If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Business Insider)   As you sit there loading clips for your AK-47 and Glock, why don't you take a look at some of these impressive non-lethal weapons the military has developed. (Bonus: It's not a slide show)   (businessinsider.com) divider line 75
    More: Cool, non-lethal weapons, Benghazi, military  
•       •       •

5571 clicks; posted to Geek » on 20 Dec 2012 at 4:25 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



75 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-20 01:51:18 PM
Super bonus:  One-eighth of the weapons listed are not *in development, *prototypes, *currently fielded, or *concepts!
 
2012-12-20 02:01:34 PM
Why do I carry a gun?  Because a cop is too heavy.
 
I'll be here all week folks.  Be sure to tip your waitress.
 
2012-12-20 02:30:06 PM
The grenade launcher taser thing is neat.  Can they make that practical for a handgun size?
 
2012-12-20 02:33:59 PM
Subby is trolling with "clips".. please have been trolling.
 
2012-12-20 02:34:49 PM
A clip is a device that holds bullets in place for loading, generally by 'clipping' to them. You're thinking of magazines, which are usually fully enclosed and use either friction or spring tension to keep bullets in place.
 
2012-12-20 02:36:59 PM
Oh, and that heat beam isn't a concept, it works.
 
2012-12-20 02:44:16 PM

MoonPirate: Subby is trolling with "clips".. please have been trolling.


A distinction without a difference. You know, the kind of thing people use to make themselves appear smart by distracting from the real point.
 
It's a tissue, not a Kleenex.  It's a soda, not a coke.
 
Pud [TotalFark]
2012-12-20 02:53:25 PM

MoonPirate: Subby is trolling with "clips".. please have been trolling.

 
 I was, I couldn't help it.
 
 

kingoomieiii: A clip is a device that holds bullets in place for loading, generally by 'clipping' to them. You're thinking of magazines, which are usually fully enclosed and use either friction or spring tension to keep bullets in place.

 
As a gun enthusiast (I assume you are) the distinction makes a difference. But, for the majority of people the see the magazine called a clip in movies, TV shows, books etc. so to them there is no difference between the two.
 
2012-12-20 02:54:04 PM
I like rubber bullets, they make hippies cry.
 
img545.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-20 03:49:04 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I like rubber bullets, they make hippies cry.
 
[img545.imageshack.us image 478x640]


I've had worse from playing paintball.
 
2012-12-20 03:55:51 PM
Thank you, government, for wasting brazillions of taxpayer dollars on useless weapons to be used against imaginary threats. We have nukes... no foreign army is going to invade. We don't need ANY new weapons.
 
2012-12-20 04:24:09 PM

Pud: As a gun enthusiast (I assume you are) the distinction makes a difference. But, for the majority of people the see the magazine called a clip in movies, TV shows, books etc. so to them there is no difference between the two.


I'm not one of the guys that gets butthurt about that particular point. It just makes me cringe to see "anti-X" statements that contain factual errors about "X".
 
2012-12-20 04:27:27 PM
I love that the two car-stopping items can stop vehicles going 45 and 55 MPH.  Because people in high speed pursuits are obeying the speed limit, obviously.
 
2012-12-20 04:32:46 PM
Subby, I have lethal weapons for home defense for two very good reasons: 1) dead men don't talk. 2) If I kill a home invader then there is one less criminal society has to worry about.
 
2012-12-20 04:37:39 PM
A magazine is Guns and Ammo, which anyone who knows the difference between a clip and a magazine faps to.
 
2012-12-20 04:40:37 PM

FriarReb98: I love that the two car-stopping items can stop vehicles going 45 and 55 MPH.  Because people in high speed pursuits are obeying the speed limit, obviously.


The one with the barbed strips would stop a sedan going MUCH faster than 50mph. It just wouldn't stop within 200 feet, like the spec says. I'm also betting it wouldn't be a safe stop.
 
2012-12-20 04:40:53 PM

I_C_Weener: MoonPirate: Subby is trolling with "clips".. please have been trolling.

A distinction without a difference. You know, the kind of thing people use to make themselves appear smart by distracting from the real point.

It's a tissue, not a Kleenex.  It's a soda, not a coke.


www.thefirearmblog.com
 
2012-12-20 04:42:30 PM

Insatiable Jesus: A magazine is Guns and Ammo, which anyone who knows the difference between a clip and a magazine faps to.


This is a very odd combination of left (making fun of gun nuts) and right (making fun of knowledge).
 

Great Janitor: Subby, I have lethal weapons for home defense for two very good reasons: 1) dead men don't talk. 2) If I kill a home invader then there is one less criminal society has to worry about.


And this is an interesting combination of "I kill so I won't be sued" and "I kill because I think they deserve it".
 
2012-12-20 04:42:33 PM
"The Laser-Based Flow Modification Device would be mounted to aircraft to allow US forces to drag, lift and steer enemy planes from the sky, by beaming a powerful "pulsed laser" down onto the target aircraft."

So, stearing the aircraft by using heat to affect lift? That's pretty clever.
 
2012-12-20 04:43:59 PM
I could've swore someone came up with a portable shockwave generator... knock people down from like 50 ft or something...
 
2012-12-20 04:46:50 PM

WippitGuud: I could've swore someone came up with a portable shockwave generator... knock people down from like 50 ft or something...


No, that was just me. I had tacos last night.
 
2012-12-20 05:01:25 PM

cgraves67: "The Laser-Based Flow Modification Device would be mounted to aircraft to allow US forces to drag, lift and steer enemy planes from the sky, by beaming a powerful "pulsed laser" down onto the target aircraft."

So, stearing the aircraft by using heat to affect lift? That's pretty clever.


that is dead clever actually. biggest problem would be targeting and on the fly adjustments to get it to where you want I think.
 
2012-12-20 05:03:41 PM
Where is the infamous brown note technology. The loss of bowel control would be great crowd control.
 
2012-12-20 05:04:17 PM

kingoomieiii: Insatiable Jesus: A magazine is Guns and Ammo, which anyone who knows the difference between a clip and a magazine faps to.

This is a very odd combination of left (making fun of gun nuts) and right (making fun of knowledge).

Great Janitor: Subby, I have lethal weapons for home defense for two very good reasons: 1) dead men don't talk. 2) If I kill a home invader then there is one less criminal society has to worry about.

And this is an interesting combination of "I kill so I won't be sued" and "I kill because I think they deserve it".


If I shoot an home invader, it's not because I think they deserve it, it's because they deserve it and I have the legal right to end that life and I will do it. Thankfully that hasn't happened.

As for the lawsuit thing, we live in a sue happy nation. This is a nation where home intruders can hurt themselves breaking into a place and sue the home owner for injuries. I'm not going to shoot a home intruder in the hand and then have him sue me because he can't work because I shot him. Just fire two shots in the chest and let that be it. A bit difficult for the intruder's family to say 'wrongful death' when they die during a home invasion.
 
2012-12-20 05:14:41 PM
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2012-12-20 05:21:59 PM

Great Janitor: As for the lawsuit thing, we live in a sue happy nation. This is a nation where home intruders can hurt themselves breaking into a place and sue the home owner for injuries. I'm not going to shoot a home intruder in the hand and then have him sue me because he can't work because I shot him. Just fire two shots in the chest and let that be it. A bit difficult for the intruder's family to say 'wrongful death' when they die during a home invasion.



I would believe this except the only place I have ever heard this before was AM radio and in FW FW FW emails from elderly relatives.
 
2012-12-20 05:22:14 PM
Less than lethal is the appropriate term. The problem with a lot of these weapons is that someone would be quicker to deploy them and use less discretion than they would with a firearm. "That guy looks like he might be up to no good. Quick zap him with the occular laser. Who cares about the damage to his eye or the truth as to whether or not he was actually up to no good. It's non-lethal. No biggie".
 
2012-12-20 05:26:41 PM

Great Janitor: If I shoot an home invader, it's not because I think they deserve it, it's because they deserve it and I have the legal right to end that life and I will do it.

 
The term for this here is "morally repugnant".
And by the way, because I see this dumb argument all the time: there's no such thing as a criminal who can't be downed by a taser. You can't be "too angry" or "too high" to be undeterred by a device that overloads your motor nerves and makes your muscles ignore your brain. It's like saying "He was too high be suffocated".

Great Janitor: I'm not going to shoot a home intruder in the hand and then have him sue me because he can't work because I shot him.


99% of "CRAZY LAWSUITS" you read about are invented by tort reform advocates to make people like you angry. It is so damned effective.
 
2012-12-20 05:29:30 PM

numbquil: Less than lethal is the appropriate term. The problem with a lot of these weapons is that someone would be quicker to deploy them and use less discretion than they would with a firearm. "That guy looks like he might be up to no good. Quick zap him with the occular laser. Who cares about the damage to his eye or the truth as to whether or not he was actually up to no good. It's non-lethal. No biggie".


That's an actual problem that needs to be dealt with even today. Police are trained to use Tasers as a non-lethal counterpart to their sidearm, but too often they're used as a replacement for "patience".
 
2012-12-20 05:32:03 PM

kingoomieiii: numbquil: Less than lethal is the appropriate term. The problem with a lot of these weapons is that someone would be quicker to deploy them and use less discretion than they would with a firearm. "That guy looks like he might be up to no good. Quick zap him with the occular laser. Who cares about the damage to his eye or the truth as to whether or not he was actually up to no good. It's non-lethal. No biggie".

That's an actual problem that needs to be dealt with even today. Police are trained to use Tasers as a non-lethal counterpart to their sidearm, but too often they're used as a replacement for "patience".



It won't be too long before the standard response to demonstrators will be bursting everybody's eardrums or tazing them en masse with some vehicle mounted Tesla coil.
 
2012-12-20 05:37:50 PM

kingoomieiii: Oh, and that heat beam isn't a concept, it works.


i163.photobucket.com

/unimpressed
//ooh-lah!
 
2012-12-20 05:39:38 PM
The Electric Vehicle Stopper pumps an electrical pulse through train tracks to shut down critical circuits, causing enemy trains to stall.

That's not a weapon of much use the military, but its a brilliant idea for someone wanting to screw with infrastructure.
 
2012-12-20 05:45:39 PM

I_C_Weener: It's a tissue, not a Kleenex.  It's a soda, not a coke.


Nope, this would be like calling a 'can' a 'bottle' instead. A brand name starting to represent the product that it is by name is completely different. Apples and bongo drums, dude.
 
2012-12-20 05:47:39 PM
The Long Range Ocular Interruption Laser is a large, portable laser designed to temporarily blind and suppress enemies within a 3,000-meter range.


It's working already. That farking picture makes my eyes hurt. Of course, so do blue LEDs, which EVERYONE insists on putting in their electronics now. This shiat needs to stop.
 
2012-12-20 06:00:45 PM

Insatiable Jesus: kingoomieiii: numbquil: Less than lethal is the appropriate term. The problem with a lot of these weapons is that someone would be quicker to deploy them and use less discretion than they would with a firearm. "That guy looks like he might be up to no good. Quick zap him with the occular laser. Who cares about the damage to his eye or the truth as to whether or not he was actually up to no good. It's non-lethal. No biggie".

That's an actual problem that needs to be dealt with even today. Police are trained to use Tasers as a non-lethal counterpart to their sidearm, but too often they're used as a replacement for "patience".


It won't be too long before the standard response to demonstrators will be bursting everybody's eardrums or tazing them en masse with some vehicle mounted Tesla coil.


I'm personally fond of the subsonic pulse weapon that makes everybody shiat their pants.
 
2012-12-20 06:01:02 PM

numbquil: Less than lethal is the appropriate term. The problem with a lot of these weapons is that someone would be quicker to deploy them and use less discretion than they would with a firearm. "That guy looks like he might be up to no good. Quick zap him with the occular laser. Who cares about the damage to his eye or the truth as to whether or not he was actually up to no good. It's non-lethal. No biggie".


This is exactly the problem that was happening with Tasers before, and pepper spray now. People who carry these devices are told over and over that they are 100% non-lethal. This is total bullshiat. Of course a Taser can cause a heart attack. Hell, I can pretty much guarantee that if I ever get pepper sprayed and don't get medical attention, I will die. I had breathing problems when the cops whipped some out at the bar down the block and around the corner from where I worked, and i had trouble another time when I was in a Home Depot and someone had bumped the top of their personal keyring canister 1/2 an hour before. It was like breathing thru a cocktail straw, and that's the civilian grade shiat. People hear "non-lethal" and the "responsible use" shiat goes right out the farking window.
 
2012-12-20 06:02:20 PM
The Red, White And Blue Star Cluster separates friends from foes with a patriotic burst of color designed to hail and warn.


Huh? It does what? The military developed fireworks this year?
 
2012-12-20 06:02:41 PM

jso2897: Insatiable Jesus: kingoomieiii: numbquil: Less than lethal is the appropriate term. The problem with a lot of these weapons is that someone would be quicker to deploy them and use less discretion than they would with a firearm. "That guy looks like he might be up to no good. Quick zap him with the occular laser. Who cares about the damage to his eye or the truth as to whether or not he was actually up to no good. It's non-lethal. No biggie".

That's an actual problem that needs to be dealt with even today. Police are trained to use Tasers as a non-lethal counterpart to their sidearm, but too often they're used as a replacement for "patience".


It won't be too long before the standard response to demonstrators will be bursting everybody's eardrums or tazing them en masse with some vehicle mounted Tesla coil.

I'm personally fond of the subsonic pulse weapon that makes everybody shiat their pants.



Would that have worked at OWS? Fox said they all did that anyways.
 
2012-12-20 06:05:06 PM

Mikey1969: The Red, White And Blue Star Cluster separates friends from foes with a patriotic burst of color designed to hail and warn.


Huh? It does what? The military developed fireworks this year?


We stole the technology from the stinking Chi-Coms.
 
2012-12-20 06:05:43 PM

FriarReb98: I love that the two car-stopping items can stop vehicles going 45 and 55 MPH.  Because people in high speed pursuits are obeying the speed limit, obviously.


The point is that we need a frame of reference. Just saying that it will stop a car means nothing. Look at the one that tangles in the tires. You might say "Big deal, I'll go through it in a panel truck", then you find out that it stops vehicles yup to 40,000 lbs. It's really just to put some concrete numbers on the thing.
 
2012-12-20 06:06:18 PM

Insatiable Jesus: jso2897: Insatiable Jesus: kingoomieiii: numbquil: Less than lethal is the appropriate term. The problem with a lot of these weapons is that someone would be quicker to deploy them and use less discretion than they would with a firearm. "That guy looks like he might be up to no good. Quick zap him with the occular laser. Who cares about the damage to his eye or the truth as to whether or not he was actually up to no good. It's non-lethal. No biggie".

That's an actual problem that needs to be dealt with even today. Police are trained to use Tasers as a non-lethal counterpart to their sidearm, but too often they're used as a replacement for "patience".


It won't be too long before the standard response to demonstrators will be bursting everybody's eardrums or tazing them en masse with some vehicle mounted Tesla coil.

I'm personally fond of the subsonic pulse weapon that makes everybody shiat their pants.


Would that have worked at OWS? Fox said they all did that anyways.


Hey, it works - just ask Ted Nugent.
 
2012-12-20 06:06:57 PM

Great Janitor: Subby, I have lethal weapons for home defense for two very good reasons: 1) dead men don't talk. 2) If I kill a home invader then there is one less criminal society has to worry about.


You have obviously never killed anyone.

My boss is a former SAS soldier and has had to kill in the course of his duty. He is still tormented by nightmares about it.
 
2012-12-20 06:09:13 PM

kingoomieiii: Great Janitor: If I shoot an home invader, it's not because I think they deserve it, it's because they deserve it and I have the legal right to end that life and I will do it.

The term for this here is "morally repugnant".
And by the way, because I see this dumb argument all the time: there's no such thing as a criminal who can't be downed by a taser. You can't be "too angry" or "too high" to be undeterred by a device that overloads your motor nerves and makes your muscles ignore your brain. It's like saying "He was too high be suffocated".


No it is not morally repugnant to say that that you are willing to use lethal force to defend yourself or your family from harm. If someone breaks in, I don't know if they are after my belongings or wish to do me or my family harm. All I do know is that they are a threat that needs to be dealt with. And to be blunt, if I use non-lethal force to put down Mr. Jones as he was trying to break into my place instead of using lethal force and after he served his time and was released on probation he broke into someone else's home and killed the resident, aren't I partly at fault for having the ability to end Mr. Jones' life and the threat that he was and wouldn't I be partially responsible for the death of Mr. Jones' victim?

Great Janitor: I'm not going to shoot a home intruder in the hand and then have him sue me because he can't work because I shot him.

99% of "CRAZY LAWSUITS" you read about are invented by tort reform advocates to make people like you angry. It is so damned effective.


So we should live in a nation where retarded lawsuits are allowed to happen instead of saying "No sir, this lawsuit is stupid and for filing it you must pay all court costs and a fine."
 
2012-12-20 06:10:22 PM

DrPainMD: Thank you, government, for wasting brazillions of taxpayer dollars on useless weapons to be used against imaginary threats. We have nukes... no foreign army is going to invade. We don't need ANY new weapons.


You're missing the point. These aren't for "imaginary threats," they're for us.

/notice how they're all non-lethal and mostly for crowd control?
 
2012-12-20 06:18:34 PM

kg2095: Great Janitor: Subby, I have lethal weapons for home defense for two very good reasons: 1) dead men don't talk. 2) If I kill a home invader then there is one less criminal society has to worry about.

You have obviously never killed anyone.

My boss is a former SAS soldier and has had to kill in the course of his duty. He is still tormented by nightmares about it.



Shhh, don't interrupt Dr. Gunfap while he is engaged in homicidal ideation and violent fantasy.
 
2012-12-20 06:21:33 PM

Great Janitor:
So we should live in a nation where retarded lawsuits are allowed to happen instead of saying "No sir, this lawsuit is stupid and for filing it you must pay all court costs and a fine."



Yes. Blame it on the retarded juries and retarded judges and the retarded law. It is common knowledge that the money and the power behind "tort reform" is really after "tort protection" in the operation of their businesses.
 
2012-12-20 06:25:40 PM

Great Janitor: No it is not morally repugnant to say that that you are willing to use lethal force to defend yourself or your family from harm.


It's morally repugnant to openly scoff at the very idea of defending yourself in a way that DOESN'T kill someone.
 

Great Janitor: So we should live in a nation where retarded lawsuits are allowed to happen


Did you even read what I wrote? Those stories are invented. We don't live in that nation.
 
2012-12-20 06:27:28 PM

Insatiable Jesus: It is common knowledge that the money and the power behind "tort reform" is really after "tort protection" in the operation of their businesses.


That. These are the people who spout off about how people who sue other people aren't having "personal accountability", but are trying to change the law so they can't BE sued when they "accidentally" ship a bunch of dogfood laced with lead.
 
2012-12-20 06:30:03 PM

kingoomieiii: Great Janitor: So we should live in a nation where retarded lawsuits are allowed to happen

Did you even read what I wrote? Those stories are invented. We don't live in that nation.


Dude, that's a rhetorical question, right?
 
2012-12-20 06:37:49 PM
I thought blinding the enemy with lasers was against the Geneva Convention as it's universally understood to be a super dick move.
 
2012-12-20 06:41:41 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: I thought blinding the enemy with lasers was against the Geneva Convention as it's universally understood to be a super dick move.



The US military had a strobe bomb, if I remember right. It would float down by parachute and make a whistling sound to get everyone to look up at it then go off in a blinding flash that would leave everybody permanently blind. If that's legal, wouldn't a laser be?
 
2012-12-20 06:48:01 PM

Sherman Potter: DrPainMD: Thank you, government, for wasting brazillions of taxpayer dollars on useless weapons to be used against imaginary threats. We have nukes... no foreign army is going to invade. We don't need ANY new weapons.

You're missing the point. These aren't for "imaginary threats," they're for us.

/notice how they're all non-lethal and mostly for crowd control?


This is the problem that no one seems to pick up on.

If you are building an army to use against your enemies, you buy weapons to destroy the armor and people who stand in your way. You don't mind a little ruination, but you have to deal with technical threat.
If your buying non lethal weapons (which are often banned or restricted by international rules) or automated drones (which have little value against a proper military force) it becomes obvious that your target isn't some foreign government.

You need to put down a threat that is very politically unpopular to kill.
These are toys for the home front.
 
2012-12-20 06:51:33 PM

way south: Sherman Potter: DrPainMD: Thank you, government, for wasting brazillions of taxpayer dollars on useless weapons to be used against imaginary threats. We have nukes... no foreign army is going to invade. We don't need ANY new weapons.

You're missing the point. These aren't for "imaginary threats," they're for us.

/notice how they're all non-lethal and mostly for crowd control?

This is the problem that no one seems to pick up on.

If you are building an army to use against your enemies, you buy weapons to destroy the armor and people who stand in your way. You don't mind a little ruination, but you have to deal with technical threat.
If your buying non lethal weapons (which are often banned or restricted by international rules) or automated drones (which have little value against a proper military force) it becomes obvious that your target isn't some foreign government.

You need to put down a threat that is very politically unpopular to kill.
These are toys for the home front.


Maybe we get to see it in action after Obama's big Gun Grab. A million corn syrup junkies with misspelled t-shirts, puking on their Bushmasters and shiatting their pants.
 
2012-12-20 06:57:48 PM

Insatiable Jesus: Uchiha_Cycliste: I thought blinding the enemy with lasers was against the Geneva Convention as it's universally understood to be a super dick move.

The US military had a strobe bomb, if I remember right. It would float down by parachute and make a whistling sound to get everyone to look up at it then go off in a blinding flash that would leave everybody permanently blind. If that's legal, wouldn't a laser be?


From Wiki:



 


The Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, Protocol IV of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, was issued by the United Nations on 13 October 1995. It came into force on 30 July 1998.[1]
Text
Article 1

It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices. The High Contracting Parties shall not transfer such weapons to any State or non-State entity.
Article 2

In the employment of laser systems, the High Contracting Parties shall take all feasible precautions to avoid the incidence of permanent blindness to unenhanced vision. Such precautions shall include training of their armed forces and other practical measures.
Article 3

Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol.
Article 4

For the purpose of this protocol "permanent blindness" means irreversible and uncorrectable loss of vision which is seriously disabling with no prospect of recovery. Serious disability is equivalent to visual acuity of less than 20/200 Snellen measured using both eyes.
 
2012-12-20 07:01:16 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Insatiable Jesus: Uchiha_Cycliste: I thought blinding the enemy with lasers was against the Geneva Convention as it's universally understood to be a super dick move.

The US military had a strobe bomb, if I remember right. It would float down by parachute and make a whistling sound to get everyone to look up at it then go off in a blinding flash that would leave everybody permanently blind. If that's legal, wouldn't a laser be?

From Wiki:


The Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, Protocol IV of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, was issued by the United Nations on 13 October 1995. It came into force on 30 July 1998.[1]
Text
Article 1

It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices. The High Contracting Parties shall not transfer such weapons to any State or non-State entity.
Article 2

In the employment of laser systems, the High Contracting Parties shall take all feasible precautions to avoid the incidence of permanent blindness to unenhanced vision. Such precautions shall include training of their armed forces and other practical measures.
Article 3

Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol.
Article 4

For the purpose of this protocol "permanent blindness" means irreversible and uncorrectable loss of vision which is seriously disabling with no prospect of recovery. Serious disability is equivalent to visual acuity of less than 20/200 Snellen measured using both eyes.



The strobe bomb I remember was an explosive chemical device, if I remember correctly. I read about it in the 80s in some defense traderag my dad used to read. It was meant to be used against the Russian hordes we feared would overrun W. Europe. This anti-laser thing is from 1998. I was just curious if it is just lasers that are illegal to blind people or what.
 
2012-12-20 07:09:33 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: I like rubber bullets, they make hippies cry.

[img545.imageshack.us image 478x640]


Is there an intended implication from that photo? Because as others have pointed out, that's not a particularly bad bruise. Hippies spend a lot of time outside and doing physical stuff, if you're working a field (say, in a commune growing radishes) you'll get worse on almost a daily basis, especially if you're handling animals.

Hell, just having children and/or younger siblings is going to give you worse than that on a regular basis.

//Or are you confusing hippies with "hipsters", who are delicate urban snowflakes?
 
2012-12-20 07:30:08 PM

Jim_Callahan: The Stealth Hippopotamus: I like rubber bullets, they make hippies cry.

[img545.imageshack.us image 478x640]

Is there an intended implication from that photo? Because as others have pointed out, that's not a particularly bad bruise. Hippies spend a lot of time outside and doing physical stuff, if you're working a field (say, in a commune growing radishes) you'll get worse on almost a daily basis, especially if you're handling animals.

Hell, just having children and/or younger siblings is going to give you worse than that on a regular basis.

//Or are you confusing hippies with "hipsters", who are delicate urban snowflakes?


When I was a kid, my Grandfather taught me that a Hippy is somebody who spends all of their money on music.
 
2012-12-20 07:32:07 PM

Insatiable Jesus: way south: Sherman Potter: DrPainMD: Thank you, government, for wasting brazillions of taxpayer dollars on useless weapons to be used against imaginary threats. We have nukes... no foreign army is going to invade. We don't need ANY new weapons.

You're missing the point. These aren't for "imaginary threats," they're for us.

/notice how they're all non-lethal and mostly for crowd control?

This is the problem that no one seems to pick up on.

If you are building an army to use against your enemies, you buy weapons to destroy the armor and people who stand in your way. You don't mind a little ruination, but you have to deal with technical threat.
If your buying non lethal weapons (which are often banned or restricted by international rules) or automated drones (which have little value against a proper military force) it becomes obvious that your target isn't some foreign government.

You need to put down a threat that is very politically unpopular to kill.
These are toys for the home front.

Maybe we get to see it in action after Obama's big Gun Grab. A million corn syrup junkies with misspelled t-shirts, puking on their Bushmasters and shiatting their pants.


This isn't a partisan issue, or even a gun issue. Google "police militarization" for a start. Then go find Radley Balko on HuffPo and read his stuff.
 
2012-12-20 07:44:55 PM

Sherman Potter: This isn't a partisan issue, or even a gun issue. Google "police militarization" for a start. Then go find Radley Balko on HuffPo and read his stuff.



Well, in a way it is. When the Right (if the Right) ever launches their version of OWS, they will bring guns, apparently. That would maybe mean the deployment of some of these new technologies. For leftists, the old tear gas and a baton still works.
 
2012-12-20 08:21:15 PM

Insatiable Jesus: kg2095: Great Janitor: Subby, I have lethal weapons for home defense for two very good reasons: 1) dead men don't talk. 2) If I kill a home invader then there is one less criminal society has to worry about.

You have obviously never killed anyone.

My boss is a former SAS soldier and has had to kill in the course of his duty. He is still tormented by nightmares about it.


Shhh, don't interrupt Dr. Gunfap while he is engaged in homicidal ideation and violent fantasy.


Sounds simultaneously exciting and dangerous.
 
2012-12-20 08:32:59 PM

Great Janitor: Subby, I have lethal weapons for home defense for two very good reasons: 1) dead men don't talk. 2) If I kill a home invader then there is one less criminal society has to worry about.


They also can't sue you if they don't survive.
 
2012-12-20 08:55:33 PM
These weapons are designed to be used against citizens of this country.
 
2012-12-20 09:30:37 PM

Insatiable Jesus: Uchiha_Cycliste: Insatiable Jesus: Uchiha_Cycliste: I thought blinding the enemy with lasers was against the Geneva Convention as it's universally understood to be a super dick move.

The US military had a strobe bomb, if I remember right. It would float down by parachute and make a whistling sound to get everyone to look up at it then go off in a blinding flash that would leave everybody permanently blind. If that's legal, wouldn't a laser be?

From Wiki:


The Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, Protocol IV of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, was issued by the United Nations on 13 October 1995. It came into force on 30 July 1998.[1]
Text
Article 1

It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices. The High Contracting Parties shall not transfer such weapons to any State or non-State entity.
Article 2

In the employment of laser systems, the High Contracting Parties shall take all feasible precautions to avoid the incidence of permanent blindness to unenhanced vision. Such precautions shall include training of their armed forces and other practical measures.
Article 3

Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol.
Article 4

For the purpose of this protocol "permanent blindness" means irreversible and uncorrectable loss of vision which is seriously disabling with no prospect of recovery. Serious disability is equivalent to visual acuity of less than 20/200 Snellen measured using both eyes.


The strobe bomb I remember was an explosive chemical device, if I remember correctly. I read about it in the 80s in some defense traderag my dad used to read. It was meant to be used against the ...


It is my reading of things that any mechanism whose sole purpose is permanent blindness is a no-go. I don't think lasers are particularly special in this regard, they are just the easiest way to get that particular job done. I would wager that these rules are in place simply because blinding everyone is just such a dick move
 
2012-12-20 09:59:19 PM
Hijacking an enemy aircraft via pulse laser? That's it, I'm starting a new career developing fantasy gadgets for the military. "No General, the LTF-3000SK is not working yet, we need a few millions dollars more, otherwise the Chineses will develop one first."
 
2012-12-20 10:03:05 PM

Insatiable Jesus: Great Janitor: As for the lawsuit thing, we live in a sue happy nation. This is a nation where home intruders can hurt themselves breaking into a place and sue the home owner for injuries. I'm not going to shoot a home intruder in the hand and then have him sue me because he can't work because I shot him. Just fire two shots in the chest and let that be it. A bit difficult for the intruder's family to say 'wrongful death' when they die during a home invasion.


I would believe this except the only place I have ever heard this before was AM radio and in FW FW FW emails from elderly relatives.


I'm sure a google search will turn up plenty, but I'm too lazy. In the 80's my best friends dad who was a cop told us about a little old lady getting sued (successfully I might add) by a burglar who slipped on her freshly waxed or mopped floor and hurt himself. Given all the stupid shiat that happens in our society I have zero trouble believing that shiat like this happens all the time.
 
2012-12-20 10:24:36 PM

Insatiable Jesus: Sherman Potter: This isn't a partisan issue, or even a gun issue. Google "police militarization" for a start. Then go find Radley Balko on HuffPo and read his stuff.


Well, in a way it is. When the Right (if the Right) ever launches their version of OWS, they will bring guns, apparently. That would maybe mean the deployment of some of these new technologies. For leftists, the old tear gas and a baton still works.


My point is, I'm not bringing this up because I'm some sort of wing-nut. I'm not. I absolutely believe that's the intended use of much of this technology.

Just look at what they (the "authorities") have done at the last few R/D national conventions, or G-10 summits.

These aren't weapons, they're instruments of control.
 
2012-12-21 12:26:54 AM

Sherman Potter: Insatiable Jesus: Sherman Potter: This isn't a partisan issue, or even a gun issue. Google "police militarization" for a start. Then go find Radley Balko on HuffPo and read his stuff.


Well, in a way it is. When the Right (if the Right) ever launches their version of OWS, they will bring guns, apparently. That would maybe mean the deployment of some of these new technologies. For leftists, the old tear gas and a baton still works.

My point is, I'm not bringing this up because I'm some sort of wing-nut. I'm not. I absolutely believe that's the intended use of much of this technology.

Just look at what they (the "authorities") have done at the last few R/D national conventions, or G-10 summits.

These aren't weapons, they're instruments of control.


And that is what is so stupid about the whole thing. The Europeans seem to understand that if you let people assemble and air their grievances it acts as a sort of societal escape valve. In the US? God forbid traffic is disturbed! We're going to have to assault you with police. Thing is, in the long run its got to blow up in their faces at some point. Stupid authoritarians.
 
2012-12-21 05:55:23 AM

Medic Zero: Sherman Potter: Insatiable Jesus: Sherman Potter: This isn't a partisan issue, or even a gun issue. Google "police militarization" for a start. Then go find Radley Balko on HuffPo and read his stuff.


Well, in a way it is. When the Right (if the Right) ever launches their version of OWS, they will bring guns, apparently. That would maybe mean the deployment of some of these new technologies. For leftists, the old tear gas and a baton still works.

My point is, I'm not bringing this up because I'm some sort of wing-nut. I'm not. I absolutely believe that's the intended use of much of this technology.

Just look at what they (the "authorities") have done at the last few R/D national conventions, or G-10 summits.

These aren't weapons, they're instruments of control.

And that is what is so stupid about the whole thing. The Europeans seem to understand that if you let people assemble and air their grievances it acts as a sort of societal escape valve. In the US? God forbid traffic is disturbed! We're going to have to assault you with police. Thing is, in the long run its got to blow up in their faces at some point. Stupid authoritarians.


I think the difference is that Europeans are more easily ignored by their government. They have riots all the time but it doesn't translate into much political action.

Public shows of force in the US are very influential. They can cause major policy shifts and get politicians dumped out of congress.
If the tea bagged and OWS platforms ever aligned, you are going to see one hell of a fireworks show.

On the other hand if the fed can chase those people back into their homes (where the state controls the television) things resume being normal.
No casualties means no need to report anything.
 
2012-12-21 09:30:59 AM

Insatiable Jesus: A magazine is Guns and Ammo, which anyone who knows the difference between a clip and a magazine faps to.


Oh how awesome... you're here with your collection of masturbatory fantasies.

Insatiable Jesus: Great Janitor: As for the lawsuit thing, we live in a sue happy nation. This is a nation where home intruders can hurt themselves breaking into a place and sue the home owner for injuries. I'm not going to shoot a home intruder in the hand and then have him sue me because he can't work because I shot him. Just fire two shots in the chest and let that be it. A bit difficult for the intruder's family to say 'wrongful death' when they die during a home invasion.


I would believe this except the only place I have ever heard this before was AM radio and in FW FW FW emails from elderly relatives.


Just because you don't want to accept things doesn't mean they don't happen...

Link

I'd continue reading what other completely wrong BS you've posted here but I don't think I want to spend the whole day reading your complete nonsense like I did yesterday.

Have fun trolling people, little guy.
 
2012-12-21 11:47:27 AM
List missing Herkimer Battle Jitney.
 
2012-12-21 02:15:54 PM
Nano-Second Electrical Pulses, designed for crowd control and offensive operations, emit electrical waves to incapacitate targeted individuals by causing them to lose voluntary muscle control.

The sphincter is a voluntary muscle.

/All the rioters just pooped themselves.
 
2012-12-21 06:03:45 PM
I was hoping to see a Blamethrower, an Air Cannon, some Feet Seeking Missiles, and a Canned Tornado!
 
2012-12-21 06:25:27 PM

mwburden: I was hoping to see a Blamethrower, an Air Cannon, some Feet Seeking Missiles, and a Canned Tornado!


I think my pants are shrinking...

/don't recall feet seeking missiles
 
2012-12-22 09:13:12 AM
I got that part out of this Mystery Men script. It's possible that one didn't make it into the film, because I don't really remember them either.
 
2012-12-22 08:37:37 PM

mwburden: I got that part out of this Mystery Men script. It's possible that one didn't make it into the film, because I don't really remember them either.


I'll take your word for it on the script. No biggie, just an odd feeling when you think you know something really well and someone mentions something of that nature.
 
Displayed 75 of 75 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report