Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Russian Man Aims To Reinvent "Taser" Technology

Posted by timothy on from the hammers-are-cheap-too dept.

Lanxon writes "A Russian man is hoping to overhaul the technology within Taser-type weapons — transforming them from single-shot, short-range devices that stun for a few seconds, into more effective long-range, rapid-fire weapons — by modifying the wires and the type of shock they generate, reports Wired. Non-lethal weapon developer Oleg Nemtyshkin's design uses bare wires, rather than the insulated wires favored by Taser and other stun gun makers. These wires weigh only about one sixteenth as much as insulated wire, providing less drag on the darts and improved accuracy. Nemtyshkin demonstrated his bare wire technology with a prototype – 'Legionary" — in 2001. His latest version is the S5, and a video of the weapon in action shows it firing repeatedly — almost as fast as the trigger can be pulled."

15 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. Thank you for your wonderful contribution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...to humanity.

  2. Carbon fibre jacket liners. by Kupfernigk · · Score: 4, Insightful
    That's almost all.

    Mobs will be led by people with carbon fibre jacket liners and helmets. Innocent people will get killed. Given the ability of our own police to shoot innocent electricians, guys carrying chair legs, and kill innocent bystanders in demonstrations, presumably pour decourager les autres, this thing is bad news for civil liberties and brings closer the risk of retaliation against the police. It sounds to me like a perfect "unintended consequences" weapon.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  3. Interesting, but... by Nichotin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Although I think the technology is a bit interesting, I shrug every time I hear about these so-called non lethal weapons. In my head that translates into it is not lethal, so there is less of a barrier before it gets used (and from what I can hear these electroshock weapons are pretty dangerous after all anyway). I know culture is different in the USA, where the police carry guns. I live in Norway though, where law enforcement officers generally don't carry guns (!), except when they move out on criminals that are known to be armed. In the rare cases where they do use pepper spray, it sparks up debate in the newspapers. If they shoot someone, that definitily gets some attention. Electroshock weapons are not used here. The net result seems to be a non-violent society, where people feel they can walk amongst law enorcement officers without feeling alienated because they carry weapons of some sort.

    --
    Dvorak on Doomtech
    1. Re:Interesting, but... by Zumbs · · Score: 5, Informative

      I live just south of Norway (in Denmark), and here the police carry guns. In the last decade, the Danish police have been shooting and killing a few citizens in questionable circumstances, but police officers have managed to get off the hook every time. A few years back this state of affairs were used to argue that the police should be equipped with pepper spray. The argument were that if the police had something between the nightstick and the gun, they might use that instead of the gun. That, however, did not happen. Police usage of guns have not decreased, but usage of pepper spray has exploded, and we have police officers spraying pepper spray into the faces of citizens who are sitting on their asses. The point here is that giving the police extra tools of this sort, as you guessed, means that the tool will often to be used in place of a less dangerous tool. I urge you (and your fellow countrymen/women) to fight hard to keep the police unarmed. It does not help much in fighting crime, it clears the field for adding more weapons to the police, and it is difficult to disarm the police at a later time. Not to mention that an armed police force breeds distrust among the *police* towards the dangerous citizens - why else would they have guns in the first place?

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    2. Re:Interesting, but... by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The answer is to make all cops wear video cameras and record what they do.

      Transparency/accountability is the best weapon against state oppression.

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:Interesting, but... by ascari · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nice theory dude, but: The list of really cold places where you also have to fear the cops include Russia, most of China, Tibet, North Korea, many of the former Eastern block countries, many mountainous countries of central Asia, many countries in the Andes and so on.

      Also, I'd venture that "being stuck with irritating people" is way down there on the list of reasons why people kill each other, behind more common motives such as financial gains, passion/jealousy, drugs, politics and so on.

    4. Re:Interesting, but... by Lifyre · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm not sure where you're from but on most places I've been to in the USA the TASER is one of the earliest steps in the force continuum because when it works it immediately deescalates a confrontation.

      After all of the non-physical options are exhausted (yelling, pointing, etc..) your options are fairly limited. You can hit them with pepper spray which can maim and kill in similar fashion to the TASER but doesn't necessarily stop a suspect and frequently just pisses them off. You can grab, punch, or kick the suspect putting yourself in harms way and escalating the confrontation into a brawl. You can shoot the suspect (and you ONLY shoot to kill, there is no such thing as a shoulder of leg shot) thus invoking lethal force, and if you don't get him on the first shot expect him to respond in kind potentially escalating into a shootout with potential for collateral damage.

      Or you can shoot them with a TASER. If it works (TASER claims 99.7% effectiveness with minor injuries) it immediately stops a suspect, puts him on the ground, and effectively ends the confrontation. That said I have seen abuse of the TASER, I've read about the beating deaths, heck I've read about the NYPD shooting an unarmed suspect 47 times... Abuse happens, mistakes happen, that is why there needs to be civilian oversight and proper training of our protective forces but it doesn't mean we should take their tools away.

      --
      I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
  4. Long Range Scenario by BradyB · · Score: 3, Funny

    Punk : Dials 911
    911 Operator : 911 what is your emergency...
    Punk : Can you forward me to the cop chasing me!?!?!?
    911 Operator : Sure. One moment.. ... Annoying Ring Tone ... boom chicka wah wah ...
    Cop Answers : Wh, who is this?
    Punk : Don't tase me bro!

    --

    Good is never enough, when you dream of being great!
  5. Re:Video? by grumbel · · Score: 4, Informative

    Might refer to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuXR0F6ZQzc

  6. Re:A few caveats... by sznupi · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's their fault for allowing themselves to fall into "excited delirium".

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  7. This is going to be very bad for good citizens by lena_10326 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Of course it will immediately be adopted across police departments because as we all know tasers are perfectly safe. It is interesting to note when officers fire their pistols, they continue firing until the ammo is depleted. There is no reason to believe this practice won't continue with semi-automatic taser guns because many taser deaths were due to multiple hits from several officers. Of course these occurred because the suspect would not stop flailing about on the ground due to being repeatedly hit with electricity (officers refer to this as resisting). That is merely the unfortunate side effect of electricity causing involuntary muscle contractions.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuXR0F6ZQzc

    --
    Camping on quad since 1996.
  8. Don't... by mikerubin · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...tase me, comrade

    --
    I sat down to write a new sig tonight and all I did was make the chair warm.
  9. Re:The last I heard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    17a, Abs. 1, Versammlungsgesetz
    http://dejure.org/gesetze/VersG/17a.html
    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzwaffe

    Better not run into police if they are in a bad mood and you're out with a few of your biking friends.

  10. Re:A few caveats... by Nurseman · · Score: 3, Interesting


    What about people with weak hearts... They would survive one hit, but what if some triggerhappy cop gives 10 shots to a big person with a weak heart? Not so non-lethal anymore..

    The correct term for these weapons is "less lethal". There is no such thing as "non lethal", Even a paperclip can be lethal in some instances. Bean Bag guns, pepper spray, tasers, have all caused death in some instances. The idea is to use the "least lethal" form possible.

    --
    Save a Life. Donate Blood. Please.
  11. Re:A few caveats... by PitaBred · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem with that is that the "less lethal" weapons then get deployed more often, and the cops are held less accountable because they tried to use the "soft" weapons.

    --
    My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.