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

71–80 of 152 posts

Re: E-Shotgun

#71

Post by lazide »

j2bax wrote: post #59
inkblotuniverse wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You’re thinking of it from a normal military perspective - which is why normal militaries always consistently lose these types of conflicts. British, Russians, Americans in Afghanistan. Americans, French, Chinese in Vietnam, etc.

For a counter example, look at Britain in India.

The more people you kill (regular folk), the more the population turns against you, and less likely you’ll actually be able to stay long term, and the more you get stuck in an endless morass of guerrilla attacks. Because it motivates suicide bombers, desperation, hate.

Even more true in a civil war.

If you co-opt leadership while nominally supporting the locals and making their lives better, it can help instead. Or go full scorched earth, but that generally doesn’t work in a civil war unless there is only a small region rebelling.

Re: E-Shotgun

#72

Post by afarrell »

j2bax wrote: post #59
inkblotuniverse wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A scorched-earth campaign would prompt a lot more blue-on-blue attacks and assassinations from people who don’t like having their homes and mothers incinerated.

Re: E-Shotgun

#73

Post by sharklazer »

CodeGlitch wrote: post #68
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.

Did you see what it did to a water melon? I think any intruder would be wise not to confront one of these.

I suppose you’re safe if your attackers are watermelons. But a watermelon is not a good substitute to understand what it’d do to a person. It only give an indication of damage.

Re: E-Shotgun

#74

Post by mbg721 »

sharklazer wrote: post #73
CodeGlitch wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you see what it did to a water melon? I think any intruder would be wise not to confront one of these.

I suppose you’re safe if your attackers are watermelons. But a watermelon is not a good substitute to understand what it’d do to a person. It only give an indication of damage.

What about a point-ed stick?

Re: E-Shotgun

#75

Post by pg5 »

Ancapistani wrote: post #6

Consider me unimpressed. First, there just isn’t a ton of energy in that “round”. They’re claiming Second, the disk shape of the projectile means that it’s going to be impossible to aim effectively. That thing is going to have significant vertical dispersion even at very short ranges. It’s a toy.

I'm assuming this is a prototype and later versions will be more powerful.

Have you seen the demolition ranch video for it? On max settings it was going through a medium sized pumpkin. I would not want to be on the receiving end of it.

Edit: I do agree with you, I would only buy one for fun, in it's current state

Re: E-Shotgun

#76

Post by pg5 »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #9

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

What if the disks are mini sawblades?

Re: E-Shotgun

#77

Post by ShrigmaMale »

j2bax wrote: post #59
inkblotuniverse wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Because scorched-earth counterinsurgency never works. It doesn't usually work tactically amd it never achieves long-term goals strategic or political unless you want the place to stay a smoking crater. This is basically the reason why the communist guerilla tactics pioneered by Mao and used by many others were so effective.

Re: E-Shotgun

#78

Post by oxymoran »

Youden wrote: post #58
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.

They are absolutely about rebelling against a tyrannical government. The founders were obsessed with safeguarding democracy against tyranny. That’s why there is the whole bit about the right to form a militia. The self defense aspect is just the logical extrapolation of that idea from from a population level to an individual level.

Re: E-Shotgun

#79

Post by ShrigmaMale »

genewitch wrote: post #41
rpmisms wrote: post #5

Earlier 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...

If I am in the rare scenario where I have to shoot I will use the lethal option. Even if the chance is only 1% where the non-lethal does not kill. Because if I have to shoot than my life is in imminent danger.

Re: E-Shotgun

#80

Post by JKCalhoun »

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.

You're going to get a lot of pushback on that without evidence.
Post reply on HN