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?"
I don't know Stephen, that depends. Are they using those AP bullets against drug lords wearing body armor or are they spraying windshields on the highway after having an unmarked police car pull an illegal maneuver to give them an excuse?
This isn't using molotov's in a riot "against the man", its a bigass radio antenna that breaks high tech equipment that's used to torture people sometimes to death in the streets after a few undercover cops threw rocks out of a crowd.
The police and military are supposed to have an advantage, they're not supposed to use that advantage butcher american citizens just because its more convenient. Go read up on "Excited Delirium".
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
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.
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...
And yet it is getting better, for lots of reasons:
* I read a survey that shows 70% of the country believes that the news is biased and inaccurate. This is compared to 30% only a year ago. Realizing that your news source is inaccurate is the first step towards a realistic perception of the world.
* The internet is giving people more information, and forums where they have to defend their ideas. I know it may be hard to believe, but the sophistication of the average argument on the internet is improving. Sure, we always have people going through the clueless adolescent troll stage, but compare the arguments of someone who actively posts on the internet with someone who only reads the newspaper and talks to his friends, and you will see a huge difference. You just can't get the same breadth of ideas in meatspace.
* People actually care. In the 90s, when everything was going well, no one cared too much what the government was doing. We kind of ignored it. Now after 9/11 and Bush, people are taking a lot greater interest in their government, and are really unhappy with it. If there's one thing I can thank Bush for, it's motivating people to be more interested in government.
* The two parties have never been weaker than now. Centrist, independent voters have become a major force to reckon with, and there is even talk that in the next few years independents might start winning elections. Really, there isn't much to like about either party, but politics move slowly, and it will take time for things to change.
Qxe4
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.