Turn On Your Ugh Light
August 7, 2007 10:40 AM Subscribe
Behold the newest weapon for the Department of Homeland Security: the Puke-Light!
This post was deleted for the following reason: Poster's Request -- frimble
Their schematic looks like something I made in sixth grade using MSPaint.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 10:43 AM on August 7, 2007
posted by Baby_Balrog at 10:43 AM on August 7, 2007
All this non-lethal stuff is a bit creepy but yeah, sure beats having a hole punched through the body by a copper and lead ball. When are they going to get a working glue gun that shoots a blob of glue to incapacitate the target?
posted by well_balanced at 10:45 AM on August 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by well_balanced at 10:45 AM on August 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
I can't wait till they start selling them on ThinkGeek.
posted by backseatpilot at 10:46 AM on August 7, 2007 [4 favorites]
posted by backseatpilot at 10:46 AM on August 7, 2007 [4 favorites]
From the article:
The person being targeted could easily look away, or he or she might be wearing heavily tinted glasses.
Sounds like a really effective weapon and an excellent use of our tax dollars.
posted by TedW at 10:46 AM on August 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
The person being targeted could easily look away, or he or she might be wearing heavily tinted glasses.
Sounds like a really effective weapon and an excellent use of our tax dollars.
posted by TedW at 10:46 AM on August 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
Wow, it's going to be fun driving at night in ten years, what with all of the partially blind people on the roads. Cops are deterred from using pistols outside of last resort situations. Somehow I don't see the same review boards and reams of paperwork being involved with the use of these things. Every saturday night drunk will get a face full of this on a regular basis.
posted by bunnytricks at 10:49 AM on August 7, 2007
posted by bunnytricks at 10:49 AM on August 7, 2007
It's not clear why the changing light pulses cause this effect, even though the effect has been well documented, Lieberman says. Helicopter pilots, for example, have been known to crash because they get disoriented by the choppy flashes of sunlight coming through the chopper's spinning blades.
Isn't it called a seizure?
posted by Mr_Zero at 10:49 AM on August 7, 2007 [3 favorites]
Isn't it called a seizure?
posted by Mr_Zero at 10:49 AM on August 7, 2007 [3 favorites]
I hope DHS remembers it's all about Peace, Love, Unity and Respect when they unleash their disco vomit-light on the world.
posted by boo_radley at 10:50 AM on August 7, 2007
posted by boo_radley at 10:50 AM on August 7, 2007
Until the first epileptic complains. Or is killed.
posted by DU at 10:50 AM on August 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by DU at 10:50 AM on August 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
I'm sorry. I just threw up in my mouth a little.
posted by miss lynnster at 10:50 AM on August 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by miss lynnster at 10:50 AM on August 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:52 AM on August 7, 2007
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:52 AM on August 7, 2007
Yuck
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:52 AM on August 7, 2007
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:52 AM on August 7, 2007
"It's not clear why the changing light pulses cause this effect..."
So essentially the government will be offering the public as lab subjects?
posted by hermitosis at 10:55 AM on August 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
So essentially the government will be offering the public as lab subjects?
posted by hermitosis at 10:55 AM on August 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
The flashlight...uses a range finder to measure the distance to the target's eyes so that it can adjust the energy of the light to a level that won't cause permanent damage.
Better be a damn accurate and reliable range-finder.
posted by anazgnos at 10:56 AM on August 7, 2007
Better be a damn accurate and reliable range-finder.
posted by anazgnos at 10:56 AM on August 7, 2007
So essentially the government will be offering the public as lab subjects?
Tuskegee 2.0
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:56 AM on August 7, 2007
Tuskegee 2.0
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:56 AM on August 7, 2007
So essentially the government will be offering the public as lab subjects?
Yes. Same as it ever was. Nukes, Syphilis, LSD.
posted by Mr_Zero at 10:57 AM on August 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
Yes. Same as it ever was. Nukes, Syphilis, LSD.
posted by Mr_Zero at 10:57 AM on August 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
If the vomit flashlight doesn't work, hit 'em with the gay bomb!
posted by jefbla at 11:02 AM on August 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by jefbla at 11:02 AM on August 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
Another flashlight innovation sure to make you vom!
posted by cowbellemoo at 11:05 AM on August 7, 2007
posted by cowbellemoo at 11:05 AM on August 7, 2007
I think they already have these installed overhead in the New York subway cars.
posted by hermitosis at 11:06 AM on August 7, 2007
posted by hermitosis at 11:06 AM on August 7, 2007
Also known as the "Barf Beamer"!
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 11:10 AM on August 7, 2007
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 11:10 AM on August 7, 2007
I can't see this being very effective in a field situation, all anyone needs to do is run away. I think it would be great, though, as a personal protection device.
posted by The Light Fantastic at 11:12 AM on August 7, 2007
posted by The Light Fantastic at 11:12 AM on August 7, 2007
If you crossed this with the Fleshlight it would be fucking nauseating.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:12 AM on August 7, 2007 [17 favorites]
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:12 AM on August 7, 2007 [17 favorites]
I can't see this being very effective in a field situation, all anyone needs to do is run away.
That is probably part of the plan. Then they can shoot or taser them in the back and charge them with resisting arrest.
posted by Mr_Zero at 11:13 AM on August 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
That is probably part of the plan. Then they can shoot or taser them in the back and charge them with resisting arrest.
posted by Mr_Zero at 11:13 AM on August 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
Their schematic looks like something I made in sixth grade using MSPaint.
that IS the thing you made in sixth grade. they have your name on a list.
posted by quonsar at 11:16 AM on August 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
that IS the thing you made in sixth grade. they have your name on a list.
posted by quonsar at 11:16 AM on August 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
To those people saying "it's better than being shot", well yes, obviously. But the point is that non-lethal weaponry is not usually used as an alternative to lethal weaponry, but rather in addition to it. This device is more likely to be used in a situation where a gun isn't appropriate than a situation where one is. Sometimes this will be a good thing, the worry is that most of the time it won't be. I am concerned that giving people non-lethal weapons lowers the threshold of stress or difficulty at which they use any weapon. This may not have the function of making them less likely to shoot.
Would this reduce the number of people getting shot? Possible, but unlikely. Would it increase the number of people getting shot? Also possible, also unlikely. Would it increase the number of people being assaulted by soldiers and policemen? I don't know, but I think it's much more likely than the first two.
posted by howfar at 11:24 AM on August 7, 2007 [5 favorites]
Would this reduce the number of people getting shot? Possible, but unlikely. Would it increase the number of people getting shot? Also possible, also unlikely. Would it increase the number of people being assaulted by soldiers and policemen? I don't know, but I think it's much more likely than the first two.
posted by howfar at 11:24 AM on August 7, 2007 [5 favorites]
this will be awesome at raves.
posted by empath at 11:25 AM on August 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by empath at 11:25 AM on August 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
Well yes fandango_matt, I neglected to mention the tendency of non-lethal weaponry to be used as torture devices. Cattle-prods discharged through metal objects in rectums and vaginas, anyone? Sorry if you're having your tea.
posted by howfar at 11:30 AM on August 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by howfar at 11:30 AM on August 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
Turn on your heartlight
Let it shine whereever you go
Let it make a happy glow
For all the world to see
posted by dirtdirt at 11:32 AM on August 7, 2007
Let it shine whereever you go
Let it make a happy glow
For all the world to see
posted by dirtdirt at 11:32 AM on August 7, 2007
It's not torture, it's freedom lighting.
posted by Mr_Zero at 11:34 AM on August 7, 2007 [5 favorites]
posted by Mr_Zero at 11:34 AM on August 7, 2007 [5 favorites]
Don't worry, the nausea passes once they've got the car battery hooked up to your nuts.
posted by The Straightener at 11:43 AM on August 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by The Straightener at 11:43 AM on August 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
This is awesome. I'm going to figure out the circuitry and patterns and then cover a suit with thousands of LEDs. Then I'll walk around town at night inducing nausea hither and yon. A peripatetic precipitator of pedestrian peristalsis.
These things would be great for cars, too -- cop chasing you? turn on your LED skin and make the fucker puke into his coffee.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:44 AM on August 7, 2007 [5 favorites]
These things would be great for cars, too -- cop chasing you? turn on your LED skin and make the fucker puke into his coffee.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:44 AM on August 7, 2007 [5 favorites]
I once accidentally "stabbed myself in the eye" with a beam of high-powered blue light from a large-scale video projector. I was in pain and dizzy, and it took me several minutes to recover. I have no doubt that done right, the concept will work and work quite well.
Would this reduce the number of people getting shot? Possible, but unlikely. Would it increase the number of people getting shot? Also possible, also unlikely. Would it increase the number of people being assaulted by soldiers and policemen? I don't know, but I think it's much more likely than the first two.
You raise the same valid points that I've seen others make, but my reaction is the same -- I have no idea where you're ultimately going with it. Should we take away the guns? Should we take away the non-lethal options? Should we take away the guns AND the non-lethal options? All of them have their problems.
Ultimately, the best answer is "provide cops/soldiers with more options, so a trained individual can make the best possible judgment with the most amount of tactical flexibility."
Whether it "increases odds of assault" is beside the point. People get needlessly assaulted right now, with or without non-lethal options.
People also get needlessly dead right now. If there's less chance of someone getting needlessly dead and a corresponding 50 percent increase of someone getting needlessly assaulted, and you think that's an completely untenable situation ... well, the dead guy's family would like to have a word with you.
Then again, most MeFites think all cops are just power-hungry vehicles of oppression, anyway. And 100 percent of this MeFite is prone to making sweeping pronouncements solely as a rhetorical device
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 11:49 AM on August 7, 2007
Would this reduce the number of people getting shot? Possible, but unlikely. Would it increase the number of people getting shot? Also possible, also unlikely. Would it increase the number of people being assaulted by soldiers and policemen? I don't know, but I think it's much more likely than the first two.
You raise the same valid points that I've seen others make, but my reaction is the same -- I have no idea where you're ultimately going with it. Should we take away the guns? Should we take away the non-lethal options? Should we take away the guns AND the non-lethal options? All of them have their problems.
Ultimately, the best answer is "provide cops/soldiers with more options, so a trained individual can make the best possible judgment with the most amount of tactical flexibility."
Whether it "increases odds of assault" is beside the point. People get needlessly assaulted right now, with or without non-lethal options.
People also get needlessly dead right now. If there's less chance of someone getting needlessly dead and a corresponding 50 percent increase of someone getting needlessly assaulted, and you think that's an completely untenable situation ... well, the dead guy's family would like to have a word with you.
Then again, most MeFites think all cops are just power-hungry vehicles of oppression, anyway. And 100 percent of this MeFite is prone to making sweeping pronouncements solely as a rhetorical device
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 11:49 AM on August 7, 2007
Can you imagine the fun when ten year old kids get their hands on these things and start firing it at their siblings etc.?
Another brilliant weapon on which to spend your tax dollars: http://navlog.org/q_car.wmv.
posted by caddis at 11:53 AM on August 7, 2007
Another brilliant weapon on which to spend your tax dollars: http://navlog.org/q_car.wmv.
posted by caddis at 11:53 AM on August 7, 2007
I think howfar is on to it. No one doubts that the cops will mace you silly for next to nothing.
Does anyone have data on whether fewer people have been shot by the police since the introduction of mace?
posted by kuujjuarapik at 11:53 AM on August 7, 2007
Does anyone have data on whether fewer people have been shot by the police since the introduction of mace?
posted by kuujjuarapik at 11:53 AM on August 7, 2007
ROU_Xenophobe: I would make sure that my license plate could flash in the manner of the puke light too, were I to use it against a cop.
posted by invitapriore at 11:55 AM on August 7, 2007
posted by invitapriore at 11:55 AM on August 7, 2007
Or when soemone walks into a bank with that suit on.....
"Please no barf in the bag, only money! Thank you!"
posted by Big_B at 12:08 PM on August 7, 2007
"Please no barf in the bag, only money! Thank you!"
posted by Big_B at 12:08 PM on August 7, 2007
Would it increase the number of people being assaulted by soldiers and policemen? I don't know, but I think it's much more likely than the first two.
I could see pepper spray or tasers possibly being abused by less-than-upstanding cops... But this thing? Having to cuff, pat down or search, and otherwise handle someone who's just puked all over themself should be a bit of a deterrent. Unless the cop has a secret puke fetish, of course.
posted by CKmtl at 12:09 PM on August 7, 2007
I could see pepper spray or tasers possibly being abused by less-than-upstanding cops... But this thing? Having to cuff, pat down or search, and otherwise handle someone who's just puked all over themself should be a bit of a deterrent. Unless the cop has a secret puke fetish, of course.
posted by CKmtl at 12:09 PM on August 7, 2007
All the Homeland Security officials really need to do is to run around with large posters bearing this photo to make people vomit.
posted by ORthey at 12:15 PM on August 7, 2007
posted by ORthey at 12:15 PM on August 7, 2007
Hey guys!
posted by puke & cry at 12:15 PM on August 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by puke & cry at 12:15 PM on August 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
puke & cry, you're not actually needed until they also release the cry-light. Sorry!
posted by ORthey at 12:19 PM on August 7, 2007
posted by ORthey at 12:19 PM on August 7, 2007
It's intent is for incapacitation.
Sure - you can close your eyes, or you can turn your head or run.... but if you take those actions you're suddenly NOT doing the action for which you're probably being targeted in the first place. And nobody gets killed.
Well HEY - it's even in the article!! I'd say RTFA but YMMV.
"If you disorient or distract somebody and cause them to look away, then they can't focus on their task, which could be aiming a weapon at someone, or looking at a screen with sensitive information, or dialing a phone,"
Dialing a phone in this instance refers to remotely detonating a bomb.
I'd say that's a pretty good use of tax dollars.
posted by matty at 12:22 PM on August 7, 2007
Sure - you can close your eyes, or you can turn your head or run.... but if you take those actions you're suddenly NOT doing the action for which you're probably being targeted in the first place. And nobody gets killed.
Well HEY - it's even in the article!! I'd say RTFA but YMMV.
"If you disorient or distract somebody and cause them to look away, then they can't focus on their task, which could be aiming a weapon at someone, or looking at a screen with sensitive information, or dialing a phone,"
Dialing a phone in this instance refers to remotely detonating a bomb.
I'd say that's a pretty good use of tax dollars.
posted by matty at 12:22 PM on August 7, 2007
Reminds me of the psychotropic light gun from Looker.
posted by distant figures at 12:28 PM on August 7, 2007
posted by distant figures at 12:28 PM on August 7, 2007
I have no idea where you're ultimately going with it
Cool Papa Bell, I think where I'm going is toward the argument that we need to think extremely carefully before we put any weapon in the hands of anybody.
the best answer is "provide cops/soldiers with more options
As it stands, that statement is peculiar. Should we give all policemen access to assault rifles? Grenade? These would certainly increase their tactical flexibility. There are all kinds of reasons why we don't pursue this line.
Your claim that MeFites hate cops perhaps has some basis in fact. But you seem to be making an equally unlikely set of assumptions. You assume that cops don't make mistakes, that weapons don't get stolen or sold, that systems don't become corrupt, that governments do not abuse their power over civilians. We need to consider all these possibilities before simply making a decision based upon tactical flexibility.
If there's less chance of someone getting needlessly dead and a corresponding 50 percent increase of someone getting needlessly assaulted, and you think that's an completely untenable situation ... well, the dead guy's family would like to have a word with you.
Which is a point, but it completely ignores the questions I originally raised, questions that you yourself said were "valid". Is there any such effect? It also makes a jump from a general point about dispassionate analysis of a policing technique, to a specific point about how an individual family might feel. If someone killed my family, I'd want to kill them, that doesn't mean that it should be the legal for me to do so. Laws exist to stop people doing what they feel like doing, not to facilitate emotion.
I don't look at any technique and say "no, never". But I don't have the same apparently unshakeable faith in our governments, our justice systems, in our military and in our police forces as you apparently do. Human rights movements in democratic countries don't tend to exist to protect us from the government we have right now, but rather from the government that potentially exists if we do not protect certain liberties. Freedom from electronically induced seizures might, in this context, be considered a liberty worth defending
posted by howfar at 12:38 PM on August 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
Cool Papa Bell, I think where I'm going is toward the argument that we need to think extremely carefully before we put any weapon in the hands of anybody.
the best answer is "provide cops/soldiers with more options
As it stands, that statement is peculiar. Should we give all policemen access to assault rifles? Grenade? These would certainly increase their tactical flexibility. There are all kinds of reasons why we don't pursue this line.
Your claim that MeFites hate cops perhaps has some basis in fact. But you seem to be making an equally unlikely set of assumptions. You assume that cops don't make mistakes, that weapons don't get stolen or sold, that systems don't become corrupt, that governments do not abuse their power over civilians. We need to consider all these possibilities before simply making a decision based upon tactical flexibility.
If there's less chance of someone getting needlessly dead and a corresponding 50 percent increase of someone getting needlessly assaulted, and you think that's an completely untenable situation ... well, the dead guy's family would like to have a word with you.
Which is a point, but it completely ignores the questions I originally raised, questions that you yourself said were "valid". Is there any such effect? It also makes a jump from a general point about dispassionate analysis of a policing technique, to a specific point about how an individual family might feel. If someone killed my family, I'd want to kill them, that doesn't mean that it should be the legal for me to do so. Laws exist to stop people doing what they feel like doing, not to facilitate emotion.
I don't look at any technique and say "no, never". But I don't have the same apparently unshakeable faith in our governments, our justice systems, in our military and in our police forces as you apparently do. Human rights movements in democratic countries don't tend to exist to protect us from the government we have right now, but rather from the government that potentially exists if we do not protect certain liberties. Freedom from electronically induced seizures might, in this context, be considered a liberty worth defending
posted by howfar at 12:38 PM on August 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
Christ, how many of my tax dollars paid to develop a glorified strobe light?
posted by smackwich at 12:59 PM on August 7, 2007
posted by smackwich at 12:59 PM on August 7, 2007
Turn on your heartlight
Let it shine whereever you go
Let it make a happy glow
For all the world to see
Turn on your fleshlight
Let it pump wherever you go
Let it make your lovejuice flow
For all the world to drink
posted by Debaser626 at 1:01 PM on August 7, 2007
Let it shine whereever you go
Let it make a happy glow
For all the world to see
Turn on your fleshlight
Let it pump wherever you go
Let it make your lovejuice flow
For all the world to drink
posted by Debaser626 at 1:01 PM on August 7, 2007
Well put howfar. This article just goes to show that "non-lethal" weapons can be made lethal quite easily (likely by design): Airman Burned in Raygun Test.
Although the Airman wasn't killed, the injuries he sustained weren't supposed to be possible. Microwavable crowds . . . coming to a protest near you.
posted by augustweed at 1:06 PM on August 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
Although the Airman wasn't killed, the injuries he sustained weren't supposed to be possible. Microwavable crowds . . . coming to a protest near you.
posted by augustweed at 1:06 PM on August 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
Every saturday night drunk will get a face full of this on a regular basis.
Disorientation, vertigo, and nausea?
posted by eddydamascene at 1:11 PM on August 7, 2007
Disorientation, vertigo, and nausea?
posted by eddydamascene at 1:11 PM on August 7, 2007
Mr_Zero: It's not torture, it's freedom lighting.
Ah, The Freedom Light. Perfect branding! If only for offering the ability to respond to detractors, "Why do you hate the Light of Freedom?" Double bonus for parallel religious overtones.
posted by Brak at 1:27 PM on August 7, 2007
Ah, The Freedom Light. Perfect branding! If only for offering the ability to respond to detractors, "Why do you hate the Light of Freedom?" Double bonus for parallel religious overtones.
posted by Brak at 1:27 PM on August 7, 2007
caddis writes "Can you imagine the fun when ten year old kids get their hands on these things and start firing it at their siblings etc.?"
Or twits in movie theatres ala the popularity of laser pointers when they dropped down to afford ability.
posted by Mitheral at 1:31 PM on August 7, 2007
Or twits in movie theatres ala the popularity of laser pointers when they dropped down to afford ability.
posted by Mitheral at 1:31 PM on August 7, 2007
I'm picturing these things swapped in as car head-lights by road-rage addicts and the shoulders of our highways clotted with carloads of puking commuters.
>shudder!<
posted by Crosius at 1:34 PM on August 7, 2007
>shudder!<
posted by Crosius at 1:34 PM on August 7, 2007
The puke light is way off base. All our heroes and tough guys of the last few years need a lesson on the notion that part of being a tough guy, defender of peace, order and good government means standing up for liberty. Instead, the police get more money and weapons while liberties are gradually shrinking.
A classic example, I can remember is the RCMP and Sgt Pepper taking down a legal, peaceful protest with back-mounted tanks of pepper spray. This was a high profile example of undemocratic, wrong-headed and brutal deployment of non-lethal weapons, what we don’t hear about is these non-lethal weapons being deployed on every Saturday night drunk or stupid kid. Serious events require escalation; non-serious incidents probably call for restraint. I have friends who are criminal lawyers and work in jails, virtually everyone they see gets pepper sprayed – to me, unnecessarily use of non-lethal weapons amounts to capital punishment. At least the old school cops who simply beat people got their hands dirty.
I would also take away the tactical teams. If a criminal is very dangerous and well-armed – he is a threat to national security, call the commander of the local Armory to send out a few military boys and pieces of military hardware. These guys have way more experience under fire, and my taxes already pay for them. I think tactical teams put international-level arms races on our streets.
When I was younger, the police in my city carried revolvers and no other weapons. Now they switched to glocks, nightsticks, shotguns, and pepper spray. They have been considering aircraft. This is getting to be too much… Puke Light, no….
posted by Deep Dish at 2:11 PM on August 7, 2007
A classic example, I can remember is the RCMP and Sgt Pepper taking down a legal, peaceful protest with back-mounted tanks of pepper spray. This was a high profile example of undemocratic, wrong-headed and brutal deployment of non-lethal weapons, what we don’t hear about is these non-lethal weapons being deployed on every Saturday night drunk or stupid kid. Serious events require escalation; non-serious incidents probably call for restraint. I have friends who are criminal lawyers and work in jails, virtually everyone they see gets pepper sprayed – to me, unnecessarily use of non-lethal weapons amounts to capital punishment. At least the old school cops who simply beat people got their hands dirty.
I would also take away the tactical teams. If a criminal is very dangerous and well-armed – he is a threat to national security, call the commander of the local Armory to send out a few military boys and pieces of military hardware. These guys have way more experience under fire, and my taxes already pay for them. I think tactical teams put international-level arms races on our streets.
When I was younger, the police in my city carried revolvers and no other weapons. Now they switched to glocks, nightsticks, shotguns, and pepper spray. They have been considering aircraft. This is getting to be too much… Puke Light, no….
posted by Deep Dish at 2:11 PM on August 7, 2007
caddis writes "Can you imagine the fun when ten year old kids get their hands on these things and start firing it at their siblings etc.?"
That's actually where they may have gotten the idea in the first place:
TOKYO (CNN) -- A Japanese television network called in doctors, psychologists and animation experts to find out why a popular cartoon triggered seizures in hundreds of children nationwide.
More than 700 people, mainly school children, were rushed to hospitals Tuesday after suffering convulsions, vomiting, irritated eyes and other symptoms after watching "Pokemon," a popular cartoon based on Nintendo's "Pocket Monsters" video game.
The problems are attributed to flashing lights in the cartoon. Note that most of the victims were children. Likely this weapon will show a similar tendency to hurt children more than adults.
I know of no follow-up studies of these children, but you'd certainly expect regulators to demand such before approving this for general use.
posted by jamjam at 2:39 PM on August 7, 2007
That's actually where they may have gotten the idea in the first place:
TOKYO (CNN) -- A Japanese television network called in doctors, psychologists and animation experts to find out why a popular cartoon triggered seizures in hundreds of children nationwide.
More than 700 people, mainly school children, were rushed to hospitals Tuesday after suffering convulsions, vomiting, irritated eyes and other symptoms after watching "Pokemon," a popular cartoon based on Nintendo's "Pocket Monsters" video game.
The problems are attributed to flashing lights in the cartoon. Note that most of the victims were children. Likely this weapon will show a similar tendency to hurt children more than adults.
I know of no follow-up studies of these children, but you'd certainly expect regulators to demand such before approving this for general use.
posted by jamjam at 2:39 PM on August 7, 2007
I swear this isn't new. I distinctly remember Surefire working on a project like this. It used a xenon bulb instead of an LED, and it was supposed to be bright enough to cause people to have to turn away from it, even in broad daylight. Prolonged exposure was said to cause nausea.
I believe it was called the 'Force Option', but google is failing me, though I remember it looked like an earlier version of this.
I wanted to buy one, but they were really expensive, and I'm an idiot; If I have a flashlight that will supposedly make me throw up, at some point I will have to try it out.
posted by quin at 2:44 PM on August 7, 2007
I believe it was called the 'Force Option', but google is failing me, though I remember it looked like an earlier version of this.
I wanted to buy one, but they were really expensive, and I'm an idiot; If I have a flashlight that will supposedly make me throw up, at some point I will have to try it out.
posted by quin at 2:44 PM on August 7, 2007
I would also take away the tactical teams. If a criminal is very dangerous and well-armed – he is a threat to national security, call the commander of the local Armory to send out a few military boys and pieces of military hardware.
Ahem ... Posse Comitatus.
When I was younger, the police in my city carried revolvers and no other weapons.
When were you young? Billy clubs, blackjacks and brass knuckles have been around forever. Palm saps were a specialty of the Chicago police. Mace was commercially available in the early 60s.
Revolvers vs. Glocks ... you realize revolvers often have more stopping power, right? A .357 Magnum is much more powerful round than a 9 mm. The reason police switched to automatics in the 60s wasn't a power issue, it was an issue of being able to carry more ammo without reloading, when good, reliable automatics finally became cheap enough for widespread use. Moreover, automatics (especially Glocks) are in such widespread use by police forces because they're lighter in weight.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 2:45 PM on August 7, 2007
Ahem ... Posse Comitatus.
When I was younger, the police in my city carried revolvers and no other weapons.
When were you young? Billy clubs, blackjacks and brass knuckles have been around forever. Palm saps were a specialty of the Chicago police. Mace was commercially available in the early 60s.
Revolvers vs. Glocks ... you realize revolvers often have more stopping power, right? A .357 Magnum is much more powerful round than a 9 mm. The reason police switched to automatics in the 60s wasn't a power issue, it was an issue of being able to carry more ammo without reloading, when good, reliable automatics finally became cheap enough for widespread use. Moreover, automatics (especially Glocks) are in such widespread use by police forces because they're lighter in weight.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 2:45 PM on August 7, 2007
When are they going to get a working glue gun that shoots a blob of glue to incapacitate the target?
They have these. But almost by definition, a working glue gun has the ability to suffocate a person as well incapacitate one.
In any event, I think it's safe to say that this new weapon will be misused.
posted by moonbiter at 2:49 PM on August 7, 2007
They have these. But almost by definition, a working glue gun has the ability to suffocate a person as well incapacitate one.
In any event, I think it's safe to say that this new weapon will be misused.
posted by moonbiter at 2:49 PM on August 7, 2007
Cool Papa- Deep Dish is from Canada, Posse Comitatus doesn't apply.
posted by InfidelZombie at 2:50 PM on August 7, 2007
posted by InfidelZombie at 2:50 PM on August 7, 2007
When will we see the first computer virus that will make your monitor flash in the Puke pattern?
posted by jamjam at 2:54 PM on August 7, 2007
posted by jamjam at 2:54 PM on August 7, 2007
Revolvers vs. Glocks ... you realize revolvers often have more stopping power, right?
Yes... and automatic weapons are illegal for nearly anyone in Canada to own. All these arms are not needed in a city where the las on duty police death in my city was in the 1930's... during a riot.
posted by Deep Dish at 3:02 PM on August 7, 2007
Yes... and automatic weapons are illegal for nearly anyone in Canada to own. All these arms are not needed in a city where the las on duty police death in my city was in the 1930's... during a riot.
posted by Deep Dish at 3:02 PM on August 7, 2007
Moreover, automatics (especially Glocks) are in such widespread use by police forces because they're lighter in weight.
Yes... and automatic weapons are illegal for nearly anyone in Canada to own.
There is a common terminology gap here, 'semi-automatic' handguns are frequently referred to as 'automatics', this is in opposition to a 'revolver', not in reference to fully-automatic where the gun will fire many rounds with a single pull of the trigger.
I just didn't want to see this conversation go spiraling off because of a misunderstanding.
posted by quin at 3:23 PM on August 7, 2007
Yes... and automatic weapons are illegal for nearly anyone in Canada to own.
There is a common terminology gap here, 'semi-automatic' handguns are frequently referred to as 'automatics', this is in opposition to a 'revolver', not in reference to fully-automatic where the gun will fire many rounds with a single pull of the trigger.
I just didn't want to see this conversation go spiraling off because of a misunderstanding.
posted by quin at 3:23 PM on August 7, 2007
Not a brand-new idea: Something very much like that figures prominently in this 1994 novel.
posted by pax digita at 3:48 PM on August 7, 2007
posted by pax digita at 3:48 PM on August 7, 2007
the reason police switched to automatics in the 60s...was an issue of being able to carry more ammo without reloading
Which is a good thing because we want our police to be abe to fire off bullet after bullet, right?
posted by howfar at 3:49 PM on August 7, 2007
Which is a good thing because we want our police to be abe to fire off bullet after bullet, right?
posted by howfar at 3:49 PM on August 7, 2007
How do we get Spider Jerusalem one of these?
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:00 PM on August 7, 2007
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:00 PM on August 7, 2007
The should use this flashlight and just set them on fire.
posted by Mr_Zero at 4:02 PM on August 7, 2007
posted by Mr_Zero at 4:02 PM on August 7, 2007
These guys have way more experience under fire
And yet Iraq is constantly used as an example of what you get when the military tries to do the job of the police.
posted by Cyrano at 4:17 PM on August 7, 2007
And yet Iraq is constantly used as an example of what you get when the military tries to do the job of the police.
posted by Cyrano at 4:17 PM on August 7, 2007
Which is a good thing because we want our police to be abe to fire off bullet after bullet, right?
I don't see how that's always a problem.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:51 PM on August 7, 2007
I don't see how that's always a problem.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:51 PM on August 7, 2007
Cool Papa Bell, what excellent arguments for gun control. Also, I note that possessing semi-automatic pistols didn't help the officers in this situation, so how does it counter my point? Your response here also suggests that your initial position was somewhat disingenuous. You now seem much less concerned with avoiding death than with enabling the police to "win" in conflict situations.
I think that there is a difficulty with the way in which you view this situation. You are considering the role of the police from a somewhat limited tactical perspective. Certainly, when dealing with a well armed criminal, well armed police are vital. The fact that armed response units should be well trained and equipped with state of the art technology is not at issue, at least not with me. What is an issue is the question of the extent to which we routinely arm officers, and what we arm them with.
Policing is not war, and its tactics must be informed by the strategic difference between it and war. The objective of policing is not to "kill the enemies", but to protect the populace, to prevent crimes and to bring suspected criminals to trial. I do not believe that giving police officers more and more weapons is ultimately a good way of serving this strategic goal.
As Deep Dish said, and as your own links suggested, we are seeing an arms race on the streets of many cities. More criminals get killed, more police officers get killed, more passers-by get killed. In the context of policing, all of these outcomes are bad.
If we really want to reduce the number of people getting shot by criminals, we reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals. If our governments, and I mean the British as much as the US, and the French too (I'm not sure how likely it is that we could get Russia involved), were really serious about making it more difficult for criminals to get guns, then they could do something about it. They could control their amoral and out of control arms industries, industries that thrive on a culture of fraudulent or ignored "end user certificates", black market dealings and disregard for human life all over the world. Toughening regulations, and making sure that companies act within the spirit as well as the letter of the law, would have a huge effect on the number of guns they sell, in particularly on the ones that just seem to vanish. Reducing the amount of weapons and ammunition on the black market would depress supply and increase prices.
In combination with sensible and properly enforced domestic gun controls, this kind of policy could actually lead to less people dying and more arrests. I believe that the policies you seem to advocate will simply result in more people being assaulted, more people being shot by both criminals and police, and a further breakdown of the relationship between citizens and their protectors.
posted by howfar at 5:30 PM on August 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
I think that there is a difficulty with the way in which you view this situation. You are considering the role of the police from a somewhat limited tactical perspective. Certainly, when dealing with a well armed criminal, well armed police are vital. The fact that armed response units should be well trained and equipped with state of the art technology is not at issue, at least not with me. What is an issue is the question of the extent to which we routinely arm officers, and what we arm them with.
Policing is not war, and its tactics must be informed by the strategic difference between it and war. The objective of policing is not to "kill the enemies", but to protect the populace, to prevent crimes and to bring suspected criminals to trial. I do not believe that giving police officers more and more weapons is ultimately a good way of serving this strategic goal.
As Deep Dish said, and as your own links suggested, we are seeing an arms race on the streets of many cities. More criminals get killed, more police officers get killed, more passers-by get killed. In the context of policing, all of these outcomes are bad.
If we really want to reduce the number of people getting shot by criminals, we reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals. If our governments, and I mean the British as much as the US, and the French too (I'm not sure how likely it is that we could get Russia involved), were really serious about making it more difficult for criminals to get guns, then they could do something about it. They could control their amoral and out of control arms industries, industries that thrive on a culture of fraudulent or ignored "end user certificates", black market dealings and disregard for human life all over the world. Toughening regulations, and making sure that companies act within the spirit as well as the letter of the law, would have a huge effect on the number of guns they sell, in particularly on the ones that just seem to vanish. Reducing the amount of weapons and ammunition on the black market would depress supply and increase prices.
In combination with sensible and properly enforced domestic gun controls, this kind of policy could actually lead to less people dying and more arrests. I believe that the policies you seem to advocate will simply result in more people being assaulted, more people being shot by both criminals and police, and a further breakdown of the relationship between citizens and their protectors.
posted by howfar at 5:30 PM on August 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
You now seem much less concerned with avoiding death than with enabling the police to "win" in conflict situations.
That's such a twisted read, I can't even comment on it.
I'll just loop back on what I said previously, the goal is to provide cops/soldiers with with more options, so a trained individual can make the best possible judgment with the most amount of tactical flexibility. Non-lethal weapons are among those options. Gun control is fine and dandy, too -- we can do both, you know. We are capable as a society of walking and chewing gum at the same time.
But if you just inherently distrust cops ... that's an entirely different conversation, and one I'm really not interested in having.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 5:52 PM on August 7, 2007
That's such a twisted read, I can't even comment on it.
I'll just loop back on what I said previously, the goal is to provide cops/soldiers with with more options, so a trained individual can make the best possible judgment with the most amount of tactical flexibility. Non-lethal weapons are among those options. Gun control is fine and dandy, too -- we can do both, you know. We are capable as a society of walking and chewing gum at the same time.
But if you just inherently distrust cops ... that's an entirely different conversation, and one I'm really not interested in having.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 5:52 PM on August 7, 2007
If we really want to reduce the number of people getting shot by criminals, we reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals.
Oh for feck's sake, we've managed to turn the flashlight thread into an anti-gun thread. Yay!
Ok, your point isn't wrong; taking guns out of the hands of criminals will, in fact, cut down on the number of people who are shot by criminals.
However, in order to do that, we will need to take the weapons out of the hands of nearly everyone else first. Why? Because criminals are not going to obey any law that prevents them from obtaining guns. This is because they. are. criminals.
Now, there may be merit in such an argument, that preventing people from buying guns will eventually bring down gun related crime, but even that is a somewhat flawed premise, in that, there are a couple of hundred million guns in the States, and even if they stopped making or shipping them to the US, there are guns enough here to last for a couple of hundred years.
All of which is moot because in the United States, the 2nd Amendment is not going anywhere.
A far, far more productive tactic would be to figure out a way to demystify gun culture. Stop making it seem 'cool' and you will make huge strides in cutting down the problem. Look at smoking, once it became less prevalent in movies and TV, it became less and less socially acceptable. The same could be applied to guns, figure out a way to stop movies from glorifying violence and you will bring the homicide rate from firearms down considerably.
Look at Canada, they nearly as many guns and far less people being shot. It can happen, we just need to grow up.
posted by quin at 6:00 PM on August 7, 2007
Oh for feck's sake, we've managed to turn the flashlight thread into an anti-gun thread. Yay!
Ok, your point isn't wrong; taking guns out of the hands of criminals will, in fact, cut down on the number of people who are shot by criminals.
However, in order to do that, we will need to take the weapons out of the hands of nearly everyone else first. Why? Because criminals are not going to obey any law that prevents them from obtaining guns. This is because they. are. criminals.
Now, there may be merit in such an argument, that preventing people from buying guns will eventually bring down gun related crime, but even that is a somewhat flawed premise, in that, there are a couple of hundred million guns in the States, and even if they stopped making or shipping them to the US, there are guns enough here to last for a couple of hundred years.
All of which is moot because in the United States, the 2nd Amendment is not going anywhere.
A far, far more productive tactic would be to figure out a way to demystify gun culture. Stop making it seem 'cool' and you will make huge strides in cutting down the problem. Look at smoking, once it became less prevalent in movies and TV, it became less and less socially acceptable. The same could be applied to guns, figure out a way to stop movies from glorifying violence and you will bring the homicide rate from firearms down considerably.
Look at Canada, they nearly as many guns and far less people being shot. It can happen, we just need to grow up.
posted by quin at 6:00 PM on August 7, 2007
augustweed: "non-lethal" weapons can be made lethal quite easily (likely by design)
No, it has a lot more to do with the fact that the line between "disabled" and "dead" is pretty narrow. Your body, quite reasonably, tries to remain functional as long as it possibly can. Anesthesiologists have to deal with this too. There are few things which can quickly shut somebody down without risking serious injury or death.
posted by hattifattener at 6:20 PM on August 7, 2007
No, it has a lot more to do with the fact that the line between "disabled" and "dead" is pretty narrow. Your body, quite reasonably, tries to remain functional as long as it possibly can. Anesthesiologists have to deal with this too. There are few things which can quickly shut somebody down without risking serious injury or death.
posted by hattifattener at 6:20 PM on August 7, 2007
Cool Papa Bell. I apologise if I read too much into what you said, but you did seem to rather shrug off Sean Bell's death as just one of those things.
When did I say that I distrust cops? I believe that the vast majority of police officers are noble people doing a vital and difficult job, for too little money, with too few resources and without enough respect. I just don't believe that the strategy you defend helps them do that job. Your links suggested that you believe fire should be fought with fire. I believe that this is a recipe for escalation. The problem is that you are just looping back on what you've said. I don't think you've responded to any of my doubts about your point. For example, you haven't responded to my doubts about your treatment of soldiers and police officers as having the same strategic goals requiring the same tactical response. Declaring your trust in them as professionals is fine, but questioning how best to enable them achieve their goals doesn't mean I don't trust them.
Again, I really don't see how anything I've said can be construed as an attack upon police officers. I have family and friends in the police, and I have nothing but respect for them.
quin, aren't Canada's lower levels of gun crime more likely to be associated with it far lower population density, arguably lower levels of deprivation, lower levels of social exclusion and greater community cohesion, than with the idea that it is simply more "grown up" than the US? I agree that there are cultural factors operating here, but I think you are oversimplifying.
Many kinds of gun control are possible under the 2nd Amendment. There is just a lack of will to implement them. There is a lot of flexibility in the US Constitution, one of the reasons it has lasted so long.
The idea that we can't do anything because there are enough guns to last for hundreds of years ignores the fact that there isn't enough ammunition to last that long.
Your comparison with smoking is odd. It's not just getting smoking out of movies and TV that has led to the (slow) decline in smoking. I'm not sure what evidence there is to support your belief in a causal link. It seems like it would be a bloody difficult effect to quantify. Public health campaigns, health warnings, public smoking bans; surely these are more significant contributors to the decline in smoking? I'm really not sure that you have demonstrated that gun glamorisation is the one big thing we need to tackle.
But you did remind me of this, by Goldie Lookin' Chain, a group of gentlemen from just down the road from me, in Newport. It makes me laugh, anyway. Hope someone enjoys it.
posted by howfar at 6:55 PM on August 7, 2007
When did I say that I distrust cops? I believe that the vast majority of police officers are noble people doing a vital and difficult job, for too little money, with too few resources and without enough respect. I just don't believe that the strategy you defend helps them do that job. Your links suggested that you believe fire should be fought with fire. I believe that this is a recipe for escalation. The problem is that you are just looping back on what you've said. I don't think you've responded to any of my doubts about your point. For example, you haven't responded to my doubts about your treatment of soldiers and police officers as having the same strategic goals requiring the same tactical response. Declaring your trust in them as professionals is fine, but questioning how best to enable them achieve their goals doesn't mean I don't trust them.
Again, I really don't see how anything I've said can be construed as an attack upon police officers. I have family and friends in the police, and I have nothing but respect for them.
quin, aren't Canada's lower levels of gun crime more likely to be associated with it far lower population density, arguably lower levels of deprivation, lower levels of social exclusion and greater community cohesion, than with the idea that it is simply more "grown up" than the US? I agree that there are cultural factors operating here, but I think you are oversimplifying.
Many kinds of gun control are possible under the 2nd Amendment. There is just a lack of will to implement them. There is a lot of flexibility in the US Constitution, one of the reasons it has lasted so long.
The idea that we can't do anything because there are enough guns to last for hundreds of years ignores the fact that there isn't enough ammunition to last that long.
Your comparison with smoking is odd. It's not just getting smoking out of movies and TV that has led to the (slow) decline in smoking. I'm not sure what evidence there is to support your belief in a causal link. It seems like it would be a bloody difficult effect to quantify. Public health campaigns, health warnings, public smoking bans; surely these are more significant contributors to the decline in smoking? I'm really not sure that you have demonstrated that gun glamorisation is the one big thing we need to tackle.
But you did remind me of this, by Goldie Lookin' Chain, a group of gentlemen from just down the road from me, in Newport. It makes me laugh, anyway. Hope someone enjoys it.
posted by howfar at 6:55 PM on August 7, 2007
Many kinds of gun control are possible under the 2nd Amendment. There is just a lack of will to implement them. There is a lot of flexibility in the US Constitution, one of the reasons it has lasted so long.
Provide an example. Are you going to ban specific types of guns? Are you going to limit access to them from certain people? I'm not snarking, I'm honestly curious as to what kinds of changes that could be made that would actually have any kind of impact on crime, while still keeping to the 2nd Amendment in place? Bear in mind, anything you come up with has to deal with all the guns that are here already.
The idea that we can't do anything because there are enough guns to last for hundreds of years ignores the fact that there isn't enough ammunition to last that long.
Ammunition is easy to make in one's home. Any kind of ban that would rely on this would be wholly ineffective.
I'm not sure what evidence there is to support your belief in a causal link.
I have no evidence. I was merely making an analogy; I just believe that the best solution to gun crime in the US is going to come from changing the perception of guns, rather than any kind of attempt at restricting access.
posted by quin at 9:00 PM on August 7, 2007
Provide an example. Are you going to ban specific types of guns? Are you going to limit access to them from certain people? I'm not snarking, I'm honestly curious as to what kinds of changes that could be made that would actually have any kind of impact on crime, while still keeping to the 2nd Amendment in place? Bear in mind, anything you come up with has to deal with all the guns that are here already.
The idea that we can't do anything because there are enough guns to last for hundreds of years ignores the fact that there isn't enough ammunition to last that long.
Ammunition is easy to make in one's home. Any kind of ban that would rely on this would be wholly ineffective.
I'm not sure what evidence there is to support your belief in a causal link.
I have no evidence. I was merely making an analogy; I just believe that the best solution to gun crime in the US is going to come from changing the perception of guns, rather than any kind of attempt at restricting access.
posted by quin at 9:00 PM on August 7, 2007
Many kinds of gun control are possible under the 2nd Amendment. There is just a lack of will to implement them. There is a lot of flexibility in the US Constitution, one of the reasons it has lasted so long.
Provide an example.
Okay!
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Please note where the amendment mentions that the right to bear arms is provided only within the context that a "well regulated Militia" is a good thing to have around. In the Framers' day, the militia was an irregular force, organized by local government and civic organizations, that was intended to supplement a standing army. The idea was, since we need a Militia at all times to fight wars, we shouldn't keep people from owning their own weapons, and when we "regulate" them, we'll require them to bring their own weapons into the field.
Since no such Militia force currently exists, the "right to bear arms" is moot. Some argue that the National Guard IS this well-regulated Militia, as National Guard units fall under the control of the states. This argument gets made again and again, but it has no legs because of the aforementioned lack of political will. Others argue that the "Militia" is draft service in the armed forces, but we did away with the draft in the 70s, and besides, that's a draft into a federalized standing army, not a "Militia."
Bear in mind, anything you come up with has to deal with all the guns that are here already.
Legislating against the sale and import of new weapons and setting up buy-back programs would take a giant chunk out of the current rates of ownership.
Ammunition is easy to make in one's home. Any kind of ban that would rely on this would be wholly ineffective.
With specialized equipment. And gunpowder. The sale of both of which can also be regulated. Example: I can make meth, PCP and any number of explosives at home, too, but the source materials are hard to come by, and their sale can be legislated against. Heck, it's hard to buy the right laboratory glassware in some states hit particularly hard by meth abuse.
Besides, we're talking about gun control. Not gun vanishing. There will still be criminals. But there will be significantly less of them, which is the idea.
I just believe that the best solution to gun crime in the US is going to come from changing the perception of guns, rather than any kind of attempt at restricting access.
Take the countries of Britain, France, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, New Zealand, Belgium, Norway, Finland and a few other developed nations. Slam them all together and you'll get a population about the same size as the United States.
Despite the language differences, these people watch essentially the same movies, play the same video games and read the same books as people in the United States. They all play Grand Theft Auto. They all wanna have a pair of .45s, just like Chow Yun-Fat.
But the rate of gun violence is extremely low in our example population, compared to the good ol' U.S. of A.
Wanna know what's different about these two populations?
Access to guns.
I rest my case.
And I bet some of you jackasses thought I was a Republican gun nut. Pshaw!
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:30 PM on August 7, 2007
Provide an example.
Okay!
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Please note where the amendment mentions that the right to bear arms is provided only within the context that a "well regulated Militia" is a good thing to have around. In the Framers' day, the militia was an irregular force, organized by local government and civic organizations, that was intended to supplement a standing army. The idea was, since we need a Militia at all times to fight wars, we shouldn't keep people from owning their own weapons, and when we "regulate" them, we'll require them to bring their own weapons into the field.
Since no such Militia force currently exists, the "right to bear arms" is moot. Some argue that the National Guard IS this well-regulated Militia, as National Guard units fall under the control of the states. This argument gets made again and again, but it has no legs because of the aforementioned lack of political will. Others argue that the "Militia" is draft service in the armed forces, but we did away with the draft in the 70s, and besides, that's a draft into a federalized standing army, not a "Militia."
Bear in mind, anything you come up with has to deal with all the guns that are here already.
Legislating against the sale and import of new weapons and setting up buy-back programs would take a giant chunk out of the current rates of ownership.
Ammunition is easy to make in one's home. Any kind of ban that would rely on this would be wholly ineffective.
With specialized equipment. And gunpowder. The sale of both of which can also be regulated. Example: I can make meth, PCP and any number of explosives at home, too, but the source materials are hard to come by, and their sale can be legislated against. Heck, it's hard to buy the right laboratory glassware in some states hit particularly hard by meth abuse.
Besides, we're talking about gun control. Not gun vanishing. There will still be criminals. But there will be significantly less of them, which is the idea.
I just believe that the best solution to gun crime in the US is going to come from changing the perception of guns, rather than any kind of attempt at restricting access.
Take the countries of Britain, France, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, New Zealand, Belgium, Norway, Finland and a few other developed nations. Slam them all together and you'll get a population about the same size as the United States.
Despite the language differences, these people watch essentially the same movies, play the same video games and read the same books as people in the United States. They all play Grand Theft Auto. They all wanna have a pair of .45s, just like Chow Yun-Fat.
But the rate of gun violence is extremely low in our example population, compared to the good ol' U.S. of A.
Wanna know what's different about these two populations?
Access to guns.
I rest my case.
And I bet some of you jackasses thought I was a Republican gun nut. Pshaw!
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:30 PM on August 7, 2007
quin writes "Ammunition is easy to make in one's home."
Guns are easy to make in one's home. The only moderately difficult part is the barrel and I can't see that slowing guys down who fabricate their own body armour.
Now if the cops just had the hurl inducing flashlight they wouldn't need assault rifles to deal with guys like this. Yes I know it isn't close to 100% effective even as designed and that it doesn't work during daylight hours
posted by Mitheral at 9:40 PM on August 7, 2007
Guns are easy to make in one's home. The only moderately difficult part is the barrel and I can't see that slowing guys down who fabricate their own body armour.
Now if the cops just had the hurl inducing flashlight they wouldn't need assault rifles to deal with guys like this. Yes I know it isn't close to 100% effective even as designed and that it doesn't work during daylight hours
posted by Mitheral at 9:40 PM on August 7, 2007
quin writes "Ammunition is easy to make in one's home."
Guns are easy to make in one's home. The only moderately difficult part is the barrel and I can't see that slowing guys down who fabricate their own body armour.
Now if the cops just had the hurl inducing flashlight they wouldn't need assault rifles to deal with guys like this. Yes I know it isn't close to 100% effective even as designed and that it doesn't work during daylight hours
They just need to combine the technology with this light.
posted by Mr_Zero at 10:15 PM on August 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
Guns are easy to make in one's home. The only moderately difficult part is the barrel and I can't see that slowing guys down who fabricate their own body armour.
Now if the cops just had the hurl inducing flashlight they wouldn't need assault rifles to deal with guys like this. Yes I know it isn't close to 100% effective even as designed and that it doesn't work during daylight hours
They just need to combine the technology with this light.
posted by Mr_Zero at 10:15 PM on August 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
Sounds like someones attempt to weaponize the dreamachine.
When will we see the first computer virus that will make your monitor flash in the Puke pattern?
A few years ago now (NSFEpileptics)
posted by scodger at 11:03 PM on August 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
When will we see the first computer virus that will make your monitor flash in the Puke pattern?
A few years ago now (NSFEpileptics)
posted by scodger at 11:03 PM on August 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
Odd, no one seems to point out here yet, vomiting can cause death. Of course, who cares if some 'bad guys' croak? Certainly not the current crop of public servants masters.
Come on, people. Connect the dots. 'We The People' are being set up. It's an elaborate web of laws and executive orders combined with enforcers and weapons on one side, and entertainment to keep us pacified until it's simply too late.
And for those who cry 'tin foil hat' to this comment, I'd like to direct your attention to history. If you can spare the time (from your two jobs and must-see-TV) to consider such a thing.
posted by Goofyy at 12:15 AM on August 8, 2007
Come on, people. Connect the dots. 'We The People' are being set up. It's an elaborate web of laws and executive orders combined with enforcers and weapons on one side, and entertainment to keep us pacified until it's simply too late.
And for those who cry 'tin foil hat' to this comment, I'd like to direct your attention to history. If you can spare the time (from your two jobs and must-see-TV) to consider such a thing.
posted by Goofyy at 12:15 AM on August 8, 2007
Take the countries of Britain, France, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, New Zealand, Belgium, Norway, Finland and a few other developed nations. Slam them all together and you'll get a population about the same size as the United States....But the rate of gun violence is extremely low in our example population, compared to the good ol' U.S. of A. Wanna know what's different about these two populations? Access to guns.
No, sorry. Many if not all of these countries had lower rates of homicide before gun control. For example, in the early 1900's neither London nor NYC had any gun control measures in effect. NYC got them first. At the time, the homicide rate in NYC was already roughly 10 times that of London. Your comparison works under the false assumption that the various countires would have comparable homicide rates if they had the same gun control policies/gun availability.
Up until a few years ago, the US had a non-weapon-homicide rate (that is, the rate of murders being committed using just hands and feet) that exceeded the total homicide rate (with any weapon) of the England, Denmark, Sweden, and so on. The difference in the populations is not that Americans have more hands and feet than Europeans. Americans (some much more than others) are simply more violent than Europeans and have been for several generations.
posted by Martin E. at 1:02 AM on August 8, 2007
No, sorry. Many if not all of these countries had lower rates of homicide before gun control. For example, in the early 1900's neither London nor NYC had any gun control measures in effect. NYC got them first. At the time, the homicide rate in NYC was already roughly 10 times that of London. Your comparison works under the false assumption that the various countires would have comparable homicide rates if they had the same gun control policies/gun availability.
Up until a few years ago, the US had a non-weapon-homicide rate (that is, the rate of murders being committed using just hands and feet) that exceeded the total homicide rate (with any weapon) of the England, Denmark, Sweden, and so on. The difference in the populations is not that Americans have more hands and feet than Europeans. Americans (some much more than others) are simply more violent than Europeans and have been for several generations.
posted by Martin E. at 1:02 AM on August 8, 2007
Americans (some much more than others) are simply more violent than Europeans and have been for several generations.
That there is more violence in America than Europe is obviously true (although less non-weapon homicide now?). But to suggest that "Americans" are "simply more violent" avoids the issue. It is also kinda silly, and seems to posit some sort of "average American" who is more violent than the "average European". You even seem to acknowledge the difficulty inherent in this with "(some much more than others)".
But even if we accept your claim, and say Americans are "simply more violent", what would our response be? Yours (and forgive me if I misread you) seems to be a shrug of the shoulders, saying "oh well, nothing to be done about it". I think that, if true, your claim is an excellent argument for gun-control.
Suppose I had two people. The "average American male" and the "average European male" (let's face it, we are talking about men here pretty much exclusively). "AAM" has a strong history of violent tendencies, gun violence and robbery. "AEM" on the other hand, very rarely robs shops at gunpoint, never shot up his school when he was a teenager, and is generally a nicer guy (although not so very nice, I must admit). OK, AAM is "simply more violent" than AEM.
Who would you be more nervous about giving easy access to guns? Who do you think needs a strict licensing procedure, background checks, mental health checks, ammo restrictions and all the rest of it more? If your claim is true, then yes, it's another great argument for gun control.
In the context of the conversation I was having with Cool Papa Bell, any tendency of US citizens to be more generally violent was pretty much moot, anyway. Our disagreement is on how best to equip police officers to perform their duty, particularly in the presence of well-armed criminals. He believes that giving police officers more tactical flexibility will help, I believe that the downsides are greater than the upsides. It is my fault that this thread has taken a turn into discussions of gun-control, and I apologise. My concern was that this vomit-torch is an example of a weaponry escalation that ultimately does much more harm than good to police officers and all citizens. I wanted to suggest that the best way for the police to have better weapons is to take them away from the criminals, not arm themselves more.
Which is kinda where I got side-tracked into the arms-industry etc. Sorry.
posted by howfar at 5:09 AM on August 8, 2007
That there is more violence in America than Europe is obviously true (although less non-weapon homicide now?). But to suggest that "Americans" are "simply more violent" avoids the issue. It is also kinda silly, and seems to posit some sort of "average American" who is more violent than the "average European". You even seem to acknowledge the difficulty inherent in this with "(some much more than others)".
But even if we accept your claim, and say Americans are "simply more violent", what would our response be? Yours (and forgive me if I misread you) seems to be a shrug of the shoulders, saying "oh well, nothing to be done about it". I think that, if true, your claim is an excellent argument for gun-control.
Suppose I had two people. The "average American male" and the "average European male" (let's face it, we are talking about men here pretty much exclusively). "AAM" has a strong history of violent tendencies, gun violence and robbery. "AEM" on the other hand, very rarely robs shops at gunpoint, never shot up his school when he was a teenager, and is generally a nicer guy (although not so very nice, I must admit). OK, AAM is "simply more violent" than AEM.
Who would you be more nervous about giving easy access to guns? Who do you think needs a strict licensing procedure, background checks, mental health checks, ammo restrictions and all the rest of it more? If your claim is true, then yes, it's another great argument for gun control.
In the context of the conversation I was having with Cool Papa Bell, any tendency of US citizens to be more generally violent was pretty much moot, anyway. Our disagreement is on how best to equip police officers to perform their duty, particularly in the presence of well-armed criminals. He believes that giving police officers more tactical flexibility will help, I believe that the downsides are greater than the upsides. It is my fault that this thread has taken a turn into discussions of gun-control, and I apologise. My concern was that this vomit-torch is an example of a weaponry escalation that ultimately does much more harm than good to police officers and all citizens. I wanted to suggest that the best way for the police to have better weapons is to take them away from the criminals, not arm themselves more.
Which is kinda where I got side-tracked into the arms-industry etc. Sorry.
posted by howfar at 5:09 AM on August 8, 2007
« Older Riverdale High | Turns out Turkey is the cornerstone of Europe. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by HuronBob at 10:42 AM on August 7, 2007