this writing reminds me of anything out of rolling stone. their stories are usually with this attitude of, "no, really, it sounds crazy but we're serious," with a comical touch. but those stories are about paris hilton, not weapons. i thought it was interesting to read but weird.

The article seems more like a story, it takes much time for the author to tell you the specifications of the weapon, and the harm or unharm it does to the victim. I would like to more about the gun, more details and the diagnostics on how it works. I remember seeing something on T.V about this weapon, along with many other non-lethal weapons. It is a interting topic, but does not explain much about the laser gun

If this guy is able to invent an efficient version of the lightning gun, I wonder if it would eventually show up on the market in hunting stores. Maybe a toy replica could be created with the same electrical force as one of those joke pens.

This laser sounds like a big breakthough for weaponry. The Pen that shoots a laser sounds like someting straight out of a James Bond movie. I think that the idea is great but It does have the major set back of people getting a hold of this weapon and using it to commit robberies or someting in that manner.I think the idea is great but right now it seems too Hollywood.

It is pretty interesting to know that all of this is going on in Anderson, IN. I do believe that is not very far away from here. In regards to the article, I think that this is a very humane idea. If it is possible to temporarily stun the oppostion, rather than kill them, many lives would be saved. However, there are two factors that could make this a bit more difficult. First of all, the range of the gun is only 12 feet, so you basically have to be in point blank range. Even while we use these new-age weapons, our opposition will still be using shoot-to-kill type weapons, which will only danger our troops more. Also, once we have stunned them, who is going to be there to go pick them up, off the field

I am still curious as to how the "lightning gun" fully works, but I am no engineer nor am I an technician so I don't think I will ever understand how things of that sort actually work. I find it intersting that Bitar was running a Styrofoam recycling business and then became an experimental weapons entrepreneur with just a small dream and became so big.

I definitely think that this may be a breakthrough for weaponry. I agree that the tone of this article is very peculiar, and it seems that this serious topic is being transformed into almost a game and being taken too lightly. I thought it very interesting when the article mentioned that people at the pentagon often refer to themselves with nicknames, such as Superman. But on the other hand, these weapons seem they could be very useful in military combat in the future. If taken seriously, non-lethal weapons have the potential to being very influential.

This new "lightning gun" seems like it would be very interesting. The article doesn't fully explain how these guns work but I'm sure they will be tested before they are ever released. If everything goes well then, why not use them?

It's pretty amaizing how far technology has grown over the years. It is also impressive how much government funding goes into this type of research. Somewhere in the article it said one man was in charge of $55 million of funding. I think this is a good idea and an advancement in criminal justice, and should only be used for those situations. I do not think that these type of weapons should open to a paying public, but only be used for military, law enforcement, or other type of special tactics.

I am in favor of weapons that incapacitate criminals or enemies. However, I am not in favor of weapons that control your thoughts (otherwise known as psychological warfare). The weapons that transfer godly messages to their targets are very inhumane.
The mind controls every function of the body. To have a serious and beliveable psychological influnce such as this is unethical. Other less believeable influences are okay. An example would be propoganda.
Incapacitating enemies with other methods is a humane and less costly way of warfare. Yet, lets keep the fight fair and not influence each others minds in such believable ways.

It seemed that this article based on the success of the company. The articles touched on the aspect of increasing technologies of weapons but at the end of the article, I found myself wanting the company to be a success. It seemed more like a publicity story and tried to appeal to your emotions by involving his family. It also seemed to bash the bigger companies like Raytheon but that is what is great about our economy, competition.

Although the lightning gun sounds very safe and humane since it does not harm anybody, I am not sure if we should use them in war. Isn't the purpose of war suposed to kill? During wartime, soldiers are supposed to kill their enemies and not just paralyze them for awhile. What will we do with all the prisoners then?

I stumbled upon this new article about dazzlers. Seems kinda cool:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001911.html

- J. Tirrell