10 ms·
E-Shotgun
- uap 5y agoElectric coil, non-lethal, defense weapon. DemolitionRanch video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izW1X2555Wg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izW1X2555Wg
- LegitShady 5y agoBased on some of the damage that weapon did in the video, I don't expect that is non lethal by any means. That looks like deadly force to me.
- rpmisms 5y agoLegally, deadly force. Practically, hell no. Not trusting my life to a metal disc with the same velocity as a BB pellet.
- genewitch 5y agoHow about 4 discs and 15 BBs? PDX 12ga rounds have like 25cm spread at 15 meters...
- rpmisms 5y agoNo. 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.
- ShrigmaMale 5y agoIf 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.
- gillesjacobs 5y agoWouldn't want to use it for self-defense. Would just mildly irrate any attacker most likely. Nevertheless, still a very cool concept and slick implementation.
- zeroflow 5y agoI 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.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- CodeGlitch 5y agoDid you see what it did to a water melon? I think any intruder would be wise not to confront one of these.
- sharklazer 5y agoI 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.
- mbg721 5y agoWhat about a point-ed stick?
- fortysixdegrees 5y agoA banana?
- mbg721 5y agoIf some homicidal maniac comes after me with a load of loganberries, I'll concede defeat.
- Synaesthesia 5y agoIt'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 ...
- pull_my_finger 5y agoFrom the QA page[1] > 4. Who is the target user of e-shotgun? > 1. Players: lovers who like to play with guns. Am I reading this right? The number 1 target user is BDSM kink players? [1]: https://e-shotgun.com/qa/ https://e-shotgun.com/qa/
- ObscureScience 5y agoWhat is this tagline supposed to mean? "Fully electrified new energy near defense equipment, more a black technology fever product."
- authed 5y agoI'd rather get a PCP Air riffle... something like this one in .50 cal: https://www.airgundepot.com/airforce-texan-air-rifle-carbon-fiber-tank.html https://www.airgundepot.com/airforce-texan-air-rifle-carbon-...
- bradgranath 5y agoMmmm, yas. More wierd ESL gun-humper copy.
- GauntletWizard 5y agonote that in their demonstration video, they're very careful not to show you the butt of the gun - I will bet that it's plugged in. I seriously doubt they've got sufficient power supply in that profile.
- yadaeno 5y agoIt does not need to be plugged in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izW1X2555Wg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izW1X2555Wg
- Ancapistani 5y agoConsider me unimpressed. First, there just isn’t a ton of energy in that “round”. They’re claiming <16J - a .22LR, the smallest common caliber, comes in at around 275J. This thing is substantially less powerful than many BB guns. 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.
- defterGoose 5y ago| It's a toy. An extremely dangerous toy.
- Ancapistani 5y agoI suppose that’s fair. I’d argue it’s less dangerous than, for instance, a 5” racing quadcopter.
- dsomers 5y agoI’d say 5” racing quadcopter might not be a bad home defensive weapon either. I’d probably go down if you ran it into my head at full speed.
- tlamponi 5y ago> I’d argue it’s less dangerous than, for instance, a 5” racing quadcopter. Semi-related, as I looked into drones here again a bit (my last adventure was a self-build from 2011, different times): The EU thought so too, it defines the difference between toys (that you do not need to register nor have any license for) are those which develop no more than 79 joules of impact energy when dropping, which couples it automatically to the weight of the drone and the ceiling height you can/want to fly with it. The law assumes that you need to calculate at minimum 30 m of ceiling height, to avoid shops being able to sell 2.5 kg drones when you ensure while winking that you fly it at 1 m at max. So the most common variants are 250 gr. which works out at 30 m allowed ceiling height you can fly with it, at least if you're not in a restricted flight zone, like some cities and naturally airports are. https://www.easa.europa.eu/domains/civil-drones/drones-regulatory-framework-background/open-category-civil-drones https://www.easa.europa.eu/domains/civil-drones/drones-regul...
- olliej 5y agowhy is a gun on HN?
- causi 5y ago16 joules, or roughly four times the energy of a Nerf dart. The local meth-heads are still shaking in their boots but it isn't in fear of this toy.
- donkarma 5y agoWhen I googled the energy of a Nerf dart I saw 4 joules, but this is from a 200g Nerf dart in a hypothetical question. When I calculate it for a 1g Nerf dart at around 21m/s it comes out to 0.2205 joules
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- junon 5y ago> 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.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- slowmotiony 5y agoNon-lethal means it is not going to cause death. Being blind in one eye is not going to make you stop living.
- junon 5y agoYes sure, if you breeze past the shredded intestines and nicked arteries...
- LegitShady 5y agoIf you used this on any person it would be lethal force. The company declaring it not lethal is a joke and liability for them.
- cwkoss 5y agoThat looks like a lot of fun
- eternityforest 5y agoIt's cool, but aren't pepper ball pistols a lot cheaper?
- nanna 5y ago[flagged]
- dang 5y agoPlease 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. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- nanna 5y agoFair enough Dang. Apologies.
- claviska 5y agoEverything else aside, am I the only one who thinks putting two function keys right below the muzzle is a poor design?
- zomg 5y agoi couldn't agree more. seeing those function keys below the muzzle made me cringe.
- kissgyorgy 5y agoWhy is a fucking gun on the front page? Moderators also gave up on the site I guess.
- ralusek 5y agoTech
- mantaraygun 5y agoWhy is it called a shotgun? It shoots little discs, not shot.
- datameta 5y agoLooks like at 3000rpm, the 50 round mag will impact the target within human reaction time, in a spread similar to a shotgun's.
- hellisothers 5y agoI 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.
- faebi 5y agoHow would a cordless nail gun do in comparison?
- crate_barre 5y agoGreat for filling up the vacants on the Westside.
- hitekker 5y agoNice reference. I was just watching the wire
- IAmGraydon 5y agoYeah…sorry. If someone breaks into my house, they’re getting a bit more than 16J pointed their way.
- dang 5y agoCan you please not post unsubstantive comments or flamebait to HN? You started a pointless flamewar with this, and we're trying for the opposite sort of discussion here. Fortunately your substantive comments have been good, so this should be easy to fix. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- GoodbyeMrChips 5y agoMany 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_delegates_discuss_police_scotland_deescalation/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/rcglza/us_delegat...
- dash2 5y agoHumans have bloodlust. Let's not chaffer in national stereotypes.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y agoHumans have bloodlust, and many other urges. Societies decide whether to encourage these, or not.
- dash2 5y agoSure. 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 encourage bloodlust" and more likely to be "they make it very easy to own guns". https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/crime_stats_oecdjan...
- zeroflow 5y agoI REALLY doubt the "Good stopping effect". That's the same as the flashlights with "intruder stopping" strobe. They claim 16J. Well, a typical - Germany Legal - Airsoft gun has 7.5J, so we're talking about toy-level of energy. Now, looking at some 9mm ammo, you have around 500-570J depending on type - Ball vs. Hollow Point. Yeah, it's very clear to me, what I want to use if I have to defend myself.
- semi-extrinsic 5y agoComparing impact energy between a flat and a pointed object is meaningless. A five-year-old in a pillow fight will put substantially more than 16J into your body.
- glenstein 5y agoI agree, and I feel like this is a critical point being overlooked. A pillow and a point of a stick can apply the same amount of force, with completely different effects.
- robbedpeter 5y agoA 50-100k lumen flashlight would be a better defense, cost less, and possibly be more fun (for night fishing, too!)
- Blammar 5y agoLED flashlights don't go up to 100k lumens to my knowledge. If you need extreme intensity, you'll have to use a solid state laser. A 10w handheld laser would be an effective defense, but you should wear bandstop glasses at the laser frequency. A beam spreader would also make it easier to aim and still nearly as effective.
- sgt 5y agoSomehow I feel it's more humane to kill an intruder than to blind him.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- glenstein 5y agoI 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 depends on what flavor of defense of the second amendment you favor, but it seems like self-defense can be associated with incapacitation, need not necessarily depend on the capability of killing. If that's true, access to weapons for the purpose of self-defense that aren't capable of killing would seem to open up a lot of possibilities for regulating traditional firearms. If (I said if!) there are equally effective alternatives for the purpose of self-defense, then that constitutional right can be satisfied without the need for traditional firearms that are capable of killing. Insofar as they can replace traditional firearms, I find that promising, but obviously this brings a fair amount of unintended complexity; for instance non-lethal self defense may open up entirely new dimensions of cruel maiming and non-lethal suffering, it's may create complexities relating to whether something's actually non-lethal, it may have an effect of increasing the sum total of use of force by introducing non-lethal force into lower and lower stakes situations leading to a net increase of physical coercion, and there may be cultural resistance to the idea ever becoming mainstream because it would be too reformist and therefore liberal. I think these all have to be navigated, but I think the trade-off is worth considering. I also think that strong gun regulation is worth considering, and personally just don't endorse wide distribution of guns in any form whatsoever, so I consider this a workaround peculiar to the culture of America.
- mensetmanusman 5y agoNot so sure about that, it was the anti-gun folk who were against finger-print-to-unlock firearms, because they thought having better security would result in more guns being owned.
- jack_h 5y agoI 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.
- oriori 5y agoFirst thought that came to mind after watching the video, imagine attaching it to a drone, mob suppression will never be the same again.
- JoeyBananas 5y agojust buy an Austrian black pistol