Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

E-Shotgun

e-shotgun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 152 posts

Re: E-Shotgun

#51

Post by meheleventyone »

glenstein wrote: post #40

I don't have a lot to say about the functionality or specifications here, but I feel like there's a new conceptual issue raised by non-lethal, or notionally non-lethal weapons. Constitutional arguments are about the right to self-defense. That's not necessarily the same as killing someone, and you don't necessarily have a right to killing in and of itself, but only as a means to an end for self-defense. I suppose it…

This isn’t really a new issue as non-lethal weapons have been a norm for ages. It would be interesting to look at how the introduction of pepper sprays and tasers changed police behaviour worldwide as they’re pretty ubiquitously carried now.

Re: E-Shotgun

#52

Post by meheleventyone »

Synaesthesia wrote: post #39
zeroflow wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not consider this a self defense weapon. This will probably just irritate the attacker for a second. Advertising this for self-defense is rather reckless, considering that people may rely on that.

It's pretty powerful and fires darn rapidly, those pellets are gonna hurt a lot. They penetrated a 2l plastic bottle, probably take your eye out ...

16J is pretty high, around air rifle levels of power so you could probably kill someone depending on how those discs damage people and how close you were.

Re: E-Shotgun

#53

Post by meheleventyone »

donw wrote: post #21
defterGoose wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

| It's a toy. An extremely dangerous toy.

Not really. 16J is a slightly overpowered paintball gun.

Here’s some fatalities from guns around that power or less: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC500806/

Muzzle energy isn’t the only factor in lethality.

Re: E-Shotgun

#54

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

dash2 wrote: post #44
GoodbyeMrChips wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many Americans (uniformed or not) like yourself really do have a bloodlust about them. Just itching for the day when they can legally get away with shooting somebody. This discusion of de-escalation tactics (ridiculed by a US deligation) is rather enlightening. https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/rcglza/us_delegat...

Humans have bloodlust. Let's not chaffer in national stereotypes.

Humans have bloodlust, and many other urges. Societies decide whether to encourage these, or not.

Re: E-Shotgun

#55

Post by inkblotuniverse »

kristopolous wrote: post #30
IAmGraydon wrote: post #9

Yeah…sorry. If someone breaks into my house, they’re getting a bit more than 16J pointed their way.

Honestly if someone breaks into my house they'll be getting a cup of tea and a blanket. Robbery must be an awful way to make a living. They're probably in a life of abuse and addiction. Yes, I'm a total psycho, I already know this.

They'll just kill you and rape your wife, don't worry.

Re: E-Shotgun

#56

Post by inkblotuniverse »

johncolanduoni wrote: post #45
glenstein wrote: post #40

I don't have a lot to say about the functionality or specifications here, but I feel like there's a new conceptual issue raised by non-lethal, or notionally non-lethal weapons. Constitutional arguments are about the right to self-defense. That's not necessarily the same as killing someone, and you don't necessarily have a right to killing in and of itself, but only as a means to an end for self-defense. I suppose it…

My understanding is the US constitution’s second amendment has also been interpreted somewhat literally when it refers to a “well regulated militia”. From that perspective being able to have lethal weapons is still important, though given the fact that we don’t allow private citizens to have the gear to go toe to toe with a modern military I’m not sure exactly where that ends and more mundane self-defense begins.

The taliban can go toe-to-toe with USG using pickup trucks and fertilizer, so I'm sure americans can, too.

Re: E-Shotgun

#57

Post by selfhoster11 »

glenstein wrote: post #40

I don't have a lot to say about the functionality or specifications here, but I feel like there's a new conceptual issue raised by non-lethal, or notionally non-lethal weapons. Constitutional arguments are about the right to self-defense. That's not necessarily the same as killing someone, and you don't necessarily have a right to killing in and of itself, but only as a means to an end for self-defense. I suppose it…

It's also problematic for another reason: the intent of 2A was to enable citizens to force a regime change even when said regime is resistant to verbal criticism. Lethal means would be required to safeguard that.

Re: E-Shotgun

#58

Post by Youden »

glenstein wrote: post #40

I don't have a lot to say about the functionality or specifications here, but I feel like there's a new conceptual issue raised by non-lethal, or notionally non-lethal weapons. Constitutional arguments are about the right to self-defense. That's not necessarily the same as killing someone, and you don't necessarily have a right to killing in and of itself, but only as a means to an end for self-defense. I suppose it…

Are the constitutional arguments about self defense? I've heard a few times that they're about rebelling against a corrupt government.

Re: E-Shotgun

#59

Post by j2bax »

inkblotuniverse wrote: post #56
johncolanduoni wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is the US constitution’s second amendment has also been interpreted somewhat literally when it refers to a “well regulated militia”. From that perspective being able to have lethal weapons is still important, though given the fact that we don’t allow private citizens to have the gear to go toe to toe with a modern military I’m not sure exactly where that ends and more mundane self-defense begins.

The taliban can go toe-to-toe with USG using pickup trucks and fertilizer, so I'm sure americans can, too.

Perhaps while we are making some attempt to not just go complete scorched earth on them they can, but if and when there is a threat they don’t have a whole lot they can do about an air strike or drones. I wouldn’t ever want to be on the opposing side of a world super power military…

Re: E-Shotgun

#60

Post by emerged »

kristopolous wrote: post #30
IAmGraydon wrote: post #9

Yeah…sorry. If someone breaks into my house, they’re getting a bit more than 16J pointed their way.

Honestly if someone breaks into my house they'll be getting a cup of tea and a blanket. Robbery must be an awful way to make a living. They're probably in a life of abuse and addiction. Yes, I'm a total psycho, I already know this.

I really hope you never have to learn how misinformed that stance is.
Post reply on HN