Slashdot Mirror


New Tech Puts the Brakes On Bullets Fired From Police Sidearms

Zothecula writes: Police officers are trained to shoot for the center of mass, not necessarily to kill, but to stop – although the end result can often be one and the same. "The Alternative" is designed to give officers a less lethal option in the form of a clip-on "air bag" for semiautomatic pistols that reduces the velocity of a standard round to make it less lethal. At the front of the bright orange carrier is a hollow sphere made of a proprietary alloy that catches the bullet and firmly embeds it as it leaves the barrel. The ball and bullet fuse, slowing the round by 80 percent. At this speed, the ball-encased round is less likely to penetrate flesh, but it will transfer enough kinetic energy across a wide surface to knock a suspect down with less chance of a lethal outcome.

369 comments

  1. How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They have demonstrated time and time again that they can't be trusted to do the right thing with them.

    1. Re:How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      But then how would they kill us?

    2. Re:How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've seen the intro to Terminator 2 right?

    3. Re:How about take away their guns. by x0ra · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, what is you plan to disarm criminals as well ? Because you do plan to disarm criminals, don't you ?

    4. Re:How about take away their guns. by Tokolosh · · Score: 0

      All Americans, starting with the cops.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    5. Re:How about take away their guns. by x0ra · · Score: 1

      I guess you believe Mike Brown did nothing wrong, as well ?

    6. Re:How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With kindness?

    7. Re:How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dats raciss

    8. Re:How about take away their guns. by x0ra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How do you plan to disarm criminals ? The gun, ammo, and knowledge to build them is out there. If an Afghan can build an AK in a cave with nothing but hand-tools, what do you think someone in the US can do with access to milling machine, lathe, and 3D printer ?

    9. Re:How about take away their guns. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      You gotta be cruel to be kind...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    10. Re:How about take away their guns. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Troll

      I guess you believe Mike Brown did nothing wrong, as well ?

      Bastard stole a pack of Philly Blunts. Clearly he deserved to die.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    11. Re:How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...You've seen the intro to Terminator 2 right?

    12. Re:How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get over yourself. We all know that if you give this to cops they will shoot a 12 year old kid in the head with it sooner or later.

      Look at the past...
      You give a copy a billy club, one of them is going to eventually smack a kid with it.
      Give them beanbag bullets and one of them will shoot a kid with it.
      Give them a taser, and some kid somewhere is gonna get shocked.

      Give them this air bag round and one of them is gonna hit a kid right up side the head, I guarenfuckingtee it.

      Because as far as they are concerned, non lethal means they don't have to be careful. I mean ALL of the cops should get a chance to use it a couple of times, amiright?

      Oh and Mike brown was a sleazy scumbag, and frankly I think the cops story sounded just a bit off. Either way he was a scumbag.

    13. Re:How about take away their guns. by x0ra · · Score: 3, Informative

      Did you forgot the part where he also tried to kill a LEO using his service pistol ?

    14. Re:How about take away their guns. by x0ra · · Score: 1

      If the 12 years old wield a gun in front of you, then what call would you take. Leave him the chance to use it, or diffuse the threat ?

    15. Re:How about take away their guns. by knightghost · · Score: 1, Informative

      The only way to disarm criminals is arm citizens. And let the police do their damn job instead of whining about another thug being shot.

      You can't even guarantee most guns can even consistently fire (except for Glock), this looks like more of the tech-solves-everything blind faith.

    16. Re:How about take away their guns. by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Glock might not even consistently fire. I've had some bad limp-wrist problem leading to FTE & stove pipe shooting Glocks, while I never had any issue using CZ-75 or 1911. I hate top-heavy polymer framed firearms...

    17. Re:How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well he will never steal anything else will he?
      Act like an asshat die like an asshat.

    18. Re:How about take away their guns. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only way to disarm criminals is arm citizens. And let the police do their damn job instead of whining about another thug being shot.

      You can't even guarantee most guns can even consistently fire (except for Glock), this looks like more of the tech-solves-everything blind faith.

      The problem I see is though, when a law abiding citizen walks into Lowe's or Chipotle's brandshing his piece as is his second amendment right and in his camos how are the other law abiding citizens in the same place going to know if he is a good gut or a bad guy?

      Therein lies the problem. If I'm concealed carrying at the moment, they are going to have about a second to convince me they are not entering with harmful intent. At that point, it's now a really bad situation.

      This is not a trivial problem.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    19. Re:How about take away their guns. by x0ra · · Score: 1

      How do they know you are not a bad guy either ?

    20. Re:How about take away their guns. by dhasenan · · Score: 1

      Let's start by confiscating the guns from people who kill innocent bystanders. We can worry about the criminals after we disarm the police.

    21. Re: How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Children with no guns have been killed by cops. Anybody who is on the side of law enforcement has never seen the injustices that go on in American law enforcement. We are tired of giving them a break and the benefit of the doubt, innocent people are dying because of recklessness. Not all cops are bad, but most of them act stupid because they can. We need to start holding them responsible and at a higher level. With power comes responsibility. That old trope still holds true.

    22. Re:How about take away their guns. by knightghost · · Score: 3

      Both those arguments are false.
      1. Brandishing is a serious offense and punishable with a year of jail (in my state).
      2. You never know intent. Action, OTOH, separates citizens and criminals.

    23. Re:How about take away their guns. by narcc · · Score: 4, Funny

      Check to see if he's white?

      Isn't that standard police procedure for identifying law-abiding citizens amidst criminals?

    24. Re:How about take away their guns. by hodagacz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If they're brandishing they're not a good guy. Brandishing means to draw and display to give the impression of intent to use.

    25. Re:How about take away their guns. by slasher999 · · Score: 1

      You are a troll or a fool, or both.

    26. Re:How about take away their guns. by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Really ?

    27. Re:How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      White and wearing a shirt.

    28. Re: How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is going to collect the firearms from the criminals? The police? If the criminals have guns and the cops don't, then it isn't going to be pretty. It's too late to fix the problem by confiscating them all. The culture needs to be changed bit by bit over time, so future generations won't be as bad.

    29. Re:How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Diffuse it with maximum lethality. There's no chance to redeem this kid. Time to RMA the defective human back to god.

    30. Re: How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No offense but nor is it a common problem.

      I too carry concealed and have for many years. Outside of a shooting range or a gun store, I have never seen anyone carrying a firearm out in the open. Ever.

    31. Re:How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know he details of what transpired, but I do know that a large number of police related shootings do not come directly from the cops showing up and going ballistic. When an officer shows up at the scene of an altercation, he brings something that wasn't there before. Namely, a gun.

      99% of the time (and probably more) that doesn't alter much. He doesn't draw the gun, and there is (or becomes) little reason for him to do so. If you think my 99% is off by a wide margin, consider that a police officer is typically pulling over people for traffic violations at least 10 to 20 times a day, and responding to other kinds of calls at a much lower rate.

      99% is probably too low a number, there are reports of officers who've retired without drawing their service weapon.

      For that small percentage when they do reach for their weapon, everything goes as one would expect it to go. The officer has taken the appropriate precautions and planned ahead enough that the officer remains in control of the situation (occasionally the drive to do so leads to overreaction, but overreaction still typically leaves the officer in control). For the remainder of the times (again a very small percentage) the officer just brought a weapon to the scene that wasn't there, and through one means or another has worsened the situation.

      It is very rare, but it does happen. I remember reading an article about such an incident in 2013. It's an anecdote, so don't think of it as a trend, but the society wants us to fear for the safety of every child due to kidnapping by strangers, why not have them apply the same messed up statistics to drive the fear that ever officer will be shot by his own weapon in the hands of a criminal.

    32. Re:How about take away their guns. by hey! · · Score: 1

      You seem to be confused about the role of police. In our society they do not make determinations about or carry out punishments.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    33. Re: How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey dickhead: next time you need a cop, call a crack head instead.

    34. Re: How about take away their guns. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Children with no guns have been killed by cops.

      Yes, they have. Here is a video of the police killing 12 year old Tamir Rice. That looks like cold blooded murder to me. The police, unaware that they were being filmed by a security camera, also lied about what happened. As far as I know, the killers have never been charged.

      Tasers were supposed to save lives, by allowing the police to use non-lethal force as an alternative to shooting. But the reality is that tasers are used to subdue citizens in circumstances that would never justify lethal force. So instead of replacing lethal force, they just added a new tool and another level of violence. This weapon will likely do the same.

    35. Re: How about take away their guns. by 31415926535897 · · Score: 1

      I just watched it. The kid was waving it around and pointing it at people in the park. He aimed at the cops when they drove up. BB guns look too real, so there's no reason the cops could have known it was fake.

      It does look like it was a dumb idea to drive up to point blank range if they wanted to solve it peacefully.

      Apparently there is also a dash cam from the cruiser that shows them yelling at the kid to drop the gun before they got there. So it's not quite as ridiculous as the security footage makes it look.

      So, is it murder? No. But it does look like the cops made some bad decisions. Unfortunately the kid made even worse decisions.

    36. Re:How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      You have not thought that through.

      If they walk into a Lowe's with a gun, they can assume that other citizens also have a gun, and hence if they start shooting, they will themselves be shot in short order. That is exactly why mass shootings are done in places full of unarmed people...there's nobody to shoot back. Did you know that the shootists always off themselves the moment they see a cop with a gun enter the scene?

      The threat of retaliatory violence prevents initial violence. One sword keeps another sheathed. If most people in an area are armed, you don't have to worry about determining the good guys from the bad guys because nobody will start shooting. (well, no sane person...the occasional no-grip-on-reality person might start shooting, but it is extremely rare that someone that far gone will get hold of a gun, and in the rare cases they do, somebody can shoot back...it makes no sense to make everyone vulnerable to crime because of a once-in-a-billion problem that is easily solved when it happens).

    37. Re:How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way to disarm criminals is arm citizens.

      Just like only way to clean hair is "wash, rinse, repeat". Why? Because that sells more shampoo.

      The NRA exists to sell guns. Every line of bullshit they feed you is trying to convince you to buy more guns. If a bunch of children get shot in a school, they'll tell you the only way to stop school shootings is to have more guns in schools with the children. Sales logic.

      In actual reality, the only solution to too many guns is fewer guns.

    38. Re: How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that the path the US has been on for decades? How is that working out for you?

    39. Re:How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way to disarm criminals is arm citizens.

      It is a very sad day when that kind of quote passes for argument.

      No, it is not the only way. See Australia and various other countries.

      Banning guns does actually work, if it is a nationwide ban done right. It would work here...

      The only solid reason I can see to allow almost any form of gun to almost anyone is that we value that ideal more than we value the lives that would be saved by reducing that freedom. That indeed seems to be the case as no one even tries to do anything about it anymore and it sure as hell isn't going to help us water the tree of liberty and such. Seriously the government pays megacorps to make much more seriously dangerous weapons...

    40. Re:How about take away their guns. by Moof123 · · Score: 1

      Please explain how Australia's experience does not refute your argument.

    41. Re: How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only working way to disarm criminals is to get rid of criminals. E.g. provide everyone enough so they don't have to steal. Portugal has figured a way to get rid of drug criminals by helping them getting jobs and making drugs legal.

    42. Re: How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      15 years ago that was every boy. Now you have to be some kind of troubled youth to enjoy killing can with BBs.

    43. Re: How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is thatp why your hair is greasy and full of dandruff?

    44. Re: How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greece is way ahead: they've made everybody poor so there's nothing to steal and nobody can afford drugs. The perfect society. All of the EU will follow in short order.

    45. Re:How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you conflating/confusing open carry and brandishing? The latter is AFAIK against the law.

    46. Re:How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > And let the police do their damn job instead of whining about another thug being shot.

      One day, that "thug" might be you.

      Those rules that make cops' lives harder are there to *protect* the rest of us from those who would abuse their position. *Never* forget that.

    47. Re:How about take away their guns. by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Just shoot them. In a short while the problem will fix itself.

    48. Re:How about take away their guns. by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      US has the highest per-capita amount of weapons among the developed countries. So your plan demonstrably failed. Should I remind you the canonical definition of insanity?

    49. Re: How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dandruff is caused by over washing. Fuck you're dumb.

    50. Re:How about take away their guns. by marquisdepolis · · Score: 1

      The only way to disarm criminals is arm citizens. And let the police do their damn job instead of whining about another thug being shot.

      You can't even guarantee most guns can even consistently fire (except for Glock), this looks like more of the tech-solves-everything blind faith.

      That's the most retarded thing I've read on this topic. Citizens can be criminals (or not), and arming citizens by definition includes arming criminals. If you have come up with some fascinating way of identifying criminals vs everyone else, please do start Minority Report Inc and I'll invest.

      Seriously ...

    51. Re: How about take away their guns. by The+Last+Gunslinger · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Batons and tasers are plenty. Cops should always defuse and de-escalate. They don't need lethal firearms.

    52. Re: How about take away their guns. by jafiwam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      15 years ago that was every boy. Now you have to be some kind of troubled youth to enjoy killing can with BBs.

      I went all over with a BB gun (rifle and pistols) and NEVER ONCE pointed at people in order to get a kick out of scaring them, menacing them or anything like that. Also, when the cops showed up (for whatever reason, never had the neighbors complain about what we were doing with BB guns) we stopped what we were doing, answered questions politely and complied every time.

      The difference is not the gun or the BB gun or the airsoft gun. It's the culture, mindeset, intent, and parenting of the person holding it that counts.

      Getting shot or not is mostly in the control of the shootee, the shooter is not the driving force (other than being in a profession that is the force part of "authorized force by the state."

    53. Re: How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put a gun in every black hand, then the US will be safe.

    54. Re: How about take away their guns. by tsqr · · Score: 1
    55. Re:How about take away their guns. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      diffuse the threat ?

      Not sure why breathing on the lens will help.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    56. Re:How about take away their guns. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      You have not thought that through.

      If they walk into a Lowe's with a gun, they can assume that other citizens also have a gun, and hence if they start shooting, they will themselves be shot in short order. That is exactly why mass shootings are done in places full of unarmed people...there's nobody to shoot back.

      So what you are saying is that in Ahghanistan, where even little children are armed to the teeth, there is no gun violence ever?

      And in Texas, there is no gun violence ever?

      This isn't an anti gun argument, its about people feeling teh need to carry deadly force in an eatery or hardware store. If you are of the sort who feels teh need to carry, conceal it. Then you don't become a friendly casualty.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    57. Re: How about take away their guns. by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The difference is not the gun or the BB gun or the airsoft gun. It's the culture, mindeset, intent, and parenting of the person holding it that counts.

      Succinctly well said. And I'll add that parents and the rest of society needs to instill a cultural understanding that we don't live in our own little worlds, but one in which we all share the resulting consequences of our actions. For example, no one would jump out of a plane without a parachute unless they're suicidal, right?! So why should anyone think waving a gun around in public with the intent to scare is a good idea?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    58. Re: How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Afghan is not armed to the teeth. The majority don't have weapons. There are a lot of people with guns but a good part of those are combatants... Not civilians.

      Arming people doesn't prevent gun violence. It just lessens the damage. Your alternative approach is to basically army the bad guys only and have a massive armed police force.

    59. Re: How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same in Texas. Almost no one carries a weapon despite the myths.

    60. Re: How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey asswipe, I don't ever need a cop. I take care of my own problems. You can keep your crackhead.

    61. Re:How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be confused about the role of police. In our society they do not make determinations about or carry out punishments.

      They are nit SUPPOSED to do those things, but rarely are they punished for doing so.

    62. Re:How about take away their guns. by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      Australia, Japan, and Singapore have very successful gun control programs... because they are islands, an have a more centralized government with broader powers. In the case of Japan and Singapore, these same differences keep illegal drugs out with much greater effectiveness.

      The US shares a land border with Mexico. Considering that illegal drugs make it up here with great ease, I don't see how we would be any better at keeping guns out.

    63. Re: How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you must not get out (of your state) much. Open carry is not uncommon in my state, and it's even legal to do in bars!

    64. Re:How about take away their guns. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Change the dimensions of legally manufactured bullets every few years. Do not repeat sizes. Do not mark any legally manufactured bullets with their size.

      Illicit gun users (everyone outside the police firearms units and the military) will stop using their guns after losing one or both hands to misfires. Illicit ammunition manufacturers need hardware and consumables and space to work, which will greatly reduce the supply of ammunition.

      A gun without ammunition is better known as a club - working range about 1.5m.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    65. Re: How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arming does not eliminate violence. Disarming does not eliminate violence. The only thing that will eliminate violence is to remove any reason to perpetrate violence.

    66. Re: How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter, you don't just blast away at him. Maybe he's off his meds, maybe he's mentally handicapped, maybe he's just playing laser tag. It's your duty as a cop to protect people, even from themselves. I'm not saying those cops were homicidal maniacs, but they clearly did not receive enough training, acted cowardly, and did not handle the situation correctly. They had all sorts of other avenues to take besides just jumping out of the car and blasting away.

    67. Re:How about take away their guns. by DedTV · · Score: 2

      The problem I see is though, when a law abiding citizen walks into Lowe's or Chipotle's brandshing his piece as is his second amendment right and in his camos how are the other law abiding citizens in the same place going to know if he is a good gut or a bad guy?

      Therein lies the problem. If I'm concealed carrying at the moment, they are going to have about a second to convince me they are not entering with harmful intent. At that point, it's now a really bad situation.

      This is not a trivial problem.

      It is a trivial problem. You and those like you merely have to stop assuming they're the only good person on Earth.
      Someone should have to prove they're entering with harmful intent before you assume they're not. Assuming they're bad until they somehow prove otherwise to you is a problem with you, not society or anyone else.

    68. Re: How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially if we sign up to TTIP...

    69. Re:How about take away their guns. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 0

      The problem I see is though, when a law abiding citizen walks into Lowe's or Chipotle's brandshing his piece as is his second amendment right and in his camos how are the other law abiding citizens in the same place going to know if he is a good gut or a bad guy?

      Therein lies the problem. If I'm concealed carrying at the moment, they are going to have about a second to convince me they are not entering with harmful intent. At that point, it's now a really bad situation.

      This is not a trivial problem.

      It is a trivial problem. You and those like you merely have to stop assuming they're the only good person on Earth. Someone should have to prove they're entering with harmful intent before you assume they're not. Assuming they're bad until they somehow prove otherwise to you is a problem with you, not society or anyone else.

      So your rationale is that I have to allow him to blow my head off before I can make a decision on his intent?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    70. Re:How about take away their guns. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that public can in light of its even worse history with guns?

    71. Re:How about take away their guns. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      If they're brandishing they're not a good guy. Brandishing means to draw and display to give the impression of intent to use.

      One of the first things I was taught was that don't you don't ever draw your gun unlless you are going to use it.

      And yes, sitting around with friends and checking them out does not apply to that.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    72. Re:How about take away their guns. by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      We all know that if you give this to cops they will shoot a 12 year old kid in the head with it sooner or later.

      This [pause] is an eighty-eight Magnum. This goes through armor and it goes through the victim... through the wall... through a tree outside. It shoots through schools.

    73. Re:How about take away their guns. by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      No one has to ask that question because he's not brandishing his weapon.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    74. Re: How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm so tired of the whole "good guys with guns" and "Honor Thy Holy Police" nonsense.

    75. Re: How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kid was obviously a skilled marksman who could've drilled the cops if they gave him the opportunity. That's some good policin' there!

    76. Re:How about take away their guns. by DedTV · · Score: 1

      Well, your rationale is "He's doing what I'm doing but he's not me thus he must die!" so discussing rationality with you seems doomed to futility as you are obviously insane and if you do have a concealed carry permit as you claim, the authorities should revoke that immediately as your comments have demonstrated that you being armed is a serious threat to public safety.

      But for those who aren't skipping their meds, my rationale is if he draws his weapon while standing in line at Chipotle or walks in the door screaming he's gonna kill someone at Lowes, then you'd have justification to assume hostile intent. Otherwise, you should assume he just wants a burrito or some light bulbs and you should refrain from blowing his head off.

    77. Re: How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where in Australia has it solved the problem with violence? Australia never really had a problem to begin with. The culture there is different enough that it was a non issue.

      Domestic violence is actually a major and underreported problem there. Just ask anyone that's tried to get out of an abusive relationship in QLD.

    78. Re: How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Highest per capita, going up, yet violent crime has been going down. The problem is correlation != causation. Number of guns, who has them and all that doesn't overcome or compensate for the cultural problems that lead to violent crime in the first place.

    79. Re: How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Australians are, for the most part, already pretty chill. They never had much of a gun crime problem to start with. Further, despite their land mass, they're a small country in terms of population. So you've got a small number of people spread out essentially along the coastlines and a vast uninhabitable wasteland keeping half from the other. There's just no way to compare Australia and the US as they're totally different.

      Seriously, people need to realize, the societal differences between countries make the one size fits all method of law a waste of time. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of Australia love from this bloke, but there's a lot of stuff that leaves me shaking my head wondering about their notions of fair and just at the same time.

    80. Re: How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHAHA dude, your funny...

      If they're so prepared, then why do they have to fully discharge their firearm, often completely missing their target. Geese, there's cops that have been involved in shootouts at a distance of one car to another without injury.

      These are not well prepared forearms experts. They're often poorly trained at best.

    81. Re: How about take away their guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. It's culture, not the tools. More people need to know and understand this. I'm old enough to remember people able to have a gun at school without everyone freaking out and calling for a lockdown.

    82. Re:How about take away their guns. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      The only way to disarm criminals is arm citizens. And let the police do their damn job instead of whining about another thug being shot.

      You can't even guarantee most guns can even consistently fire (except for Glock), this looks like more of the tech-solves-everything blind faith.

      The problem I see is though, when a law abiding citizen walks into Lowe's or Chipotle's brandshing his piece as is his second amendment right and in his camos how are the other law abiding citizens in the same place going to know if he is a good gut or a bad guy?

      Therein lies the problem. If I'm concealed carrying at the moment, they are going to have about a second to convince me they are not entering with harmful intent. At that point, it's now a really bad situation.

      This is not a trivial problem.

      It's not a problem at all - brandishing a firearm and/or displaying intent is already illegal, so by definition the brandisher is a criminal. If everyone who brandished their weapon willy-nilly got shot down, that sort of behaviour would vanish, hence it's a non-problem.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    83. Re:How about take away their guns. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If they walk into a Lowe's with a gun, they can assume that other citizens also have a gun, and hence if they start shooting, they will themselves be shot in short order. That is exactly why mass shootings are done in places full of unarmed people...there's nobody to shoot back. Did you know that the shootists always off themselves the moment they see a cop with a gun enter the scene?

      If someone is basically suicidal, then they are not going to care about whether they're killed by their own gun or someone else's.

      They get their chance to kill a few people anyway, it's psychosis not logic that's driving them.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    84. Re: How about take away their guns. by DeputySpade · · Score: 1

      Posting a comment to undue a bad mod. Sorry.

      --


      This space intentionally left blank
  2. No thanks by verifine · · Score: 2

    Hey, it sounds wonderful! It's less lethal, and in some imagined scenario it might be. In the real world, cops have to make split-second decisions to fire or hold fire. They don't have the luxury of time to analyze the threat. The device probably works as advertised - yet it will get cops killed. Does it alter way the semi-auto mechanism operates? Will that next round load, or will it jam? Will the slide lock in battery or just slightly open so the weapon won't fire? No thanks.

    1. Re:No thanks by khasim · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From the pictures in TFA, this looks like a SINGLE SHOT mod. So not much problem of jams or such.

      But, how many times do cops fire a single round? Not often.

      How many times do cops firing multiple rounds miss? A lot.

      This is a stupid idea.

    2. Re:No thanks by zlives · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      i agree, better solution is to ban the proliferation of guns.

    3. Re:No thanks by rtb61 · · Score: 0

      Police are meant to be trained to aim and fire, not split second about it at all. Split second is duck and cover, not empty your fucking magazine. Split second decision is murdered innocent citizens, split second decision is poorly aimed rounds going all over the place, split second decision is truly idiotic chain reactions firing where one incompetent officer fires and other incompetent officer hearing just that officer firing also start firing, if you have police making split second decisions about which citizens should live or die, than you do not have police at all but out of control Law en-FORCE-ment.

      Seriously, honestly, look yourself in the mirror and decide whether the police you pay for is entitled to make a split second decisions as to whether you will live or die, whether that is a phone in your hand or a gun, whether you are reaching down to scratch your balls or trying pull out an assault rifle you have managed to shove down your shorts, whether you are the person they were chasing who just killed someone or the person who that murderer just happened pass and are dressed in a similar fashion, whether you are driving a car that looks something like the car they are on the look out for - seriously do I need to go on or are you still stupid enough to accept a split second decision as to whether you will live or die at the hands of a panicky trigger happy law en-FORCE-r.

      Basically fuck your split second decision, I want a police officer, a real actual police officer, not some junk yard dog ticket writing law en-FORCE-r, a real police officer, an exemplary citizen, who will think long and bloody hard before murdering me.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the pictures in TFA, this looks like a SINGLE SHOT mod. So not much problem of jams or such.

      No the above poster is saying that a single shot mod very much could cause jams. Modifing the recoil action with added weight very much will affect how a semi-automatic weapon cycles. Hell limp wristing a semi-automatic can cause some to not cycle properly

    5. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't have the luxury of time to analyze the threat.

      Yes they do. If you can't analyze whether something is a threat, then you shouldn't be using lethal force against it.

    6. Re:No thanks by x0ra · · Score: 1

      you shouldn't try to educate someone without any firearms knowledge, it's a lost cause.

    7. Re:No thanks by x0ra · · Score: 1

      you obviously have no freaking what you are talking about... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    8. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your desire is pretty privileged. It assumes the world is full of these supermen you're saying should come save you. Why not go become one and put your own life on the line, if you're so informed about what they should be? I'm guessing the answer is because you're a sheltered, semi-autistic, cunty Slashdotian fuck who has had most of his life handed to him and thinks that, because he knows how to install a printer driver, he's a cut above the rest.

    9. Re:No thanks by x0ra · · Score: 1

      When a guy pulls a gun while you are escorting him outside of a restaurent, , you don't have the luxury to think, you stop the threat **immediately**. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    10. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is also not how officers actually shoot a weapon.

      They fire repeatedly until the magazine is empty. No fine motor control during the surge of adrenalin and all that.

      If an officer requires a non-lethal weapon why would they fire a handgun?

    11. Re:No thanks by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Those have probably fired more rounds than you ever will. I have no respect for police, but I have even less respect for people using violence against them.

    12. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An even better solution is to ban criminals.

    13. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that is a much worse solution.

      The threats are real. Bans will not make the threats go away. But widespread availability of guns will empower civilians to defend themselves against such threats, and will act as a disincentive to become such a threat.

      You can't make the world safer by taking weapons away from the bad guys. It is impossible. But you can make the world safer by keeping the good guys well-armed.

    14. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worse than that.
      This "reduces the speed of the round by 80%" - or, from a bullet moving at 1000 feet per second to a golf-ball sized ball moving at 200 feet per second.
      That's slow. A good professional pitcher will throw a fastball at almost 150 feet per second.
      This is significantly smaller than a baseball, and is unlikely to have much more energy in it. I can't imagine a criminal stopping because he got pegged by a fastball, or even several. Bruises are not going to stop someone that is anything other than casually involved.

    15. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can't make the world safer by taking weapons away from the bad guys. It is impossible.

      EVERY western country other than the US has done precisely this. What is it about gun control that you yanks just can't understand.

    16. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you shoot him, and this doesn't cause any problems.

      it will transfer enough kinetic energy across a wide surface to knock a suspect down

    17. Re:No thanks by publiclurker · · Score: 0

      funny how you ammosexuals seem to think that using a bunch of fancy words makes you special. Kind of like a secret handshake other children use to pretend that they are important.

    18. Re: No thanks by stevedog · · Score: 2

      I'm not saying anything about the merits of the arguments themselves, and maybe GP touched a nerve by talking something that affects you personally or something. Even so, normal humans can communicate respectfully even when upset, so your response implies you are exactly the person you are accusing GP of being.

    19. Re:No thanks by whistlingtony · · Score: 2

      They should have the luxury of time to analyze the threat, because they should know exactly what they face before they go in. Firefighters don't just run into buildings without a plan and proper safety protocols. Neither do cops. Well.... Neither SHOULD cops.

      Mind you, I'm all in favor of less than lethal options. Tazers and beanbags work. Also, I'm in favor of cops DE-escalating situations, instead of escalating them. And when there's a gun involved? If they didn't know, they should retreat. If they DO know, they should call the F'in swat team and put that person down hard. Cops shouldn't have guns at all IMO.

      Yes, I know guns. I grew up rural. I just want more community policing instead of police state.

    20. Re:No thanks by x0ra · · Score: 2

      It's funny how SJW seems to have more knowledge than any other people on every single world problem (and non-problem) from seeing nothing of it beside their mom's basemen...

    21. Re:No thanks by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      I Dunno. What is it about of "when you pry it from my cold dead hands" that you brits can't understand?

    22. Re:No thanks by x0ra · · Score: 1

      do you realize that even people with non-survivable flesh wound can still fight for minutes and cause havoc, cf the 1986 Miami FBI shootout ? Real life is not a Hollywood movie.

    23. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They fire repeatedly until the magazine is empty. No fine motor control during the surge of adrenalin and all that.

      Moreover, I can see a lot of bad shoots that will suddenly become justified with "I fired a warning shot, and my finger twitched against the trigger and the second round went off by accident."

      If the guy the cop's shooting isn't a threat to his life, the cop has no business pulling the trigger.
      If the guy the cop's shooting at is a threat to his life, even I don't want the cop to waste 50 milliseconds firing the first round of the volley as a warning shot.

    24. Re:No thanks by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      and they all have more violence than we do

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    25. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm Australian. Crims still get guns. If they can't illgally import them, they make them. You are a nigger.

    26. Re:No thanks by narcc · · Score: 0

      So... people with firearms knowledge came to it by means of ... divine revelation?

      I know that you can't educate the willfully ignorant, but I'm not getting that impression from the OP.

    27. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liek! oh em geez I no rite? those SJW libtard sheeple just luv the lame streem media and vote all democrat! there so dum!

    28. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People use violence against them when the trust is gone. Even I fear them now. . . and I'm white, middle-aged with zero criminal record.

      The LE community would do well to understand this and start culling the bad fruit from their ranks. Protecting them actually puts the lives of the decent officers at risk.

      Short version: A good cop who shelters a bad cop becomes that which they are sworn to protect against. They effective become " The Bad guy ".

    29. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose if we had taken the path of no firearms for the people, we would probably still be an English colony . . . . .

    30. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If a guy pulls a gun and is serious about using it, you'll be dead long before your own weapon clears its holster.

    31. Re: No thanks by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. I don't trust LEO *at all*, but I'm nowhere to use violence against them. You cannot win with a frontal attack. Every baby with a brain understand that...

    32. Re:No thanks by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Or the Moro during the Boer wars. The .45 caliber pistol was invented _precisely_ to stop determined attackers, and has proven extremely effective. The penetrating power, cost of ammunition, and risk of stray rounds damaging innocent bystanders is why few police departments use them as a standard issue round.

    33. Re:No thanks by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      Cops don't fire warning shots. Unless they're idiots, that is. Warning shots are for movies.

    34. Re:No thanks by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      But widespread availability of guns will empower civilians to defend themselves against such threats, and will act as a disincentive to become such a threat.

      Doesn't seem to be quite working out that way. Peculiar how so often the solution to too much gun violence is to increase the number of guns in society. At some point, I suppose, once everyone and their dog is armed, people will just stop shooting. Is that the theory?

    35. Re:No thanks by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      when you pry it from my cold dead hands

      Your proposal is acceptable

    36. Re:No thanks by narcc · · Score: 0

      That's fair. If you're in law enforcement or close to someone who is, I have little doubt that you'd react that way.

      Though it does nothing to help bridge the gap between the public and the police. A gap, I should point out, was created by the police through countless instances of harassment, abuse, false testimony, and out-right murder. (Worse, it's become cliche that departments protect, and even reward, these 'bad apples'.) A sizable portion of the law-abiding public live in fear of the police. They're justifiably terrified of the the people that are supposed to protect them!

      If you want people like me to see the police the same way you do, things need to change dramatically. If departments across the country continue to act like well-funded street gangs, you'll find that viewpoints like my own will continue to dominate the public consciousness.

      If you're an officer, do what you can to clean up your department. If you have friends or family in law enforcement, encourage them to do the same. The status quo isn't beneficial to anyone.

    37. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the bandwagon fallacy to me. Its popularity doesn't automatically make it right (or even smart).

      Is total per capita crime and violence in all these countries hugely less than it is in America? If it is only moderately less, then it is extremely difficult to demonstrate that the gun bans have actually made anyone safer.

      And no fair cheating by limiting the stats to "gun violence." Gotta look at ALL violence for a real comparison. Any kind of book-cooking demonstrates your intent to deceive.

    38. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes it does. That study shows that it is exactly working out that way: citizens empowered to defend themselves deter crime.

      I notice you didn't provide any citations, like the Harvard study I just provided. But it doesn't matter, I skimmed google and found several articles claiming the opposite, and they all played the definition game (they didn't compare violence to violence, but "gun violence," thus their sample set was filtered to one that will naturally show higher numbers in places where gun availability is higher, without giving a clear picture of overall safety). This book-cooking is ridiculously common among gun-control advocates, because they don't like the truth.

      A well-armed society is a polite society. Deal with it.

    39. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom, self protection, not cowering in terror when Lee Rigby gets his head chopped off in the middle of a crowd...

      Of course, if you ARE proud of the fact that the London police had officers present before Rigby was killed, but because they were unarmed they hid in the back of the crowd and let him die... Well, you deserve what you get.

    40. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder whatever happened to that baby that got a flashbang in the crib... must be permanently deaf. Clearly a dangerous criminal that one. Oh, it was an accident? So the fuck what? Run someone down, it's an accident, you still go away for it. Nobody went away for burning and deafening that baby.

    41. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do shoot you in the back if you're not a threat, though. Or black.

    42. Re:No thanks by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      #blackliesmatter

    43. Re:No thanks by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Statistic in the US prove you wrong by a huge ratio and embarrassing and shameful ratio. Statistics in other countries of course where snap second decisions are banned prove me right. Fortunately for me, I am not a mobile target for law en-FORCE-ment in the US because I do no live there but I am concerned that other countries might adopt US idiotic ideas.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    44. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      agreed, this is just a terrible idea in every way. Sometimes a 9mm wont penetrate thick winter clothes.. making it 80% weaker.. you might as well use harsh language and hope for the best. Also adding yet another step to deploying a gun when you need it... it will never get used.

    45. Re: No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ither countries train to injure

    46. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree! Back when I was growing up, I learned that the firearm that a police officer carriers is only there to serve as a deterrent not as a lethal weapon (a perfect example is the cop from the first Die Hard movie). The police (noun) exists to police (verb)! A regular police officer stops crime simply by physically being present.

      If a person committing a crime is not deterred by the powers given to the police (arrest, fines, etc, but not use of lethal force) then it is not a effective solution for the situation.

      Just like in the military where a private cannot make the decision to use lethal force against an unknown threat without explicit orders, neither should the police.

    47. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They taught us to fire warning shots in the military. Shout, Show, Shoot to warn, Shoot to kill.

      It was reiterated every time we went on mission.

      Shout so they see you, Show your weapons so they see your armed, Shoot to warn, so they know you aren't fucking playing around and then Shoot to kill.

      If you were firing at a vehicle there was another step as well before shoot to kill, shoot to disable meaning aim for the engine compartment.

      Now you could always skip a step or two, but you would need a good reason, like they are aiming their weapon at you, American soldier, Allied soldier, American Citizen, Allied citizen. In fact that's who you are supposed to protect in that order.

      So this whole canard about they can't shoot to warn thats stupid. Is fucking stupid in and of itself. If that is how they are training cops then THEY ARE DOING IT WRONG.

    48. Re:No thanks by NoZart · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Intentional homicide not restricted to guns.

      There's a neat little graph in the middle of the page:
      Americas: 16 murders per 100.000
      Europe: 3
      World: 6 (but that includes Americas, so this number is skewed upwards.)

    49. Re:No thanks by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Those have probably fired more rounds into the backs of unarmed people than you ever will.

      I agree 100%, Mr Coplicker.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    50. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moro were in the Philippines.
      Part of the Spanish-American war. U.S. Soldiers were then armed with a .38 I believe.
      This led to the development of the .45 ACP and later the 1911.

  3. Assumptions make something out of you for sure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this assumes that they have time to clip it on, and that theyre a good enough aim to hit the first time.

    Both are, IMO, fairly faulty assumptions.

  4. Ripe for abuse by Forthac4 · · Score: 1

    Converting a lethal weapon in to a less than lethal is situation ripe for accidental shootings and abuse.What happens if a cop accidentally shoots twice? It gives bad cops plausible deniability, and I haven't seen any evidence that this would be more effective than, or more importantly faster to deploy then a taser.

    1. Re:Ripe for abuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens if a cop accidentally shoots twice? It gives bad cops plausible deniability,

      The cop already shoots twice and gets away with it. If they used this then the victim might get lucky if the second bullet misses.

    2. Re:Ripe for abuse by x0ra · · Score: 1

      If you are in a situation you have to shoot, you react on instinct, act on muscle memory, and keep shooting until the threat stopped. It's very unlikely to be done on the first shot. Real life is not a Hollywood movie, as you don't aim for a head shot but aim center of mass. Damn, even head shot might be non-fatal.

  5. Until they fire the second shot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very rare for a officer to just shoot once.
    This will take a lot of training/discipline, that does not usually exist.

    1. Re:Until they fire the second shot... by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Cops are trained that if they're shooting they should shoot more than once.

  6. Less than lethal is still lethal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hundreds of people die by tasers, rubber bullets and other "less than lethal" weapons every year. They are ripe for abuse and police thuggery is encouraged as they are not held accountable when firing these weapons unless they kill or seriously injure someone.

    1. Re:Less than lethal is still lethal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Do you have a source for that? A search showed "283rd taser-related death in America since 2009."

      What would the number have been if a gun were used instead?

  7. This is a joke, right? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

    Some 'air bag' that is only good for the first round? Yeah, OK...you go with that. You might even make a substantial amount of money selling to some city.
    The police won't use it (and I don't blame them), but this is worse than useless.

  8. "Knock them down"? by Goldenhawk · · Score: 2

    How will this knock them down if the bare bullet won't knock them down? Same kinetic energy, and it's been proven more than a few times that a bullet hitting a human does NOT have enough energy to knock them down, all gun-related movie and TV tropes notwithstanding.

    http://www.forcenecessary.com/...

    --
    --Brandon / Split Infinity Music

    1. Re:"Knock them down"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a metaphor for "wound them and put them on the ground", not literally knock them over. If a bullet hitting someone caused them to fall over from the impact guns would either need to be a whole lot heavier, have a backblast like an RPG, or fly out of your hand whenever you fired one.

    2. Re:"Knock them down"? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      I think the idea is to make it like being hit while wearing a bullet proof vest. The vest usually stops the bullet but doesn't stop the energy. It just spreads it out over a larger area so it still is going to hurt you.

    3. Re:"Knock them down"? by LessThanObvious · · Score: 1

      It won't knock them down, nor will it stop a real threat. This idea is crap. It will only put officers at risk.

    4. Re:"Knock them down"? by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Is that why the OP says the device transfers the kinetic energy over a wide enough area to knock the person down? It's BS.

    5. Re:"Knock them down"? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      It also hurts, quite a lot. Few people without practice can ignore such a blow and keep fleeing, or attacking.

    6. Re:"Knock them down"? by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Many of the people who get shot are shot because tasers aren't working due to them being so high they can't even feel it.

    7. Re:"Knock them down"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many of the people who get shot are shot because tasers aren't working due to them being so high they can't even feel it.

      You fail at biology. People being tased might not conciously respond to the pain if they're on drugs. However, their muscles still have the same response. Even a fresh corpse would.

      Here's your biology lesson of the day: Muscles are controlled by electrical impulses. That's also why you if you get an electrical shock from something you grab might be unable to release it - the outside current gives a "stronger signal" which makes you hold on to it and even grab it harder. The really, really careful people even advice others against directly grabbing someone in that predicament to help them since both might get stuck since the current could go through both of you then. However, it's possible that a current which is strong enough to do that is already fatal to the first victim. The Nazis and the Japanese experimented on POWs to study the effects of electricity on humans and that yielded probably most accurate scientific information we have. However, for obvious reasons, nobody wants to cite it in any research paper.

    8. Re:"Knock them down"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bare bullet penetrates a human target, dispelling its kinetic energy by crushing body tissues. Embedding the bullet into a large, blunt ball focuses all of its forward momentum into a single impact. There are very effective ways to test this kind of technology and verify its effectiveness. Why not allow scientific testing to demonstrate whether it works?

    9. Re:"Knock them down"? by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Increasing the contact area of the bullet means more kinetic is passed on to the target instead of simply passing through.

      Compare swinging a sword at a target versus swinging a baseball bat using the same force.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    10. Re:"Knock them down"? by Imrik · · Score: 1

      You might want to look at the documented history of people on PCP and similar drugs fighting through tasers when confronted by the police.

  9. How do I laugh at thee, let me count the ways by taustin · · Score: 2

    1) Police already have better non-lethal options, such as tasers and beanbag rounds.

    2) Police are trained to fire multiple times if they have to shoot at all.

    3) If it's not fatal, it's not as effective at stopping, and sometimes, stopping someone is all that matter. If it's on all the time, it wastes a precious second or two when it counts. If it's not, it will never be used at all.

    4) Isn't an orange tip to the barrel an indication it's a toy gun?

    5) It looks stupid.

    1. Re:How do I laugh at thee, let me count the ways by DaHat · · Score: 1

      1) Police already have better non-lethal options, such as tasers and beanbag rounds.

      Unlike your video games when you can press a single button to quickly toggle between two weapons, it takes most people a good bit longer to holster one item then bring to ready another.

      2) Police are trained to fire multiple times if they have to shoot at all.

      This item would require a bit of training yes... fire once with the less than lethal option, examine the situation for a split second or two then potentially continue firing.

      3) If it's not fatal, it's not as effective at stopping, and sometimes, stopping someone is all that matter. If it's on all the time, it wastes a precious second or two when it counts. If it's not, it will never be used at all.

      Stopping is always the goal... sometimes that involves fatality, something many are uncomfortable with. You could require the cops only to carry Tasers, only you are going to end up with a whole lot more dead cops because they will be unable to adequately defend themselves against someone with a proper lethal weapon. My understanding of this is it's intended to be less lethal for a single round to give the target a single shot to come to their senses before lethal lead is coming their way... with a single one time cost up front of the officer finds enough time to apply it to the weapon.

      4) Isn't an orange tip to the barrel an indication it's a toy gun?

      I'm sure you can get it in another color.

      5) It looks stupid.

      So does your face?

    2. Re:How do I laugh at thee, let me count the ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2) Police are trained to fire multiple times if they have to shoot at all.

      This item would require a bit of training yes... fire once with the less than lethal option, examine the situation for a split second or two then potentially continue firing.

      In that split second they'll be dead. They'll only pull if they're in danger. Guns aren't like in video games. 80-90% of shots miss, even if you're highly trained. You only get better accuracy if you spend several seconds lining up the sights (gun range) which they're obviously unable to do. The first shot will pretty much miss every single time. If they pause and haven't hit the other person, then they'll get shot.

      I'm against guns, and do believe guns only increases gun violence. But in a society where guns are so prevalent I do understand that the police need to carry them. And your idea would result in police officer deaths.

  10. Bullets don't knock people down by SpaceManFlip · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is stupid because a normal bullet doesn't even have the kinetic energy to knock over a person. That is all Hollywood make-believe.
    There's a whole series of tests done on Mythbusters that debunked the concept.
    So these bullets are going EVEN SLOWER than normal ones, and it's supposed to "knock down" a person?
    Think about this: a typical 9mm round will be 115 grains or 124 grains in weight. One grain is 1/7000 of a pound. We're talking about a projectile going in the ballpark of 1000 fps that weighs only about 0.0177 pounds for the 124 grain bullet. There simply is no knock-down potential.

    Now, on the other hand, if you are seriously injured by one of those projectiles, you'll probably fall over in pain. Or you might also just fall over dead.

    1. Re:Bullets don't knock people down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree. A bullet has a lot of momentum but is very small. If they could somehow adapt the bullet to a larger shape to better transfer that momentum maybe they'd have something. I don't think this product, "the Alternative" will work as well as a similar product called "the Alternative." The Alternative has a mount for the gun in which the bullet embeds in a large metal sphere upon firing which helps slow the bullet yet transfers the maximum amount of kinetic energy. It' sort of like a large beanbag round. Whoever makes the Alternative should look at what the makers of the Alternative are doing and copy it.

      Or, you could just read the article. It would have saved the time you took to do your math based upon not knowing what you were talking about.

    2. Re:Bullets don't knock people down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Think about this: a typical 9mm round will be 115 grains or 124 grains in weight. One grain is 1/7000 of a pound. We're talking about a projectile going in the ballpark of 1000 fps that weighs only about 0.0177 pounds for the 124 grain bullet. There simply is no knock-down potential.

      There is an even easier way to think about this. Newton's third law.

      The absolute maximum theoretical knock-down potential of a bullet is the same as the recoil of the gun shooting it. Ever shot a gun? Think a 9mm comes close to knocking you down? Then, so can't the bullet.

      P.S. That's why Hollywood having people blown into the air backwards from a gunshot is fucking stupid.

    3. Re:Bullets don't knock people down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you convert these grains and fps to a more comprehensible measurement so we can understand the momentum/force of a bullet on a target?

    4. Re:Bullets don't knock people down by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      Uh... conservation of momentum, dude.

      For a bullet to knock you over, it would have to come out of the gun with enough recoil to be able to knock over the shooter. When someone is knocked over by a bullet, it's either because they're dead, or because of their reaction to being shot.

    5. Re:Bullets don't knock people down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe this is an attachment to a Barrett M95....

    6. Re:Bullets don't knock people down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, I've shot the bean bag rounds. It doesn't knock you over. I think you guys are being overly literal with "knock you down." You're thinking the Hollywood 20 foot fly away type of knock down. A bean bag round doesn't make you fly back either. It hits hard, doesn't penetrate, and the pain/force make you go to the ground. That's still knocking them down. This is a bean bag equivalent attachment for a 9mm.

      It's still not a good idea, but those saying it won't knock someone down should take a bean bag round.

    7. Re:Bullets don't knock people down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is an interesting phenomena.

      People who don't know they are supposed to fall over after being shot tend to still be combative until the third or fourth hit. It's true, and some remote societies where guns were a late introduction have gained historical fame for their fighting prowess due to not being indoctrinated in the "I've been shot, I must fall over" mindset.

      People who have been educated in the power of the gun of course tend to fall over nearly immediately after getting hit, and tend to be out of commission until medically treated.

      Even in groups where they previously were ignorant about guns and then were educated, the reports on how they behaved after education are very different than how they behaved before the education.

    8. Re:Bullets don't knock people down by jIyajbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      (Trigger warning: Physics teacher here!)

      Actually, momentum is NOT conserved for the *shooter*. He is bracing himself against something (his feet on the ground, usually), so there is an external force acting on him. Thus, this particular argument fails.

      For the victim, if he is shot unawares (so he doesn't brace himself), then conservation of momentum *does* apply. I calculate that he will experience a force to his chest of about 35 newtons (~8 pounds). That's not much, and won't accelerate him much.

      However--it may well knock him down. The reason is, the force to his chest will cause a torque on him, which will cause him to rotate down to the ground. If we assume he rotates about his feet, and treat him as a solid cylinder (reasonable approximation) then I get an angular acceleration of about 0.4 radians per second per second (22 degrees per second per second).

      That only lasts while the bullet is in contact with him, of course; after that, the victim has a gravitational torque on him, with a corresponding angular acceleration (I estimate) of 9 rad/s/s.

      If someone wants to check my work, I'll supply the numbers and things I used. I might well have made a mistake or missed something.

      --
      "Don't blame the log for the fire." --Andrew Ratshin
    9. Re:Bullets don't knock people down by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Informative

      Mythbusters did an episode on this. They had to hit the pig with their biggest rounds while it was wearing armor to knock it down when it was being held up by the most sensitive of systems.

      What's more likely is a biological reason for falling down. The body's systems have just been disrupted, and a human stays up only by sensitive balance anyways, it's fundamentally unstable most of the time. Shock, surprise, pain, and such disrupt the balancing act, and they hit the dirt.

      That being said, this device seems to be about 3/4 of a beanbag round(calculations here), so it's logical to figure that it works much the same way - inflict a sharp blow that causes a muscle spasm, or such, disabling the target long enough for officers to move in and finish subduing.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    10. Re:Bullets don't knock people down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The force will depend on whether the bullet hits heavier bones (particularly at the entrance point) or just flesh and internal organs (cushioning the stopping of the bullet) too...

    11. Re:Bullets don't knock people down by fgouget · · Score: 1

      So these bullets are going EVEN SLOWER than normal ones, and it's supposed to "knock down" a person?

      Independently of whether a bullet can knock over a person or not, you should realize the slower bullet is only slower because it is much heavier, and that it has the exact same momentum as the faster one: that's the conservation of momentum principle. So as far as knocking over people nothing it makes no difference.

    12. Re:Bullets don't knock people down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are you seriously measuring a bullet weight in grains??? did you just came from the 50s??

    13. Re:Bullets don't knock people down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the victim, if he is shot unawares (so he doesn't brace himself), then conservation of momentum *does* apply.

      Around where I live most people keep their feet on the ground while they go around not expecting being shot at.

    14. Re: Bullets don't knock people down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole idea is that the non lethal projectile hurts like hell instead of tearing a gaping wound channel. If this is not enough to discourage or incapacitate the attacker enough, the gun is already aimed and lethal force can be used.

  11. Cops in America will never use it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Thou shalt not restrict an American policeman from using instant lethal force without so much as a perceived delay.."

  12. Not good for OODA use by laurencetux · · Score: 1

    what should happen is a separate weapon (maybe chambered in 10 mil??) with the LTL rounds to prevent "oops i fired a couple times too many" type things

    1. Re:Not good for OODA use by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Then you get the idiots who get confused and use their more lethal gun instead. As in using their gun instead of their taser. http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/14/... (Warning - auto-playing video)

  13. I Can Name That Tune in One Note, Tom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The sheriff and his buddies
    With their samurai swords
    You can even hear the music at night

    It don't have to make sense when you look like this.

  14. Well, they ARE taught to shoot to kill. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If a cop is firing a gun at a suspect, they aim at centre mass because it has the best chance of hitting the suspect... and of course they shoot to kill. They don't fire a lethal weapon to incapacitate someone.

    Life is not a fucking western, you don't shoot the guns out of the bad guy's hands. You shoot them dead so they can't kill you.

    That doesn't mean the senseless panic shootings are anywhere near OK. Cops who kill unarmed people should be on death row like everyone else.

    1. Re:Well, they ARE taught to shoot to kill. by x0ra · · Score: 1

      No, they are taught to shoot until the threat is stopped.

    2. Re:Well, they ARE taught to shoot to kill. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot if you think stopping a threat using a lethal weapon is not actually meant to kill them.

    3. Re:Well, they ARE taught to shoot to kill. by x0ra · · Score: 1

      No, I merely dissociate the intend from the mean, which does all the difference in front of a jury. Shooting to kill is murder. Shooting to stop a threat is self-defense.

      In this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... if the officers were trying to kill the perp, they would have finished him while he was on the ground. They didn't because they didn't *had to*, the threat was diffused.

    4. Re:Well, they ARE taught to shoot to kill. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      No, they are taught to shoot until the threat is stopped.

      Especially when the threat is running away from them.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    5. Re:Well, they ARE taught to shoot to kill. by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Funny thing about lethal weapons... they aren't always. Their lethality usually depends on where you are hit, with what, and how long until you receive medical treatment for your wounds.

      Yes, death is a potential outcome of going up against a lethal weapons, that is a potential risk but not the desired result when using them... unless you are explicitly trying to kill. As a hunter I can go on at length of the ideal places to put a shot where it's not just about 'center of mass', but of trying to hit a deer heart which is about the size of my fist from 100 yards away. If I miss by even a few inches, I may be chasing the animal for hours.

      Don't like it? Blame your creator for making sure that human vital organs happen to be in the easiest place to hit.

    6. Re:Well, they ARE taught to shoot to kill. by x0ra · · Score: 1

      There is plenty of places which will lead to a death. Hit any artery, and the target will bleed to death (that's why shooting the legs is a pretty terrible and stupid idea). What you want to target is a location which will sufficiently disrupt an attacker to stop the threat. The brain would be perfect, but it is relatively a relatively small target which is relatively well protected (bullet can bounce off the skull). So you also want a target will present a wide enough area to ensure at least one shot will work, thus the center-of-mass lung / heart area. However, given the bone structure in this area, multiple shot are pretty much mandatory, though, fortunately, LEO can use hollow-point ammo.

    7. Re:Well, they ARE taught to shoot to kill. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are kind of like fish that way. I always try to think of a large-mouth bass attacking a big-ass lure when I think of cops. Never put on the brake lights! They will always attack that.

    8. Re:Well, they ARE taught to shoot to kill. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately that's the same funny thing about non-lethal weapons. It's rare, but people do die from BB gun shootings. They also die from tazings, and from choke holds.

      Using some kinds of force make the odds of death comparatively higher than other forms; but if the less dangerous forms of aggression are applied more often, the actual numbers of people being killed with less likely to be lethal force might easily exceed those killed with more likely to be lethal force.

      I'm all for not giving the police another tool to decide on how to maim me. They immediately have pepper spray, batons, and stun guns. They can also fall back on dogs, break out bean bag guns, or reload with rubber bullets. Exactly how many more forms of non-lethal force do they need? If they really fear for their lives, they'll have half a dozen officers in backup within minutes. It's not like they are being out gunned and out manned except in the very rare cases where they've broken the public trust to such a degree that the entire neighborhood turns on them.

      And what that happens, then one has to ask, exactly how did they let it get that bad. Sorry but I can't buy that it's all the neighborhood's fault, even if it's not the most desirable place. Cops have a responsibility to foster responsible behavior. In the places where things get out of control, the officers are fostering over the top reactionary behavior, often due to a chain of command that compels them to do so.

    9. Re:Well, they ARE taught to shoot to kill. by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Two kids with skateboards are a lethal threat to a single officer. Non-lethal weapons generally have major disadvantages against multiple opponents. If a cop knows what they are going to face ahead of time they can have the necessary tools ready, but if they knew that, they would be able to prevent crimes before they happened.

  15. What could possibly go wrong? by vinn · · Score: 1

    Firing a bullet out of a gun at someone seems so much safer now.

    --
    ----- obSig
  16. Saves lives for a few seconds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Police officers are also trained to empty the clip while shooting at center of mass. So this saves lives just as long as the interval between shots.

    1. Re:Saves lives for a few seconds by x0ra · · Score: 1

      LEO haven't been using "clip" for ages, if they ever did. It's called a magazine. http://i70.photobucket.com/alb...

  17. Yet another Gizmag article on a hair brained idea by Obscene_CNN · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Looks like some idiot an Gizmag was talked into doing an article by some hair brained inventor again. Neither party understands physics so they both think its great. As mentioned a few times here by others before me that firing a bullet into another ball isn't going to increase its knock down power (Conservation of momentum). The stupidity from there grows by training a law enforcement officer to use the gun as a first resort instead of a last one. Also for when lethal force is called for it means that the officer will have one less effective bullet and their follow up shots will be done with them dealing with the recoil from their first useless shot. Bad idea all around!

    --
    I don't want to do a sig now
  18. This is great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think they should issue guns modified with these air bags to all police officers, and modify all of the guns so that they can only carry one bullet, and must be disposed of after being used exactly once.

    #blacklivesmatter

    Cripple the police so it's easier for us cop hating black people to kill them. KTHXBYE. ROFL.

    1. Re:This is great! by x0ra · · Score: 0

      FWIW, Mike Brown was a petty, and a would-be cop-killer. he deserved to be shot.

    2. Re: This is great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd try to kill someone too if they were trying to harm and kill you. If you Are getting beat and choked to death your natural reAction would be to try to protect yourself. And that means trying to stop the other person any means necessary; even if they are a cop.

      They had no right to kill that man. Period. They started it and escalated it. That's why his family was awarded money. Because what they did was wrong.

    3. Re: This is great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please stop spreading lies.

      Everyone, all the way up and down the legal chain, knows that the "hands up, don't shoot" thing was an absolute fabrication and a lie.

      Black people and members of #blacklivesmatter made that up to justify looting, murdering police officers, using illegal drugs, eating KFC, drinking watermelon flavored ice tea, and otherwise being a menace.

      Stop the lies. Start trying to be law abiding members of society. Maybe try graduating from the sixth grade. Maybe even try to live beyond the age of 18 without being shot to death by another black person. Or maybe don't abort your children.

      Did you know that as of the last 5 years, more African-Americans are aborted by their mothers than are born? Someone from Crimestoppers needs to start writing checks for all of those ladies.

  19. Rubber Bullets by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why not just use rubber bullets or baton rounds? The technology has been around since the 70s and you are not limited to one less-lethal shot. In fact rubber bullets seem like a far better idea - with this solution what happens if the first shot misses?

    1. Re: Rubber Bullets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is a new technology for the purpose of making money selling a cheap mod nobody needs.
      Seriously if you want slower bullets they already make slower bullets. Less powder in the cartridge = slower bullet. They have been on shelves since bullets have been.

    2. Re:Rubber Bullets by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      The problem is there are times when they need to use ammunition with more stopping power. For example if a car is driving at them or someone is shooting at them. They don't have time to switch ammunition or wouldn't want to mix up clips in a life threatening situation. There are also times when they need the more powerful ammunition to put down animals (after being hit by vehicles for example) but obviously there's not the urgency isn't there. There's just the need for the present ammunition so they couldn't only use less lethal rounds.

    3. Re: Rubber Bullets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether or not the first bullet misses, the second it's an "accident".

    4. Re:Rubber Bullets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that if you have enough time to modify your weapon, you aren't really in a position to need to use it. This is the perfect "I didn't want to chase him so I shot him solution" It make reaching for the weapon a more forgivable offence, and with less outrage for when that happens, eventually that 1% of hitting people in the eye, or having an unforeseen broken rib collapse the person's lung leading to "death by assumed non-lethal force" become 1% of 100 incidents that wouldn't have happened.

      We saw this with tasers. When they came out, they were used very heavily. Now, not so much. Mostly because people had to die in sufficient numbers to have the police actually decide that tazing a person wasn't a 100% no risk of permanent injury or death alternative.

      Do you really want to relive that time? People dying because they were epileptic and tazed. People having their pacemakers disrupted. People going into tachycardia due to the electric shock and then dying as officers would not recognize (or know how to deal with) an untrusted person having a heart attack.

      History repeats itself because people are too stupid to remember when there's something to (distract) entertain them. I'm sure that if this catches on, there's going to be a broken rib that punctures a lung that kills a person who was not threatening life. The cops are going to be like "what bad luck, wasn't our fault, we used non-lethal force" and it will take hundreds if not thousands of lawsuits before the non-lethal weapon is proved to be potentially lethal.

      Rubber bullets are the much better solution. Being hit with a rubber bullet is not a trivially recoverable situation, and if you can get hit with one, you'll be hit with three or more. Leave the real bullets for the second clip.

    5. Re:Rubber Bullets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You understand the problem completely. We in law enforcement do not want a less lethal option, we want a more lethal option for our war on American citizens. This little airbag is a great PR relations show toy. We can use it to claim that we tried to stop the perp without killing him, but the second shot is still going to do it's job.

    6. Re:Rubber Bullets by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0

      Cutting the velocity down by 80% seriously degrades the stopping power. A typical 9mm round from a pistol has about 520J of energy. Scrubbing 80% of the velocity and you're down to an anemic 21J, around that of a spring-powered air gun. Not much more energy than dropping a can of soda from 2 meters. I doubt that will incapacitate very many people, do nothing by anger a medium (or larger) size dog, and scratch the wax on a car.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    7. Re:Rubber Bullets by Wycliffe · · Score: 2

      It's even worse than a taser. We're talking about firing a lethal bullet at a subject and hoping that the shield in front protects the criminal.
      I know I wouldn't want to be the test subject for this technology. With a rubber bullet you know how much powder and how much power
      is going to be there. With this device you start out with a lethal bullet and if the shield is defective, slips off, etc... then you just shot them
      when you really only wanted to knock them down.

    8. Re:Rubber Bullets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that it's much heavier due to the cap. The point still stands, but not as strongly.

    9. Re:Rubber Bullets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stopping power is proportional to m*v, not m*v^2. Momentum, not kinetic energy, is what matters.

    10. Re:Rubber Bullets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're forgetting the kiwi sized metal ball the bullet is embedding itself in. Even assuming it loses 50% of its force to heat deforming the over-bullet, removing said over-bullet from its plastic carrier, and to increased air resistance you're still talking about a metal kiwi moving at at least 90 mph. If you really want to say that won't hurt ask a semi-pro baseball pitcher to throw a ball at your chest. Thruthfully, this seems like a decent if only slightly less lethal option, seeing as the forces involved can cause defib if it hits the heart, or crack your skull like a soggy melon if it hits your head. But what do I know, I only read the actual words used and looked at the picture.

    11. Re:Rubber Bullets by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Because when shooting someone with a taser three times doesn't stop them, a rubber bullet probably won't either.

    12. Re:Rubber Bullets by ThatAblaze · · Score: 2

      Your math is wrong. You're losing 80% of the velocity but gaining mass. I didn't see any indication of how much mass, but any increase in the amount of mass will increase the Jules of energy transferred into the target.

    13. Re: Rubber Bullets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are so fucking wrong.
      9mm average about 1200 feet per second, my BB gun does 400.
      You are saying my BB gun is a third of the stopping power of a 9mm bullet. And we all know that is wrong.

    14. Re:Rubber Bullets by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      You can actually calculate the mass if you have the initial mass of the bullet, it's initial velocity, and the velocity of the combined object after impact. It's a perfectly inelastic collision, after all. Classic physics problem.

      It works out that the ball is probably about 30 grams for a 9mm.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    15. Re:Rubber Bullets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's isnt a Hollywood movie. If they're dumb enough to be in the way of a car, then they shouldn't even be cops in the first place.

    16. Re:Rubber Bullets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are failing to account for the fact that the projectile has increased mass (thats WHY it slows 80%). Some energy will be lost to deforming the mass, but overall energy transferred should be similar, but over a broader area. One caveat to this is that the drag will also increase, so over range you will notice a larger difference. I think the notion is that this is a painful prompt for the person to surrender, presumably as they may also be aware that subsequent shots will be unobstructed and potentially lethal rounds.

      That said, I think this is a fairly naff engineering solution to a social problem. Police need to develop a less adversarial relationship with their communities. Police forces need to stop using "24" for training purposes and get back to first principles of consent-based policing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles

    17. Re:Rubber Bullets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can also get blinded or have your skull crushed from rubber bullets.

    18. Re: Rubber Bullets by Cederic · · Score: 1

      What the fuck do you think the 'm' in m*v stands for?

      Are you shooting 9mm bullets out of your BB gun? No? Then fuck off and get a basic education before commenting again.

    19. Re:Rubber Bullets by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Less heat losses, and the increased drag of the projectile due to its greater frontal surface area.

      The maths just got a bit harder.

    20. Re:Rubber Bullets by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      So, you're saying that quadrupling the mass is more important than cutting velocity by 80%? Math says no. You're still way down in energy, down below a typical punch (even with a 35 gram projectile), and those certainly do not always result in knocking someone down.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    21. Re:Rubber Bullets by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter when calculating the mass of the ball, because velocity for firearms is measured at the muzzle, and there's not enough space between it and the ball to be significant. Heat losses are guaranteed, but again, that's accounted for in the inelastic collision calculations. Momentum is conserved, energy is not - and most of that is lost as heat.

      It's when the round continues on that the extra frontal area matters, but then, it's about the same as a bean-bag round at that point.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  20. I was taught in my CWP class by Salo2112 · · Score: 1

    by a cop: if you are at the point where you are shooting someone, you shoot to kill. Period. Center mass is where your vitals are, and it's a relatively easy target since you can't really move it around like your head. BTW, "less than lethal" has come to mean "I can use this with relative impunity."

    1. Re:I was taught in my CWP class by x0ra · · Score: 1

      No, you shoot to stop the threat, not to kill.

    2. Re: I was taught in my CWP class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You keep saying that, but that's not what most cops do. They shoot to kill you. Which has been proven over and over again. Just because you keep repeating that tired phrase doesn't mean it's true. I read an article the other day, cops fired 94 shots, and missed the suspect 84 times. I guess that was just shooting to stop the threat right? Because after they shot him they kept shooting because they could.

    3. Re: I was taught in my CWP class by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Just because they hit the guy that doesn't mean he wasn't still a threat.

    4. Re: I was taught in my CWP class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you suggest that he was still a threat doesn't mean he was. Back your statement up with evidence from this specific situation.

    5. Re:I was taught in my CWP class by PPH · · Score: 1

      you shoot to stop the threat

      This.

      But you are also trained (as a matter of morality) that shooting to stop probably means shooting to kill. The idea being that a proper judgment must be made prior to shooting considering the most likely outcome.

      The problem is that it is very difficult to judge when enough shots have struck your subject to stop him, but not kill him. Adrenaline, momentum and some drugs interference with pain response may mean that the subject may still be a threat when they have already been fatally injured. All the public sees is the dead body lying on the pavement. Not the continued fight they put up with one magazine already in them. Although this may change with cop cameras, if they ever publish the footage (against the moral objections of most of society) and people can really see what these situations are like.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:I was taught in my CWP class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to hit anything, you shoot for the middle of the biggest part - the chest.

      Recently there was a story where the police shot something like 84 rounds at a person and only hit him in the ankle once. Hitting someone under the stress of a live fire incident is not easy. Especially if they are moving. Give it a try sometimes. Best I have done is keeping a colander moving for four consecutive rounds (.45 ACP, 1911 full sized) at about fifteen - twenty yards. Fun, but I was shooting about two hundred rounds a week, sometimes more. I have never had to shoot in a stress situation.

    7. Re: I was taught in my CWP class by Imrik · · Score: 1

      I would, but I have no idea what specific situation was being referenced. The only similar incident I was able to find was one where the cops fired 84 times and missed 83 of them.

  21. North Hollywood Shootout by Etherwalk · · Score: 1
    1. Re:North Hollywood Shootout by BradMajors · · Score: 1

      Shooting of Oscar Grant

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  22. Or by digitalPhant0m · · Score: 1

    Just stop shooting people haphazardly.

    1. Re:Or by x0ra · · Score: 1

      How about violent criminals stop committing violent crimes as well ?

    2. Re:Or by dhasenan · · Score: 1

      Haphazard? I don't think there's anything haphazard about US cops killing unarmed black people.

    3. Re:Or by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Citation needed, please leave out any incidents where the cops were being threatened or where charges were filed against the cops.

  23. The problem with "non-lethal" weapons by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem with "non-lethal" weapons is that when given to police, they tend to use them more often and with less provocation than with a firearm.

    Look at how taser-happy the police have become- FFS, they'll tase you for just standing nearby watching what they're doing.

    When I was growing up the police were much more reasonable and much less likely to go ballistic/aggressive when questioned...now if you dare to question them, out comes the pepper spray, baton, and taser. If that doesn't immediately make you "comply" (i.e. go away, stop watching, stop filming, whatever) out comes the gun and handcuffs.

    I've seen it myself. Today's police officer has a gun (often 2 guns), a baton, a knife, a taser, pepper spray, steel-toed boots, a ballistic vest and a radio. And yet police today are the biggest pussies I've ever seen. They dress like extras from RoboCop and yet they're scared shitless and feel "threatened" by a teenager wearing a t-shirt and shorts. When did cops turn into such pants-wetting pussies? When did they become such chicken-shit cowards?

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:The problem with "non-lethal" weapons by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've seen it myself. Today's police officer has a gun (often 2 guns), a baton, a knife, a taser, pepper spray, steel-toed boots, a ballistic vest and a radio. And yet police today are the biggest pussies I've ever seen. They dress like extras from RoboCop and yet they're scared shitless and feel "threatened" by a teenager wearing a t-shirt and shorts. When did cops turn into such pants-wetting pussies? When did they become such chicken-shit cowards?

      I believe it has something to do with the end of the draft.

      When were younger, the police were made up mainly of people who had been in the military. But they had been drafted into the military so the chances were good that a lot of them were just regular people who needed a job and wanted to serve and protect. Today, an even higher percentage of police are ex-military, but these jackoffs volunteered to go to some third-world country to massacre brown people. They probably got turned down by the Blackwater/Xe/Academi type outfits where they could make some real money menacing people, and instead ended up on local police forces, thinking of themselves as some kind of liberating/occupying force in residential neighborhoods. They don't think of serving the public as much as they do fighting the public

      There were always bad/brutal cops, but today, it's de rigueur to be bad/brutal.

      Having said all that, I live near the Chicago Police Academy, and they're starting to get higher-quality recruits. But the bad/brutal jackoffs are now brass, trained in the First Gulf War, and think every policing issue requires the use of armored vehicles and snipers. So that's how they get trained. I'm hoping the next generation is a little better.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:The problem with "non-lethal" weapons by trout007 · · Score: 1

      It changed when they went from being peace officers to law enforcement. Enforcing laws against peaceful people is a different mindset. It's not defensive and protective but aggressive.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    3. Re:The problem with "non-lethal" weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I couldn't agree more with your first sentence. I'd much rather be shot with a lethal weapon for something really serious than a non-lethal weapon because of some trivial reason.

    4. Re:The problem with "non-lethal" weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This ^^^^ and the post he replied to.

    5. Re: The problem with "non-lethal" weapons by MasterOfGoingFaster · · Score: 1

      Dead men don't sue. And the law says if you feel like your life is in danger, then you are justified to eliminate the threat. Cops know this, and will always say they feared for their life.

      --
      Place nail here >+
    6. Re:The problem with "non-lethal" weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I volunteered.

      The ex-military cops are the ones you want. They have been trained by the military to not make their lives harder. It's the ones that didn't make the military, and are trying to prove their prowess that are the ones you really have to watch out for.

      Needless to say I also have an opinion of you, based on your writing; but, I'll reserve that to myself.

      Don't fall for the movie trope. The military motivates people in a way that doesn't work in the civilian world, and they act in a manner that doesn't work in the civilian police force. The police forces are flush with cash, and some of that is earmarked for equipment. They like to buy military equipment as it is cheap and plentiful (due to two wars providing plenty of extras) but the military personnel have no illusions as to what such equipment does to people.

      If you volunteered, you did so to protect your country. You'll never do what you did overseas to US Citizens, and in your borders, you'll assume that everyone is a citizen. If you didn't join the military, you'll buy into the "it's a war out there" bullshit, and in the right environment eventually do the dumbest shit one can imagine.

    7. Re:The problem with "non-lethal" weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all of them, by a long shot. I know a stack of police officers from teaching them CPR, and most of them work their asses off to keep some order in the real world. I've even worked with several who later went into IT: good people, and they've actually disarmed assailants with pistols. I've only ever done bladed weapons a few times.

    8. Re:The problem with "non-lethal" weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen it myself. Today's police officer has a gun (often 2 guns), a baton, a knife, a taser, pepper spray, steel-toed boots, a ballistic vest and a radio. And yet police today are the biggest pussies I've ever seen. They dress like extras from RoboCop and yet they're scared shitless and feel "threatened" by a teenager wearing a t-shirt and shorts. When did cops turn into such pants-wetting pussies? When did they become such chicken-shit cowards?

      I believe it has something to do with the end of the draft.

      When were younger, the police were made up mainly of people who had been in the military. But they had been drafted into the military so the chances were good that a lot of them were just regular people who needed a job and wanted to serve and protect. Today, an even higher percentage of police are ex-military, but these jackoffs volunteered to go to some third-world country to massacre brown people. They probably got turned down by the Blackwater/Xe/Academi type outfits where they could make some real money menacing people, and instead ended up on local police forces, thinking of themselves as some kind of liberating/occupying force in residential neighborhoods. They don't think of serving the public as much as they do fighting the public

      There were always bad/brutal cops, but today, it's de rigueur to be bad/brutal.

      Having said all that, I live near the Chicago Police Academy, and they're starting to get higher-quality recruits. But the bad/brutal jackoffs are now brass, trained in the First Gulf War, and think every policing issue requires the use of armored vehicles and snipers. So that's how they get trained. I'm hoping the next generation is a little better.

      I did some research on this recently, but I don't have my references handy.
      Here's what I recall of what I read.
      The percentage of military in the civilian police forces is less than the percentage of military in the general population, although the difference is not great, a few percent.
      However, there is no one that collects the numbers nationwide for the percentage of military in police departments, and recruitment practices vary widely, so the numbers I found were from sampling and extrapolation, and you know how bad that can be.
      A few police departments do actively recruit ex-military and have high numbers of ex-military, but those are the exceptions. In better police departments the weed-out process rejects most ex-soldiers due to psych problems. However, in the past social conditions often make recruitment for police difficult and standards get lowered. We're in one of those periods now.

      Here's a link for a small study regarding ex-military becoming police officers.
      https://www.bja.gov/Publications/IACPEmployingReturningVets.pdf

      Some people think that ex-military would make good cops because they're "used to following orders", and they're "good with guns".
      Neither of these are among qualities that make good cops. All employees need to follow orders, and gun-handling is an easily taught skill.
      And what the police really Do Not Need is someone with PTSD tendencies, although the academies usually weed those out, if the job doesn't.

      Here's the my opinion part.
      I lived near an Army base and had many soldiers and ex-soldiers in my classes (community college), as well as being among my neighbors. They ranged from Vietnam era to first Iraq war. I also had some ex-cops.
      In my experience soldiers tend to hate cops even more than the average person. They really do not like taking orders or being threatened by someone they do not perceive as being in their chain of command and thus has no authority over them.
      Also, it seemed like those who did choose police work do often tend to be either mentally disturbed and can't get a job elsewhere, or just can't get a job elsewhere.

      Many of them, though, were entirely bought into the idea of being a good guy and protecting people.

    9. Re:The problem with "non-lethal" weapons by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      As I said, I've noticed an improvement in the quality of the people going into policing over the past years. I agree that people who come out of the military are often very well suited for jobs in the civilian world. But there's always been a problem with bullies gravitating to local policing. And because of the length of the current "wars" we've been fighting, there are a lot of people who've gone into policing who've done too many tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and could probably use a time out from carrying a weapon.

      Fortunately, in many areas, police departments have become more enlightened about these issues. As it did in the military, diversity has had a positive effect on many police departments too.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:The problem with "non-lethal" weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with "non-lethal" weapons is that when given to police, they tend to use them more often and with less provocation than with a firearm.

      Look at how taser-happy the police have become- FFS, they'll tase you for just standing nearby watching what they're doing.

      When I was growing up the police were much more reasonable and much less likely to go ballistic/aggressive when questioned...now if you dare to question them, out comes the pepper spray, baton, and taser. If that doesn't immediately make you "comply" (i.e. go away, stop watching, stop filming, whatever) out comes the gun and handcuffs.

      I've seen it myself. Today's police officer has a gun (often 2 guns), a baton, a knife, a taser, pepper spray, steel-toed boots, a ballistic vest and a radio. And yet police today are the biggest pussies I've ever seen. They dress like extras from RoboCop and yet they're scared shitless and feel "threatened" by a teenager wearing a t-shirt and shorts. When did cops turn into such pants-wetting pussies? When did they become such chicken-shit cowards?

      I'm also an old guy, and what you said does not match my experience. I'm in a medium-crime neighborhood in Atlanta, and now and again talk to cops on patrol or because I got pulled over. I get to see them chasing a-holes and climbing fences, and responding to shot's fired calls. I've never had a problem when asking them what was going on.
      I think I've seen a cop with a vest on maybe once, and they were swat responding one of my neighbors going nuts and firing a rifle in random directions.
      You are right about all the crap they have to carry though. I don't see how they get into the car.

      But cowards? No. I'm certain that any police department has someone on the force that's a coward, but, by and large, that's a rare thing.

      I kind of suspect you are responding to the three-four media storms we had recently. Seeing a news article 100 times about a 12 yr old kid being shot (and THAT cop was chicken-shit) does not extrapolate to 100 kids being shot.

    11. Re: The problem with "non-lethal" weapons by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Most people have families that can sue.

    12. Re:The problem with "non-lethal" weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > But the bad/brutal jackoffs are now brass, trained in the First Gulf War...

      No, it wasn't until a while after the big draw down after GW1 that the military started substantially reducing the entrance requirements in order to correct the over-aggressive force reduction. Between the indefinite suspension of The Draft and the end of GW1, we created the most effective *professional* army on the face of the earth. It's a damn shame what has happened to it since then.

      In case you were unaware, a *very* large percentage of active military was offered early retirement and an attractive severance bonus if they volunteered to end their career early shortly after GW1. We realized that we weren't going to be fighting WW3 anytime soon, but -unfortunately- we overreacted and jettisoned far too many troops.

    13. Re:The problem with "non-lethal" weapons by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      It would benefit everyone if the police were seen as/felt like part of the community. Efforts in that direction are handicapped by the laws and justice system that follow police involvement however, a prison system where rape is considered a punchline and a public that loves them some perp walks. The entire system needs an overhaul to become optimally functional.

    14. Re:The problem with "non-lethal" weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the teenagers started pulling pistols out of their shorts.

    15. Re: The problem with "non-lethal" weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The life of a cop *is* dangerous, so they're likely to fear for their lives in situations where the average person just doesn't see it. A lot of us don't drive through the Bronx at 11pm as part of our jobs but doing that creates a mindset. Once you learn a defensive position like that you tend to overapply it in all situations. The cop that does the shift on the Bronx is going to be a bit different to the cop that works around Springfield nursery. Also, there are other factors that can drive people to be more fearful than they would normally need to be. Playing with statistics and drumming up implausible scenarios is the bread-and-butter of defense contractors, and they'll try every trick to make you scared of the boogeyman hiding in the dumpster. Here, have this dumpster boogeyman x-ray detector gun, only $750,000.

      Also, saying that you feared for your life is becoming as cliche as "stop resisting". There's a certain sick humor in watching a cop yelling at an unconscious person (or worse, a corpse) to "stop resisting". Sorry, that's called gravity. It tends to resist upward motion, but I can't help you there - physics and all that. The good news is that the corpses tend to take up slightly less time in the legal system generally. I guess they get fed up trying to get confessions out of them.

  24. whats the point of being a cop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you can't be corrupt and kill people without consequence?

  25. won't even push an attacker away by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    The nonsense portrayed on Hollywood and TV is false, a handgun bullet does not have enough momentum to knock a person down or even push their body backward, it's LESS than what the shooter feels as some momentum lost to air.

    Now there are guns, that humans cannot hold, that can knock a person down (or blow them completely apart).

    This "invention" is rubbish, is dangerous to cops and citizens who need protecting.

  26. Yeah, that'll work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the criminal runs away, the cop yells "stop or I'll try to knock you down with this slowed down round!". As the criminal gets away. Sweet!

    1. Re:Yeah, that'll work by x0ra · · Score: 0

      But, think of the criminals, he's probably, and at foremost, a victim of CAPITALISM (if white men), or PATRIARCHY (if women), or RACISM (if non-white), or HOMOPHOBIA (if LGBTQOEHUSAHTUEC). Poor lad. Can't you let them rob and assault other people in peace (they probably deserved it no matter what) ?

    2. Re:Yeah, that'll work by x0ra · · Score: 1

      actually, I'm wrong. The criminals will be a victim of CAPITALISM if poor. White christian straight men can die, nobody gives a shit about them.

    3. Re:Yeah, that'll work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, I'm wrong. The criminals will be a victim of CAPITALISM if poor. White christian straight men can die, nobody gives a shit about them.

      Hung? White guy, known armed and a murderer shoots up black Christian church, is apprehended by polite officers, with guns lowered.
      Black tennis star, mistakenly suspected* of credit card fraud, is decked with no warning or ID of policeman.

      If the tennis guy had resisted, he'd be dead. If there was no camera and he wasn't famous, he'd be in jail for resisting.

      *"black", the cop is as much his twin as the suspect. Ditto for chappelle, vin diesel and every other non fat shaved head guy.

  27. Re:Yet another Gizmag article on a hair brained id by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 3, Funny

    Looks like some idiot an Gizmag

    -1: redundant

  28. also, Newton's 3rd law says it doesn't by raymorris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    > it will transfer enough kinetic energy across a wide surface to knock a suspect down with less chance of a lethal outcome.

    Does the recoil of a pistol knock th shooter down? No. Newton's third law tells us that the kinetic energy of the projectile is equal to the kinetic energy energy of the recoil. So the claim made in the summary is utter BS.

    It IS enough kinetic energy to get your attention, however.

    1. Re:also, Newton's 3rd law says it doesn't by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1
      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:also, Newton's 3rd law says it doesn't by Bartles · · Score: 2

      Thanks, i was looking for a post along these lines before I was going to post it. Bullets don't knock people down like they do in the movies. The surprise of being hit may cause someone to fall down, but knock down, no.

    3. Re:also, Newton's 3rd law says it doesn't by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      And to knock you down if you're not braced for it, coupled with the massive burst of pain from the impact of the pullet tearing flesh and possibly bone.

    4. Re: also, Newton's 3rd law says it doesn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You semantic nazi idiots do realize tfa isn't attempting to imply that the force of the shot will literally knock the suspect off their feet, right? The intended meaning is OBVIOUSLY that after being hit by a shot from one of these things, a person will more than likely be in far too much pain to remain standing. Thus they are "knocked down".

      But no, this is Slashdot. Clearly we should critique the author's use of language that isn't PERFECTLY LITERAL TO THE GODDAMN LETTER, instead of actually having a useful and interesting discussion of the ingenuity and moral pros/cons of this novel approach to limiting the lethality of handguns.

    5. Re:also, Newton's 3rd law says it doesn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Newton's third law tells us that the kinetic energy of the projectile is equal to the kinetic energy energy of the recoil.
      This is incorrect.
      What is equal is the momentum, not the kinetic energy.

    6. Re:also, Newton's 3rd law says it doesn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that when you are in a life threatening situation the adrenalin means you don't feel pain. There have been cases where police offices don't notice they have been shot until a colleague points out htey are bleeding.

    7. Re:also, Newton's 3rd law says it doesn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the recoil of a pistol knock th shooter down? No. Newton's third law tells us that the kinetic energy of the projectile is equal to the kinetic energy energy of the recoil.

      Does the punch from a boxer knock the target down? No. Newton's third law tells us that the kinetic energy of the punch is equal to the kinetic energy from the boxer.

      One can almost think that you simplistic model doesn't apply if you direct the energy to a small part of the body that unlike the arms aren't flexible enough to dampen the force.

    8. Re:also, Newton's 3rd law says it doesn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Newton's third law tells us that the kinetic energy of the punch is equal to the kinetic energy from the boxer.

      Wrong.

  29. sorry son by publiclurker · · Score: 0

    but only you can see the imaginary stuff that you make up in your own mind.

    1. Re:sorry son by x0ra · · Score: 1, Informative

      Unfortunately, there is evidence of Mike Brown's blood inside the cruiser, as well as powder residue on his hand / arm. Now, I guess you're gonna say that the blood splashed from 50 feet into the cruiser, and as did the powder residue on Mike's arm.

    2. Re:sorry son by ganjadude · · Score: 0

      yeah, that pesky science always being used against those who deny climate change is real also proves brown attacked the cop

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    3. Re:sorry son by x0ra · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, science and the scientific community backs climate-change. So your point is acting against you. Science is good when it's about the US paying money to the rest of the world, but it's not good when it's proving that a black man was actually a criminal.

    4. Re:sorry son by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And forensic labs never lie--oh, wait.

    5. Re:sorry son by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      im arguing that the people who generally support BLM are generally the same who believe in climate change. as such they tend to be the ones who like to use "science" as their reason for believing in climate change. Very good

      so why cant these people grasp that the science (GSR on his hand and arm, his blood in the patrol car) is right here???

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    6. Re:sorry son by x0ra · · Score: 1

      ok, I missed you point, my bad. That's my exact stance.

    7. Re: sorry son by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      No, he definitely got that blood and powder burn when he was on his knees, arms splayed while he was screaming "Father why have you forsaken me?!". Then God gave him stigmata just before he was executed in full view of the whole black community.

      At least according to his friend and race baiters.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    8. Re:sorry son by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the FBI's behavior indicates a culture of dishonesty in forensic departments and law enforcement departments. Sure, there are a lot of honest ones out there, but there are too many dishonest ones for me to trust any of them. And until the systematic culture of lying, perjury, falsification of evidence; all statements and evidence are suspect.

  30. oooh, he knows all the fancy words. by publiclurker · · Score: 1

    I bet you think that makes you less of a man wanna-be. Too bad you are wrong. How about you go finish your homework.

    1. Re:oooh, he knows all the fancy words. by x0ra · · Score: 0

      right after I'm done with your mom's pussy, I'll try not to make her scream too much not to wake you up.

    2. Re:oooh, he knows all the fancy words. by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      someone that needs a mechanical penis on order to pretend to be a man shouldn't really attempt comebacks that require actual manhood son.

    3. Re:oooh, he knows all the fancy words. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wahh!!! You're committing micro-aggression against my cis-sexuality!!! Non-gender-specific parental unit, bring more Oreos to my hormone neutral cave in the basement! I need to watch more "Ellen" talk shows to erase the last vestiges of your non-gender-phobia! Wahhhhh!

  31. What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I give it 6 months till a cop rapes someone with one of these.

  32. Police will never use this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Police have plenty of non-lethal options. Why would they hobble their guns?

    When a police officer pulls a taser, they want to bring someone into compliance.

    When a police officer pulls a baton, they want to beat the shit out of someone.

    When a police officer pulls a gun, they want to make sure that there is nobody left to return fire or sue them.

  33. Only useful against animals by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
    About the only time I can see a police officer willing to put this thing on their gun is if they are facing a barking dog, cat, deer, or similar creature.

    For people, they are not going to risk the time necessary to put it on. Hm. Well maybe against a heavily impaired person - drunk, mentally challenged, etc. But no way against a person smart enough to recognize a gun.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Only useful against animals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bro if you bump into a barking cat you better shoot to fucking kill.

  34. Newtonian physics by duckintheface · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From the article: "but it will transfer enough kinetic energy across a wide surface to knock a suspect down"

    Nope. If the bullet had enough kinetic energy to knock down the suspect, the gun would have enough kinetic energy to knock down the shooter. But of course it doesn't. Equal and opposite reaction. Conservation of momentum. Sir Isaac is rolling over in his grave. And I'm sure the coffin is counter-rotating. :)

    --
    "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
    1. Re:Newtonian physics by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 2

      Sir Isaac is rolling over in his grave. And I'm sure the coffin is counter-rotating. :)

      then can we attach it to a alternator and use it to generate power?

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    2. Re:Newtonian physics by tepples · · Score: 1

      I'd guess that it takes more KE or momentum to knock down someone braced for the impact than to make an unprepared suspect lose his balance.

    3. Re:Newtonian physics by duckintheface · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you have fired a pistol, you know that the "kick" of the gun is not even close to what would be required to knock you down. And of course people are shot in the chest all the time without being knocked down. But in the case described in the article, the bullet has even less kinetic energy because it has been intentionally slowed down by the plastic cap. If it has slowed by 80% as stated, there is no chance that the bullet could knock someone down.

      --
      "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
    4. Re:Newtonian physics by davester666 · · Score: 2

      The power of crazy ideas!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    5. Re:Newtonian physics by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A 115 grain (7.5 gram) 9mm bullet from a Glock G17 has around 370 m/sec of velocity. Take that down to 75 m/sec and you're around 21J of energy. That's about the energy you'll receive from a punch by an 8 year old boy. If that knocks you over, the police probably could have caught you just by a brisk walk as you were trying to escape on your walker.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    6. Re:Newtonian physics by raftpeople · · Score: 1, Informative

      Bullet slowed (reducing kinetic energy) but plastic cap was accelerated (increasing kinetic energy) - so 80% drop in speed of bullet does not tell you the kinetic energy of the system as a whole after the collision, seems like there would be some loss but that would be due to heat during collision.

    7. Re:Newtonian physics by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The bullet is slowed because the mass of the projectile just increased - the amount of kinetic energy delivered is probably about the same.

      Not that this means that the target is going to always be 'knocked down' by one, but if you were unprepared or already somewhat off-balance (you're running, for instance), then there's a good chance you'll end up on the ground.

    8. Re: Newtonian physics by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      Yea, this idea is dumb. A typical 9mm bullet has the same momentum of a baseball thrown by a 10 year old. Quarter thar momentum and this bullet isn't going to do anything to stop anyone. Would be akin to getting hit by a paintball.

      Frankly, I don't want the police to have less lethal alternatives. I would rather they have more lethal alternatives like rifles. I just wish the legal system held police accountable when they misused their power and the police knew they would be scrutinized.

      The problem isn't the tool, the problem is the system that let's police get away with abusing their tools.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    9. Re:Newtonian physics by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are you accounting for the extra mass of the airbag device? Going by physics:
      It's momentum is 370*7.5 = 2775 gm/s
      2775/75 m/s = 37 grams for "the alternative" + bullet, meaning the sphere should weigh ~30 grams.

      37 grams@75m/s = 208 J

      BTW, when I calc your figure I come up with 42 J, not 21.
      7.5 grains* (75 m/s)^2 = 42.2 J

      By the way, I looked up Bean bag rounds.
      40 grams@70-90 m/s, which impacts ~6cm^2.

      Seems roughly equivalent to me. The ball is right in that velocity zone, a little light by my estimate, but it's likely to impact a slightly smaller area. Might just work.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    10. Re:Newtonian physics by Imrik · · Score: 1

      When firing a weapon you can distribute the energy transfer over a larger window of time than when getting hit by it. Having said that, I doubt this weapon will have anywhere near the necessary energy, unless you count shooting someone in the leg causing them to fall over as knocking them down.

    11. Re:Newtonian physics by chmod+a+x+mojo · · Score: 2

      I agree that it won't be from the kinetic impact but......

      Two things you are not taking into consideration:

      1: to person firing the projectile is - hopefully - braced* so that the energy is spread over a much wider area than the usually small caliber area of a bullet strike which leads to...
      2: the person being hit is not expecting the strike AND not braced and won't have anything to spread the impact area, will flinch, and it is probably quite easy to "knock them down" due to plain old equilibrium loss. See funny videos of people being taken out by low energy balls hitting them unexpectedly, if the flinch reflex from an unexpected strike can take down a person standing / sitting in one place it can and will take down a person who is evading while being actively pursued.

      *reports of people falling down due to accidental discharge events really would not surprise me, but the person going down would still be due to flinch and over compensation, not from the force of the discharge.

      --
      To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
    12. Re:Newtonian physics by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Informative

      Energy - 1/2 m v^2 - you're forgetting the factor of 0.5 up-front. That will get you the right number.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    13. Re:Newtonian physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Kinetic energy is 1/2 m v^2 in SI units. Momentum is conserved in attaching the cap, that's mv. So if you double the mass and halve the velocity by attaching the cap as per the article, you have actually halved the kinetic energy: 1/2 (2m) (v/2)^2 = (1/2)^3 2m v^2 = (1/2)^2 m v^2. In fact, if a perfectly inelastic collision occurs between the cap and the bullet (as in the case where the two stick together rather than bounce without friction) it is guaranteed that energy will be lost based on the above logic.

    14. Re:Newtonian physics by Moof123 · · Score: 2

      Momentum is conserved, but a bunch of the kinetic energy is lost to heat and deformation of the bullet as it is captured.

    15. Re:Newtonian physics by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Nope. If the bullet had enough kinetic energy to knock down the suspect, the gun would have enough kinetic energy to knock down the shooter. Equal and opposite reaction. Conservation of momentum.

      I spot an inconsistency in your argument.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    16. Re:Newtonian physics by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 1

      I hope Sir Isaac knows the difference between energy and momentum, given that he more or less invented the later concept. Momentum is conserved. Thus, the light bullet has to go a lot faster that the heavy gun. Energy is 1/2mv**2, so the lighter bullet carries a much larger amount of the energy than the heavier gun. The new widget necessarily has to convert some of that energy into heat when the bullet merges with the ball, but the combined gizmo will still carry a lot more energy than the gun (but only 1/5th of the original energy of the bullet - it's speed is 1/5th, thus the combined mass has to be 5 times the bullet weight due to conservation of momentum)).

      --

      Stephan

    17. Re: Newtonian physics by jafiwam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Getting confused about which gun shaped handle is in the hand is common place enough as it is. Many (dozens) of people have been shot with real bullets when the officer intended to be firing a Tazer. This is the reason many Tazer holsters are cross-draw now and not just in a second holster on the strong side.

      This thing, is going to be fired from the SAME weapon and without a lot besides mental training between it, and real bullets. Follow up shots will come right after when the officer did not intend them. Guaranteed. If it gets used, it will get confused, and people will die over it.

      This stupid little tool isn't going to work, it's a minor pain compliance tool attached to a "gonna wipe your ass out" tool where things shouldn't be mixed. It's LESS painful and LESS damaging than an asp or night stick.

      The only real benefit is this thing can be just clipped on and takes up less space on the belt, or could just sit in a holder on the dash or something.

      The dumbass inventor drags it out and pays to have a big marketing stir about once a year, or whenever police have shot someone and it made a bunch of news.

    18. Re: Newtonian physics by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      Taser holsters are cross draw so you don't shoot yourself in the foot (as I have actually witnessed people shoot themselves in the foot while drawing a pistol from a drop-draw hip or thigh holster). Difference between a taser and a pistol is that the taser will incapacitate you while the pistol will just remove a toe.

      This is why I won't use a drop draw.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    19. Re:Newtonian physics by ihtoit · · Score: 2

      ok. The mechanics of firing a sidearm:
      Bullet weighs what, 1/14 of an ounce? This carries the same amount of kinetic energy as the other half of the system (the shooter and the sidearm) which weighs let's assume 150lb for the shooter and 3lb for the pistol (which would be about right for a fully loaded Beretta 92F). So the mass differential is something on the order of 34,300.

      The amount of energy required to kick the bullet out at 1400 feet per second would kick the pistol and shooter back all of... actually, the mass differential makes the difference. It's not going to kick them back at very high speed at all, in fact if the kick does anything more than make your elbow twitch you're probably unconscious. 0.43" per second is about hte same speed your hand moves at when you write something down on notepaper.

      On this new development (which is really just an evolution in beanbag shotguns): the total kinetic energy of hte projectile doesn't change a lot at all, but because the mass just increased rather dramatically as it left the weapon*, it slows down some but it still contains enough energy and carries enough momentum to knock the target down on his arse. Ever been shot with a beanbag? I have, and can tell you it's like kissing a medicine ball. It bloody hurts like hell.

      *Let's assume for just a second that there is zero energy lost on the impact of the bullet in the plastic cap, and given that the slowdown is 80% we can say with mathematical certainty that the mass of the cap is four times the mass of the bullet. It's still the same amount of energy as a baseball thrown by a ten year ols as someone alluded to somewhere about the place, but instead of drilling through a point on the target it's spread over a wider area and delivered at a much slower rate so it's far less likely to penetrate.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    20. Re: Newtonian physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Never, ever give the police a weapon they will feel more comfortable in using because they will use it more often.

    21. Re: Newtonian physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes I'm sure you know more about it than the people who actually developed the thing

    22. Re:Newtonian physics by bencook2 · · Score: 1

      Thank you. Bullets don't speed up. This is the Hollywood physics they are talking about. Not actual. No gun has "knock down power". And police shoot center mass for several reasons. Most importantly... it's where the heart is. But also it's the most "accurate" location to aim. Least likely to over penetrate.

    23. Re:Newtonian physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      F=MA and A is going to be dramatically reduced because the cap will dramatically increase drag. That's not to mention the amount of F bled off by the impact with the capping mechanism and formation of the "balloon" at firing.

    24. Re: Newtonian physics by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Isn't this what sandbag guns are for?

    25. Re: Newtonian physics by jxander · · Score: 1

      Plausible deniability seems like the whole point.

      When a cop "accidentally" grabs his gun instead of his taser, there's a very justified (if short lived) public outrage. Now, with these bullets, it's a lot easier to buy the cop's story.

      "I though I was shooting him with the stun bullets, oops."

      --
      This signature is false.
    26. Re: Newtonian physics by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Did you flunk basic physics?

      It is not quarting the momentum. It is increasing the mass, while keeping the momentum the same. This reduces the velocity, but (I suspect more importantly) the momentum is delivered to a larger area of the target, which is what really reduces the lethality.

  35. Less lethal by tom229 · · Score: 1

    And almost certainly less accurate. That's the simple unfortunate truth of making a bullet slower. I'd rather not have the guys protecting us shooting less accurately than the other guy.

    --
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  36. SJW? by publiclurker · · Score: 0

    man, you really are a stereotypical small man nobody aren't you? Better not let you mommie know what you are doing with her computer or she won't let you hang out at the mall for a week.

  37. why are you proud to be an ignorant nigger? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    see subject

  38. As a former cop from a family of cops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Regardling less lethel bullets -- Stupid is as stupid does

    1. Re:As a former cop from a family of cops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well seeying as they actively discourage above average intelliegence people as a recruiting tatic for cops . I guess it is true your entire family is stupid.

  39. Cowboy rounds 1 and 2 by peterofoz · · Score: 1

    Or they can just load 1/2 power cowboy rounds for 1 and 2. The 3rd shot is full power. Or beanbag shots, or saltshot from a pistol. This is dumb.

    1. Re:Cowboy rounds 1 and 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Half power rounds wouldn't cycle the gun.

    2. Re:Cowboy rounds 1 and 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      During violent incidents, police officers may not recall exactly what their gun is loaded with (see Eastwood et al. 1971) so there is potentially merit in having a large, obvious visual cue as to the lethality of your next shot.

    3. Re:Cowboy rounds 1 and 2 by nessman · · Score: 1

      That will result in a stovepiped brass casing jamming the gun and/or a squib load blocking the barrel, rendering the weapon useless.

  40. So... by tsotha · · Score: 1

    They've basically invented an expensive, unreliable rubber bullet?

  41. worst video game footage ever by 0xdeaddead · · Score: 1

    really, they can't shoot a cow or something with this thing? Just some crappy video game footage?

  42. No Way by JimSadler · · Score: 2

    That will get cops killed. If someone fires at them suddenly the cop is going to have to get off more than one shot to make sure they are not turned into a dead cop.

  43. Everything old is new again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cops and Pinkertons used to carry pump shotguns with the magazine loaded with two rounds of rock salt and rest was as lethal as shotgun ammunition gets. How foolish would you have to be to believe a police officer would load his entire magazine with sub lethal ammunition?

  44. Center of mass is not to stop by kallen3 · · Score: 1

    As anyone who has been through any type of self defense firearms training will tell you, aiming at the center of mass is simply a case of it being the largest target and easier to hit when things go to hell in a hand basket.

  45. Maybe for the first shot by J4 · · Score: 1

    But cops empty the whole clip once they have an excuse. Show me a design that can hold enough for a whole clip and still fit in a holster,
    then go suck on it.

    1. Re:Maybe for the first shot by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Check the cell phone videos of police shootings for corroboration, please. They really don't empty the clip for amusement.

  46. kinetic energy over area vs hit or impact by raymorris · · Score: 1

    If they said the impact of would knock them out, that's descriptive language. When you talk about kinetic energy over area, that's scientific language. Getting hit by the ball might smack you, stating that the application of kinetic force has a given effect implies that you're speaking of actual physical effects.

    1. Re:kinetic energy over area vs hit or impact by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      If they said the impact of would knock them out, that's descriptive language. When you talk about kinetic energy over area, that's scientific language. Getting hit by the ball might smack you, stating that the application of kinetic force has a given effect implies that you're speaking of actual physical effects.

      It won't knock them out unless they get hit in certain portions of the head. And, in that case, the "less lethal" part of the device has gone wrong as any blow to the head hard enough to knock you out, could also kill you.

      Bullets don't knock people down. Bullets barely knock a soda can down. I have fired 9 MM ball ammo right through soda cans and they twitch a bit. I friggin 2 gauge slug won't knock a deer half my weight down and that has about 750 foot pounds of energy, 4-5 times that of a 9 MM bullet. Bullets work by applying lots of force to a small spot not by pushing on something to make it move.

      You, you watch too many movies and don't know shit about guns.

      The maker of this device, probably does know the physics of the situation but is outright simply LYING.

    2. Re: kinetic energy over area vs hit or impact by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      Huh, I wonder why a 9mm penetrating an empty soda can wouldn't transfer much momentum to it?? Oh, it comes out the other side? Funny that your expert understanding of physics missed that.

  47. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Every dead piece of shit is a victory for society. Why the fuck would we want them to live?

  48. Poor developing nations.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL...... American Problems.

    I must say, it's entertaining to watch the nonsense there from my civilised place of safety.

    Please, burn down some more of your cities....it makes for good TV.

    A few more bodies in the streets too please.

    Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, the US.....it's all the same...jolly good viewing on Youtube !

    1. Re:Poor developing nations.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. The EU is stupidly importing the enemy posing as refugees. You'll soon have lots of problems of your own.

  49. Wrong target audience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps they have the right idea but backwards. Provide this type of ammunition only on the shelves and allow the law enforcement branches to carry actual bullets... After all if you give these to the officers to use what happens when the opposing shots aren't slowed to 80% and don't hit a vest? I give creativity points here for thinking outside the box, but to push it to law enforcement isn't really a good plan IMO.

  50. Now they will shoot kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They already taser young children with school discipline issues. Now with "less lethal" bullets, they'll do the same. And if you're saying "yay! now fewer criminals will die!", then remember that the point of firing a sidearm at a dangerous criminal is to fully stop an immediate threat to public safety. A bullet with 20% energy doesn't do that.

  51. Dreaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously created by someone who has been playing way too much COD.

  52. OLD NEWS: These have been in use for a while. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on. Slashdot NEWS. That means RECENT. Not recycled.

  53. Cops don't want this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The majority of cops don't want this. The majority of cops are looking to victimize and murder people. All it takes is for a few conditions to be present (suspect took longer than 0.25 seconds to comply with an order to get on the ground) to be present in order for cops to get away with shooting someone to death.

    Cops are looking for ways to get away with more murders. They have no interest in means or methods that might lead to less-violent and less-lethal resolution to the situations that the police themselves are escalating.

  54. Oops by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    Yep, that's what I get for not verifying my formulas.

    Note that my comparing it to a conventional beanbag round is by velocity, mass, and surface area, not energy.

    Sometimes momentum matters 'more' than energy.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Oops by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Agree somewhat on the momentum thing. Even then, a beanbag (and definitely this thing) has a lot less momentum than a punch - and those don't always knock people down. Expecting this round to knock someone down is really wishful thinking (unless it's a nut-shot - then it's guaranteed to double a guy over, and probably fall to the floor in agony).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    2. Re:Oops by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Expecting this round to knock someone down is really wishful thinking (unless it's a nut-shot - then it's guaranteed to double a guy over, and probably fall to the floor in agony).

      This is another problem we're seeing here. People think these devices are supposed to work through pure kinetic power - as though the human body is just a dummy target. It's not, it's a complex system.

      Bean-bag rounds are supposed to disable by causing muscle spasms from the impact, I imagine that the same intent is here.

      To be blunt, I figure that it's disabling effects are going to come more from pain reactions than straight physical force transfer.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  55. don't make police brutality easier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you give cops a hammer, every problem is a nail. With tasers and pepper spray in the hands of cops, instead of talking things through they quickly escalate the use of force now that it non-lethal (non-lethal means 100% safe right?).

    Not that there was ever some good old days where the police weren't beating, torturing and shooting private citizens. It's just that we should be fighting against it, not arming them with high tech gadgets to hide behind.

  56. um, what? by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    If a criminal had a gun and I had a gun how does my having a gun remove his? I suppose if I could do one of those truck shots like they do in the movies and shoot it out of his hands... Don't get me wrong, I'm opposed to gun control. Not because I think it's a bad idea but because of that kind of silly reasoning. The pro gun lobby is pretty unreasonable. They're single issue voters who throw away economic issues to cling to their gun based lifestyle. Bill Clinton noticed that and asked the democrats to back off on the issue so they could go back to winning elections and fixing the economy. Notice how Obama hasn't done anything on the issue?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  57. this is foolish on so many levels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    * "Shoot to stop" vs "shoot to kill"... go to any gun training class and you'll learn these are the same thing. There is a wink and a nod given here. The meaning is the same, but the language is different in order to be evasive around lawyers.

    * Reduced velocity ammunition: you can have this without fancy tech. But then if cops wanted guns to be less lethal, they wouldn't be using 9mm, .40 S&W, or .45ACP chambered handguns. Those are the calibers you carry when you intend to kill your opponent.

    * Intent: If cops are opting to carry a .40 S&W or a .45 ACP or, even in some cases (like the standard issue 10mm that a lot of feds carry) they *intend* to kill.

    This whole concept is a silly non-starter. If you want to make the cops less lethal, that's a people & policy problem, not a firearm tech problem.

  58. Police will just use guns more often by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

    I think this will just make thinking twice about pulling out your gun happen less often.

  59. This is retarded. Here's why. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Handgun rounds do NOT have enough kinetic energy to knock people down. This is amazingly silly.

    If they did, they'd knock down the person firing them. The reason rubber bullets work is they cause pain or damage.

    Handguns are essentially a long distance hole punch. This is referring to common semi auto handgun rounds like the police use or citizens like myself have for self-defense, defense against small or thin-skinned animals, etc. Things like the 9mm, .40, or .45 . . .

    Things are a bit different when it comes to something like a .454 or .460, but we aren't talking about them. (And they still won't have the kinetic energy to knock a human down, the reason they knock people down instantly is because of shock, instant CNS damage, pain, etc...not kinetic energy).

  60. Switch to Paintball Guns - fewer Killed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We already have a variety of compounds that can be placed into paintballs, so why in hell not take advantage of their Non-Leathal design and purpose to make them the default weapon of the Police Depts. Get rid of the damn Tasers and such as you simply fire a tranq round and have them calm down. Yes there are folks who'll be alergic to the compound, so deaths are possible but I'll bet people wouldn't be as fucking confrontational with the cops if they know they're going "nappy time". Solve the biggest issue facing them with minimal effort and yes they can certainly use Paintball Grenades and such for crowd control.

  61. way to entirely miss the point. Read next time by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Wow, you completely and utterly missed the point. This discussion started when I said a gun shot won't knock a person down. I then described how you can know that even if you've never touched a gun. So calling me an idiot because I think it will simply demonstrates that you can't read .

    The post you replied to was about the distinction between a literal description of an actual effect of physics (often signaled by phrases such as "kinetic energy" ) versus more artistic use of descriptive imagery that's not describing the actual physics (signaled by evocative words such as "impact" or "punch" rather than physics terms like "kinetic energy").

  62. one would be wrong by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > One can almost think that you simplistic model doesn't apply if you direct the energy to a small part of the body that unlike the arms aren't flexible enough to dampen the force.

    One can think that. One would be wrong.

    First, no, the force of a punch rarely knocks someone down. What happens is that the force of a punch to the jaw rotates the skull quickly. The skull impacts the brain. The brain is controlling the legs. When the neurons in the brain misfire from the impact, the person falls due to gravity.

    In a few cases, an attacker might launch their entire body weight toward the target. That might be enough force to knock someone down . Note that if the attacker/ tackler misses, THEY are likely to fall down. The very same force which might knock the target down remains with the attacker if they miss, and this equal force puts them down - without impacting a small part of their body a big part or any part.

    Newton's laws DO start to break down near the speed of light, 186,000 miles per second.

  63. bout time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its about time there was a plauseable "stun" feature.
    Even in the future "startrek" they had forethought of less lethal force as a necessity.
    Why has it taken us so much time to realize that in the "real werld"

    Imagine the healthcare issues that could be avoided, the positive impact to the tax payer, the increase of mortality, i mean the list goes on and on..

     

    1. Re:bout time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why has it taken us so much time to realize that in the "real werld"

      Because Star Trek is fantasy

  64. Loogie gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hiro has just been shot in the back with a burst of machine-gun fire. All of the bullets have slapped into his vest and dropped to the floor, but in doing so they have cracked about half of the ribs on that side of his body and bruised a few internal organs. He turns around, which hurts.

    The Enforcer has given up on bullets and whipped out another weapon. It says so right on Hiro's goggles: PACIFIC ENFORCEMENT HARDWARE, INC. MODEL SX-29 RESTRAINT PROJECTION DEVICE (LOOGIE GUN).

    Which is what he should have used in the first place.

  65. Here is an idea by raind · · Score: 1

    No sidearms (or rifles) at all, like they do in many countries.

    --
    Get up!
  66. Great, exactly what they have been waiting for by Hans+Adler · · Score: 1

    Finally a weapon they can use on everyone. Normal guns are only for people who could arguably be suspects, and only if they are fleeing or trying to fumble out their papers as instructed. Tasers are at best suitable for men with raised hands. And of course for people in wheelchairs, for pregnant women and for school-aged children, provided these are not following instructions because they couldn't hear them or because they were confusing. That left a dangerous gap in the arsenal: toddlers, pregnant women with raised hands, unconscious diabetics, ... Torturing any of these with a taser generally leads to unfair consequences. (In some cases, officers were even sacked and had to move to a different city to find employment in their chosen vocation.) So there is a serious gap in the arsenal for customer management.

  67. something new to oppress with. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Freedom no longer lives in America. There are now it seems so many aholes that warrants and probable cause were just to much of a burden on policing.

  68. Bad idea from gun-safety standpoint by steveha · · Score: 1

    It's possible for a gun to kill the person it shoots. Therefore common gun safety says one may not point a gun at a person unless that person represents a threat that justifies lethal force. Cooper's Second Law of firearms safety: Never point a firearm at anything you are not willing to destroy.

    If some bad guy is a threat, but not a lethal threat, the police office may not point a gun at the bad guy, let alone fire. If that bad guy is a lethal threat, then the police officer should be firing real bullets to end the threat.

    In short there are no circumstances under which I would endorse pointing a lethal weapon at someone with the intent to use it non-lethally. Better to have two different weapons, one of which is considered to be guaranteed non-lethal. Oh look, we have tasers for that purpose.

    Now, all that said, there are plenty of police officers out there who know better than me. Why, they are trained police officers and they don't need to abide by basic gun safety rules because they know what they are doing. I once had the dubious privilege of having MP5 muzzles pointed in my direction... I was in a room when a SWAT team showed how they do a dynamic entry. I gently chided the senior guy later about pointing real guns at people and he said "eh, they aren't loaded." (Cooper's First Law: All guns are always loaded.)

    I read a first-person account from a guy who was erroneously reported to be "squatting" in an apartment. There was a problem with his apartment so the building superintendent told him he could sleep in an unused apartment temporarily. He woke up to find police pointing guns at him. This is unacceptable... they had total situational dominance, he was asleep and had no weapons, so they were not justified in pointing real guns at him. So again, Cooper's Four Laws may not be obeyed all the time in real life by real police. They should be, though.

    P.S. I never thought about it this way before, but the phasers in Star Trek are dubious with respect to basic safety. If one failed to correctly set for stun, one might end up disintegrating someone by mistake. This would be fine for a military weapon: if most of the time you plan to use it to kill people, it's a mercy if it has another mode that is less-lethal. But for police and peaceful explorers, it's problematic to have a weapon that combines lethal and non-lethal functions.

    I guess it would be okay for phasers to have dual modes if it took a special action to set a phaser into lethal mode, like holding down two red buttons with your off hand while firing. But per canon it was just a thumbwheel setting to switch between "stun" and "lethal" and Kirk was always reminding people to make sure they were set on stun.

    http://www.startrekpropauthority.com/2008/04/rare-photos-of-greg-jein-tos-hero-type.html

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
  69. hate to be that guy, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [citation needed]

  70. Stupid idea by nessman · · Score: 1

    This is a fucking retarded solution in search of a problem that will result in injured or dead cops. Use a firearm as it was intended, safety off (or no safety), fully loaded, one in the chamber, that you draw from your holster as-is so you can shoot as many bullets as it takes to terminate the threat to you or to another, which generally results in a fatality.

    Better yet, if you don't want to be shot/killed by the police, then don't do anything that would justify a police officer using deadly physical thought.

    I hope whoever invented this idiotic idea gets sued for everything when one of these devices fucks up and ends up getting someone killed because some poor cop was trained to use this piece of shit first. In deadly situations, you don't have the luxury of additional time to modify your weapon in a manner which it was not designed.

  71. How does blunting one help when they are trained . by niftymitch · · Score: 1

    How does blunting one help when they are trained to empty
    the weapon and then reload.

    Does not pass this mans sniff test!
    I call it BS.

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
  72. PUT IT ON THE PARENTS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make the Parents of these little Scumbags responsible for every thing that there spawn gets into until they are adults and you will stop a lot of these Black lives being taken down or Cops being shot...If their kid Hurts someone or Robs, or Kills someone or just gets caught spitting on the sidewalk I don't care what the parents have to go to Jail with the Kid I Guarrrrnnnntttttteeeeee !!! There will be less Crime especially in Inner Cities .NUFF SAID!!

  73. Nonsense by kenh · · Score: 1

    make you a deal, we'll issue these 'bitch-slap' bullets to cops just as soon as every criminal is forced to use the same wimpy bullets.

    It will become very hard to find people to go into dangerous situations with these kinder, more-friendly, bullets.

    --
    Ken
  74. Wouldn't it be simpler. . . by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be simpler to just take the guns away from the police. They have demonstrated that they do not have the restraint necessary to use deadly weapons. They should be limited to the pepper spray and batons.

    --

    -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.