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.'"
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?
Yah, but at least there can be accountability with weapons like these. This is preferable to the agony ray that has no lasting physical effects, allowing cops/soldiers to plausibly deny using it to make some poor saps dance and scream for their amusement. What I'm worried about is a handheld version of that.
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'.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
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".
Eh, almost all manufacturers and professional groups in the US now refer to them as less-lethal not non-lethal. 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. 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. I don't think the VAST majority of officers are any more likely to pull their gun just because it has some half-assed stun setting, though I guess they might pull it in the same type of situation where they would pull a taser today, one less piece of equipment to carry.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Which means our military is increasingly seeing it's own populace as being the target, not an enemy nation.
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?
This space available.
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.
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.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
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.
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.
Please, you think the Linux hordes would be at a riot? The sunburns they'd incur would be catastrophic.
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, 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.
It's funny, but I just read this ON CNN.com. Obviously, one dude is not "all cops", but the really interesting part is the departmental response. Can you really wonder why the average citizen might hate/fear cops when the balance of power is so completely skewed, and it is obvious that cops protect their own? I mean, I can at least try to protect myself against the average asshole who assaults me, but not a cop. My word against his 2 cop buddies that he was illegally tazing me? Uh huh. And while you say you have never seen a cop behave inappropriately (and throw out some weak "we're too lazy to do the necessary paperwork" bullshit as a reason!), it's obvious some do. So every time I encounter a cop in a less than friendly setting, I am encountering an armed person that can kill or severely injure me and most likely get away with it. And any attempt to defend myself will, again most likely, screw up my life completely. And all I have to do is somehow piss off this stranger that is already predisposed to distrust and dislike me.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA