What is this tagline supposed to mean?
"Fully electrified new energy near defense equipment, more a black technology fever product."
E-Shotgun
101–110 of 152 posts
Re: E-Shotgun
#102Yeah…sorry. If someone breaks into my house, they’re getting a bit more than 16J pointed their way.
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...
Yikes - nationalistic flamebait like this will get you banned on HN, regardless of which country you have a problem with. No matter how right you are on the underlying issue, or feel you are, you can't set HN threads aflame like this. We want just the opposite here.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
Re: E-Shotgun
#103[flagged]
Please don't call names in HN comments or take HN threads into nationalistic flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.
I haven't looked closely at the post but since the article is claiming some sort of technical innovation it's not hard to see why some readers would find it interesting. If you don't find it interesting, that's fine—nothing interests everybody, and there are plenty of other things to read here.
Re: E-Shotgun
#104Re: E-Shotgun
#105Re: E-Shotgun
#106I 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…
That's already how this works in some countries. If someone attacks you with a baseball bat or fists and you shoot them dead you might be sentenced for overstepping a reasonable self-defense. The same crime at gun-point and at knife-point carries much harsher punishment. This encourages reasonable (de)escalation instead of just going for 120% from the start. And saves lives. End result is - even in countries with rel…
The cheat code in the US is to say "I was afraid the guy with the [fists | bat | skateboard] was going to take my rifle and shoot me with it."
Re: E-Shotgun
#107I 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 is definitely an interesting line of thought worth exploring, but I do take issue your central point: There is no such thing as a non-lethal weapon, and even good less lethal weapons struggle to effectively stop determined assailants. A human truly determined to inflict harm on someone is astoundingly difficult to stop. The starkest examples I've come across are two officer-involved shootings: First was in Orego…
> no such thing as a non-lethal weapon
The jargon du jour is "less lethal" for this reason.
And since every weapon from a stick to a stun gun is possibly lethal, your adversary can claim "self defense" when he shoots you dead with an actual firearm.
I would be afraid to carry only "less lethal" weapons because they can get you killed faster than being completely unarmed.
Re: E-Shotgun
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Legally, deadly force. Practically, hell no. Not trusting my life to a metal disc with the same velocity as a BB pellet.
How about 4 discs and 15 BBs? PDX 12ga rounds have like 25cm spread at 15 meters...
No. If my life is on the line, I'm not going to use anything that gives my attacker a fair chance. The e-shotgun looks stupid fun, though, and I'll probably get one for shits and giggles.
Re: E-Shotgun
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What happens if they're high on drugs and not in a right state of mind? I'll not be taking that kind of chance...
Everything we do has risks and what-ifs.
What if you come out with a baseball bat and the thief has a gun?
What if you come out with a gun and there's a second thief that you don't see and he fires first?
What if you come out and fire at the "burglar" and it turns out to be your neighbor's drunk teenager walking into the wrong home or police doing a no-knock warrant on the wrong address?
There's always risks. The actions you take and the risks you choose to be guided by are entirely a function of the deep values you actually hold and act on.
Re: E-Shotgun
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's already how this works in some countries. If someone attacks you with a baseball bat or fists and you shoot them dead you might be sentenced for overstepping a reasonable self-defense. The same crime at gun-point and at knife-point carries much harsher punishment. This encourages reasonable (de)escalation instead of just going for 120% from the start. And saves lives. End result is - even in countries with rel…
The cheat code in the US is to say "I was afraid the guy with the [fists | bat | skateboard] was going to take my rifle and shoot me with it."
Wouldn't the obvious conclusion be: "carrying a gun is dangerous for you"?