Tickle Me Elmo Creator Invents Sometimes-Lethal Weapon | Hacker News Reader

Tickle Me Elmo Creator Invents Sometimes-Lethal Weapon

popularmechanics.com

43 pointsjamesbressi18 comments

Really Short Summary: A new non-letahl weapon automatically adjusts the projectile's muzzle velocity to match the range of the target so it can safely deliver the same impact at long and short ranges. (Current nonlethal weapons are only effective at a very narrow range. A non-lethal gun ranged for 50m shots will kill at 5m and ineffective much beyond 50m.) Uses methylacetylene propadiene gas as propellent which is a commonly used in commercial products like nail guns.

About damn time if you ask me. This will help reduce the danger of using nonlethal weapons. Also, using a commercially-available propellent that is already sold in convenient canisters is a definite plus.

> This will help reduce the danger of using nonlethal weapons.

Alternatively, it'll teach people to over-rely on these things, much like some police departments have become overly reliant on tasers, with with bad consequences.

While your comment has some merit, tasers are a completely new class of weapon. The non-lethal rounds that this weapon fires are already a known quantity. The same dangers apply to them that applied before except the weapon will help prevent accidents related to misjudged range. You still need to aim it properly to avoid breaking someone's neck or skull. The fact that even though it's less dangerous than before it's still far more dangerous than a taser is considered to be. This weapon will still kill or seriously injure if used improperly.

The major difference is predicting when a taser will be lethal is difficult. Predicting when a fist size piece of silly putty punching the snot out of someone is much easier. Physical trauma is much better understood than electrical.

Still, if this innovation makes lethality accidents 90% less likely per use, but that newfound confidence makes usage 20X more frequent, net fatalities could go up.

It may be good to have new options, but there's still danger during the adjustment period.

The adjustment period is definitely going to dangerous but not nearly on par with tasers. I'm arguing this is a known, predictable issue unlike tasers which should prevent some of the stupidity that's been happening with tasers.

Additionally this type of weapon is less effective at stopping a person at short range than a taser is. (It's also much larger, more like a rifle than a pistol) This is more of a type of weapon that a SWAT team would use than your regular police officers. I hope this would reduce the chances for abuse.

This sounds rather more sane than using microwaves to gently cook people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System

The fundamental problem with less-than-lethal / non-lethal weapons is that if you use them incompetently for crowd control, you end up with a lot of people crushed and trampled to death.

Baby steps towards "set phasers on stun". Good.

Hmm... I think the hidden story is this guy made the "stun-gun" to fill a need--filling a need is one of the elements you always hear when people talk about startups, creating your product, etc.

So, it only makes sense that the stun-gun he created was really for crowd control from the fanatical and frenzied parents who trampled each other when tickle-me-elmo first came out, not this spin doctor story about "looking for new power sources for toys."

You know it makes sense ;)

On a slightly more serious note, how awesome would that introduction line be...

Stranger: So what do you do?

Bruce Lund: Well, I invented tickle-me-elmo.

Stranger: Aw, isn't that cute.

Bruce Lund: Oh yeah, and a gun with a god-like knob to choose life or death when it hits it's target.

If you (like me) want the rocket the article mentions, it's the Estes Hydrogen Fuel Rocket: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=...

The internet tells me it sucks, though.

The cynic in me sees these being used in crowd control---with occasional "mistakes".

Yep. Since it's very unlikely the gun can always get the range right, you'll also be able to conveniently blame any "mistakes" on your equipment.

Wouldn't even this weapon make a sound when used? Like the nail gun he cites? I keep wondering about magnetically-propelled BBs.... no sound.

You can get a lethal weapon with no sound in a silenced .22 firing subsonic ammo. You have to be close or a fantastic shot for it to be lethal. (This is basically a hitman's gun. Think shooting someone in the back of the head at point blank range.) The only noise is the clink of the hammer going down and the slap of the bullet hitting the target.

It's hard to get a silencer legally, though. (You can't even make one or sell plans to make one in the US.) And the range thing is limiting.

Oh, not looking for lethality. I think there could be a market for a distracting weapon.

Distracting weapon? Have you looked at sound or light based weapons?

Well, distracting in that the pain makes them pause so I can run the hell away. Sometimes that's the best course of action. Inflicting permanent injury is always a last resort.

It's actually relatively easy to legally purchase a sound suppressor in the U.S. All it takes is a few hundred bucks for the can and a $200 transfer fee to the TTB along with background check and fingerprints. Paperwork takes a while, is all.

Bruise me Elmo?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com