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.
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.
But then how would they kill us?
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) 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.
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.
So, what is you plan to disarm criminals as well ? Because you do plan to disarm criminals, don't you ?
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
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 ?
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?
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...
Did you forgot the part where he also tried to kill a LEO using his service pistol ?
Looks like some idiot an Gizmag
-1: redundant
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Check to see if he's white?
Isn't that standard police procedure for identifying law-abiding citizens amidst criminals?
Required reading for internet skeptics
If they're brandishing they're not a good guy. Brandishing means to draw and display to give the impression of intent to use.
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.
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).
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."
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/
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.
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.