« [Retracted] Case Closed: Georg Soros Sponsored Ad Proves, Conclusively, That Karl Rove's Name Begins With K, Just Like the KKK |
Main
|
"Red Ken" Livingstone: I'm Not Saying I Support Suicide Bombers, I'm Just Saying They're Justified And I'd Do It Too Under The Right Circumstances »
July 21, 2005
Microwave Gun Promises Less-Lethal Response To Rioters; Scientists Fret It's Not 100% Non-Lethal
How could the MSM write these articles, if not with helpful quotes from left-wing scientists who fret about all new weapons systems?
Ignore the asshole scientists; there is a danger of people being hurt by a less-lethal weapon (that's why they call them less lethal weapons, and not, say, "Completely Safe To Shoot At A Child's Eye Weapons"), but it seems a safer response than opening up .50 caliber machineguns into a crowd:
Scientists are questioning the safety of a Star Wars-style riot control ray gun due to be deployed in Iraq next year.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Active Denial System weapon, classified as "less lethal" by the Pentagon, fires a 95-gigahertz microwave beam at rioters to cause heating and intolerable pain in less than five seconds.
The idea is people caught in the beam will rapidly try to move out of it and therefore break up the crowd.
...
"What happens if someone in a crowd is unable for whatever reason to move away from the beam," asked Neil Davison, coordinator of the non-lethal weapons research project at Britain's Bradford University.
I don't know, Neil. What happens if the microwave radiation triggers a genetic mutation turning the crowd into slavering mutant man-boars? I guess someone will wind up getting hurt.
But, again, what happens when someone in the crowd does not possess the super-martial-arts ability to dodge machinegun fire? I guess they end up getting hurt, too, Neil.
I love that every MSM headline about a new weapon has to contain a mention of the "worries" of "scientists" about possible "harm."
They could mention the "hopes" of "engineers" about possible "fewer deaths," but they never seem to, do they?
No bias, of course.