitzer to stun!
Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
*has a sudden urge to play fps* gotta get that BFG!
Do you mean wielded by me, or pointed at me?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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/
Set this variable speed bullet to "slow" and I bet it more than stings if it hits you in the eye.
if it really does have 17 options like someone posted and it ends up being used in certain geographical locations that end up with incredibly hot temperatures it'd be nice if those soldiers had cooling jackets. the research about how body temperatures of over 97 degrees F starts to cause massive mistake making justifies this technology. yeah i don't have a citation for that, i saw it on some science channel. i'm sure the show was funded by someone trying to brainwash me about firefighters. besides that this is pretty offtopic anyway. i think i've just done too much user/gui research so it concerned me there were so many options.
~WBGG~ "And I'm so sad like a good book I can't put this Day Back a sorta fairytale with you" ~Tori Amos
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.
If I remember correctly, it's much harder to hear sub-sonic bullets. That could be appealing to military snipers; a large-caliber rifle that can be easily dialed up for range or power, or dialed way down to make it very difficult to identify where the shots are coming from.
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.
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."
-- Pablo Picasso
...a double whammy?
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Do not aim your rifle at anything you do not intend to kill. All it would take is a misfire or accidentally putting it on the wrong setting and you've got brains splattered everywhere. I don't think these fascists thought this the whole way through. Then again, maybe they did :(
Many people have been killed by a puny .22 and at the other end of the spectrum quite a few people have survived being hit by a .50 calibre. So much depends on where you are hit.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
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...
But seriously, I don't see how this would help with crowd control. Even on stun, the crowd will hear gun fire, and see guns, and conclude that lethal force is being used and panic or (worse) fight back.
And in what situation would you want to switch rapidly between lethal and non-lethal? I can see that putting down one weapon and picking up another can be problematic, and forces law enforcers to carry lots of equipment, but why not focus on creating lightweight weapons that do the same damage instead?
Add that to the concerns about overuse, and what happens if these get into the hands of those without training, and I don't think we have a viable solution.
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
From TFA:
So this would seem to work more like a conventional firearm, only one would select the explosive power rather than relying on different types of ammunition.
A Human Right
Variable velocity land mines?
Check out http://www.snopes.com/military/m16.asp/
Adding the complication of a variable setting for the lethallity of a weapon seems ripe for problems with it not being set the way you want when you use it.
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.
don't want this AC to be lost
This is part of the problem I can see with it. Cops, unintentional or not, will accidentally dial in the higher settings when they really want to use a non-lethal round.
On the flipside, a good part of the reason crooks feared cops was getting lethally shot. Take that away and you can have issues.
I don't read AC A human right
I wonder how that one would work.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Where the bullet strikes a person is just as large a determinate as muzzle energy in whether the wound is fatal or not.
but the cowards that they are they prefer roadside bombs, because they they cant be captured/killed or interrogated if they aren't shot dead... it still might find practical use.
It's funny, the British officers during the American Insurrection complained that the Americans wouldn't line up in "proper ranks" when they fought. Instead they would shoot from behind trees in a very disorganized way that made it very tough for the British troops to fight back.
Are you saying that if given the option between standing on the side of the road and shooting at an enemy or planting a bomb that can be set off remotely that you'd take the "stand on the side of the road" option?
Welcome to asymmetric warfare and insurgency. If you can't hack it, don't invade a country.
As for this weapon, I wonder how it holds up when it's filled with sand, mud, and blood... and now instead of just needing socks and bullets (an old platoon sgt of mine liked to say that's all you needed to pack into battle) you have to also carry some kind of mixing fluid?
I can't wait to see the Howitzer that leaves a bruise.
You need a payload that carries ~100 of those super sproingy rubber balls, hopefully it will go through a gymnasium window...
Yet another reason for gun-toting red-necked slacked-jaws to go "Yeee Haaaa". Grow up America, guns are NOT the answer.
And maybe you can get the Flaming Lips to play a concert in there:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fcheMyNsN4
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
You are shooting the burglar. Cancel or allow?
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 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), 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.
In the wrong hands, sanity is a dangerous weapon.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Seems to me that I've read about proposals for liquid-fueled artillery several years ago. The idea was to use gasoline or diesel fuel in a combustion chamber to propel the shell, and like this proposal, the fuel charge would be variable. IIRC, one proposal was basically to fill the whole barrel with a fuel-air mixture, which would get compressed by a projectile that was a bit smaller than the bore, so you'd have the propellant burning in a shock wave behind it. Don't know if a prototype was ever built, though.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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 shooting at me, I'd assume he was trying to kill me and shoot back.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
A .22 can kill. Equally, people have been known to survive being hit by a .50. There are too many variables in the kill/injure equation and this is certainly not something you'd be able to control with a dial.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
a crowd full of those "Free Mumia" fucktards, then it sounds pretty cool.
Oh I saw your point. I was just pointing out that the training soldiers get is pretty intense, and while yes they do make mistakes, giving them a non lethal option isn't necessarily a bad thing.
No, it's a bad thing. It simply doesn't fit with the job description. Soldiers kill. People are always trying to turn soldiers into cops. We aren't that. We're trained killers. We're a tool for a very specific job: killing people and breaking their shit. It would be wise if people (particularly politicians) would keep that in mind.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Anyone else think of this one?
Larry Niven's "Soft Weapon" ("Slaver Weapon" in the "Star Trek" animated series) provided several different effects in one device. As pointed out there, this is utterly STUPID as an infantry weapon, since you do not want troops messing about selecting the "right" setting. In the story, it was deemed to be a spy's weapon.
This type of thing might work as a small arm for "special operations", such as assassinations and kidnappings.
Artillery, land and naval, has been doing this for ages by varying the powder charge, which is separate from the round.
Why are we "taxpayers" training, and providing weapons for, a mercenary force loyal to the corporate elite and their minions to use in "crowd control"?
would it be easier to have two separate weapons, so you know what you're getting when you reach? i honestly have to ask this question seeing as i stay away from fire and sharp objects. because from a design point of view giving a user too many options can be pointless overkill. (no pun intended)
~WBGG~ "And I'm so sad like a good book I can't put this Day Back a sorta fairytale with you" ~Tori Amos
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.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
We already only fire at guys who fire back at us*. Guys who don't fire at us, we have no reason to shoot at all, be it lethally or non-lethally.
* "We" = guys following the rules. Jackasses who kick in doors in search of revenge who then gun down an unarmed family, they're shitheads who need to break rocks at Leavenworth for the rest of their lives.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Please, show me an non-lethal howitzer. Show me how you can effectively propel 20lbs of unguided metal at a speed that doesn't kill somebody. Not to mention the fact that howitzers are typically used to fire high-explosive shells, because large rounds aren't particularly better than small rounds at actually hitting things. Marketers, please, speak with your engineers someday.
That said, I'd also like to point out that this uses distinct lethal and non-lethal rounds, so nothing terribly radical (Here is a more interesting patent, for a system which does include a switch on the gun itself. What's most interesting about Lund's system is the (apparently) rocket propulsion. It's been used before, in the Gyrojet, and it will be interesting to see if they manage to fix its problems (My bet: no, and it's even less likely to offer such an improvement over existing weapons that it actually gets adopted.)
What do we need in between those two settings?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
What a funny ape, this Homo Sapiens, as he calls himself.
Finding all manner of methods to launch projectiles at his own kind.
The League of Deities need to punish his Creator again, for the sick way he entertains himself.
www.liveleak.com/view?i=434_1216567261
What a champ. Bound and blindfolded - "It Makes a Fellow Proud to be a Soldier."
By the time you finish reading this sentence will end.
Liar or not, he often made some insightful points. Whenever I see some article about "less lethal" or "non-lethal" weapons, I recall this quote from one of his postings:
Seriously, what do people think this "nonlethal weapon" crap is for? Crowds and protests rarely get out of control to the point where any weapons need to be used, and soldiers certainly aren't going to use "less lethal" weaponry of questionable range and value against enemies armed with real guns. "Less lethal" weapons are intended for use against civilians. I don't like sounding like a paranoid weirdo, but this is one thing that flicks the switch every time. We should all be worried when this kind of thing is being developed.
No soldier will ever use it, and if a cop needs to draw a weapon, it should be lethal so he needs to think about what he's doing, or close-quartered like a baton so he has to be in immediate danger. Any "less lethal" weapon that can be used at range is begging to be abused.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
Are you feeling lucky, punk?
Did I say it wasn't a real gun/ammo, Anonymous Clown? The problem with rocket propelled ammo is that it leaves the barrel of the weapon travelling so slowly that reasonable accuracy is always impossible.
You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
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.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
... to a really simple problem. I want to adjust the velocity that the bullet flies at. Okay. Well, most of the time, that's going to be because I just loaded up with rubber bullets, meaning I just changed ammo, meaning that I could have loaded a smaller propellant via a conventional set up. But let's suppose I don't want to change ammo but still want to lower the speed. Well, I could siphon off power by letting more of the gas escape without propelling the bullet. We're so interested in decreasing the amount of gas wasted by automatic reloading mechanisms that actually increasing the gas wasted seems like it should be really easy. Maybe I'm wrong and custom propellant injection is an awesome solution, but it seems to me like the pentagon just bought themselves another expensive toy without bothering to see if they were spending their money well or not.
Set gun to fun?
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
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
Guns can be out and drawn, but you, as the "Punk" won't know what setting it's on, and that might make you calm down a bit.
..........FULL STOP.
This has to be the dumbest idea of the week. if adapted, how many people do you think might die because the rifle was set to kill instead of stun - or, for that matter, the other way around. If you are holding a big heavy rifle, you expect it to probably kill, If you are holding a tasar, you expect it probably won't. If you are holding a generic thing...ooops, i forgot the change the setting! Dumbedy Dumb Dumb Dumb.
Under the stress of the moment, I wonder how often the users will forget to adjust the dial?
IMHO gun safety requires very simple, very absolute rules, the foremost of which is: You DO NOT aim at a person unless you are prepared to kill or seriously hurt said person.
A bit like this pipe cannon then?
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
...I have an Air Arms S-200 2002 block which has a variable muzzle velocity. It's a PCP (precharged pneumatic) air rifle in .22cal (5.5mm) and a fully adjustable hammer spring and Venturi port (which governs how much propellant air enters the firing chamber). The hammer adjustment allows me to set anywhere between 6 and 24 foot-pounds of pressure, which depending on the projectile used (11.7gr to 49gr, hard alloy or steelhead to soft lead), allows anything from plinking at 6m to cutting pigeons in half at 180m. For those interested, the S-200 air rifle is still in production, caveat being that blocks produced after late 2005 have rivetted, rather than screw-threaded, hammer adjustments; hence, the only adjustment is available through the Venturi bolt.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Sure, because in this modern age of warfare there is never a need to capture a high value target for interrogation. I guess we should send the NYPD into the Afghan highlands to make arrests then?
I wonder if that rifle will be called non lethal as they did with tasers.
That list is likely the most updated one about death by tasers. That's 361 people dead, since 1999 to July 22, 2008. Yesterday.
You forgot EX-TERM-I-NATE!
This is very promising technology - it's not strictly new if you Combine - pneumatic/butane nailguns , air rifles , internal combustion engines , you have something like this - i can see it being used for many applications. The simplicity , low cost of rounds and propellant and probably very customisable set of projectiles and velocities could see it find very interesting applications. Ie a Cannon which can be used as a howitzer or a Mortar application. High fire rate machine gun - with no shells to eject it's easy to get 2000rpm from a single barrel weapon - , the rounds are light weight and small so carry 1000's of them in one magazine- perfect for a squad support machinegun or for Aircraft where weight and firepower are very important. And of course the lethal - non lethal combo shotgun drop the velocity below 100mps for non lethal - wind it up to over 500mps(meters per second) for 100% lethal power.
...when the department of supply and delivery changes to metric without telling anyone in the department of works.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
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...
Gyrojet, an 50's era rocket gun, cheap to make, not cheap to shoot, and notoriously inaccurate.
One of the problems with using suppressors (a.k.a. silencers) is that there is often still a sonic boom from the supersonic bullet in flight. One of the benefits of this technology might be to eliminate the need for special subsonic ammo in situations where sound reduction is critical.
This reminds me of those voluntary pain studies in college. For credit in Psych 101, you could get strapped up to electrodes and let the psych department determine your pain tolerance. How long until some dimwit things it'd be a great idea to make a pain study on the tolerance of varying levels of bullet speed. "Most people can only handle a 1 or 2, but this guy took it all the way to 10, and thanks to our waver form, we're not liable for his dead body."
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.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Police and government leadership have so overreacted from excessive force complaints that the police don't get the right training on hitting weapons anymore.
Time was, a well-trained police officer using a sap or a stick could apply an amount of force that would ensure compliance without lasting injury. The PR-24 was also very useful for physical control outside of striking.
But as cops I know tell me, they can't use ANY hitting force for compliance unless they are being hit or are planning on charging the person in question. What this leads to is the only two tools left are the taser and the gun, and we know where this story goes.
A few weeks ago, a dramatic accident happened at a military public-relation operation here in France, ans as a consequence, a dozen persons got injured. What seems the have happend is that a gun was loaded with some real bullet instead of blank ones. if these kind of things happend in 2008 (don't tell me it's because it's froggies :), i fear the accidents caused by a badly set option on an electronic/intelligent rifle...
I remember two rules from the small bit of gun safety I was taught as a kid. Rule one was you don't point a gun at anything/anyone you don't intend to kill. I've been told that cops are trained to shoot to kill, not to wound. Mark my words: the people who stand to benefit most from this variable-speed bullet stuff are the attorneys.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
"I don't buy the one size fits all thing"
neither did i, that's why i said 'i think it's just a pork barrel project'
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
This reminds me of Judge Dredd's Lawgiver gun.... different muzzle velocities and different types of ammo....
I know it's a bit to the end but can you imagine? Maybe using marshmellow fluff
perhaps?
More importantly I know about logic. A = B, B = C, does not mean A = C.
Apparently you don't know logic because that is exactly what it means.
This has already been done by Beretta, as well. It was featured on Discovery Channel's "Future Weapons with Mack." It's called the Beretta LTLX7000 Kinetic Energy Weapon. Here are some links: Video: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/futureweapons-beretta-ltlx7000/404260523 Still Photo: http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/future-weapons/weapons/zone3/slideshow/slideshow.html (slide #5)
~Captain Tact(less)
I saw an interview with a (I forget the term, "spotter?") soldier that was involved in an engagement in a mountain pass in southern Afghanistan near the border of Pakistan. He said they weren't sure if a group they saw in the distance were bad guys or not so they fired "warning shots". When some of the group returned fire, he said this meant he knew they were bad guys so he called in the airstrikes and killed most of them - and then went on about how they had struck a blow in payment for 9/11 by killing these random people. I wonder if those guys were just normal guys like you taking the entirely justifiable approach of returning fire when fired upon.
I had an interview with Mr. Lund a few years back (for a design position). A very strange experience. It was on a weekend and they treated me very oddly. Among other things they let me sit alone in his office for almost 40 minutes before I was interviewed (and this was as 9:00 in the morning.) Then I was not allowed to see any part of the operation other than his office for "security reasons." At that time they were just doing toys (silly stuff mostly) but they were all worked up about "a new and groundbreaking battery technology." I've not heard about how that worked out, but presumably it was no big deal. There was little talk of design, my design credentials, what they would expect in the position, who I might work with, etc.
Anyway, he seemed like a megalomaniac to me (hence the company name, I guess.) And I have to say that anytime I have an interview where I am treated oddly or impolitely, as a dishonest person, and as an "applicant" who does not need any information on the position rather than as a professional, I'm a *bit* turned off.
Anyway, I have since seen several of his postings seeking designers or engineers for "secret" projects. When his company comes up in conversation among my peers, I often hear stories similar to mine of odd behavior, weird interviews, weird work experiences, etc.
I guess Bruce has a new secret plan!
-- My apologies if the above facts contain any opinions, or vice versa! --
Oddly enough, 'Lund' is the exact Hindi equivalent for 'dick'
Those cowards also use those damn UAVs and sentry robots and stuff.
Oh wait.
Agree with above posters. When at war the point is to kill your enemy. Any non lethal weapons can only be used on civil populations, a very bad precedent.
This one doesn't even leave a bruise.
Of course they were. If you're running around in the hills and someone shoots at you, you kill them. Warning shots are for threats that you'd rather not kill.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Actually, I think the point that the GP post was trying to make is that peace officers are obligated to uphold the law, but all too often police misconduct is hidden behind the blue curtain.
Given that obligation, and the fact that working in law enforcement is a voluntary choice, turning a blind eye toward the well-documented abuses committed on a regular basis by police, even in the US, certainly qualifies as scummy.
Though by all means, feel free to continue making sweeping generalizations and twisting the words of anyone who disagrees with you, it encourages a healthy sense of skepticism in your readers.
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
would it be easier to have two separate weapons, so you know what you're getting when you reach?
I'm sure it would. Doesn't really help with the real problem though, that of saddling trained killers with the with the burden of choosing which is appropriate. Soldiering and Policing are fundamentally different in that the police (theoretically) resort to deadly force only as a last resort. Soldiers are (again, theoretically) used in situations where deadly force is a foregone conclusion. Anyone trying to fight a war by minimizing the degree of injury to the enemy is going to lose, based solely on the definition of war.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Sure, because in this modern age of warfare there is never a need to capture a high value target for interrogation. I guess we should send the NYPD into the Afghan highlands to make arrests then?
Don't be an ass. The Army has specialized troops for such things, and they don't need special sub-lethal rifles to do it. The only reasonable way to capture a high value target is completely by surprise, killing all his bodyguards, inducing surrender. Fucking around with sub-lethal bullets isn't going to do jack shit as far as inducing surrender. The rest of us infantry-type guys, we shoot to kill, always. A dial-a-bullet rifle has no place in the warfighting military.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Shooting demo uses real bullets, injures 16 - CNN Actually this story posted to CNN recently, that is, on 29-June-2008. A good keyword query to find the article : (( Lemaire hostage rescue demo real bullets )).
It sounds like the old rocket pistol, from the 60's.
This problem has been thought of, and a solution suggested. "Hi-ex!"
You're making me think. You won't like me when I'm thinking.
There are other reasons as well. I'm from Europe and I'm not comfortable with what passes as politicians in America being able to strong-arm the EU into adopting their asinine laws via organizations like WIPO. International trade of goods is nice, international trade of governmental corruption less so.
The great irony, of course, is that in the USA, we see the EU trying to strong-arm the USA into adopting their asinine laws via organizations like WIPO and the UN.
But the reality is, the problem is China.
In some ways, the rise of China hurts the EU more than it does the USA. The USA basically benefits via comparitive advantage versus its own domestic market and the relative strength of the dollar. On the other hand, the EU, and Germany in particular, relies very heavily on exports to pay for its domestic economy and so, as the USA shops in China, Germany loses. As the USA devalues its currency and China maintains its pegs, that makes the EU very expensive and thus Europe will really get screwed. Even now, you see German car makers shuttering some production in Europe and relocating it to the USA. As the dollar continues to fall, you should expect to see more of this.
This is my sig.
Nice toy, but that is all it is. I will never trade my Mosin Nagant 91/30, M44, Kar98, SKS 59/66, Savage 64F, Savage 120A, or any others for a stun gun. If I have to shoot, it is to kill, otherwise I use another tool.