# Introducing the puke-saber...



## CoryKS (Aug 7, 2007)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292271,00.html?abc=123

Interesting.  I wonder if it'll be available for personal use once they get the size down.  It has potential as a SD device, but the temptation for misuse might be too high.  As if teenagers with laser pointers aren't annoying enough.


----------



## SKB (Aug 7, 2007)

This would be great for LEO's if it could work fast enough!!!!

And would be funny as hell to use on your buddies when they tick you off or you are bored!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Ella (Aug 7, 2007)

hmm....

I'm not sure what I think about this. I could see people using it for a lot of wrong reasons.


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 7, 2007)

Ella said:


> hmm....
> 
> I'm not sure what I think about this. I could see people using it for a lot of wrong reasons.


I suppose that would classify it as a weapon then, wouldn't it? :shrug:

I'll have to think about this a bit ... admittedly it puts a new spew - er, I mean, *spin* -  - on LTL technology.


----------



## Ella (Aug 7, 2007)

Yes, but unlike most traditional weapons, a gun, knife, or stick, some people who use it for the wrong reasons might not see it as un unprovoked attack. They might view it instead as ......a gag.


----------



## Empty Hands (Aug 7, 2007)

Wow, life imitates a Phillip K. Dick story once again.  I wonder if pre-crime will be our next development - oops, already there!


----------



## CoryKS (Aug 7, 2007)

Plus it would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove that somebody used it on you.  I wonder if the LEO's would be reluctant to use it if they knew they had to put the person in their car afterward?


----------



## Ella (Aug 7, 2007)

It seems like if all the LEO's were using it, people would just start to close their eyes.


----------



## CoryKS (Aug 7, 2007)

Ella said:


> It seems like if all the LEO's were using it, people would just start to close their eyes.


 
That's fine, too.  It's kinda hard to evade the police with your eyes closed.


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 7, 2007)

So, thinking about countermeasures, if it's a spectrum issue (the article quotes the term 'evil color') then it would be somewhat simple to engineer tinted lenses to eliminate that color spectrum, would it not?


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Aug 7, 2007)

They could turn around and run, of course then the taser comes out. 

Personally Id love to have one to play jokes on people. 

B


----------



## Ella (Aug 7, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> Personally Id love to have one to play jokes on people.



That's what I was talking about, shesulsa.

No one would use a gun on someone and claim it was a joke.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Aug 7, 2007)

Ella said:


> That's what I was talking about, shesulsa.
> 
> No one would use a gun on someone and claim it was a joke.


What kind of gun? Paintaball gun or taser gun, then yes I would

B


----------



## Ella (Aug 7, 2007)

A gun gun.

The kind most people mean when they say gun without an adjective before it.

*EDIT*
I'm a green belt!


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Aug 7, 2007)

Ella said:


> A gun gun.
> 
> The kind most people mean when they say gun without an adjective before it.
> 
> ...


I know Im just being a wise guy 

congrats on the green belt

B


----------



## Ella (Aug 7, 2007)

but if you randomly went at someone with a tazer or paintball gun, you could probably get in trouble for assault.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Aug 7, 2007)

you are probably correct, but I would pick a random person it would be a friend (im a guy and we do stupid crap like that so I wouldnt bother asking cause Ill never be able to explain why I would do something lilke that to a friend)

B


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 7, 2007)

Ella said:


> That's what I was talking about, shesulsa.
> 
> No one would use a gun on someone and claim it was a joke.


Firstly, let me say my comment was a wry one.

Secondly, I think there have been many well-publicized firearm accidents where people and young kids were "playing around" with them or "making a joke" ... adding to the wryness of my comment.

And, finally, if this is to be used as an LTL technology weapon, then the abuse of it *should* be considered on the same level as abuse of tasers.  

Let's consider this:  

We know that in certain individuals certain color and sound stimuli can bring about seizure as can, of course, electrical.  Therefore, this LTL tool has the potential of having health risk associated with it just as the others do.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Aug 7, 2007)

Personally, I love the range of nonlethal weapons that have been coming out recently.  Really broadens the scope of options for law enforcement and private citizens alike.


----------



## grydth (Aug 7, 2007)

Just to spoil the enthusiasm... this weapon sounds like it has plenty of potential for collateral damage - - - and that means law suits. 

Imagine a security guard using one on an unruly customer in a family restaurant... and the place turning from eatery to Vomitorium as every patron tosses their cookies. Or worse, the beam produces nausea and disorientation in a raving street person... and the same tragic effects in a passing bus driver or guys on a scaffold.

I wonder what the thing would do to somebody with a very weak heart.... or a suppressed immune system....or a frail 80 year old.... or somebody with a seizure disorder.

I do not see this device ever coming into public use, and I doubt even widespread LEO use. Maybe prison guards could use it.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Aug 7, 2007)

By the same token, it allows the use of incapacitating force in situations where it otherwise couldn't have been.  There are situations every year where cops couldn't stop somebody from hurting people because they were afraid a missed bullet would hit some bystander.

That's not a problem with a weapon like this, or the similar sonic units.  Collateral damage with this thing means you buy somebody a new suit.  Definitely superior is a certain range of situations to handguns, probably superior in that range to tazers.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 7, 2007)

Well, it's good that people are trying to develop nonlethal weapons--we have to allow them some room for experimentation.


----------



## grydth (Aug 7, 2007)

Respectfully, I do not agree at all. 

I don't think police now would use bullets in the examples I cited. Indeed, existing nonlethal weapons do not pose the risks I cited and would get the job done.

If that light beam incapacitates a passing driver or a construction crew, the "new suit" needed could well be for the funeral home.

Other than a prison situation, I find this device offers little we do not already have.

And - If this ever got outside LEO and was sold in the public domain, I would expect widespread misuse.


----------



## qi-tah (Aug 8, 2007)

bushidomartialarts said:


> By the same token, it allows the use of incapacitating force in situations where it otherwise couldn't have been. There are situations every year where cops couldn't stop somebody from hurting people because they were afraid a missed bullet would hit some bystander.
> 
> That's not a problem with a weapon like this, or the similar sonic units. Collateral damage with this thing means you buy somebody a new suit. Definitely superior is a certain range of situations to handguns, probably superior in that range to tazers.


 
I do wonder though if the police would be more likely to abuse non-lethal weaponry b/cause of a combination of: a) a perception that the effects are minimal and transitory, and b) point and shoot weapons being easy to use. However, all sorts of things can happen... heart attacks with tasers (think i recall reading that there has been another taser death in the US during the last few days?), possibility of seizures in epileptics with this "vomit light" thing. And what about the effects of repeated use on someone? Who knows if it might change something in the brain and trigger illness over time? IMHO it's a weapon and deserves the respect due to a weapon... it's not just something you'd use indiscriminantly and it's certainly not a joke.


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 8, 2007)

Less lethal weapons are a great tool, in the right place.

But until we get something like a phaser that'll incapacitate someone with minimal injury at relatively long ranges, with very high reliability, they're also dangerous.

The public sees Tasers, OC, Vomit-flashlights, sticky foam...  They don't understand that most times when less lethal options fit -- lethal options are essential backups.  There's also a simple decision-block effect.  We're giving cops so many things to choose from that under pressure, they can't figure out what to use!  It's bad when a new martial arts student freezes up and can't figure out which step or block to use...  It's thousands of times worse when someone's REALLY trying to hurt or kill you!

And -- yep, cops would be hesitant to use something that guarantees they'll have to clean up puke.  It ain't fun cleaning up your own puke.  It's not fun cleaning up your kid's puke.  It's LOTS less fun cleaning up someone else's puke -- especially if they've been drinking.


----------



## DavidCC (Aug 8, 2007)

how about prank light bulbs that emit the same color   Change your roommate's lamps while he is out...


----------



## Ella (Aug 8, 2007)

surely not your roomate... cuz it'd be in YOUR place.


----------



## DavidCC (Aug 8, 2007)

maybe just the reading lamp by his bed.

but wouldn't this be fun to take to a rave.

or if you put one in your fridge, instant diet.


----------



## Kacey (Aug 8, 2007)

qi-tah said:


> I do wonder though if the police would be more likely to abuse non-lethal weaponry b/cause of a combination of: a) a perception that the effects are minimal and transitory, and b) point and shoot weapons being easy to use. However, all sorts of things can happen... heart attacks with tasers (think i recall reading that there has been another taser death in the US during the last few days?), possibility of seizures in epileptics with this "vomit light" thing. And what about the effects of repeated use on someone? Who knows if it might change something in the brain and trigger illness over time? IMHO it's a weapon and deserves the respect due to a weapon... it's not just something you'd use indiscriminantly and it's certainly not a joke.



I wonder about this too - especially the part about epileptics; I had a coworker who had to find a different job because the florescent lights could trigger seizures, and so can those blue headlights on some cars.


----------



## shesulsa (Aug 8, 2007)

qi-tah said:


> I do wonder though if the police would be more likely to abuse non-lethal weaponry b/cause of a combination of: a) a perception that the effects are minimal and transitory, and b) point and shoot weapons being easy to use. However, all sorts of things can happen... heart attacks with tasers (think i recall reading that there has been another taser death in the US during the last few days?), possibility of seizures in epileptics with this "vomit light" thing. And what about the effects of repeated use on someone? Who knows if it might change something in the brain and trigger illness over time? IMHO it's a weapon and deserves the respect due to a weapon... it's not just something you'd use indiscriminantly and it's certainly not a joke.





shesulsa said:


> Firstly, let me say my comment was a wry one.
> 
> Secondly, I think there have been many well-publicized firearm accidents where people and young kids were "playing around" with them or "making a joke" ... adding to the wryness of my comment.
> 
> ...





Kacey said:


> I wonder about this too - especially the part about epileptics; I had a coworker who had to find a different job because the florescent lights could trigger seizures, and so can those blue headlights on some cars.


Good to know I wasn't the only one thinking about this - though I wonder if potential damage to epileptics would be considered "an acceptable risk"?


----------



## CoryKS (Aug 9, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> Good to know I wasn't the only one thinking about this - though I wonder if potential damage to epileptics would be considered "an acceptable risk"?


 
Judging from the intensity of the flashing lights they put on police cars, I would be surprised to learn that they took epilepsy under consideration.  I'm not epileptic but those lights just about set me off.


----------

