×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Rifle Tech Offers Variable Muzzle Speed

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the set-phasers-to-stun dept.

The Military 443

Ponca City, We love you writes "A gun that fires variable-speed bullets that can be set to kill, wound, or just inflict a bruise is being built by a Lund and Company Invention, a toy design studio that makes toy rockets powered by burning hydrogen obtained by electrolyzing water. The company is being funded by the US Army to adapt the technology to fire bullets instead. The new weapon, called the Variable Velocity Weapon System or VWS, lets the soldier use the same rifle for crowd control and combat, by altering the muzzle velocity. It could be loaded with 'rubber bullets' designed only to deliver blunt impacts on a person, full-speed lethal rounds, or projectiles somewhere between the two. Bruce Lund, the company's CEO, says the gun works by mixing a liquid or gaseous fuel with air in a combustion chamber behind the bullet. This determines the explosive capability of the propellant and consequently the velocity of the bullet. 'Projectile velocity varies from non-lethal at 10 meters, to lethal at 100 meters or more, as desired,' says Lund. The existing VWS design is a .50 caliber (12.7 mm) rifle weapon, but Lund says the technology can be scaled to any size, 'handgun to Howitzer.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

443 comments

Set rifle to stun! (4, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 5 years ago | (#24297713)

Great, a rifle with a stun setting!

I would not want to be the guy that tests the low setting (or the high one for that matter) to make sure it isn't fatal!

Oh, good. (4, Insightful)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 5 years ago | (#24297825)

More 'non-lethal' force options - to use against 'undesirable' expressions by the domestic populations of 'liberal democracies' - that have lawfully assembled against the wishes of their 'representatives'. [guardian.co.uk]

This is worse than the sub-harmonic puke-ray, or the microwave brain-fryer.

Welcome to the movie, "Brazil."

Re:Oh, good. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24297971)

We have been living in that movie for about 25 years now. It is only becoming worse as "law enforcement" means inflicting physical harm on citizens. Why is this done? To show power over. Don't make the mistake of exercising any of the rights found in the constitution. You don't have them.

Re:Oh, good. (-1, Flamebait)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298021)

i know what you mean. i'd prefer that they blow you hippie freaks away rather than just stunning you when you riot and destroy other peoples property.

Re:Oh, good. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24298069)

You're completely fucking wrong you stupid mother fucking son of a bitch! You homosexual whore! You and your fucking AIDS infested ass-cunt! STUPID BITCH!

Oh, and you're a fucking TROLL!!!

Re:Oh, good. (5, Funny)

davester666 (731373) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298047)

I would bet I still have to spend a good long time in the hospital if I'm hit from the Howitzer, even if it is set on 'stun'.

Re:Oh, good. (5, Insightful)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298107)

Eh, almost all manufacturers and professional groups in the US now refer to them as less-lethal not non-lethal. This is in acknowledgment that anything propelled by a non-trivial amount of powder has the power to kill, even bean bags and rubber bullets or tasers. You still don't point them at someone who is complying with the law and you only use them after other tactics have proven in-effective and there is a significant risk of injury to the officer or others. I don't think the VAST majority of officers are any more likely to pull their gun just because it has some half-assed stun setting, though I guess they might pull it in the same type of situation where they would pull a taser today, one less piece of equipment to carry.

Re:Oh, good. (-1, Offtopic)

strabes (1075839) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298145)

You posted a link to a story about anti-globalization protesters. If you're going to complain about the (violent) suppression of free speech, at least use an example of the suppression of a legitimate claim. Globalization is good for everyone in almost every way imaginable. If trade between various states/provinces in a nation is good, then it is highly unlikely that trade between nations is bad, considering the only differences are the color of the flags and perhaps the languages the people speak and the colors of their skin.

Re:Oh, good. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24298311)

So basically, you think people you disagree with have no right to free speech?

Re:Oh, good. (4, Insightful)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298275)

Or, more realistically, more force options, to be used properly and improperly as befits human beings who are far less than perfect.

Something abused != Something bad. That is the more tired and idiotic argument of the 'all weapons should be lethal' crowd.

This is going to be an interesting innovation if it works as advertised. Should especially make the more dangerous situations (capture alive and hostage) easier to deal with since the soldiers will have guns that can shoot to kill or injure, allowing them to fire into situations they normally couldn't.

Re:Oh, good. (5, Insightful)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298305)

Yeah. Our military is moving from war fighting to crowd control.

Which means our military is increasingly seeing it's own populace as being the target, not an enemy nation.

It's even reflected in operation names. Used to be operation names were designed to mislead (or not lead, at least) the enemy should the enemy become aware of them - Operation Market Garden, Operation Overlord. The point was that the operation name was chosen with its impact on the target of that operation in mind.

Now we have names like "Operation Enduring Freedom."

Just who is the target of that name? Just who is it intended to mislead?

Re:Oh, good. (1)

notdotcom.com (1021409) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298355)

That's ok, my "defensive" guns only have the kill/maim setting and 100 round drums of steel-cored rifle ammunition. Shoot at me with a "stun" GUN and you're getting shot back at with the real thing. Heck, why not give them 1 for 1 and use .50 cal too?

Wikileaks says Army prototype has 16 settings: (0, Offtopic)

Izabael_DaJinn (1231856) | more than 5 years ago | (#24297715)

1. Light Stun - causes central nervous system impairement on humanoids, unconsciousnes for up to 5 minutes. Long exposure by several shots causes reversible neural damage.

2. Medium Stun - causes unconsciousnes from 5 to 15 minutes. Long exposure causes irreversible neural damage, along with damage to epithelial tissue.

3. Heavy Stun - causes unconsciousnes from 15 to 60 minutes depending on the level of biological resistance. Significantly heats up metals.

4. Thermal Effects - causes extensive neural damage to humanoids and skin burns limited to the outer layers. Causes metals to retain heat when applied for over five seconds.

5. Thermal Effects - causes severe outer layer skin burns. Can penetrate simple personal force fields after five seconds of application.

6. Disruption Effects - penetrates organic and structural materials. The thermal damage level decreases from this level onward.

7. Disruption Effects - due to widespread disruption effects, kills humanoids.

8. Disruption Effects - causes a cascade disruption that vaporizes humanoid organisms. Any unprotected material can be penetrated.

9. Disruption Effects - causes medium alloys and structural materials, over a meter thick, to exhibit energy rebound prior to vaporization.

10. Disruption Effects - causes heavy alloys and structural materials to absorb or rebound energy. There is a 0.55 second delay before the material vaporizes.

11. Explosive/Disruption Effects - causes ultra-dense alloys and structural materials to absorb or rebound energy before vaporization. There is a 0.2 second delay before the material vaporizes. Approximately 10 cubic meters of rock are disintegrated per shot.

12. Explosive/Disruption Effects - causes ultra-dense alloys and structural materials to absorb or rebound energy before vaporization. There is a 0.1 second delay before the material vaporizes. Approximately 50 cubic meters of rock are disintegrated per shot.

13. Explosive/Disruption Effects - causes shielded matter to exhibit minor vibrational heating effects. Approximately 90 cubic meters of rock are disintegrated per shot.

14. Explosive/Disruption Effects - causes shielded matter to exhibit medium vibrational heating effects. Approximately 160 cubic meters of rock are disintegrated per shot.

15. Explosive/Disruption Effects - causes shielded matter to exhibit major vibrational heating effects. Approximately 370 cubic meters of rock are disintegrated per shot.

16. Explosive/Disruption Effects - causes shielded matter to exhibit light mechanical fracturing damage. Approximately 650 cubic meters of rock are disintegrated per shot.

Re:Wikileaks says Army prototype has 16 settings: (3, Informative)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 5 years ago | (#24297763)

So you just copy and pasted something out of startrek eh?

Re:Wikileaks says Army prototype has 16 settings: (4, Insightful)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 5 years ago | (#24297819)

Seems appropriate: safe non-lethal weapons are pretty much science fiction.

Re:Wikileaks says Army prototype has 16 settings: (-1, Flamebait)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298043)

let me guess your another anti taser supporter.

Re:Wikileaks says Army prototype has 16 settings: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24298199)

I'll pass on this version and wait for a version with 20 settings. It will be much easier to incorporate in my current d20 RPG setting...

Prior Art? (1)

Zymergy (803632) | more than 5 years ago | (#24297723)

Couldn't quickly find Judge Dredd clips featuring the Lawgiver 2's "Double Whammy", "Armor Piercing", "Full Auto", or "Signal Flair" munition options...,
however, I did find the "Grenade" clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8O0KMzTYFk [youtube.com]
More info on the Lawgiver 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawgiver [wikipedia.org]

Re:Prior Art? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24297973)

Couldn't quickly find Judge Dredd clips featuring the Lawgiver 2's "Double Whammy", "Armor Piercing", "Full Auto", or "Signal Flair" munition options...,

Well, slow down. Following your link, that's multi-munition. The discussed rifle uses variable charge, so no "prior art" in the sense of invalidating patents.

Apparently the Lawgiver's rounds defy gravity too: "An in-line gunsight shows the view directly down the barrel." Great stuff. Why not just ask if "magic missile" qualifies as prior-art?

Interesting... (2, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#24297727)

This could prove interesting for various sports that use guns such as trap shooting, skeet and general target practice. Because a slower bullet could mean less accidents, for example, if you somehow managed to shoot your foot you would only suffer a small fracture rather than having a broken busted-up foot.

Re:Interesting... (4, Informative)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 5 years ago | (#24297779)

It would be useless for trap shooting. You need higher velocities so you don't have to lead the clay as much, and so you break it when you hit it.

Re:Interesting... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298307)

Wouldn't that be the contest? who can get a high score at lower velocity?

Or how about being able to hit it and NOT break it?

Re:Interesting... (1)

MechEMark (1328023) | more than 5 years ago | (#24297805)

Lowering the speed is all well and good for stationary target shooting (for the most part), but I imagine that a significant reduction in velocity would throw off one's timing in skeet and trap shooting. There's a reason why skeet archery hasn't caught on.

Re:Interesting... (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 5 years ago | (#24297959)

There's a reason why skeet archery hasn't caught on.

I imagine it has more in common with not using normal bullets in skeet -- shotgun pellets don't carry as far. You really don't want arrows zipping on out of the skeet area.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24297835)

If there's a real concern that someone is going to shoot themselves in the foot they really shouldn't be handling a gun at all.

Re:Interesting... (2, Funny)

tsalmark (1265778) | more than 5 years ago | (#24297847)

Dick Cheney not withstanding, in most shooting sports, normally you are supposed to shoot forwards and level or higher.

Won't work. (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298287)

This could prove interesting for various sports that use guns such as trap shooting, skeet and general target practice. Because a slower bullet could mean less accidents, ...

Won't work.

Change the speed and you change the trajectory. The bullet strikes at a different height (and is also differently affected by crosswinds).

Phazers set to stun... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24297733)

So... hopefully no one forgets to flip the switch from kill to stun.

Re:Phazers set to stun... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24297857)

Yes, "forget".... I can see that being a very convenient excuse to make an example of some unfortunate protester.

Re:Phazers set to stun... (4, Insightful)

Robotech_Master (14247) | more than 5 years ago | (#24297929)

Yeah, this kind of gun is an accident just waiting to happen.

So much for "don't point your gun at something you don't intend to kill."

Overuse again... (5, Insightful)

neapolitan (1100101) | more than 5 years ago | (#24297741)

We had those growing up -- we called them BB guns.

4 pumps would not hurt a girl.

10 pumps to use on family members.

15 pumps for neighbor's kids

20 pumps for the kill.

Seriously though, I shudder with all of the implications of "nonlethal" technology in police hands. It rapidly leads to overuse. Remember the bean bag to the head that killed the girl celebrating the Red Sox victory? The current rash of taser (over)use?

Re:Overuse again... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24297923)

Remember the bean bag to the head that killed the girl celebrating the Red Sox victory?

That wasn't a beanbag. It was something like a compressed pepper bullet. It's less than lethal when it hits something a hard, a little less so when it enters through the eye socket and splatters over the back of the skull.

Sort of like, say, the bullets fired from the gun this article talks about.

Ever wonder why you have to wear a face mask when playing paintball?

A nonlethal shot to the gut can become a lethal shot to the eye.

Re:Overuse again... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24297967)

spock, phasers on 10 pumps!

yes captain.

(big ugly pizza turtle monster crawls out of solid rock!!!!)

CORRECTION SPOCK, 30 PUMPS I SAID 30 PUMPS!!!!

Re:Overuse again... (-1, Troll)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298073)

taser misuse is drastically overstated. i'll grant there is probably isolated cases of cops abusing their powers, but they would do that taser or not. they are just bad cops, taking the taser away changes nothing.

what we gain by using the taser is a way for police to subdue a suspect with very little danger of harm to them or anyone else. no other weapon does this as well as the taser.

Re:Overuse again... (4, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298147)

taser misuse is drastically overstated. i'll grant there is probably isolated cases of cops abusing their powers, but they would do that taser or not. they are just bad cops, taking the taser away changes nothing.

I disagree. For example, in the instance of the elderly woman in the retirement home that made a big splash in the press, I seriously doubt the cop would have hit her with a baton or shot her with a pistol. The fact that is was a taser and just for "disabling without hurting" probably made a large difference in the way he made his choice.

That is not to say I don't think non-lethal options such as a taser are a bad idea or cause more harm than good; only that we should consider whether this new technology will cause more harm or good and whether training will change that.

Re:Overuse again... (2, Interesting)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298253)

"The fact that is was a taser and just for "disabling without hurting""

all police get to experience the taser and pepper spray before they are issued the gear, so they know it hurts like a motherfucker. i can't find the specifics of the case you are talking about, but i'm assuming since you didn't state she died, that she didn't. until you post a link to a news article i'm going to point out even old grannies can wield a knife.

i will say one thing though. private security shouldn't be issued tasers. all the cases i can find where it was really misused has been private security guards. these guys don't have any business with them since they are only meant to be eye and ears.

This worries you? (5, Informative)

jberryman (1175517) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298079)

That gun is nothing. Take a look at this clip of Raytheon's latest toy. It's a pain-ray that when used properly will leave no permanent damage or marks of any kind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1w4g2vr7B4 [youtube.com]

I wish I could find the entire 60 Minutes segment on this technology. What is incredibly disturbing is the angle 60 Minutes chooses to take; they do not address EVEN BRIEFLY the controversial implications of the existence of a weapon like this: the potential for physical harm (trampling in crowds), the possibility of it's use as a "perfect" torture device, philosophical questions about authority, etc.

Instead they immediately side with the proponents of this technology and frame the Pain Ray as the victim of a lot of governmental bureaucracy: "the soldiers/police are dying every day while this tool sits behind a lot of red tape".

Re:This worries you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24298139)

Slashdot itself is usually a pain ray that leaves no permanent damage or marks of any kind.

Oops (4, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#24297747)

While this may seem like a great idea, I think the concept encourages the use of weapons in crowd control more. When that weapon used in crowd control can become lethal through carelessness, you're just waiting for disaster.

There have to be better means of crowd supression rather than using weapons that can be lethal.

Re:Oops (5, Insightful)

kylemonger (686302) | more than 5 years ago | (#24297875)

Yah, but at least there can be accountability with weapons like these. This is preferable to the agony ray [slashdot.org] that has no lasting physical effects, allowing cops/soldiers to plausibly deny using it to make some poor saps dance and scream for their amusement. What I'm worried about is a handheld version of that.

Re:Oops (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24298083)

There have to be better means of crowd supression rather than using weapons that can be lethal.

Sigh, when will we start learning from the past. The Romans knew already: it's bread and circuses!

Set the howitzer to stun! (4, Funny)

joe_n_bloe (244407) | more than 5 years ago | (#24297761)

Why exactly would I want to fire a 155mm projectile slowly?

Firing rubber chickens. That must be it.

Why exactly would I want to fire a 155mm? (1)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 5 years ago | (#24297795)

Rubber chickens? Crowd control! RTFA!

Re:Why exactly would I want to fire a 155mm? (1)

joe_n_bloe (244407) | more than 5 years ago | (#24297841)

Lund says the technology can be scaled to any size, 'handgun to Howitzer.'"

RTFC? %-|

Re:Why exactly would I want to fire a 155mm? (3, Funny)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298003)

Only kidding ; )
I was just envisioning the pi//police wheeling out a 155 and pointing it
at a peacefull demonstration / protest:
"Don't worry, good people of Oceania, it is but set to stun"
"Did he just say run?"
"I'm not sure but i think we'd better."

Re:Why exactly would I want to fire a 155mm? (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 5 years ago | (#24297975)

Rubber chickens? Crowd control! RTFA!

Crowd control with a 155? That's six inches! What kind of a chicken are you launching?

Re:Set the howitzer to stun! (3, Interesting)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 5 years ago | (#24297951)

Why exactly would I want to fire a 155mm projectile slowly?

I read about just that, a few years ago in a Dutch Navy publication. It was an article on the lack of big guns capable of coastal barrages on modern ships, and options to put them back on now that that type of warfare might become useful again. The idea is to have one (or a few) guns fire a few rounds in succession along different trajectories, so that they all arrive on target at the same time, creating a nice firestorm. One of the options discussed was a gun using technology similar to this rifle.

Easy for mistakes (1)

bakuun (976228) | more than 5 years ago | (#24297783)

Let's hope that nobody makes a mistake when supposed to switch from lethal to non-lethal bullets...

Gee, I wonder what the emphasis is here? (1)

smchris (464899) | more than 5 years ago | (#24297807)

Could it be crowd safety? Could it be soldier safety? Me, I'm thinking money. You?

Considering the French just had an embarrassing moment where a soldier used live ammo in a demonstration, I don't think you need to be the Great Karnack of some defense think tank to guess how this will work out.

variable speed (1)

alxkit (941262) | more than 5 years ago | (#24297813)

no,no,no,no... i can just see some idiot forgetting to change the settings from "kill" to "stun."

its an accident waiting to happen. if you want to kill people - by all means design to kill. if you want to "control" people - stay the hell away from building something that can accidentally terminate them.

I can see it now... (4, Insightful)

lazycam (1007621) | more than 5 years ago | (#24297867)

It seems to me that having such a variable weapon option will empower a future officer or national guardsman to exercise a bit less restraint when engaging criminals or rioters (specifically peaceful ones). I can already hear in my head the following court defence: "Well, see your honour...The gun was set to crowd control. Not to kill. So it really was not my fault right?" When you point a weapon at someone, you have to be conscious of the fact that that individual could die. Anyone with gun training know that, or should anyway. I feel very uncomfortable with people relaxing that view. I know they mentioned the Army was interested, but I am just looking forward into future issues. Just my two cents...

Quick prediction! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24297869)

I know it's late! Anyways, how about more than half the posts here being from types who never heard, fired, or even seen a gun beyond their video games and sci-fi.

What is the airspeed velocity (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#24297885)

What is the airspeed velocity of the bullet I just shot at that unladen swallow?

Screw this... (1)

painehope (580569) | more than 5 years ago | (#24297905)

...I want my fletcher. Twist the dial, one dart kills them on the spot, one blows them to bits, one contains shellfish toxin, and one gives them a nice, slow cancer.

Now that's killing with style. If the cops want me subdued, I think they've already proven that six big guys w/ batons and pistol butts can do it. Eventually....

Think William Gibson's Neuromancer, for those that don't get the reference. If you haven't read the book, get off /.

Re:Screw this... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298335)

I didn't know people had to have suffered through the pile of predictable refuse in order to sign up.

I envy those people who couldn't sign up.

is it still a gun with all those bells & whist (3, Insightful)

WannaBeGeekGirl (461758) | more than 5 years ago | (#24297917)

if you're in a situation where you need a gun, do you honestly have time during your reaction to mess with setting it once it gets so fancy? good grief, you'll be fussing with the interface and making up your mind while your attacker prevails.

Re:is it still a gun with all those bells & wh (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298015)

In the hands of well trained soldiers trying to capture and not kill a valuable target these would be a good thing. Kick in the door, toss in a flash bang grenade and start shooting on the 'stun' setting.

Re:is it still a gun with all those bells & wh (1)

WannaBeGeekGirl (461758) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298231)

yes but the OP calls it a gun... i'm arguing semantics

Re:is it still a gun with all those bells & wh (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298277)

Oh I saw your point. I was just pointing out that the training soldiers get is pretty intense, and while yes they do make mistakes, giving them a non lethal option isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Re:is it still a gun with all those bells & wh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24298303)

*has a sudden urge to play fps* gotta get that BFG!

Re:is it still a gun with all those bells & wh (1)

mschuyler (197441) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298029)

Yes, you do have time. Set your phasers on stun. That was in 1967. Oh, wait! That was in 2400 something. Oh, wait! I'm so confused.

Re:is it still a gun with all those bells & wh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24298053)

You've got to maintain your cool: "Gentlemen, set your phasers to stun."

Re:is it still a gun with all those bells & wh (1)

kesuki (321456) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298133)

that's not really the point, why buy m-16's sniper rifles, special crowd control guns, and hand guns when you can have a 'one size fits all' multi-weapon? the concept behind this gun lets you switch from one purpose to another without buying separate guns.

i still think it's a pork barrel project, even if the rounds don't heat the gun as much as gun powder, hydrogen propelled bullets have their own problems..

I can think of at least 2 places, where the military might like to have a multi purpose gun, Iraq and Afghanistan, just toggle it to 'stun' and fire away without worries that it wasn't the right guy, if you need lethal force because they're firing back at you, then you can switch the setting while hiding behind a building.

Re:is it still a gun with all those bells & wh (1)

kesuki (321456) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298155)

oh i forgot, you said 'in the heat of battle you wouldn't have time'

i hate to break it to you but, if they're firing back at you, if you didn't get behind that building, you're either on the ground pretending to be dead, or drowning in a pool of your own blood.

but the cowards that they are they prefer roadside bombs, because they they cant be captured/killed or interrogated if they aren't shot dead... it still might find practical use.

A toymaker eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24297961)

Should heed the proverb: It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye.

And "crowd control" is a leading euphemism if ever there was one. Three's a crowd.

It's interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24298005)

...that now we've got toy companies helping the military make 'non lethal weapons'

What ever happened to the word 'no' and moralistic integrity on the part of the American business these days? I'm sure they were given the whole 'you will be helping to secure America' bullshit / assuaging.

Re:It's interesting... (2, Insightful)

maglor_83 (856254) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298173)

I'm sure they were given the whole 'you will be helping to secure America' bullshit / assuaging.

Much more likely they were given the whole 'you will be given a whole heap of money' line.

Another idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24298057)

both the user and target get the same effect in non-lethal mode!

if u want to stop a running suspect, call for backup and use it on both urself and suspect.

buhahahaha

Lund says the technology can be scaled to any size (3, Funny)

greenguy (162630) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298059)

I can't wait to see the Howitzer that leaves a bruise.

those of you who played Top Secret will remember (1)

callmetheraven (711291) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298085)

It's an old and lame idea. It was originally called the Gyrojet. Accuracy is horrible, reliability poor, and the ammo is prohibitively expensive. Yet another "new" idea.

Re:those of you who played Top Secret will remembe (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24298129)

Top Secret? The Gyrojet is a real gun.. But still nothing to do with the story..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrojet

Oh, Boy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24298149)

Just what we need! Another way to cripple, kill, and maim! And all for just a few measly billions! Of our tax money!!!!!!

Re:Oh, Boy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24298323)

Just what we need! Another idiot who thinks that human nature is going to be trumped by some liberal feel good bullshit!

Do you want a gun that is more likely to jam or on (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298171)

Do you want a gun that is more likely to jam or one that works good?

Re:Do you want a gun that is more likely to jam or (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24298205)

Do you want a sentence that makes no sense or one that works well?

recently they killed people at a demo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24298179)

cuz they put live rounds instead of blanks in their guns. With these now they only have to forget to set to stun, or have a switch malfunction.

Why not? (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298203)

While I think it's a neat concept and I wish them the best of luck with it, I certainly wouldn't want to be one of the advanced beta testers on the ground. There are so many elements in the field that can't be accounted for that even at this point and time some of the most tried and true designs are being improved on. I think something like this is going to have failure rates too high for combat/LE use for a long long time and the first guys out there are going to get a hard lesson in advanced technology.

croud control (2, Insightful)

giorgist (1208992) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298251)

I think the point of this rifle is to make it legal to use for croud control.

So we aim at you, you don't know what comes out it's other end

G

Impossible to identify non-lethal attacks (4, Insightful)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298265)

With such a weapon the supposed target would never be able to distinguish between lethal and non-lethal attacks, and any mistake can turn out deadly -- you will either have a cop unknowingly shooting lethal bullets, or fleeing person returning fire with a regular gun, believing that cops are trying to kill him. Or both at the same time. The right thing to do is to go into the opposite direction -- making lethal and non-lethal weapons so different that it will be impossible to take one for another even from a distance. Like the difference that exists now between a gun and a club, or between uniforms and equipment of soldiers (who always shoot to kill) and riot police (that is expected to never use anything deadly).

I Think I Prefer... (1)

Shaltenn (1031884) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298293)

I think I prefer the current setup of having seperate less-than-lethal and full-on lethal weapons. Current standards and practices require less-than-lethal rounds (beanbags, etc) to be used only in specifically designated (usually painted green or some other stand-out color) weapons. This allows people to easily identify lethal or less-than-lethal weapons. Do we really want a weapon that does the job of both, with a risk of failing (not firing at all, under-firing when using lethal force, over-firing when using less-than-lethal force)?

Personally, not a fan of this idea.

Geneva Conventions (1)

MorePower (581188) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298295)

A weapon designed to only wound is illegal according to the Geneva Conventions. I guess the middle settings are only used on "illegal combatants"?

Sergeant! (1)

kclittle (625128) | more than 5 years ago | (#24298297)

> Lund says the technology can be scaled to any size, 'handgun to Howitzer.'"
Sergeant, set that howitzer to stun!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...