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

141–150 of 152 posts

Re: E-Shotgun

#141

Post by cik2e »

panarky wrote: post #140
ajuc wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

A more appropriate conclusion would be that "it's dangerous to brazenly attack someone who is carrying a gun".

Perhaps they were encouraged by the fact that Rittenhouse was trying to avoid conflict and run away?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Rqv2tIg4E&t=319s

The only "cheat code" here was used by the prosecutor to bring this case to trial.

Re: E-Shotgun

#142

Post by junon »

slowmotiony wrote: post #65
junon wrote: post #26

> 3. Internet: it is combined with big data and it can be tracked during the whole process The site feels like satire. Some of the Q&A answers just make little sense. Also, they claim it's non-lethal. After the example videos, I cannot see how that is the case. It looks like it could easily shred through some stomach lining or nick an artery or completely blind someone.

Non-lethal means it is not going to cause death. Being blind in one eye is not going to make you stop living.

Yes sure, if you breeze past the shredded intestines and nicked arteries...

Re: E-Shotgun

#143

Post by ajuc »

panarky wrote: post #140
ajuc wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Duel isn't dangerous because the other guy is dead and I'm alive.

Re: E-Shotgun

#144

Post by donw »

meheleventyone wrote: post #131
donw wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lim…

> 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.

I re-read, and you are correct!

I'd still be surprised if this was a common occurrence with projectiles of such low power, but if ballistics against key targets (heart and brain through the skull) show consistent penetration at that power level with a steel ball, I'm happy to update my assumptions as to power and lethality.

(I'd be surprised if they did, but it'd definitely change my mind should the results be consistent)

Re: E-Shotgun

#146

Post by [deleted] »

donw wrote: post #144
meheleventyone wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lim…

> 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. I re-read, and you are correct! I'd still be surprised if this was a common occurrence with projectiles of such low power, but if ballistics against key targets (hea…

[deleted]

Re: E-Shotgun

#147

Post by jack_h »

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…

I think you're misunderstanding the second amendment and self-defense. The second amendment doesn't enumerate the right to self-defense. Self-defense is an affirmative defense to a criminal charge (in this instance) which is within the purview of the states and not the federal government due to the tenth amendment.

Heller held that the second amendment protected an individuals right to keep and bear arms for traditionally lawful purposes, which was later incorporated into the states in McDonald. One traditionally lawful purpose is self-defense, but the states get to define self-defense; of which there are already many differences between the states. I suppose the right of self-defense could be found in the fourteenth amendment - it certainly has a legal history going back thousands of years. Even so, it would be distinct from the second amendment. Think of it more like emergent behavior stemming from interactions in our dual sovereignty system of government.

All that to say that no, I don't believe this would factor into any analysis when it comes to second amendment regulation cases. The second amendment would protect against regulating these less lethal weapons if Caetano is any indication though.

Re: E-Shotgun

#148

Post by evgen »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #92
evgen wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the intent of 2A was to enable citizens to force a regime change No it was not and this is a common myth that is repeated by the 2A crowd. The primary intent of the 2A was to allow the individual states to field militias (the only land army available to the new nation who was still in conflict with its former rulers) without going broke. It was more about a fear of a standing army balanced against a fear of British…

Is the militia not any able bodied citizen capable of fighting for defense of self or state? The militia argument was completely broken in 2008 with DC vs Heller that specially said 2A is not a collective right, but absolutely an individual right. So, wether you can read the intention of people who just used guns to rebel against their government and form a new one was really to make sure that only the government cou…

The 'militia' is an outdated concept with as much relevance to modern life as the muskets they once used, but it was always intended to be a popular (as in 'of the people') manifestation of the state. As far as Heller goes, Scalia conjured that one up from thin air and no amount of weasel words from a justice can change historical fact. The 2A was never an individual right until Scalia declared it to be so, and this change is unlikely to last as long as many 2A proponents think it will.

Re: E-Shotgun

#149

Post by nanna »

dang wrote: post #103
nanna wrote: post #43

[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…

Fair enough Dang. Apologies.

Re: E-Shotgun

#150

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

evgen wrote: post #148
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the militia not any able bodied citizen capable of fighting for defense of self or state? The militia argument was completely broken in 2008 with DC vs Heller that specially said 2A is not a collective right, but absolutely an individual right. So, wether you can read the intention of people who just used guns to rebel against their government and form a new one was really to make sure that only the government cou…

The 'militia' is an outdated concept with as much relevance to modern life as the muskets they once used, but it was always intended to be a popular (as in 'of the people') manifestation of the state. As far as Heller goes, Scalia conjured that one up from thin air and no amount of weasel words from a justice can change historical fact. The 2A was never an individual right until Scalia declared it to be so, and this…

> 2A was never an individual right

Right, except for all the reasons it was outlined to be exactly that for 240 years before you came along to say it wasn’t. Perhaps try the Federalist Papers, Jefferson, and Adam’s writings on the topic.

You are free to disagree all you like, you are within all rights to call a majority decision wrong and the opinion of weasel words… your feelings change nothing.

The militia argument is completely dead. 2A is an individual right. End of story until that decision is overturned. You are 13 years late to be upset over it.

Post reply on HN