Talk:Less-lethal weapon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

moved comment: To do: distinguish less lethal force, introduce continuum of force. Badanedwa 00:26, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Sticky foam

An anon, 68.111.252.134, requested that "sticky foam" be added to the see-also list. Unfortunately he did it by editing the page, so it was reverted. It seems to me like a reasonable enough request, so I've added it to the "see also" list. Googling suggests that "sticky foam" is indeed one name for this agent, but it's a red link. Does anyone know whether we already have an article that discusses this? Is there some other, more formal name for it? Has it actually been deployed by police or the military, or is it still in the research stage? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Uhm I added it to the see-also list that was DELETED by anon 68.111.252.134 when i did the revert. That is the valid term for it as far as i have been able to find. There was no entry for it so i did not wikify it. Alkivar 01:12, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ah. I see. Actually you added it to "Technique examples, physical," unlinked, and I added it to "See also," linked. Oh, well. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:27, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Neutraility and NPOV

I feel this article is does not represent a neutral point of view and is significantly negative against less lethal weapons. There is a lack of presenting a counter argument of positive argument to any negative one, and it is not that such counter arguments don’t exist:

In political situations like Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989 conventional lethal weapons were used killing between 400-7000 civilians, if less lethal weapons had been used instead of the lethal ones far fewer would have died. It is hard to believe that less lethal weapons would make better control of the masses then lethal weapons, again china received international backlash having no effect on it despite the killings and still persistent lack of human rights standards, in fact china has grown greatly in the international economy since then. So killing unruly citizens or just suppressing them by say less-lethal means has shown to make little difference to the outside world where a effective counter response could be made. Basically there should be mention that though less lethal weapons do kill they don’t kill nearly as much as conventional weapons.


-I think the very phrase "less lethal weapon" implies that they aren't as dangerous as conventional weapons.

Since you put up the NPOV notice there have been just about the same number of edits to the page as their have been to the NPOV discussion(less than 5)... no one seems to be able to find any POV to make NPOV. I would say that an NPOV notice does more harm than good, in giving readers the false assumption that someone is out to ban less than lethal weapons or give them a bad name. Any POV is trivial and probably unintentional; I am going to remove the notice since no one seems to be able to find any POV to fix. --2tothe4 02:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] things that don't belong:

I just did an edit, and removed some things I didn't think belonged (in case you only want to revert part of it) I removed the NPOV (see above) reworded parts of the first two paragraphs Removed the paragraph on the european parliament report. The reason is I don't think that possible infringement of civil liberties by such things as biometric readers belongs on a page about non-lethal weapons, since they are not weapons at all. Clarified about pepper spray deaths. That's it for now, maybe more later --2tothe4 02:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm also inclined to delete the news section entirely. I don't anticipate spending a lot of time on wikipedia in the next couple of weeks, so if you see this and you agree, and there are no objections, and it's been a couple of weeks, go crazy. Well, not really. Don't go crazy. But do remove that section. --2tothe4 02:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] entry focuses on the wrong aspect

Parts of this article are focusing on the wrong aspect of less lethal weapons and cast law enforcement in a bad light. The entire concept of les lethal weapons is to minimize civilian casualties. Although rioters are occasionally killed accidentally killed by these weapons, the body count is much lower than if the police opened up on the mob with machine guns and grenades, like the Chinese did at Tiananmen Square. Fatalities are rare and usually accidental, inflicted by a misplaced or ricocheting shot, or an untrained individual using the device. It is better for the police to deal with a few serious bruises than a few hundred dead bodies.

That's your point of view, though. There are serious concerns about 'less lethal weapons' being used inappropriately-for 'pain compliance' (or torture as it used to be known) and in situations where conventional weapons wouldn't have been used at all. This article should certainly reflect these concerns-which are based on how the weapons are actually used, rather than supposition on lives that may or may not have been saved.Felix-felix 16:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I removed

I removed the NPOV tag and added the note above.

[edit] Sticky foam, again

Somebody removed the See also: to sticky foam; since it is a prime example of the category, I've restored the link and added this note here in case somebody wants to discuss it. --Orange Mike 19:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sticky foam should not be in the see also section as it is already in the text (and right above the section anyway.) Rmhermen 20:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article focus

The article is currently focused on non-lethal weaponry but makes no mention of non-lethal non-weapon martial arts, incapacitation and arrest techniques. Rmhermen 20:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a good point-"Non lethal weapons" would be a much better name for this article, rather than the pretty ambiguous non lethal force, which could concievably cover a large and diverse range of things (like sarcasm, for example..). How about renaming it?Felix-felix 16:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that this article should be ccalled "NON-LETHAL WEAPONS"instead of "les lethal weapons" because i havent heard it being called like that. Smith Jones 22:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Non-lethal" presumes that these weapons will not cause deaths, which is not the case, and thus fails NPOV. They are less lethal, but deaths do sometimes occur when they are used. If there isn't a re-direct from the other page, I'll make one.--Orange Mike 23:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Yup, 'less lethal' is the more accurate and technically accurate term. A redirect would be cool though.Felix-felix 07:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
There are already a couple of redirs for this very reason. --Orange Mike 15:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Ta!FelixFelixtalk 16:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article naming

According to conventions of article naming and English grammar, this article should be entitled "Less-lethal weapon". --Smack (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

..without wanting to sound stupid, ..er, why?FelixFelix talk 07:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED to Less-lethal weapons per discussion below. There does not appear to be consensus to move this page from the plural to the singular form of the title, but adding thy hyphen to the compound adjective "less-lethal" seems uncontroversial enough. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Less lethal weapons → Less-lethal weapon – WP:NAME and English grammar —Smack (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

[edit] Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support - the singular form is correct according to naming conventions. --Yath 20:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey - in opposition to the move

Oppose only because it's about different types of less lethal weapons, rather than one, so the singular seems less grammatical/appropriate.FelixFelix talk 12:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also add that the argument (Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/archive5#SOME article titles should be plural) applied to Hermite polynomials applies here too.FelixFelix talk 13:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons cited by happy Felix --Orange Mike 16:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

  • Why not Low lethality weapons or Less then lethal weapons? Those seem to be common terms that read better and seem to be a better introduction to the topic. Retaining the phrase 'less lethal' is totally ambiguous. What is it less lethal then? An 2,000 lb bomb? A firecracker? Vegaswikian 01:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
'Less Lethal' is a term used to replace 'non-lethal'; mainly to underline the fact that these weapons can, and do, kill on a regular basis. As such, they are 'less lethal' than weapons intended to be lethal.FelixFelix talk 12:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Probably also worth saying that as this is a term which is used on a widespread basis [1][2][3], this page should have a title that the interested reader would search for. "Low lethality weapons" gets 59[4] google hits, "Less than lethal weapons" gets 26,200[5] and "Less lethal weapons" gets 72,100[6].FelixFelix talk 12:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
And, of course, there's a category, Category:Less-lethal weapons with the same name too.FelixFelix talk 13:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The category name usually follows the article name. So, depending on the outcome here that may need changing. Vegaswikian 00:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion on singular or plural, but I agree that "less-lethal" should be hyphenated. GassyGuy 00:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This page is not very well done. It mainly provides information on the problems and use of LTL weaponry, but provides almost not actual information about the weapons, development, and history of LTL technology.

Well, feel free to contribute!FelixFelix talk 10:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I was very disappointed with this article. I would like to have seen more on the sorts of weapons that exist and how they work with less on their political implications. Perhaps have more objective sections describing the weapons, and then a seperate section that discusses both sides of the debate on whether or not they are really "better" than lethal weapons ? It seems evident from the discussion page that both positions are defensible and should be honored as such.

I'd be interested to see your edits....FelixFelix talk

[edit] ADS used as Torture in United States

As an unwelcome adult student at Purdue University I was subjected to the covert use of this device. These assults at best I could assume were part of research of the device applications which also included sleep depravation attacks, but also the sociology of torture as a significat number of students and faculity were aware of its use. The parallel is the smell of roasting meat near Nazi concentration camps in Poland. Everyone knows, nobody says anything. Do not tell me the the Sociology in the United States is not equal to that in Nazi Germany, I know of no difference when it comes to abuses of human rights. All indications are the the technology was effected by ultrasound, at least by the time it got to the target area, but this is only a guess based on shiclding I attempeted to use to block the attacks. If you have a lab, I have pictures to back it up. 71.114.168.247 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)



[edit] active_denial directed_energy sticky_foam sponge_grenade

I got to this page via the following search:

< http://google.com/search?q=%22active+denial%22+%22directed+energy%22+%22sticky+foam%22+%22sponge+grenade%22 >.

This article does list some eye effects, which is good:

However, the article needs extensive editing, for various reasons.

Further, these articles should discuss the potential effects on persons who are too scared to move, or are otherwise immobile, due to previous physical-disability, emotional-disability, cognitive-disability. All articles should consider disability-access.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 01:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Official"/DoD term, classification

Does anyone know what the official term is ("less-lethal", "non-lethal", "non-deadly"), and how a weapon receives the classification? As far as I can tell, DoD means United States Department of Defense. Flatscan (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)