This strikes me as a bad idea
Thoughts?
19 Responses to “This strikes me as a bad idea”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
February 8th, 2015 at 2:30 pm
If their video can’t use “instantly” right, I sure as hell don’t trust them to build something this fault-intolerant right.
Three big questions:
1) What happens when the attachment is attached in a misaligned or not fully-engaged fashion (as would be likely to happen to an officer under the influence of adrenaline and the associated tunnel vision and lack of fine motor control)?
2) What happens to the officer’s hand if he discharges his weapon in the middle of applying the device (assuming that he isn’t muzzling his hand in the process)?
3) What happens in #2 if he IS muzzling his hand, as your application system encourages?
February 8th, 2015 at 2:32 pm
Considering the training to fire multiple rounds, looks like the person getting shot will still get hit with live ammo. Mixing lethal and less lethal pretty much always ends up with fatal errors.
February 8th, 2015 at 2:38 pm
Have the developer take a fistful of those things to a force-on-force session. Then see if the chief who is pushing for this thing is willing to do a session. Video the session and the chief’s response. Put it on YouTube. Title it “Not just wrong but so effing wrong he deserved everything that happened to him.”
So, yes, you might say I’m somewhere between skeptical and outright opposed to it.
stay safe.
February 8th, 2015 at 3:57 pm
I read that they’re testing it in Ferguson, MO in response to protests over a case where a cop shot a guy with multiple real bullets that didn’t discourage him from continuing to do what the cop was trying to discourage him from doing.
I know what they say about assuming, but I’m still going to risk looking like an ass and assume that if Darren Wilson had found a way to shoot Michael Brown with something like this, Brown still wouldn’t have stopped attacking Wilson until Wilson put a bullet in his head.
February 8th, 2015 at 4:32 pm
Why shout “less lethal, less lethal”? Why announce to an armed suspect that his odds of surviving if he charges the officer have just increased?
February 8th, 2015 at 4:40 pm
Sure hope they have time to attach that gizmo and don’t mix it all up in a tense situation.
I’d rather, like the show BLOOPER, have a stun weapon that looks like a stun weapon and does not take any deadly ammo in it.
February 8th, 2015 at 4:42 pm
‘Why shout “less lethal, less lethal”? Why announce to an armed suspect that his odds of surviving if he charges the officer have just increased?’
– So the audio recorder picks that up. It is the same reason they shout, “stop resisting” when you aren’t resisting.
February 8th, 2015 at 4:46 pm
The product has so many potential failure modes, it just astounds me.
From a mechanical designer standpoint, it appears to be an early proof-of-concept design, that somehow got out of R&D Engineering before it advanced to a practical design, and therefor without any of the normal controls applied to innovative ideas.
Never mix less-than-lethal with lethal in the same package. Hell, even having one closely resembling the other has gotten people killed.(taser & handguns)
February 8th, 2015 at 5:17 pm
It’s not a bad idea…
It’s an insanely awful idea. I’d like to see a few hundred of them shot from a rest, and see the grouping that the “knuckleball” will provide. I don’t see any way for it to stabilize itself, unless it’s as hollow as a Foster slug.
February 8th, 2015 at 5:46 pm
Yeah, just plain dumb, not as dumb as zero carry rig, but still dumb
February 8th, 2015 at 6:01 pm
I think the idea behind shouting “less lethal less lethal” is NOT for the perp, but for your backup, so that they don’t think that a gunfight just erupted.
Given the cops propensity for piling on with sympathetic fire, I’m assuming that once they start using this, they are STILL going to end up shooting the perp because the backup will hear a gunshot and then start shooting.
February 8th, 2015 at 9:33 pm
Considering the shooter is discharging a standard round (just being caught by the magic catcher’s mitt) I would argue they are still using lethal force
February 9th, 2015 at 12:07 am
I am unable to find words to adequately describe just how bad an idea this is, or all the ways in which it is such a bad idea.
Those points have already been hit above, but Oleg’s is right at the top of the list. Should an agency be stupid enough to put this into actual use I’ll predict the frequent result: one substantial bruise (maybe) and one deep bullet wound.
To anyone who has been paying attention, it should be obvious that increasing complexity with more moving parts is asking for disaster, given the level of firearm incompetence of the majority of police.
And, who’s to say that the high mass solid object being propelled at moderate velocities – I couldn’t find numbers on mass and velocity anywhere, including the company’s web site – is actually “less lethal”? Or even controllable – where’s it going after it misses the “subject” and bounces off a hard surface?
Then again, if holsters for it could be produced, it might reduce the severity of “Glock leg” among cops.
February 9th, 2015 at 3:35 am
Stupid gimmick.
February 9th, 2015 at 10:39 am
Being attacked with a knife justifies lethal force.
Attempting to put something on the muzzle of a weapon under high stress seem like a piss poor idea.
February 9th, 2015 at 1:21 pm
I’d like to see ACTUAL ballistic gel testing, and not just CGI’d simulation. If that’s really what it does, then show it.
February 9th, 2015 at 6:06 pm
Alien: “And, who’s to say that the high mass solid object being propelled at moderate velocities – I couldn’t find numbers on mass and velocity anywhere, including the company’s web site – is actually “less lethal”? Or even controllable – where’s it going after it misses the “subject” and bounces off a hard surface?”
We don’t know for sure where it’s going — but with that much mass, it won’t be far. That’s the sole advantage of this lump of fail.
February 10th, 2015 at 8:02 am
That attachment would work to hold two elastic bands and a pouch, i.e. slingshot, that shoots a 1oz. ball bearing. That’s the better way to go, I think. 😉
Ladies and gentlemen, I do believe that you have been trolled. Dere ain’t no such thang. It’s just a guy playing with computer graphics. Possibly as an assignment in a college class.
February 10th, 2015 at 8:30 am
It could also be a patent troll. There’s lot of people working on non-lethal weapons. If one turns out to be practical, and has some vague similarity to this POS, these guys could make a nuisance claim for royalties.
Rollin White is a classic case for guns. His original bored through cylinder, loading loose powder and ball from the breech, was impractical and dangerous. But he made it stick, in the United States, when brass cartridges came into existence and collected royalties from Colt, Remington and Smith & Wesson until it expired. There’s another guy right now, suing Podcasts, because he patented an idea about tape-recording lectures for later listening.