So I opened fire on the crowd.

[Deuce 1]

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996014

These types of things are more dangerous than firearms. People have no fear of using them, because they are "non-lethal".

Last year in Oakland the fellows got happy with a non-lethal dowel gun and seriously hurt some folks.

This also emboldens crowds, as they don't fear being clubbed. I'm not a big non-lethal fan. A few years back a cop took out a bean bag shotgun to whap some knucklehead, training was deficient cross departments, and when he shot him (its a 12 guage round with a small bean bag instead of shot pellets) the other agency opened fire with "real" guns and killed said knucklehead.

[lawrocket 3]

I wonder what that will do to rioting fogies with pacemakers...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Deuce 1]

As an EMP-type weapon, it will destroy the electronic ingition system in your car. As an added bonus, it will also destroy digital imaging media. Any reporter out there with his 10D who pissed off "the man" could be zapped and any digital photographic evidence could be zapped as well.

I can imagine many Stalinist big city bureaucrats filling an area with the conductive fog and then starting the zapping with anybody with a camera being first priority.

Maybe we haven't seen the end of film cameras after all.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

I'm not a big non-lethal fan.

It's got its plusses and minues, that's for sure.

Big minus for me is that there seems to be less accountability with the use non-lethals.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Sickening. I've read about other "non-lethal" devices that have been coming out. All of these have tremendous potential for abuse, and the scary thing is the notion of "sweeping" a crowd -- oppressors are gonna love this stuff, because the user doesn't even have to discriminate between targets, he can just zap a shitload of people all at once!

They've even had to ban the use of certain laser devices that were said to operate by fanning a laser beam (like they do at a laser show to create the illusion of a line or shape) to sweep a battlefield and BLIND the opposing forces! Think about this: it would BLIND as many people are there to be hit by it! One need not even really aim, and one's power is limitless because you don't need a ratio of one round of ammunition per victim. Blind six dozen adversaries and you can slaughter them at leisure!

Now that some sick piece of shit has invented stuff like this, the bell cannot be unrung, and just because its use may be "banned," that doesn't mean that parties who don't respect the ban won't use it!

We thought warfare was chilling when they started using poison gas in WWI. Imagine a generation of blind people -- living, but maimed.

I honestly think that bullets are preferable to this horrific shit they're coming out with.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[PhillyKev 0]

Finally!! It's about time. I was starting to think Quake was unrealistic because I couldn't take out dozens of people with lightening bolts in real life. Thankfully this has renewed my faith in video games as weapons platform concept design systems.

[Deuce 1]

I'm thinking phenobarbitol and cogentin. Maybe some lithium too.

"We've got valium. And Lithium. Lithium would be good for you."

[headoverheels 334]

I've been sorta following this, as it gets posted on the Yahoo TASR stock board. Pretty much every news story about handcuffed little girl or a 68 year old grandma who gets Tasered shows up there, as well. Taser now says "less-lethal" on their web site, but the company officers still use that "non-lethal" phrase in their public statements. Tasers have been associated with (not necessarily implicated in) about 40-50 deaths. I wonder how well their safety has been tested on people with medical problems, e.g. coronary arrhythmias.

Maybe there will be a market for zap-defying camera electronics.

[damion75 0]

Quote

We thought warfare was chilling when they started using poison gas in WWI. Imagine a generation of blind people -- living, but maimed.

I honestly think that bullets are preferable to this horrific shit they're coming out with.

-

Its an interesting point of view. We (US/UK) forces have several laser weapons in development to destroy sensors etc in aircraft, but politically we can't even think about deploying them yet because they might blind a pilot or navigator.

Yet we are allowed to put a missile with 1248 tungsten cubes into their aircraft at mach 2.4 and wipe them out.

I am not blind, but I figure most blind people would rather be blind than dead?

***************

Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

We thought warfare was chilling when they started using poison gas in WWI. Imagine a generation of blind people -- living, but maimed.

I honestly think that bullets are preferable to this horrific shit they're coming out with.

-

Its an interesting point of view. We (US/UK) forces have several laser weapons in development to destroy sensors etc in aircraft, but politically we can't even think about deploying them yet because they might blind a pilot or navigator.

Yet we are allowed to put a missile with 1248 tungsten cubes into their aircraft at mach 2.4 and wipe them out.

I am not blind, but I figure most blind people would rather be blind than dead?

I am not surprised that to the british way of thinking, blinding people in warfare (or in civilian crime control applications) is acceptable.

Um, by the way, if your lasers blinded a pilot, wouldn't he fuckin' end up dying anyway?!

What the fuck's wrong with fighting in the standard traditional way (if you're gonna fight at all) without all this sick macabre shit like frying people at a distance with pain rays they can't escape, or firing lasers into their eyes to leave them wandering blind?!

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I am not blind, but I figure most blind people would rather be blind than dead?

Most PEOPLE would rather not be blind OR dead. You seem to have missed or ignored that point. We're talking about people who started out as NEITHER.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Deuce 1]

Quote

I am not blind, but I figure most blind people would rather be blind than dead?

Back to civilian applications for WTO organized riots. Most of the kids participating grew up under the impression that if they just hancuffed themselves to fire hydrants and stuff that the fire department would come break them free and the cops would zip tie them and drag them on to a bus for a coolio express booking and souvenir citation.

That's because the only other option was killing them, and that is out of the question, unless they begin threatening the life and property of others.

Enter this new option. A phasar set to stun. Since the cops are going to have to drag them off anyhow, why not render them unconcsious first and not have to listen to their yammering nonsense. So a few of them get blinded. That's the price of admission. At least no cops got hurt, right?

There is more and more cowardice in western civilizaton. This facilitates cowardly hands-off policing. Crowd control is about horses and shields and bats and hats. Both the cops and the protestors take that stuff seriously. Having some dweeb with a fogger and a stun sniper rifle picking people off just rubs me wrong.

Let them have their protests. Fine them for the excessive costs they create, but don't just level crowds as a cost control measure.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

What the fuck's wrong with fighting in the standard traditional way (if you're gonna fight at all) without all this sick macabre shit like frying people at a distance with pain rays they can't escape, or firing lasers into their eyes to leave them wandering blind?!

Because warfare isn't glamor, or glory, or romantic. It isn't chivalry and mano y mano combat. It isn't gladitorial battles of pride. It has one purpose. Kill as many on the other side as possible while preventing personal losses as much as possible. Keep doing that until the other side glimpses anhilation and gives up.

[rickjump1 0]

Most PEOPLE would rather not be blind OR dead. You seem to have missed or ignored that point. We're talking about people who started out as NEITHER.......

So what is the answer? Sleeping gas? You would still kill somebody. It's not that simple. Rubber bullets? All of this stuff kills. So back to lead bullets?

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

but don't just level crowds as a cost control measure.

How do you feel about using water canons for crowd control? How about tear gas?

For some strange reason, those alternatives don't bother me nearly as much as weapons like those mentioned in the article.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[rickjump1 0]

How do you feel about using water canons for crowd control? How about tear gas?

Those would be more humane. Maybe they should stress containment without smothering people.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[mailin 0]

Quote

I wonder what that will do to rioting fogies with pacemakers...

Well... I'm not a fogie but I think I can answer this one...

"The current from a stun gun may be generated with a pulse frequency that mimics the body's own electrical signals. In this case, the current will tell the attacker's muscles to do a great deal of work in a short amount of time. But the signal doesn't direct the work toward any particular movement. The work doesn't do anything but deplete the attacker's energy reserves, leaving him too weak to move. "

You'd have to understand how cardiac cells work - they electricity generated from them is very different from muscle cells and it takes an extreme amount of electricity to disrupt it. My ICD for instance has to put out 35 joules before it does anything to me, and thats internally - externally you'd be looking at up to 200 or more for the same effect. Stun guns don't even come close.

Stun guns are at a much lower frequency. In the US the FCC has very strict laws over the radio frequency commercial products can be used on, which a certain spectra of the radio band reserved specifically for medical devices also. So the wierd people like me are pretty well protected. Then again - I test their theories all the time - including the falsity that we can't go through standardized metal detectors for fear of them messing with the settings - they can't with any modern device.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming...


Jen

Arianna Frances

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Most PEOPLE would rather not be blind OR dead. You seem to have missed or ignored that point. We're talking about people who started out as NEITHER.......

So what is the answer? Sleeping gas? You would still kill somebody. It's not that simple. Rubber bullets? All of this stuff kills. So back to lead bullets?

Yes, actually. Back to something that both sides will take fuckin' SERIOUSLY. All this touchy-feely mamsy-pamsy bullshit about attempting to do as little harm as possible ends up leading to sick shit like blinding rays, and electrical stun devices.

I think that my biggest peeve about these stun/blind devices is that they make it virtually effortless to control large masses of people. Do we really want to put the power to do that into the hands of any government?

I've read plenty about people dying after being shot with "rubber bullets" (which the authorities would love for the public to believe are little Nerf thingies that barely bruise you), or jolted with TASERs. These things save nothing, it seems. And yes, it seems that the police are eager to play around with them for the slightest provocation.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[rickjump1 0]

I think that my biggest peeve about these stun/blind devices is that they make it virtually effortless to control large masses of people. Do we really want to put the power to do that into the hands of any government?.....

Lets also hope they don't export this stuff. If it doesn't fly here, you can bet they will try to export it.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

All this touchy-feely mamsy-pamsy bullshit about attempting to do as little harm as possible ends up leading to sick shit like blinding rays, and electrical stun devices.

No kidding! It's also a contributing factor to why guns are misused. Everyone should have the basic understanding that using violence agains someone else in any capacity should be an absolute last resort and only when your own physical safety is in jeopardy. I'm not saying don't use force to make an arrest. But don't indisciminantly incapacitate people either.

If I'm using any kind of incapacitating force on anyone, it's because I'm afraid they're going to do it to me first, that I have no other option to avoid it, and I'm going to stop them in the most efficient way possible.

This kind of thing is almost like when people who don't know any better say things like that a cop being threatened with a knife should shoot the person in the leg. If you're afraid for your life, don't try to shoot the leg, shoot to kill. If you're shooting for the leg, you obviously don't fell like you are going to die, so what the fuck are you shooting for? It's the same thing with these types of weapons. Their only function is to allow incapacitating force, which could be lethal or cause horrible injuries when other force would not be justified.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

All this touchy-feely mamsy-pamsy bullshit about attempting to do as little harm as possible ends up leading to sick shit like blinding rays, and electrical stun devices.

This kind of thing is almost like when people who don't know any better say things like that a cop being threatened with a knife should shoot the person in the leg. If you're afraid for your life, don't try to shoot the leg, shoot to kill. If you're shooting for the leg, you obviously don't fell like you are going to die, so what the fuck are you shooting for? It's the same thing with these types of weapons. Their only function is to allow incapacitating force, which could be lethal or cause horrible injuries when other force would not be justified.

Used to be, when a cop needed to put someone on the ground or into submission, he'd whack a quadricep or gastrocnemius muscle with a baton, and use a lock on an arm. Nowadays, according to what I've been seeing a lot lately, when a cop encounters someone who's behaving erratically, out comes the taser. Now, around here there have been two recent famous cases of people who were punched, and died specifically because their heads smashed on the concrete. It seems to me that if cops were to render someone unconscious and/or physically debilitated using electric shock, the same risk exists. The risk is an increase over that of whacking a leg and grabbing in a bear-hug, full nelson, or otherwise tackling. I think that the risk of falling from a standing position because of being TASERed is unacceptably high.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[quade 4]

How do you feel about PepperBall?

Seems like an almost perfect less-than-lethal. Good range, fast, accurate (or doesn't have to be).

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Deuce 1]

Water cannons? Well, OK. They make it slippery and uncomfortable for the contestants. Still silly though.

Tear gas? Yeah, it works good, but is hard to deploy when the crowd is moving around. Even with a good mask it's a bitch to be in it for hours at a time.

Q? THe pepper ball? Yeah, would probably work well on the youngster hipster doofus protester bunch we get mostly out west, here.

I seasoned and tenderized a lot of folks, one on one. What was affectionately called "blinding and beating". Honest to god, though, never until after politely asking the miscreant "Sir (or Ma'am) please submit!". "I am going to pepper spray (or Mace, in the old days) you if you don't comply".

The problem with those agents is they get all over your clothes and in your eyes, and eventually everybody is crying together. It always made me kind of laugh to have all the snot-lockers open and me telling the doofus "see, knucklehead, if you'd just have gone with the program, crap, and I just had this stuff dry-cleaned too"

Horses. Horses rock the world of crowd control. Very primal and environmentally safe. You get me, Amazon, Skydive XXL in hats with bats and some horses and everybody is guaranteed to play nice.

[billvon 3,119]

I've got no problem with non-lethal weapons; I think the problems with most non-lethal weapons are technical rather than fundamental. A weapon that incapacitates someone as effectively as a .38, is as directional, but doesn't kill them in 95% of the cases, could do a lot for prevention of both crime and terrorism.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Horses. Horses rock the world of crowd control. Very primal and environmentally safe. You get me, Amazon, Skydive XXL in hats with bats and some horses and everybody is guaranteed to play nice.

heavy calvary vs unarmed, untrained civilians..yea that has worked pretty well for centuries.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.