Slashdot Mirror
Revisiting DIY HERF Guns
An anonymous reader writes "HERF guns have previously been regarded as nothing more than an interesting project with uses ranging from at-home experiments to malicious pranks. But the deployment of 'morally gray' forms of high-tech crowd control, such as the recent use of a sound cannon against domestic protesters, along with the likely future unleashing of the pain gun on more than just 'foreign terrorists,' creates a new purpose for these relatively easily assembled devices. Could HERF guns become a new method to counter the silencing of protesters via these sophisticated attacks, or is there any other way to prevent such efficient, convenient crowd dispersal?"
Yes, there is. Too bad most of the people in countries where it is available think little of it. It is called voting, and it works - although not very often. The idea is, basically, that you vote your friends into your parliament and they pass laws that forbid hi-tech crowd control.
A serious coordination effort is needed for that to happen, which would have been facilitated by some electronic medium that allows easy and cheap communication over large distances, by wire or otherwise. Maybe someone can build a prototype of such a medium as well?
What could possibly go wrong?
>>Then, some aggressive idiot wants to tailgate you, you tap your brake lights to ask him to back off. If he doesn't, you flip a switch under your dashboard and kill his engine
And possibly killing him as well. Having a car die in the middle of a crowded freeway is not a zero-risk event.
I think it's kind of a disproportionate response, don't you?
Personally I'd just like to get one of those scrolling LED text displays mounted to the back of my car. "HEY DUDE, BACK THE FUCK OFF. I'M NOT INTO THAT."
But the deployment of 'morally gray' forms of high-tech crowd control [...] creates a new purpose for these relatively easily assembled devices.
No, it creates a new purpose for the second amendment to the US constitution.
Until a few people die to demonstrate that we won't put up with casual torture via tasers, sound cannons, pain rays, and what-have-you, the police will continue to use such technologies on the populace for increasingly trivial reasons. We've already seen them go from "nonlethal defense" to promoting "compliance" to merely enforcing obsequious levels of civility... And now, merely to clear the streets in blatant violation of another of our rights (the first).
Can't say I have the balls to put myself in the firing line, but I predict another "Kent State" within the next few years.
In fact, one of the simplest HERF designs (a hi current coil compressed suddenly by igniting an explosive surrounding the coil) has a dual-lobed bidirectional radiation pattern. So yes, without some sort of reflector or attenuator, it certainly can work both ways.
I can see the fnords!
Yes, there is. Too bad most of the people in countries where it is available think little of it. It is called voting, and it works - although not very often. The idea is, basically, that you vote your friends into your parliament and they pass laws that forbid hi-tech crowd control.
My kingdom for a mod point. Human societies often suffer from the Little Red Hen syndrome, wherein everyone wants the bread, but nobody can be bothered to actually help prepare it.
Democracy is a messy, tiresome, boring, downright infuriating system where one is constantly tormented by the most aggravating invention known to man: other people's opinions. It is, however, the one system that actually incorporates social/political change into its very structure. And that is something that countless people suffering under authoritarian or absolutist rulers find remarkably appealing.
A serious coordination effort is needed for that to happen, which would have been facilitated by some electronic medium that allows easy and cheap communication over large distances, by wire or otherwise. Maybe someone can build a prototype of such a medium as well?
The technical means exist. That's never been the problem. The issue here is creating and sustaining a culture of participation. While social networks and other means go a long way to facilitating that process, people still need to actually listen to one another. And that, as I've said, is one of the most exquisite tortures known to man. Except of course for all the other ones.
By the way - and not coincidentally - the Beck-ification of political discourse is neither accidental nor unplanned. Politicians have known for decades that the best way to subvert democracy was simply to shout it down. It's far, far easier to manipulate a population that's splintered, resentful and incapable of conducting an actual dialogue to resolve its differences or find manageable compromise. The knee-jerk name-calling on either side of every issue, when it's echoed, magnified and given focus by mass media, is specifically designed to subvert the kind of processes that sustain democracy.
In short: Yes, there are anti-democratic forces at play, and yet we are still our own worst enemies.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Cops are supposed to have an unfair advantage. What do you think about armor piercing bullets?
Cops are supposed to uphold the legitimate rule of law, as well; not to act as the brute force support system of global fascism. There is a vast difference.
All it would take is some unlucky person with a pacemaker getting near your device and you're in for negligent homicide.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
I have little concern for what becomes of people who decide to be aggressive assholes without provocation, to be honest with you. They invite any misfortune they receive.
Um, no.
First off, not all tailgating is the same. Not to entirely justify it, but sometimes a person will pull into the left lane and either maintain the same speed as the right lane (two-lane scenario, for simplification), or so minimally faster that it will take several miles before they pass the car on their right. All the while there is a good 1/8th mile of empty road before the two cars *and* they're both under the speed limit.
In those cases, it's the fucker in the left lane that's creating an unsafe circumstance.
However, in neither case does the two parties involved deserve to be deliberately put into danger. The slow-poke in the left lane doesn't deserve to be tailgated, but neither does the person behind him deserve to have his car disabled while driving in excess of 50mph.
Best way to avoid such situations is to stay the fuck out of the left lane if you have more than about 75-100 ft of empty road ahead of you, you aren't moving appreciably faster than the lane to your right, and you have someone riding your tail. Problem averted, you haven't inconvenienced yourself, and you have diffused a dangerous situation that you are partly responsible for, all without escalating the situation.
Or, you could just do as you are envisioning, and out-asshole the asshole behind you by deliberately disabling, maybe even damaging his car, and putting those behind him and beside him in mortal danger.
"Sometimes, voting is not going to change anything." Whoa there sparky! No offense but this is EXACTLY the sentiment that keeps the corrupt in power. Especially in a country like the United States, the ability of congress, or elected officials in general, to infringe on your rights is proportional to your willingness to accept it. I am from a small town in North Carolina, our local government was using federal authority to condemn property along a projected water works project. It was supported by 80% of our local elected officials. Our High School took it upon ourselves to put an end to this because two of our teachers were losing their family homes because of it. We found candidates who were qualified and AGAINST the use of eminent domain and campaigned for and with them. We managed to replace 75% of our incumbents in a single election, in my town all officials are elected for two year terms, including our mayor. We held public rallies and carnival like events explaining how the government was stealing "Your land" and caused the mass replacement of elected officials. The waterworks project was canceled, and my ex-teachers are still in their homes. The point of this rant is this, the day we stop exercising our right to a democracy is the day we lose it. Sitting on your couch complaining about what is going on achieves nothing! As long as a large section of the population is uninterested corruption becomes ever more common. Democracy works but it requires you to care. Anyone that does not get involved with politics but complains about the outcome is simply asking for others to make decisions for them and do all the leg work, if you want a country where you don't have to worry about being involved with politics try Iran. It seriously sickens me to hear "Vote? What's the point?" Your FREEDOM is at stake fool! Governments rarely destroy liberty overnight, they do it peicemeal, as in "The came for the eggs, they came for the tobacco, they came for the money, they came for the land..." eventually you wake up under a dictatorship. Don't believe me? Look at world history, dictators don't come to power overnight they build a strong political base of loyalists first and THEN take over. Wake up, get off your couch, and make a difference before you have no say at all.
It is, however, the one system that actually incorporates social/political change into its very structure. And that is something that countless people suffering under authoritarian or absolutist rulers find remarkably appealing.
a) Genuine democracy does not scale with current population levels. As someone else here said, the American Constitution was originally written for a population of 3 million, which is 1/100th of the population's current size.
b) Government now has sufficient control of the media that they don't need to play by the rules. They can kill whoever they want, whenever they want, and then call it terrorism, and the majority of the population will not challenge it.
c) Any attempt to displace the current government would result in unspeakably massive civilian casualties, and you can bet that the government knows that. They would be relying on the domestic population's reluctance to engage in large scale conflict, more than anything else.
It's also a very safe thing for them to rely on. The contemporary population of the entire Western world has been domesticated more chronically than at any other time in human history. Only very small percentages of that population have actually seen active combat. The rest of them would have less than no chance, and that includes you and me. Training and physical fitness aside, the single biggest problem is probably simply the extent to which we would not have the stomach for it.
If they use those, you'll likely end up with some dead/maimed protesters, which is a great way to give publicity to the protesters' cause. Not to mention the lawsuits against the police force.
Most 'non-lethal' weapons leave no identifiable marks or immediate, lasting effects. Opening fire with actual guns is a very restricted action, and civilian getting hurt or killed by police guns causes horrible publicity and higher officials into early retirement. But with 'non-lethal' weapons, you can open fire indiscriminately. Going about your daily business? Protesting peacefully? Sorry, but you were deemed trouble makers, and will be hit with short-term torture, which may have long-term effects. Good luck proving that, though.
When someone DOES die from these weapons (it is not at all uncommon; look up "taser deaths" for just one group of such), the police get off, the officials get off; it was just a "fluke" which they "had no control over". Technically difficulty. The death was an unfortunate accident, nothing more.
So yes, I would rather they have only guns. There is accountability with guns, and it is a hell of a lot harder to justify firing a machine gun into a crowd than using 'non-lethal crowd control technology'.
Great Intellect...
You do not have the right to speed for any reason. The speed limit is the law. Anything above it is illegal and will get you ticketed and your insurance will go up. If you don't like it, TOUGH.
As the previous poster stated, this can silence any inconvenient camcorders or photo-taking cellphones at the scene of a police action against protesters.
No sig for the moment.
I disagree. "Pace" cars can sometimes be beneficial in heavy traffic in metro areas where knowledgeable veteran commuters intimately familiar with the route and typical traffic conditions make good decisions temporarily on behalf of everyone. There's nothing more annoying than having some jerk try and jump ahead so they can slam on their brakes and bring traffic to stop. I'd rather move at a constant 10 to 15 mph rather than 0 any day.