Jump to content

Talk:Non-lethal weapon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General Administration

FYI, I've just administratively deleted the addition of the "BIP" commercial product, which was done under the guise of a supposed category of NLWs.

Additionally, I suspect that this editor probably fails NPOV, as they chose to identify a +1400 character addition as a "m" (minor edit). Further, some of the claims made are factually incorrect. It claims to be 'unique', in that its head is collapsible which mushrooms upon impact, but this is the same engineering design concept which has been in use by the 40mm M1006 'sponge' grenade (Type-Classified 1999), as well as functionally similar to the saboted flour bag that was developed for the Alsetex "Cougar" 56mm grenade launcher circa 2004. As such, if the BIP is notable, and NPOV'ed, there's still a lot of other shortcomings that need to be addressed before it can be incorporated, which makes it an item that should be discussed here prior to adding it to the main page. -hh (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lede pic concern

I'm wondering if anyone has taken a close look at the lede pic. The pepper spray spreads out as it leaves the can, but when it reaches the man's face, it creates a curiously straight line at the top and bottom (download it, zoom in and see for yourself). There is also no evidence of the rest of the spray staining his clothes. On top of that, to the left of the pepper spray can, under the window, you can see the lines where they chopped it (the colors don't even match up). Someone will probably cite WP:OR to me on this, but this is probably photoshopped and should be replaced. Any thoughts? Mophedd (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was based on the real picture but the Navy did a bad photoshop job to bring out the color of the spayed agent. Would another picture like the one on the right be a better picture? Z22 (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the new pic isn't copyrighted, it works for me. I say add it. Mophedd (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added. It's a public domain image already on Commons. Z22 (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor history correction

Section 1 Recent history of non-lethal weapons development for military use "Before the general availability of early military non-lethal weapons in the mid 1990s, . . ." is contradicted by Riot control use which states that rubber bullets (baton rounds) were used in Northern Ireland as early as 1970, plastic bullets (PVC baton rounds) were used starting in 1973 and less accurate and less safe wooden rounds were used in Singapore in the 1880's. These were "less lethal" (almost always non-lethal when used as training directed).

If these were overlooked because they were considered police actions (with military training), then the next section on police use should be changed. These could also have been overlooked because only Britain used these bullets before the 1980s.

Comment: Based on several pages in this Wiki, non-toxic, low impact projectiles hitting below the ribs are almost always non-lethal. Instructions are usually to aim for the extremities or abdomen. Their danger increases considerably with head impacts and age. Many of the fatalities have been caused by firing a warning shot above a crowd, which often results in a head impact or firing at the heart, which often results in broken ribs.

Comment: The section on directed spray chemicals should note that a "permanent" skin dye in the spray greatly helps police capture the person sprayed and aids in prosecution.Drbits (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Non-lethal weapon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move part of 9.2.1 Anti-Personnel caltrops section to 9.1.1 Anti-vehicle caltrops section or merge caltrops sections?

"In modern times, special caltrops are also sometimes used against wheeled vehicles with pneumatic tires. Some South American urban guerrillas as the Tupamaros and Montoneros called them "miguelitos" and used these as a tactic to avoid pursuit after ambushes." These two sentences are included in the Anti-Personnel section for caltrops, when they should probably be in the Anti-Vehicle section for caltrops. In addition, having two caltrops sections is, in my opinion, repetitive and unnecessary. 2603:9001:4706:D2:5839:792F:E6B0:85A2 (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]