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

131–140 of 152 posts

Re: E-Shotgun

#131

Post by meheleventyone »

donw wrote: post #118
meheleventyone wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All of the weapons indicated in that article have muzzle energies well above 16J. If the projectile was some kind of sharpened dart, 16J might be enough to be lethal in a headshot. Maybe. I'd have to do a test to see if it could punch through mass equivalent to the bones of the skull. But a disc or a ball? Unlikely. Could take out an eye, sure, but that's about it. Absolutely unsuitable as a weapon.

At least in the UK the legal limit for air rifles is below 16J you do of course get higher powered weapons but they need to be held with a FAC. Air pistols have an even lower limit. These are detailed in the article.

Also at least two of the weapons detailed was below 12 ftlbs which means it was definitely below 16J. Further when you get on to the discussion you will note it says all the weapons were within legal limits. So your reading of the article is incorrect.

The actual legal limit for “lethality” as it pertains to defining a firearm in the UK is 1.35J.

Re: E-Shotgun

#132

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

dash2 wrote: post #87
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sure. While the US has a higher murder rate than most (say) European countries, its overall rate of violent crime is lower than many European countries. For example it has fewer police-recorded assaults than Britain, Israel, Germany, Finland, Chile, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Iceland, Australia, Portugal and France. So, the explanation for the US' high murder rate is perhaps less likely to be "they encoura…

> less "they encourage bloodlust" and more "they make it very easy to own guns"

I agree entirely, but frankly it's a distinction without a difference.

Re: E-Shotgun

#133

Post by jaggederest »

Blammar wrote: post #111
jaggederest wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This little fella here: https://www.imalentlight.com/imalent-ms18-led-flashlight-cre...

That's marketing hype. From the CREE datasheet at https://cree-led.com/media/documents/ds-XHP702.pdf , each LED runs between 1500 to 2000 lumens. That flashlight has 18 LEDs, so 36k lumens at the most. Also, for the rated brightness, each LED has to be run at 12VDC 2.4 amps or ~30 watts. The thing has 8 21700 cells at ~3.7v each 4Ah. So the cells are probably wired in a 2x4 configuration giving 7.5v and a total of 32…

They usually run them through power regulation circuitry (a boost converter or the digital equivalent) and overdrive the LEDs, maybe into the 24v+ range. The "turbo" mode usually only runs for a few seconds at most, and is where they derive the high lumen numbers from.

With this kind of flashlight you have to use unprotected lithium ion cells because they far exceed what the protection circuitry will let you do. Also related to their tendency to go kaboom if set up wrong.

Re: E-Shotgun

#134

Post by zomg »

claviska wrote: post #63

Everything else aside, am I the only one who thinks putting two function keys right below the muzzle is a poor design?

i couldn't agree more. seeing those function keys below the muzzle made me cringe.

Re: E-Shotgun

#135

Post by hellisothers »

I was once in a session with a concealed carry license instructor and at the end of his session he made a couple surprising points. 1) if you’re going to shoot somebody, shoot to kill or prepare for a lawsuit. 2) There is a gun lobby, a taser lobby, a knife lobby, but no baseball bat lobby so don’t keep a baseball bat under your bed because when you injure somebody you’ll be sued and nobody will help defend you. 3) Buy pepper spray. I took his advise and bought pepper spray instead. My point here is there is also no rail gun lobby, so if you injure somebody, prepare to be sued.

Re: E-Shotgun

#136

Post by glenstein »

panarky wrote: post #107
GravitasFailure wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>The jargon du jour is "less lethal" for this reason.

Exactly. The point is that a really motivated person with an automatic rifle and that same person with a butterknife represent completely different levels of danger.

I think the "anyone motivated to kill will kill" narrative collapses instantly for this reason.

Re: E-Shotgun

#137

Post by glenstein »

meheleventyone wrote: post #51
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.

The notion that non-lethal (or less lethal) weapons might be considered functionally equivalent to their lethal counterparts is, I believe relatively new.

Re: E-Shotgun

#138

Post by glenstein »

selfhoster11 wrote: post #57
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.

>Lethal means would be required to safeguard that.

Why is that? It sounds like you are saying that even if you don't need lethal force for self defense, you would need it for regime change?

Re: E-Shotgun

#139

Post by panarky »

vogt wrote: post #120
panarky wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

That's a popular leftist talking point, but untrue. It didn't work for the murderers of Armad Aubrey (as it should not have), for one recent high-profile example. If we were referring to _Police_ in America, I'd agree with you.

> leftist talking point, but untrue

This exact cheat code was successfully used by the killer in another recent high-profile example.

"If I would have let [the person shot four times] take my firearm from me, he would have used it and killed me with it and probably killed more people."

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2021/11/20/the-acqui...

Re: E-Shotgun

#140

Post by panarky »

ajuc wrote: post #110
panarky wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

Since the guy carrying the gun winds up alive, while those around him wind up dead, seems like the obvious conclusion is that "carrying a gun is dangerous for everyone else who isn't carrying a gun".
Post reply on HN