
New Non-Lethal Bullet Burns Propellant Inside the Round - mparramon
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a18812/pogojet-non-lethal-gun/
======
TheSpiceIsLife
> "lightweight weapon will stop a target in their tracks from a hundred meters
> away _without harming them._ " (emphasis mine)

I don't follow how someone could write this. How does it stop the target? Does
the projectile fly up next to them and politely request they remain motionless
until they are captured?

Just being shot at sounds fairly harmful to me, probably jangle the nerves a
bit.

------
moron4hire
I dislike that they use "non-lethal" in the headline (though in the article
they use the correct term "less-than-lethal"). There is no such thing as a
"non-lethal" weapon.

When we call weapons "non-lethal" we discount the chance that they could kill
a health-compromised target, or could be an out-of-spec copy that is too
strong, or could be misapplied. Users are more likely to use violence in
situations where they believe they have "non-lethal" means on their hands.

The term "less-than-lethal" keeps in mind the non-zero chance of death. All
violent interactions need to consider the chance if death, should something go
wrong (and with violence, things have technically already gone wrong).

------
mschuster91
The question is: for what purpose will this technology be used? We may market
this as a "crowd control" tech - and export it to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain or
similar countries where it will be used to squash protests against dictators.

Just look what happened with all the stuff we Germans sold to said countries.

~~~
seunosewa
> it will be used to squash protests against dictators.

Still, it's an improvement over the lethal bullets currently used for the same
purpose.

~~~
mschuster91
It's not, because killing people marching for their rights can be used by the
protesters (martyrs) or by the West (to condemn said regimes).

It's not lethal? => Nothing to worry about, move on.

~~~
dogma1138
Are you really arguing that it's more favorable for an oppressive government
to mow down protesters with machine guns than use LTL and crowed dispersal
techniques just so you could rally your friends for a cause?

~~~
mschuster91
No, but I'm afraid exactly the scenario I outlined will happen.

~~~
dogma1138
Clearly you don't live in one of those places my bet would be is given the
choice the people who protest there would rather be beaten and a live than
dead.

~~~
Someone
One line of thinking to oppose non-lethal weapons is: if relatively few very
brave citizens protest against their government, several things may happen:

\- the government takes them off the street; the protest fizzles out.

\- the government takes them off the street; the silent minority becomes angry
and rises against the government.

\- the government listens to the protesters, and makes some concessions.

For the "take them off the street" option, the "revolution" outcome probably
is more likely if the government uses lethal force.

So, with non-lethal weapons, it it less risky for the government to go for the
"take them off the street" option and because of that, it is less likely that
they will go for the "listen and make some concessions" option.

So, yes, most people would rather confront a non-lethal weapon, but for the
greater good, it may be better if the government doesn't have that option.

Another line of thinking is that non-lethal weapons do not replace lethal
weapons where possible, but replace situations where, previously, police
officers would try to resolve problems by talking or by waiting for them to
cool down a bit. Net effect is that the police will use more force and hence
become less trusted, making them more likely to use violence, making them less
trusted, etc. looking at some of the "police officer shooting citizen" videos,
I think the US has gone through quite a few iterations of that cycle.

So, in those situations, the choice (according to this line of reasoning) is
not between a bean bag and a real bullet, but between a bean bag and an
officer asking "what's up?"

I think both lines of reasoning have some truth in them.

------
trhway
>"The greatest risk of severe injury or death occurs from impacts to the head,
face, or neck of the intended target or a bystander, " Widder says. "The use
of more accurate weapons with disciplined fire can substantially reduce the
likelihood of this unintended consequence."

giving that the weapon has great precision, adding a camera and a bit of
software able to recognize when it is pointed to a face would allow to block
the shot if it directed at a face. Though one can imagine a protester wearing
several "V" masks everywhere over his/her body as the counter-measure...

On the other side, why all this new, and thus expensive, weapons when there
are good old paintball guns easily and cheaply available? In the same way,
based on laser rangefinder input, the firing controller can easily
automatically adjust the firing pressure and timing so that to achieve the
optimal velocity at the target.

~~~
simonh
I've run through hails of paintball fire at close range without being slowed
down at all. They would be completely useless for this sort of application.

~~~
dogma1138
Run through a hail of riot grade paintball which are fired at much higher
velocities and contain usually a mixture of some irritating compound (pepper
spray stuff) and fiberglass shards to really burn the skin and tell me how
useless they are.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_303](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_303)

~~~
Shivetya
After seeing how many of those playing paintball are geared up they would last
a bit longer that you would expect. From being covered head to toe in gear to
full face head protection they would be well off initially

~~~
dogma1138
You can also cover yourself in an EOD protective suit that's not the point as
we were talking about just being in plain cloths / as much protection as a
heavy jacket can provide.

Those paintballs land with 200-300 lbs of force this rubber bullet / beanbag
round ranges.

They are filled with nasty chemicals that are designed to stick and burn you
as well as fiber/glass shards to break skin and clothing to make them more
effective. You do not want to get shot by one of those things no matter what
you are wearing.

------
Steko
3 comments at the moment all questioning the need for this but the article
makes a fairly convincing case that existing less than lethal tech has
enormous gaps. This doesn't seem like the holy grail that will make US police
stop relying on real guns but it seems like a step in the right direction.

~~~
dawnbreez
Well, we may never be able to rely entirely on less-lethal tech. Some
situations are just too risky to take the chance that someone will keep
attacking after less-lethal weapons are used on them. Most notably, a person
wielding a firearm who is, say, blinded with pepper spray may panic and start
firing in random directions. A person on PCP, a drug known to delay pain
reactions, may not even notice if they're hit with one of these bullets.

~~~
bobwaycott
> "A person on PCP..."

This sounds far too much like some fear-mongering from the 90s.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
It's got a longer history than that. A century ago cocaine was stuff that made
black men want to rape white women and not even bullets to the heart could
stop them.

This article has a link to news story from the time, titled "Negro Cocaine
'Fiends' Are a New Southern Menace: Murder and Insanity Increasing Among Lower
Class Blacks Because They Have Taken to 'Sniffing.'"

[http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2384624](http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2384624)

Or in the twenties:

 _" Under marijuana Mexicans [become] very violent, especially when they
become angry and will attack an officer even if a gun is drawn on him. They
seem to have no fear. I have also noted that under the influence of this weed
they have enormous strength and it will take several men to handle one man
while, under ordinary circumstances, one man could handle him with ease."_

------
nitrogen
Auto-playing video ad with sound _and_ a hijacked back button. Real classy,
PopMech.

I wish HN's stylesheet worked in mobile Firefox so I could use it with ublock
full time.

\---

Regarding the article subject, are more non-lethal weapons really what we
need? The lighter and less visible the consequences, the more potential for
abuse.

------
bobwaycott
More LTL methods/devices do nothing to reduce the unnecessary default for
force employed against citizens by LEO. We should simultaneously support
transitioning LEO away from lethal force _and_ away from defaulting to using
force at all as a primary response option.

Additionally, LTL bullets ought to be the only type of bullets needed by
responsible gun owners for the sake of self-defense. There is simply no need
for using lethal rounds by anyone when we should be able to produce
alternatives that defuse a situation with a near-zero chance of killing
anyone.

