New Laser Makes Pirates Wish They Wore Eye-Patches

vieux schnock writes "The New Scientist has an article about a new laser developed by a company in Farnborough, UK, that aims to deter modern high-seas pirates. Devised as a 'warning shot' to 'distract suspected pirates rather than harm them,' the meter-wide beam can scan the pirates' 6-metre skiffs and make it difficult for them to aim their AK-47 or rocket-propelled grenades at the ship."

Comments

Re:I have a better idea

[peragrin]

There wouldn't be pirates if it wasn't profitable. Right now you can make a million dollars for 3-6 months worth of work, and you get to shoot a gun off without having to kill someone. Insurance companies are paying 100's of millions of dollars annually into the pirates coffers.

Also the pirates have had to go far from home in order to get around the naval vessels in the area. They are getting violent also because they are having to work harder. The real solution to the problem is to teach them something like fish farming, or other trade, and then pay them top dollar for it for several years. It would be cheaper in the long run, and they would become stabilized at the same time.

Of course because it is the smart thing it is the one thing that no one will do.

Re:I have a better idea

[causality]

"The religion says that conceal-carry would lead to the Wild West all over again, with gunfights in the streets everywhere. "

The "Wild West" beloved of writers wasn't constantly violent. People were busy working to survive and make money, not engaged in a perpetual Hollywood gunfight.

Well no. It was a heavily armed society and therefore it tended to be a polite society. Most people didn't want to end up in a duel, so most people minded their own business and didn't flagrantly disrespect others for no reason. Those who were belligerent assholes tended to eventually pick the wrong person to screw with, and so long as it was a fair fight, the law left that person alone. That is, in most places two men could fight a duel without the survivor being immediately arrested and imprisoned. If you didn't like that possibility then you didn't own/carry a gun, for it was dishonorable and illegal in the extreme to shoot an unarmed man.

Overall I'd say most people were kinder and more decent than they are now. What you didn't have back then were so many bleeding-heart types who think that all violence is always wrong even when it's against a bully or other aggressor. I don't think that's a coincidence.

In summary, you're nitpicking one metaphor I used while deciding not to respond to my overall point. We can talk about the good old days some more, or you could further tempt me to follow every single metaphor with a line saying "the previous sentence was just a saying, an expression, meant to illustrate a point and not intended as literal historical commentary about the Wild West or other object of metaphor, get over it". I find both to be unnecessary. That latter option definitely should be unnecessary.