Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
It is a truism that most technology is a two-edged sword. Something created with a beneficial use can and (due to human nature) turned into something harmful is the way the scenario usually plays out. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule where the inverse is true and something harmful turns out to have a beneficial application. To illustrate this point, here is the Vortex Gun.
You saw correctly. This is a gun that can fire concentrated blasts of tear gas, pepper spray or any other aerosol agent moving at 90 miles per hour at targets up to 150 feet away. The “smoke rings” are still moving at 60 miles per hour reaching targets over 90 feet away. What possible benefit could come from such a weapon? Let’s look at the non-military application of the weapon before jumping the gun (pun fully intended).
It is an interesting side effect that the charges the smoke rings can serve a beneficial function for fighting fires. The rings can be used to clear smoke from the air because the ionizing charges in the ring causes airborne smoke particles around them to clump together like rain droplets and cling to surfaces. This could be very beneficial to firefighters. Smoke impedes both rescue and fire suppression actions as well is being inherently dangerous as an inhalation risk. Initial results seem to indicate this would be a more efficient way to clear smoke than the existing practice of using exhaust fans. The Vortex Gun is not the only electrically based fire fighting tool on the technological horizon either. DARPA is funding experiments done by the Whitesides Research Group at Harvard University on using electrical fields to suppress fires by changing the shape of the flame to rip it from its fuel source. However, unlike the “fire wand” experiments, the primary design function of the Vortex Gun is as a weapon. Function follows form. The question of “what possible benefit could come from such a weapon” seems to be a boon for firefighting and public safety. But like any technology or science, it isn’t enough to do something just because we as a species can do it. That’s irresponsible. We need to ask and examine the question “Just because we can do a thing, does that mean we should do a thing?”
Does that potential benefit outweigh the risk to personal freedoms like free speech and assembly such a weapon poses? Is this a weapon – or indeed representative of the kind of weapons – that American’s concerned about oppression and the ever steady erosion of civil and human rights in this country should try to keep out of the hands of law enforcement? Is this another “pacifying weapon” like the Taser which could rapidly turn into an abusive and abused method of coercion? Although the articles stress the use of “non-lethal” aerosol agents, how difficult would it be to modify the weapon and/or provide users with appropriate safety gear to make using lethal aerosol agents practical?
These are all valid questions, especially now that the previously discussed “Anti-Protest Bill” – H.R. 347 – was signed into law on March 9, 2012 by President Obama.
What do you think?
Source(s): Innovation News Daily (1) (2), YouTube, The Inquistr
~Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
The police do not need these kind of weapons if they are allowing protests to continue unimpeded.
Exactly Raff and they let the Occupy Movement get out of hand by letting them go unimpeded for to long.
Gene I was being facetious. I was using your words as part of my comment. You know just like my copy and paste the other day. Just like about a month ago every other comment I made ended with it’s for the greater good. You obviously seen it because I haven’t used it in a couple of weeks yet you say I continue to use it. THEY ARE YOUR WORDS. How is it that Occupy protesters who continue to rape as recently as two days ago could be for the greater good. It’s a movement that you and others stood for even though time and time again I pointed out how they were infringing on the rights of others. The IDEA of the Occupy movement is great. The people involved in the movement at the street level not so much.
Bdaman,
Again you are missing or ignoring the point of the article. What impact, if any, will this weapon have on all of our rights to protest? You do realize that this kind of weapon could be used against climate change deniers, don’t you? The police do not need these kind of weapons if they are allowing protests to continue unimpeded.
Come on now, Bdaman.
Explain to everyone how tools of oppression that are being used or are going to be used on people using their Constitutionally protected rights of free speech and assembly is for the greater good.
Bdaman,
What you fail to realize is that what is pathetic is your continual attempts to portray the interests of the 1% – those responsible for their being protesters in the first place – as being for the greater good. You wouldn’t know the greater good if it bit you on the ass. But you keep trying that “reverse psychology”. Your ineptness and transparency in application is just hilarious.
Is Bob Esq now Bob Frog ?
Gene unless you forgot, I keep using it because I got it from you. Thats what you said about the Occupy Movement hence the reason I coupled both together on your thread, DOOF,
You said it at around the same time when the 81 year old woman was knocked down by an Occupy member who was at a political function of the right. You said it was her fault and she should learn to choose better friends. Your right Gene it is pathetic, FUCKING PATHETIC.
Bob
“The fact is police require tools to manage things like riot control. Simply because a tool can be used for oppression does not necessitate that it WILL be used for oppression.”
This statement sounds like Obama’s signing statement in re to NDAA where he promises he wont use it. He might not but it won’t prevent the next president.
I’m starting to think that the survival of individual rights requires that a mob of unarmed citizens can overwhelm the local constabulary.
Bdaman sez: “It’s probably a coincidence that we are now seeing these systems unveiled for the first time after the start of the Occupy Movement. Glad to see it, it’s for the greater good.”
*********************************
Sorry, your math evades me. Is that some of that New Math? The greater good is when the 1% use it to suppress dissent by the 99%?
If the law enforcement of the 1960’s had today’s crowd control or riot suppression tools, do you really think the Civil Rights Acts would have ever been enacted? Goodbye million man march.
Bob,
Agreed.
Gene,
The fact is police require tools to manage things like riot control. Simply because a tool can be used for oppression does not necessitate that it WILL be used for oppression.
I do agree that simplifying crowd control, or perp control, does tend to induce abusive practices as we’ve seen with Tasers.
What we need is a thorough analysis and revamping of the laws regarding the use of these tools so that people and organizations are held accountable and thereby preventing the oppressive use thereof.
Blouise,
I always like the big questions.
**********
Bdaman,
You keep using the phrase “it’s for the greater good.”
I’d like for you to explain to everyone how tools of oppression that are being used or are going to be used on people using their Constitutionally protected rights of free speech and assembly is for the greater good. Because in reality, such oppression only benefits the oligarchy (your beloved 1%) and oppresses the majority.
This ought to be really funny. In a pathetic sort of way.
And then there’s that old standby … the fire hose.
where I have I read about a government sponsered ray gun before? Atlas something or other.
Let’s not forget LRAD
What Blouise said.
As for the weapon itself, its trajectory seemed poorly predictable in a closed windless room. They’ll improve it for sure. Weapons fascinate and are profitable. Wonder why?
ADS continued
This goes along with the new Active Denial Systems. It’s probably a coincidence that we are now seeing these systems unveiled for the first time after the start of the Occupy Movement. Glad to see it, it’s for the greater good.
“Just because we can do a thing, does that mean we should do a thing?” (“Just because I can do a thing, does that mean I should do a thing?”)
Good lord, Gene. That is the question at the root of every good and or evil act man has committed since time began.
Law enforcement has many “pacifying weapons” available to them and have proven they lack the brains to use them appropriately. This newest would be no different. Outlaw its use as a weapon from the getgo strictly enforcing any violation with a sign that reads, “Welcome to the Prison Population”. It will be necessary to punish inappropriate modification and use because there are always those who will do a thing because they can. Thus it has always been; thus it will always be.
Good article especially in tandem with Mike’s….. Some of the sciences that came out of the crime family’s syndicate was the microwave…..the original purpose not so Nobel…..