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.
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.
So you just copy and pasted something out of startrek eh?
You mad
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.
You mad
Seems appropriate: safe non-lethal weapons are pretty much science fiction.
Blank until
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..."
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.
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
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."
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
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".
My rubber chickens are bigger than your rubber chickens.
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.
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.
the M-16 was originally developed my Mattel.
That high-pitched sound you hear is Eugene Stoner spinning in his grave.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
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.
That's because "non-lethal" is a fallacy. Anything can be used to kill if you use it in a certain way. Why, "water" is just another word for "less-lethal acid".
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 :(
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...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
You could even add a few from Spider Jerusalem's bowel disruptor:
-Loose
-Prolapse
-Hideous Anal Volcano
-Fatal Intestinal Maelstrom
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...