• New bullet attachment device aims to save lives.
    130 replies, posted
Source: [url]http://fullist.co.uk/2015/02/bullet-attachment-save-lives/[/url] [QUOTE]It looks like a toy attachment for a gun, but this new device is intended to give suspects a chance to live if shot. As the inventor explains, the force that the bullet travels at is still enough to kill but the chances of death are drastically less than that of a normal bullet fired from a gun. The fact that the Police department in Ferguson are trialling it is an obvious reminder that we are all looking for any alternative that will make cases like Michael Brown’s a thing of the past. However, is an attachment the answer or would resources be better spent focusing on additional training for Police officers? Furthermore, as mentioned in the video there are concerns that such an attachment could put a Police Officer’s life at risk; are we just better off sticking to the current system?[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;-X5vUXdwABs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X5vUXdwABs[/video] Basically this thing makes the first shot relatively non-lethal when used. Kind of an interesting concept.
Embed without the S in HTTPS [video=youtube;-X5vUXdwABs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X5vUXdwABs[/video]
Getting hit by a blunt object traveling at the velocity of a bullet will fuck you up. Instead of making a clean hole it'll just cause massive trauma to your internal organs. This is like saying "Oh, well a 9mm bullet will kill you, so here's a small cannon ball."
I think that shooting people less would be a better solution than shooting people the same with weaker bullets.
So basically the reverse of the purpose of a sabot? Increase the rounds diameter and decrease it's velocity for that first shot, thus decreasing potential to kill? It isn't really a bullet, but closer to an inert rifle grenade. [QUOTE=Grimhound;47161461]Getting hit by a blunt object traveling at the velocity of a bullet will fuck you up. Instead of making a clean hole it'll just cause massive trauma to your internal organs. This is like saying "Oh, well a 9mm bullet will kill you, so here's a small cannon ball."[/QUOTE] Lower velocity, less aerodynamic, and has wasted a good amount of the kinetic force of the bullet due to it catching it. [QUOTE=MrBob1337;47161471]I think that shooting people less would be a better solution than shooting people the same with weaker bullets.[/QUOTE] It is designed for situations that can escalate to lethal instantly without leaving a useless officer.
When they said "air bag for a bullet" I thought it sounded pretty cool until I saw it was a fucking metal ball
An inert rifle grenade will probably kill you if it hits you. Those things are heavy.
[QUOTE=Complifused;47161500]When they said "air bag for a bullet" I thought it sounded pretty cool until I saw it was a fucking metal ball[/QUOTE] 1/5 the speed and wider impact area seems pretty close to how an air bag deploys, compared to your steering wheel. Also, I think it is a metal cup in a plastic ball, based on the sound it makes on impact with the ground at ~12 seconds.
Instead of piercing the skin and hemorrhaging internal organs, this nifty invention will instead apply blunt force to the skin and pulverize internal organs.
Or.. you know.. shoot people less?
I dunno guys. This seems like a really good compromise on police tactics to me. Maybe modify holsters to hold one of these on the barrel at all times so the first shot is always non-lethal? I mean, at least give it a few trial runs and if deaths drop from police being safer, we could have a new standard across the states.
Interesting idea but I get the impression the sort of situation that might call for this would have the officer firing more shots to put a person down anyway. It seems like a rare instance where an officer or others are in serious danger, but have time to draw, and attach a less lethal device before firing a single shot.
What does this do for the other bullets the officer fires almost at the same time because they aren't afforded the freedom of "Wait and see how this turns out."
Actually a pretty dumb concept in my eyes. I'm not even going to go into it, it has to many flaws and opens up individuals to a lot more issues. There are plenty of less lethal rounds that do this, bean bag rounds, pepper balls, rubber bullets. The fact that this product is riding on the controversy of the Ferguson shooting. What pisses me off more is the PD in Ferguson is trialing this product in the wake of the shooting is dumb, it was well proven that the officer did nothing wrong.
[QUOTE=MuTAnT;47161557]Interesting idea but I get the impression the sort of situation that might call for this would have the officer firing more shots to put a person down anyway. It seems like a rare instance where an officer or others are in serious danger, but have time to draw, and attach a less lethal device before firing a single shot.[/QUOTE] Car chases, raids of any kind (drug busts, forced entry arrests, etc.), when responding to a call with an active shooter, the list keeps going for me.
-
[QUOTE=valkery;47161585]Car chases, raids of any kind (drug busts, forced entry arrests, etc.), when responding to a call with an active shooter, the list keeps going for me.[/QUOTE]These are the times that you absolutely don't want an officer to be hampered by a clumsy device that reduces their effectivity. Like, the exact opposite of a good time.
[QUOTE=Xyrec;47161588]This has to be the dumbest thing ever. If you shoot someone with this thing, you already have your finger on the trigger, which mean there's a change you might accidentally fire another bullet :v:[/QUOTE] I agree You seldom hear of officers firing just one bullet in an engagement where they're forced to draw their gun. If you draw your gun, you intend to kill, plain and simple. If you're doing your job right, you've already exhausted all non-lethal options, or are in imminent danger of death yourself. This device is really a retarded idea.
[QUOTE=Xyrec;47161588]This has to be the dumbest thing ever. If you shoot someone with this thing, you already have your finger on the trigger, which mean there's a change you might accidentally fire another bullet :v:[/QUOTE]Ok, if you somehow manage to accidentally fire another round, you are entirely incompetent with firearms. Accidental discharges are not a thing that is allowed pretty much anywhere because of how dangerous they are. And if somehow your gun itself fires off another round, you have many more problems though the least of them likely being the officer firing.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;47161598]These are the times that you absolutely don't want an officer to be hampered by a clumsy device that reduces their effectivity. Like, the exact opposite of a good time.[/QUOTE] But as other people have pointed out, you could realistically fire that first shot and be ready to go with a second only a split second later. By a split second, I mean you could have a second shot fired before the first one has hit the target, if the situation is bad enough. In the ones that are close, you should have enough time to fire that first one and wait half a second for impact before proceeding, and in ones that are over the line, you can pump multiple rounds like you would anyway.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;47161614]Ok, if you somehow manage to accidentally fire another round, you are entirely incompetent with firearms. Accidental discharges are not a thing that is allowed pretty much anywhere because of how dangerous they are. And if somehow your gun itself fires off another round, you have many more problems though the least of them likely being the officer firing.[/QUOTE] If your in a situation where someone is actively trying to severely hurt or kill you, your going to be very high strung. Your fire that first shot your probably going to fire a few more just by reaction.
[QUOTE=valkery;47161630]But as other people have pointed out, you could realistically fire that first shot and be ready to go with a second only a split second later. By a split second, I mean you could have a second shot fired before the first one has hit the target, if the situation is bad enough. In the ones that are close, you should have enough time to fire that first one and wait half a second for impact before proceeding, and in ones that are over the line, you can pump multiple rounds like you would anyway.[/QUOTE]You do realize what will happen as to the balance and aim with the sudden shift in weight from that thing being on to that thing being off, correct? Police officers do not get to wait when it comes time to fire. Not half of a second. It does not take much time for a bystander to die from a slow response. All this does is hamper the accuracy of the officer and introduce more risk to the officer and bystanders. [editline]17th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=BusterBluth;47161655]If your in a situation where someone is actively trying to severely hurt or kill you, your going to be very high strung. Your fire that first shot your probably going to fire a few more just by reaction.[/QUOTE]That isn't accidental.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;47161668] That isn't accidental.[/QUOTE] I believe that is what he is talking about [editline]17th February 2015[/editline] and it would be accidental if you had this on your weapon and just by reaction you fire again.
[QUOTE=Xyrec;47161588]This has to be the dumbest thing ever. If you shoot someone with this thing, you already have your finger on the trigger, which mean there's a change you might accidentally fire another bullet :v:[/QUOTE] Have you ever shot a gun? You need to be pretty determined to fire two shots off at once unless you have a hair trigger or something.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;47161655]If your in a situation where someone is actively trying to severely hurt or kill you, your going to be very high strung. Your fire that first shot your probably going to fire a few more just by reaction.[/QUOTE] if someone is actively trying to kill you there's nothing wrong with taking an extra shot or three
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;47161614]Ok, if you somehow manage to accidentally fire another round, you are entirely incompetent with firearms. Accidental discharges are not a thing that is allowed pretty much anywhere because of how dangerous they are. And if somehow your gun itself fires off another round, you have many more problems though the least of them likely being the officer firing.[/QUOTE] Dude Have you ever heard about how knife attacks are? If someone stabs you once, he will keep stabbing you. It's not only "Once". I say it to illustrate the point that when under adrenaline, you can't expect a run of the mill cop to behave like a fucking Navy Seal who was deployed overseas 5 times. If you have shoot once, you keep shooting. Have you never heard that all cops are trained to hit mass center until the threat is stopped?
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;47161668] That isn't accidental.[/QUOTE] I don't know if you're aware of this, but when an individual enters a fight-or-flight reaction mode, the point at which conditioned responses from training drills take over, their heart rate skyrockets almost instantly. When you have a high heart rate, you actually become incapable of fine motor control. Something like pulling a trigger is probably going to make your hands and finger twitch back and forth rapidly. That's why people can't shoot accurately when they're stressed, and that's why so many shots are fired so quickly in almost every single such situation. Also, I've learned through my field of study that people are physically incapable of making rational decisions when in this reaction mode, or thinking logically. The amygdala, the part of the brain that controls emotions and the survival response, actually takes over control of the body from the prefrontal cortex, which is the 'thinking' part of your brain. It's possible to wrestle control back through practice of grounding exercises, which are used in anger management - and take several minutes to take effect. Ergo, it is definitely an involuntary response, no matter what a finely-trained officer you are.
[QUOTE=MrBob1337;47161471]I think that shooting people less would be a better solution than shooting people the same with weaker bullets.[/QUOTE] "I think the best solution to prevent forest fires is to stop forest fires"
[QUOTE=Grimhound;47161461]Getting hit by a blunt object traveling at the velocity of a bullet will fuck you up. Instead of making a clean hole it'll just cause massive trauma to your internal organs. This is like saying "Oh, well a 9mm bullet will kill you, so here's a small cannon ball."[/QUOTE] Time to go back to physics class. For the same momentum, a heavier projectile has lower kinetic energy. If the 9mm is being used to propel a projectile five times heavier than the 9mm, then it will have six times the mass (presumably the bullet stays in the projectile) and travel at one-sixth the speed. Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity, so the heavier projectile has 1/6 * 1/6 * 6 = 1/6 the kinetic energy of the regular 9mm. Distribute that drastically reduced kinetic energy over a larger area and it's the difference between organ perforation and bruising. Or do you actually, seriously think that this is every bit as damaging as a bullet, and you're the first person to notice? The reason this is dumb is because officers typically fire 3+ rounds at once, not because it's theoretically unsound.
[QUOTE=DJrorok;47161727]"I think the best solution to prevent forest fires is to stop forest fires"[/QUOTE] Police in Canada almost never draw their guns - They're allowed to unholster only if they perceive that there's likely a deadly weapon in the possession of the person they're talking to or they've run out of options, and they're expected to back up that decision in their reports with a reasonable argument. Police in the United States draw their weapons more often because of the prevalence of guns, both legal and otherwise, in your country. It's not a thing that a change in police policy can address. The number of instances in which an accidental or unlawful shooting occurs can still be reduced through heavier training.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.