Ask HN: Would something like this work to prevent mass shootings?

1 points by brogrammer5 7 years ago | 3 comments

I've had an idea for awhile that I think would help prevent some of these mass episodes of violence we've been seeing lately. I personally don't have the resources to implement anything like this but I know there are many engineers out there who do and I just want to put my idea out there to get everyone's thoughts and maybe help improve on the idea. So essentially my concept is that people be equipped with a PPD (Personal Protection Device). You would be required to take a short training class before having one and be licensed and registered. It would use some combination of non-lethal weaponry (stun dart, gas round) and use a smart targeting system where it basically works like a camera and it's point and fire. The target would be "painted" and the the device would figure out the best trajectory to the target. So in the heat of the moment a non-combat trained person would have an easier time using it. After the round is fired and the target is unconscious, the police would be notified and a picture of the target sent to them as well as the GPS coordinates of the device. I imagine if something like this was even integrated into cellphones or something it could become extremely widespread and everyone would have a method to protect themselves that didn't rely on guns alone. I think if adoption rate was high enough then these shootings would become less frequent.

I just wanted to share this idea. I know the technology is out there to put something like this together but like I said I don't have the time or the resources to do it myself. I might have overlooked something as well. What are your thoughts?

rahuldottech 7 years ago |

1. This will not "prevent" mass shootings

2. This will be misused.

3. You think arming everyone is a better option than just decent gun control?

4. From what I can tell, this can be easily be defeated by a bulletproof vest and a gas mask.

PaulHoule 7 years ago |

It is hard to make a non-lethal weapon which is effective.

When the taser was first commercialized there was an article about it in the newspaper of my town. Some cops tried zapping each other with it. One was knocked on his ass, but the police chief had a high BMI and could barely feel it.

The old tasers were safe but not very effective. After years of experience they increased the energy and they got to be more effective but occasionally deadly, certainly more painful.

With chemicals it is the same. You can knock people out with opioids or benzodiazepines or both but you have some chance they stop breathing or they are already addicted and have a tolerance and there is no effect. An oral surgeon can sedate you without much risk in an outpatient setting, but he gives you pure oxygen to breathe and has a pulse ox on your finger.

Tear gas can go all the way from "they laugh at you" to "permanent lung damage", etc.

Beanbags, "rubber bullets" and such all occasionally kill and aren't always effective.

Unfortunately there is no "phaser set to stun".

alanbernstein 7 years ago |

It sounds like you are suggesting creating a weapon that is both autonomous and handheld, is that right? What is the point of combining those two things? Who will pay for the development of this device? Who will pay for the production? Do you imagine giving one to every citizen of the US?

What prevents anyone from abusing this device?