This Is Really Freakin Cool

[Kennedy 0]

Magic Bullets?
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=iol109152685653P100

So they're required to penetrate the body, but they don't work on kinetic force, instead once inside the body they create a taser like jolt that shuts down the bady guy. I can't wait to see these things developed.

exerpt:

Quote

ShockRounds are specialised bullets - fully compatible with standard ammunition calibres - that discharge an electrical shock upon impact and disrupt the nervous system. They incapacitate a living target in an instant - reportedly without risk of injury or death.

US-based MDM Group say their product will make law enforcement safer and more certain, save lives and reduce injuries, ensure less “collateral damage”, enhance security in aircraft and public places, and reduce legal liability. Oh, and it also promises to revolutionise the munitions industry.

Unlike stun guns and similar weapons, they say, ShockRounds rubber bullets can incapacitate a target at 100 metres, “whereas traditional rubber bullets are largely ineffective at their maximum range of about 40 metres”. Unlike the Taser, their bullets aren’t restricted to close range use, and don’t require a direct wire link to the target.

piezoelectric effect

edit to change url to wikipedia from lame science website

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[mr2mk1g 10]

Yes, very cool... but:

Quote

reportedly without risk of injury or death

Really?

Anything that involves fireing a missile at someone designed to penetrate their flesh MUST have at least a RISK of death and by definition it is an injury.

Quote

MDM says they’ve begun development of a frangible (breakable) round that would not penetrate the aircraft wall.

That's a nice idea too.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Yes, very cool... but:

Quote

reportedly without risk of injury or death

Really?

Anything that involves fireing a missile at someone designed to penetrate their flesh MUST have at least a RISK of death and by definition it is an injury.

Quote

MDM says they’ve begun development of a frangible (breakable) round that would not penetrate the aircraft wall.

That's a nice idea too.

You (probably wouldn't) be surprised by the number of people I discuss "rubber bullets" with who seem to think that they are harmless "NERF" bullets that can't cause serious injury or death. I've pointed out articles to some people that detail people in Israel being shot in the head with rubber bullets and killed. The bullets may not deform like hollow points, but they sure as hell can penetrate the body and they sure as hell can cause skull fractures and brain hemorrhaging that can lead to death. But people I've talked with are "okay" with police being liberal in their use of "rubber bullets" because they are misled into thinking they are harmless and safe. I think this impression is deliberately given, too.

Blue skies,
-

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

[mr2mk1g 10]

Oh, god yes this is LESS lethal than rubber bullets... but to claim that is "without risk of injury" is absolutely ridiculous. The risk is far less than other systems, and way way within acceptable levels... but c'mon... do they seriously believe people will accept that it is "without risk of injury" when its functionality relies on it penetrating your body?

PS, Israel has in the past considered a bullet fired at the ground so it ricochets into its target within the proper definition of a "rubber" bullet.

I've long wanted something like a fully auto BB gun adapted for use in riot control. (I'm talking 6mm plastic ball bearings propelled by a little motor in case there's a language barrier). Having been shot many times by BB guns I know I wouldn't hang arround when I'm being hit by a few dozen a second of those little buggers.

Sure you might take the odd eye out if you're not super careful... Fuckers shouldn't be rioting in the first place.

Much cheaper - and they don't have to penetrate your skin to get rid of you. Slightly different application that this weapon though as a fully auto BB gun would really only be good for dispursing riots, not taking down individuals.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Magic Bullets?
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=iol109152685653P100

So they're required to penetrate the body, but they don't work on kinetic force, instead once inside the body they create a taser like jolt that shuts down the bady guy. I can't wait to see these things developed.

What if the bad guy uses one first?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

What if the bad guy uses one first?

Wouldn't the bad guys just use real bullets?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,116]

>What if the bad guy uses one first?

That is, of course, the downside of any weapon. Still, even if the bad guys get a hold of these, I'd rather see six stunned cops than two dead ones.

[PhillyKev 0]

I have big problems with this statement:

reportedly without risk of injury or death.

[FallRate 0]

A gun should never be fired (or even aimed,) at something you are not willing to destroy, or someone you are not willing to kill. Rubber bullets might not lead to death in most cases, but if you are not seeking to kill, firearms are probably not the correct tool for the job.

My opinion. Others will vary.

FallRate

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

A gun should never be fired (or even aimed,) at something you are not willing to destroy, or someone you are not willing to kill. Rubber bullets might not lead to death in most cases, but if you are not seeking to kill, firearms are probably not the correct tool for the job.

My opinion. Others will vary.

FallRate

See that is what I have been trying to tell the NRA for years.

We should all go to slingshots. They would be SO much more effective in a prison riot.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Kennedy 0]

Well, a bad guy coming at a cop with a taser is universally accepted as justifying deadly force. A bad guy pointing a gun at you, even if it is loaded with "taser bullets, is certainly a deadly threat.
(what happens when the cop is disabled and the BG takes his gun?)

---

Like everyone has said, the 'no risk of injury' is a pretty asinine claim. What if it his them in the eye, or the throat, or the femoral artery?

Anything piercing your skin at high speed IS an injury in and of itself.

---

Also, as has been noted, rubber bullets are don't qualify as non-lethal. Really, they shouldn't even be "less than lethal." They are simply "less lethal." Rubber bullets can kill people very easily.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

While you are correct in pointing out one of the four rules of firearms safety,
"Never point a firearm at something you are not willing to destroy"

you are incorrect as to why people carry firearms.

They are not carried to kill an attacker. They are carried because they are the most effective tool to incapacitate an attacker.

You don't shoot to kill an attacker, you shoot to stop. It just so happens that the most effective target area to stop an attacker is center mass. Now, hitting an attacker center mass it is very possible he wil die, but you are not shooting to kill, you are shooting to stop. It seems like sematics, but it is the difference between intent that leads to a justified self defense versus intent that leads to murder 2 conviction.

If you can find me a better tool to stop and attacker, I will consider it very thoroughly. Until then, a firearm is the most effective tool for self defense (and yes, the attacker may die for my self defense, but he brought that on himself).

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[gmanpilot 0]

Quote

Well, a bad guy coming at a cop is universally accepted as justifying deadly force.

I'm guessing that you are in LE, and I would have to say that generically, that is a pretty risky career position to take. The only correction I would make is that a bad guy coming at a cop, with a weapon is universally accepted as justifying deadly force.

I would catagorize those electro-bullet things as being intended only as "less than lethal", which does not preclude injury as the article indicates. If the mfg thinks they would be a good idea to deploy on airplanes, me thinks they need to do a little more research into the interior construction and electrical systems used in airliners. The FAA/TSA would never go for it because real bullets will do a better job killing terrorists/hijackers, while doing potentially less damage to the aircraft. Little holes in a fuselage are no big deal, but big-time electrical failure is bad juju.

Who wants to volunteer to be a bullet test dummy for those things?

_________________________________________
-There's always free cheese in a mouse trap.

[Kennedy 0]

You are correct. I meant that sentence to read
"A bad guy coming at a cop with a taser..."

A man running towards a cop does not necessarily justify deadly force. As written, the sentence was incorrect, and I'm going to edit it.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*