Set Free Your Inner Jedi (Or Pyro)

sirgoran writes "We've all thought about being the hero fighting off evil-doers and saving the day ever since we first saw Star Wars. The folks at Wicked Lasers have now brought that a little closer to reality with their latest release: a 1-Watt blue diode laser that can set skin and other things on fire. From an article at Daily Tech, where they talk about the dangers of such a powerful laser: 'And here's the best (or worst) part — it can set people (or things) on fire. Apparently the laser is so high-powered that shining it on fleshy parts will cause them to burst into flames. Of course it's equally capable of blinding people.' The thing that caught my eye was the price: $200. I wonder if they'll be able to meet the demand, since (if it works as advertised) this will be on every geek's Christmas list."

Comments

2nd Amendment

[dward90]

Does the right to bear arms cover arms which are for more awesome than ever conceived of by the writers of the constitution?

Re:2nd Amendment

[IndustrialComplex]

Does the right to bear arms cover arms which are for more awesome than ever conceived of by the writers of the constitution?

I'd suggest you not have bare arms if this thing can set flesh on fire.

Re:2nd Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

then don't sell it as a laser pointer

Re:2nd Amendment

[spinkham]

There is a high power laser pointer ban, but the ban is on marketing terms only. Only class 3a or lower lasers (0-5mW) may be marketed as laser pointers. Class 3b and higher lasers (5-500mW) may be sold in a hand-held form, but not marketed as pointers or amusement devices.

More to the point, there are regulatory requirements for features in high power laser devices that are often ignored.
All types of laser devices of any power must be registered with the FDA prior to sale in the US. Note this is registration per product type, not per sale. Class 3b and higher lasers must have a key based lockout, a remote interlock connector, and a warning label affixed to the product. Most importers of cheap chinese lasers of class 3b (>5mW) fall afoul of all of these requirements, and they are often confiscated in shipping with no recourse for the buyer.

http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertainment/LaserProductsandInstruments/ucm116373.htm
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm?FR=1040.10

The only class 3b hand-held lasers I've seen recently which meet all the requirements above are sold by wickedlasers.com. In the past year they have added a safety "key" and interlock connector to their class 3b laser products, and they now meet all the legal requirements. Other vendors might also meet the legal requirements, but I have not personally seen any.

Re:2nd Amendment

[DeadDecoy]

Just imagine using this laser to mess with your cat. It'll go nuts chasing the laser dot AND running away from the laser dot after it's fur is set on fire.
Note: I do not advocate the abuse of animals or the lighting of cats on fire. I just find that scenario incredibly funny.
Additional note: Sharks with friggen lasers don't sound so audacious any more.

Re:2nd Amendment

[Yvan256]

The real question is, does the FDA regulates the sales of freakin' sharks?

Re:2nd Amendment

[cayenne8]

I'm guessing this blue laser would be quite effective at 'disabling' those pesky stop light/speeding cameras the city has recently been trying to set up, eh?

BWHAAHAHAHAHAHAHahaa....

Re:2nd Amendment

[fyngyrz]

Does the right to bear arms cover arms which are for more awesome than ever conceived of by the writers of the constitution?

The 2nd amendment covers arms. If you use, or intend to use, this as a weapon, it's arms. So yes, it's covered.

At the time, "arms" consisted of the following (and more, and were being developed into new forms every day): All manner of pistols, rifles, muskets, cannons, explosive and solid cannonballs, cannonballs filled with shards, frigates with multiple decks of cannon, wagons with explosives and multiple guns rigged to fire in unison, chain shot, flaming missiles soaked with pitch and other inflammable, easily spread and extremely hard to extinguish compounds, swords, knives, bayonets, fighting canes, brass knuckles, battering rams, catapults, siege towers, caltrops, mines, pits, biologically contaminated materials, glass bottles, garrotes, whips, chains, both fused and mechanically triggered explosives, striking weapons like sticks and poles and pikes and quarterstaffs and maces and war-hammers, spears, bows, axes, arrows and crossbows... I could go on for pages.

Knowing this, and knowing that arms development and refinement went on all the time, what did they put in the constitution? They put "arms." No more, no less. So it's pretty darned clear they meant: "Tools you use to project violence."

Not that the USG pays much attention to the actual meaning and intent of the constitution.

As for "awesome", I don't think this is any more "awesome" than having a flaming arrow fired from a ballista 500 yards (or more) away arrive in your eye socket or your forearm. And that's been an available weapons technology for over 2,000 years.

Firestorms have always wreaked huge havoc; bio-weapons have been known, and used, for centuries; incoming chain shot, pitch, and barbed weapons, and worse were the rule of the day, and death and maiming has always been death and maiming. Though we do have better medical technology now, so that at least alleviates the previous almost-guarantee of death by peritonitis, gangrene, and similar. Presuming you survive the injury at all.

Weapons aren't nice. The sudden realization of the panic-stricken that they might be hurt by deployment of a weapon doesn't really change anything except one's state of mind. Before lasers, we could still burn your eyes out from a distance. Before nukes, we could still burn you (and tens of square miles around you) out at thousands of degrees, leaving all manner of chemical poisons lying around in the aftermath, and leaving people on the periphery with all manner of creative types of injuries. Google the Berlin and Tokyo firestorms for examples. Before anthrax, we could still infect you and yours with all kinds of things; see General Jeffery Amherst's letters ca. ~1763 for some bio-weapons history. Before airplanes, we could still deliver explosives and fire by air. And in the end, if your legs terminate at the mid-femur, the question of how it happened - sword, grenade, flying masonary, 50 cal. bullet, infection, weapons shrapnel, mine... that's kind of beside the point. It all sucks about the same.

Re:2nd Amendment

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

The Geneva Convention discusses the treatment of prisoners in armed combat between uniformed foes. You must be thinking of the Hague Accords.
No, according to this these conventions signed in Geneva deal with weapons whose sole function is to blind.

Re:2nd Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine it can also set clothes on fire, which begs the question:

No, it does not. See petitio principii.

Re:2nd Amendment

[atomic-penguin]

The moderator who modded -1 offtopic, must be new here.

Re:2nd Amendment

[Surt]

Only if sold as a medical device. For example, if you sold a shark as a contraceptive:

New Sexy(TM) Shark brand contraceptives uses the power of a real shark to prevent pregnancy.*

* Use of shark for contraceptive purposes may result in successful contraception by your parents.

Then the FDA will regulate your shark sales.

Re:2nd Amendment

[clone53421]

I guess it will probably come as a huge shock to you, but people shooting those cameras with rifles, filling the camera’s body with insulating foam, or dropping gasoline-drenched tires over the cameras and lighting them on fire don’t normally attempt it from a moving vehicle either...

Re:2nd Amendment

[Mister Whirly]

"More recently, "to beg the question" has been used as a synonym for "to raise the question": for example, "This year's budget deficit is half a trillion dollars. This begs the question, How are we ever going to balance the budget?"

Using the term in this way, although common, is considered incorrect by some usage commentators. Arguments over whether this newer usage should be considered correct or incorrect are an example of debate over linguistic description and prescription of a living language."

So I guess it really boils down to - are you an absolute stickler for old grammatical rules, or is language constantly evolving to the point where old expressions can take on new meanings?


Irregardless of your beliefs, the phrase was used in a perfectly crommulent way.

Re:2nd Amendment

[Cro Magnon]

Of course. All real Jedi build their own lightsabers.

Re:2nd Amendment

[TheCarp]

I got a 300 mW laser a bit ago (burned out the diode when I tried it with a new power supply...oops)

What I found interesting was, shortly after I ordered it, and was waiting for the parts to arrive, I found myself quite preoccupied with the dangerousness of it. Maybe preoccupied is the wrong word but, I found myself frequently getting mental images of myself accidentally shining it on something reflective or allowing the spot and beam to line up (hint: when you see a reflective spot on a surface and shine the beam on that spot, it reflects directly back to your eye, best to try that out with one of the really wimpy lasers that wont damage your eye faster than you can blink).

It was almost like part of my mind was trying to mentally prepare itself for handling the dangerous item, and got me all loaded up with bad scenarios that would result in me, or someone else, blinded. It reminded me of some of the theories people have about dreams being a test bed for developing and practicing responses to danger in a safe environment.

-Steve

Re:2nd Amendment

[AhabTheArab]

So.. what happened? Does your sig offer insight into that?

Re:2nd Amendment

[jbezorg]

What happens when you fail and they capture a nice picture of you trying to zap their system?

Hope the Prosecutor is a nerd too.

"Your honor, the Defendant created a tracking system and mounted it on his vehicle to aim a one watt laser at traffic....

This is fricking awesome!... "

Re:2nd Amendment

[Rary]

Language does constantly evolve to the point where old expressions can take on new meanings. However, not every proposed evolution has value. Using "to beg the question" to mean "to raise the question" adds nothing to the language, and serves merely to muddle an existing phrase. Therefore, its incorporation into acceptable speech should be fought.

Re:2nd Amendment

[jbezorg]

Imagine AC's shock and surprise when googling the phrase "1 short faggot" and expecting to see the volume of a bundle of sticks?

( Faggot ( volume ) )

Re:2nd Amendment

[Hatta]

The grandparent's assertion requires the acceptance of the definition of "begging" as dodging or avoiding rather than the current universally accepted dictionary definition.

"begging" in this context does not mean "dodging". "begging the question" means that you are being asked to accept a postulate for the sake of argument, and that postulate is equivalent to the question being debated. You are metaphorically being asked for something, which is the dictionary definition of begging.

Anyone who says "eh, language evolves" when "begs the question" is misused should consider how they'd react when someone points to their monitor and says "computer" or points to their tower and says "CPU". If enough people use "computer" to mean "monitor", then that's what it really means right?

Re:2nd Amendment

[Hatta]

9 times out of 10 when the public uses the word "theory" they really mean "hypothesis". Should that stop scientists from using the word "theory" correctly? Should that stop us from educating people about the real definition of the word "theory"? Should scientists have to change their language every time the public warps it beyond recognition?

Look at the damage the misunderstanding of the word "theory" has done in the context of the "theory of evolution". It's just a theory, right?

Words mean whatever it's more useful for them to mean. "begs the question" is much more useful as a type of fallacy than as a synonym for "raises the question".

Re:2nd Amendment

[Hatta]

Should we require that everyone use the definition of theory that's accepted within the scientific community?

I don't know that we should require it, but we should certainly encourage it.

Also, we're talking about a phrase where "beg" is substituted for "dodge" in the proper representation

No, we're not. "begging" in this case means that you're asking to take for granted a proposition. "begging the question" means that that proposition is essentially equivalent to the question under discussion. You are literally asking the other person to give you something, their agreement. This is begging.

Dodging the question is something else entirely.

Re:2nd Amendment

[Hatta]

First your argument doesn't actually counter the actual substance of mine: That it's a fallacy to insist that a non-standard definition of a word can be used to claim that using that word in a sentence by it's standard definition is incorrect.

I don't dispute your argument, it's irrelevant. When we use "begging the question" we mean begging in the actual standard dictionary definition sense.

Second you have effectively just "begged the question" yourself by automatically assuming that your position is correct by the bare assertion that it is correct.

I have etymology on my side.

Third you've ignored my supporting point that it is just as much a fallacy to try and insist that anyone using the word "let" to mean permitting or allowing is incorrect as it is to insist that anyone using the word beg to mean... begging... in terms of desperately raising a question is similarly incorrect.

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are arguing here. I suspect it's related to the above irrelevant point.

Re:2nd Amendment

[achbed]

Ah Slashdot. Where a discussion of a portable laser being used as a weapon can devolve into a grammar and logical fallacy flamewar in 4 posts or less.

Re:2nd Amendment

[Tim C]

devolve into a grammar and logical fallacy flamewar in 4 posts or less

Fewer. 4 posts or fewer...

Set up instructions

[halcyon1234]

The thing that caught my eye was

The label that read "do not look at laser with remaining eye"?

Re:Set up instructions

[mikael_j]

It's not that hard to find, here in Sweden it's next to the label that points out that using high-powered lasers in public without a permit is illegal. Not that teenagers care, apparently there are lots of them who have figured out that lasers are a lot better weapons than knives when you want to hurt some other kid or just slow down the cops (by causing permanent eye damage) after you did something stupid...

Re:Set up instructions

[harrkev]

I absolutely do NOT want one of those things. Call me old-fashioned, but I like stereoscopic vision. I would really rather have both of my eyes working just fine, thank you.

The good thing about guns is that they do not constantly spew out a continuous stream of dangerous projectiles for minutes at a time. Even a full-auto machine gun will run out of bullets after a dozen seconds or so. A laser can emit dangerous projectiles for minutes as a time, and the projectiles can bounce off any reflective surface. This thing is very likely to blind somebody unless rigorous safety procedures are used.

Anybody who buys one of these without the appropriate safety glasses is a complete idiot and deserves what they get. I just hope they do not blind anybody else in the process.

OMG Lazers

[negRo_slim]

You can get a lasers and related materials off of ebay, United Nuclear and Sparkfun at much better values.

Re:OMG Lazers

[EdZ]

Even buying the raw laser diode and making the driver (and heatsink) yourself, you'd be hard pressed to get 1-watt output for under $200.

Re:OMG Lazers

[negRo_slim]

Although by value I was not necessarily referring to dollars here is a 1 watt diode currently listed at $43 bucks for a lot of 5.

In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

Local pet stores sell sharks in record numbers.

1 watt isn't enough to set skin on fire

[smellsofbikes]

Unless you hold it there for a *long* time. I've been hit by a 40 watt (CO2) laser and it left me with a burn that was like a bad sunburn. I have a 400mW (red) laser that I've been using to shoot down wasps in my workshop (it's a tall building and I can't get anything up to where they want to build a nest -- but let me warn you that a flaming wasp is a fire hazard) and it takes several seconds of exposure before the wasp dies.

With that said, I might be trying to get one of these because you can do some pretty cool stuff if you mount a laser this powerful in a plotter. It gets even better if you gut the plotter and add a Z axis so you can melt the top layer of material selectively, then lower the z stage, add a bit more material, and again melt it selectively: a relatively inexpensive, relatively high-precision 3d printer.

Re:1 watt isn't enough to set skin on fire

[gclef]

What he's thinking of is a variant of Selective laser sintering. If you can turn the laser on and off rapidly (or redirect the beam somewhere harmless rapidly), you can selectively melt/fuse materials to 3-d print some really fascinating things.

I'm not aware of any open source (a-la RepRap or the like) SLS systems, but I'd be happy to have the slashdot crowd prove me wrong on that point.

Re:1 watt isn't enough to set skin on fire

[smellsofbikes]

It wasn't particularly well-focussed: I wasn't right at the focal point. But I've yet to see an inexpensive diode laser sold with quality fast/slow axis collimation optics, and as a result their focus is lousy, too, so I'm guessing while you'd get burnt by this thing, it's not like there would be flames.

My creepiest exposure ever was working on an excimer laser that was running in the kilowatt range, where I found out that skin fluoresces and phosphoresces if you hit it with enough UV photons. That burn sucked, too, but at least I didn't get one in the eye like a coworker did.

Re:Homemade Alternative

[IndustrialComplex]

Can someone comment on how feasible it would be to make one of these for less than the $200 they ask?

Source the parts better. It sounds like they have pulled this diode from a display projector, I'm sure that you might be able to buy a broken projector for a few dollars and pull the part yourself.

Instant Blindness

[VidEdit]

I'm not sure if people get how crazy dangerous even a low end class 4 laser is to people's eyesight. Even diffuse reflections can cause blindness. And blindness from a direct beam or specular reflection is virtually instant, literally before you can blink. This laser is not a toy. Not something you can casually show off safely to your friends. You can blind people, forever, accidentally, in an instant. Just keep it in mind.

Re:Instant Blindness

[misexistentialist]

It would have been more succinct to say, "You'll shoot your eye out, kid."

Re:Instant Blindness

[irving47]

Frankly, I think slashdot should have avoided this posting. If one less person gets blinded, because a /.er buys one, and blinds his sibling or himself, it would have been worth it. Eyesight is too precious to lose and these things are just waaay too easy to screw up with.

Re:Instant Blindness

[cusco]

No, the 'flaming hornets nest' portion of this thread alone made it worth the risk.

Re:Instant Blindness

[joe_frisch]

Class IV is serious. Not only can a direct hit or specular reflection blind you, but you can get eye damage from a diffuse reflection. That means that if you point it at a sheet of paper and stare at the paper, the spot can do damage. This happens faster than you can blink.

I used to work with class IV lasers in my lab - required goggles, interlocks, and vast amounts of paper work. Set my shirt on fire once with a similarly powered laser.

I think its OK for these to be available to the public but they should require some form of licensing and training of the sort used for firearms. Because of its range and lack of traceability, I think this is every bit as dangerous as a gun.

I don't even want to suggest in an open forum the sort of things you could do with this to cause serious injury and death - but if you have some imagination you can figure out what I might be thinking of.

How can this be a general consumer product?

[LordZardoz]

Even the most ardent advocates of gun ownership being available to any and everyone will probably agree that selling a gun to someone who has no idea how to use and store it safely is a bad idea.

So other then what I imagine to be the joy of setting things on fire with a laser, what purpose can this thing serve? This kind of product should be sold with the same level of precaution as explosives and firearms.

END COMMUNICATION

Re:How can this be a general consumer product?

[rotide]

Seems to me that being able to blind anyone you see from a long distance is quite different than holding a magnifying glass up to a stick or even wielding a knife.

Re:How can this be a general consumer product?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between stuff that can be dangerous if you very carefully try to make it dangerous and stuff that is dangerous unless you very carefully try to make it safe.

Re:How soon...

[natehoy]

and then finds themselves with a nice attic fire.

I think the part about being swarmed by VERY angry hornets who are on fire would rate pretty high on the suck-o-meter as well.

Re:powerful laser

[tthomas48]

An interior designer, Realtor or a politician is the correct tool for the job.

GOING OUT OF BUSINESS SALE!!!

[mcgrew]

After all the lawsuits. Remember lawn darts?

Re:powerful laser

[Zediker]

what kind of laser would I need to deal with this?

You would need the Remington 870 Pump-Action

Slashdot already bought one

[damn_registrars]

And apparently pointed it at the wickedlasers.com server...

Interesting

[Taibhsear]

What is the target purpose for this? Research experiments that could be done? What kind of safety goggles are used with this (material/wavelength tint/etc) and what kind of clothing/protective gear will NOT set on fire if accidental exposure should occur? Also, what kind of battery life are we looking at? (or is this a plug in stationary laser?)

Re:Interesting

[ArbitraryDescriptor]

Specs from TFA:

Name: Spyder III Pro Arctic Series
Size: 228mm x 35.8mm
Weight: 378g
Wavelength: 445nm
Laser Body: 6061-T6 Aircraft-Grade Aluminum
Laser Finish: Mil-Spec Type III hard anodized in black
Transverse Mode: TEM00
Output Power: Beam Divergence: Beam Diameter: 1.5mm @ aperture
NOHD* 211 meters
Required Eyewear O.D. 4.4+
Power Consumption: 3.7V @ 1A
Power supply: Rechargeable Lithium Ion Battery Type 18650 (batteries and charger included)
Battery Lifetime: 120 mins
Switch: Push Button Constant On / Off, Lock-Out Tail Cap
Duty Cycle: Continuous
Expected lifetime: >5,000 hours
Warranty: 3 months
*The NOHDs were calculated based on a 0.25 second accidental (unaided eye) exposure.

Re:Interesting

[Hurricane78]

Let’s say it like this: If a SUV and a iPhone are your balls, then this laser is the penis. Just as pointless. Just as much made for bragging. (Smug or retarded. Doesn’t matter.) Just as useful... for compensation. ;)

1 Watt Can Be Bad...

[BoRegardless]

But only if it stays trained on one spot for enough time and is close to the laser as opposed to 50 feet where the energy per square centimeter is less. Of course, some jerk will try it on his arm.

I accidentally found out what a 25 watt CO2 laser will do to the palm of your hand when a coworker left one on with no warning signs up and it burnt a branding iron across my palm as my hand quickly went into the beam. When I heard the sizzling, instead of keeping my hand moving through the beam, I pulled back and in the tens of milliseconds stopped before pulling back it vaporized (not burned) a hole about 1/8" deep in my hand.

Don't screw with this stuff you are not trained and careful or you'll wind up paying doctors and lawyers.

SharkTech.

[fahrbot-bot]

From TFA:

The retailer warns: "Customers will be required to completely read and agree to our Class IV Laser Hazard Acknowledgment Form."

Dorsal or tail fin prints are acceptable.

Eye + Laser

[ZirbMonkey]

"The thing that caught my eye was the price: $200"

The other eye? Fried by a friggin laser

Part sourcing

[Animats]

Source the parts better. It sounds like they have pulled this diode from a display projector,

Yes, they admit they did that. So they just have a prototype.

There's no big secret about the laser diode. It's a Nichia NDB7352. Any legit company can order those things in bulk from Nichia in Tokyo. No US distributor, including Nichia America, stocks them. WickedLasers probably doesn't buy enough of them to place an order with Nichia.

No kidding

[Sycraft-fu]

They DO have some lasers I'd like. I would like a violet laser pointer if it were cheaper. However I wouldn't want a 1 watt laser. While over all the FDA's classes of laser power may be a bit cautious, it is still something extremely worth noting. Strong lasers are very, very dangerous. The backscatter from one off a normal surface can easily be enough to cause harm. So even if you think you are safe since it isn't pointing at you or anything reflective, you could still screw yourself over.

Only way I'd want high power lasers were if I was using them for light show applications. In that case, they'd need to be something I could computer control, not a little device like this.

Great!

[Wireless Joe]

I'm looking forward to setting the disco ball hanging in the middle of my living room on fire in front of 20-50 of my friends. What could go wrong?

Fully Automatic Weapon

[TheLink]

Yes, sell and regulate it as a fully automatic weapon.

Don't they ban fully automatic rifles for civilian use in the USA?

This laser product is fully automatic weapon in the sense that:
1) It can continuously cause permanent blindness to people
2) It can do it at a 200 metre effective range
3) It does not need a reload after 9 or even 30 shots.

If you empty a handgun wildly into a crowd, you'd probably hit less than 20 people (and current medical tech might restore a significant number of them near completely). In contrast this laser when used on a crowd can permanently blind far more than 20 people. There are many places where you can find a crowd of hundreds looking at one spot.

The product in its current form does not appear to have a good utility to danger ratio.

Yes the laser itself has use in projectors and other stuff, but what good purpose does this product in this form have?

It's not very good as a defensive weapon: it doesn't really have very good stopping power - even if blinded, a gunman could still kill you (and he might have even higher motivation to do so). It has a very high chance of collateral damage.

To me if you can justify the banning of fully automatic assault rifles for general civilian use, you should also ban this weapon.

Re:Fully Automatic Weapon

[AndrewNeo]

Setting a gunman's hands on fire isn't a good way of stopping him?

Re:Fully Automatic Weapon

[Thinboy00]

RTFS. Existing lasers can already blind. This one is special because it can make things burst into flames.

Re:Fully Automatic Weapon

[mweather]

Don't they ban fully automatic rifles for civilian use in the USA?

Nope. You just need to go through a few more checks than when you're buying a semi-automatic or single shot weapon, and pay a $200 transfer fee. The real barrier to buying a machine gun is the price, which isn't a barrier at all in the case of this pointer. Besides which, this wouldn't qualify as a machine gun as it's not a firearm. Even if it were classified as a firearm, it would be semi-automatic as it only fires once when you press the button. It's more akin to a flame thrower than a machine gun, and flame throwers are not federally regulated.

Re:Fully Automatic Weapon

[Kral_Blbec]

FTA

Designed and built for use with machine guns mounted on vehicles, aircraft, or waterborne platforms, the Spyder III is Wicked Laser's most powerful laser. Smaller than the size of a MagLite it generates a focused 500mW beam capable of illuminating a targets several miles away. The Spyder III is also ideal for patrol and checkpoint operations. A tactical ambidextrous constant on/off switch and removable safety key located on the tailcap provides convenient, fail safe operation. The world's only visible Class IV laser designed for tactical operations.

Its a targeting laser, not a weapon in and of itself.

Re:Fully Automatic Weapon

[h4rr4r]

Fully automatic weapons are legal for civilian ownership in the USA. You will need a $200 tax stamp and a FFL.

Re:Fully Automatic Weapon

[SvnLyrBrto]

> It's not very good as a defensive weapon: it doesn't really have very good
> stopping power - even if blinded, a gunman could still kill you (and he
> might have even higher motivation to do so). It has a very high chance
> of collateral damage.

You know... I've personally never mugged anyone, nor been shot with a gun that has "stopping power". So I can't really say 100% for sure. But I would imagine that if I were blind and on fire, I wouldn't be able to continue mugging my would-be victim.

Re:Fully Automatic Weapon

[kumanopuusan]

Almost all current weapon regulations define weapons as devices designed to fire projectiles. Lasers do not fire projectiles and are not subject to such regulation.

Re:Fully Automatic Weapon

[modecx]

Don't they ban fully automatic rifles for civilian use in the USA?

The short answer is no.

The long answer is: Not insofar as an outright ban. They're legal in the vast majority of states, but are regulated at the federal level. The 1934 NFA bill required the federal registration of machine guns, and taxed machine guns (and other title 2 weapon) transfers at a rate of $200 each--for perspective: at that time if you had a little bit over a hundred bucks more you could buy a brand new Ford sedan.

The authors/supporters thought an outright ban wouldn't pass muster at the supreme court as they successfully recognized it would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. So, they decided the next best thing would be a tax so steep that it would be tantamount to a ban, effectively pricing out all but the very wealthy... Which hurt especially during the great depression.

Again in 1986, newly manufactured machine guns were made unavailable to citizens, which drove the prices of previously registered machine guns through the roof. With some patience and a wad of cash, you can get pretty much anything you could want--unless it was developed after 1986.

What good does it do? I dunno. I guess it can get you off if you're into watt-range lasers.. This laser doesn't really change anything, since comparable devices have been available for years--but what it does is make it easier to access. I say: If/when drive-by laserings become a problem (which was practically never the case with legal machine guns), THEN do something about it. That's how our system is *supposed* to work

Until then the simple answer is: If someone uses it to assault someone, come down on them like a ton of bricks--just like what happens when some jackass shines a *much* less powerful laser into an aircraft cockpit.

Re:Fully Automatic Weapon

[Kral_Blbec]

You forgot to mention that if someone uses it to assault someone then they have already broken the law by the assault. Classifying crimes by the weapon used is pointless. The only regulation of selling, owning and using weapons should be the laws against assault and murder which have always been on the books.
Just like phishing scams and online fraud, if it is already illegal then there is no need to generate new a bazillion laws to specify this *new* type of crime. Close loop holes that might be present by the new technology, but there is no need to demonize modern crime methods anymore than the traditional form.

Re:Fully Automatic Weapon

[Martin Blank]

What you call brush control devices use jets of propane or similar gases. Flamethrowers in the military sense (which are now extremely rare in the US, even in the military) use a gel or liquid fuel that is usually not completely burned by the time it reaches the target, thereby leaving a flaming substance that allows an easier transfer of the heat to the target. Those that use propane stop delivering heat once the flame jet is removed.

Re:Fully Automatic Weapon

[saider]

You need the Class 3 FFL to receive a newly manufactured item, since the manufacture of automatic weapons for civilian use has been banned by executive order (Reagan or Bush 1). This is why a typical Class 3 weapon for sale to a civilian is in the $10k range... they are not being made anymore. The difference in cost between a fully automatic Class 3 weapon and a regular, semi-automatic weapon is trivial at best. In many cases, the full auto weapons are simpler than their semi-automatic counterparts.

The way you get a new automatic weapon is...

1) Create a gun business (typically requires a storefront) and get your class 3 FFL.
2) To avoid running afoul of tax laws, you need to show a profit occasionally. So you need to have some friends buy stuff.
3) Purchase your Class 3 machinegun as a "sales item".
4) Send a flyer every so often to a nearby police department, to show you are engaged in the business.
5) After a year or two, shutter the business. There is paperwork that you can use to transfer your inventory from your company entity to you personally. Having 2,3, and 4 will help document your business so that you are able to do this.

If you ever want to resell your gun, you'll need to sell it to a Class 3 dealer.

Re:Fully Automatic Weapon

[arth1]

Regardless of the intent, though, it IS a weapon at shorter ranges.

So are nail guns, PVC tubing, Drano, elastics and snowmobiles.

From what I can see, all you need to do is check the "this shit is dangerous" agreements and checkout with a credit card. That is unacceptable. Sales for this shit needs to be at least as restricted as for firearms or someone WILL get hurt.

By that logic, a good part of what you can find in stores should be restricted.

But, just like nail guns, PVC tubing, Drano, elastics and snowmobiles, personal lasers have legitimate uses, for which they are used. Teaching photography and hobby astronomy, for example (have you ever tried to point out Mars to someone using your finger?). Or building a fence. Or finding broken glass on the floor. It has lots of valid uses, just like a knife.

Stop being such a knee-jerk reactionary. If someone uses something to hurt or harm others, prosecute them for that, and don't penalize based on the potential.

Re:Fully Automatic Weapon

[Sir_Lewk]

It "IS" a weapon at short range regardless of intent in the same way that my set of cooking knives "ARE" weapons at short range.

In other words: Of course intent matters.

Re:BarberCut cheat

[MoonBuggy]

Just be careful of how reflective that glass is - blinding everyone standing behind you might not go down so well...

Its all fun and games...

[orlanz]

Its all fun and games until the geeks realize that the lasers don't stop each other in midswing and version 2 lops off limbs.

Phased Plasma Rifle..

[tekrat]

In the 40 watt range.

"Hey, just what you see here pal."

Uzi 9 millimeter.

"You really know your guns. This baby's perfect for home defense...."

Re:powerful laser

[PhreakOfTime]

I once 'knew a guy' when I was younger who did this exact thing. Heres how it went down.

Said 'guy' had a newtonian telescope on a very professional mount. Now usually, the purpose of the telescope is to take in light at the large opening and focus it into a small diameter at the eyepiece. However, the reverse also seems to work.

By sighting up the telescope first to the light sensor at the top of the assembly, one would then take out the eyepiece and replace it with a light source, preferably halogen. You could easily leave this on all night, to keep the light off, and turn it off in the day. At 1/4 mile, the beam is about 10ft across, and will still work to turn off the sensor, depending on the wattage of the source light.

But, thats just what I heard, as interfering with municipal/business fixtures you do not own is usually frowned upon by the police. It also becomes rather obvious who is doing it when there is a bright light coming from the line of sight from your house.

Add me to the list...

[Joce640k]

Even looking at the dot this thing projects on a wall could damage your eyes. It might sound cool but I do NOT want one of these in my house. Ever.

Tempting but no

[jprupp]

As tempting as it seems to get one of these devices, their destructive power seems too great. I have a 7-year-old daughter I'd rather keep far away from this thing. I don't think hiding it somewhere she isn't supposed to find it is good enough. There are usually accidents involving children and concealed firearms. Respect this laser. Handle it with utmost care if you get it, seriously. After you take this into account, have LOADS of FUN!.