1 W laser pointer hits the market.

[meatyochre]

Bullets and guns can be traced and we can do forensic detection to see if a gun was fired recently. But a person could be injured or blinded by a laser and have no idea who did it and no way to find out.

I think saying the laser isn't "that dangerous" is fallacious, and comes from a lack of understanding of the potential for randomized abuse.

[Cynical Idealist]

These are not deathrays. A gun is more dangerous. We're not so much worried about terrorists (aside from the airplane thing) as we are about stupid people.

The concern is there's a culture of irresponsibility around lasers in America. And you need a license to carry a gun around. There is no license or background check required to carry this laser which really, is just as dangerous as a gun, if not moreso. Instant blindness and setting fire to skin within seconds, just from pointing it at somebody? Very dangerous.

Are you reading what you just wrote? This laser is NOT more dangerous than a gun, not even in the same ballpark (well, maybe the laser is at home and the gun in in the outfield somewhere). Gun > You get shot and die; Laser > Blindness/Mild Burns (which, to be fair, at least a few household chemicals can do if thrown anyway, unless those are also as dangerous as guns).

I would say there is probably more chance of property damage from a laser though.

Well, it depends.
Is the laser more dangerous than a gun in the hands of someone who intends to do harm? Most of the time, no. In certain very specific circumstances, it could be more dangerous.
Is the laser more dangerous than a gun in the hands of some random schmoe on the streets? Yes, because the laser is likely to be thought of as a toy, while almost everyone recognizes a gun as something with the potential to cause serious harm.

[Chfan]

My problem is that stupid people will think "cool, laser!" and buy one, then shine it near the eyes of some poor sap and blind him for life because they were too fucking stupid to understand what they were doing with a 1-watt laser.

[Dream]

Is the laser more dangerous than a gun in the hands of someone who intends to do harm? Most of the time, no. In certain very specific circumstances, it could be more dangerous.

Wrong. "In certain very specific circumstances" literally anything in the world could be lethally dangerous. The riskiness of this item is based on how easy it is to do severe harm to a person when it is being used in exactly the way it was designed to be. A car is far more dangerous than a 1W laser if it is misused. Not so much if yo just use it to drop your kids to school. This laser is risky to all around it when it is being correctly used, and extremely dangerous to all around if it is used maliciously. There is another level of risk added by the fact that the riskiness is likely misunderstood by a majority of potential users. In that it is very like a car, but has the functionality of a gun. That, I think is a special case of dangerousness.

[T-Form]

These are not deathrays. A gun is more dangerous. We're not so much worried about terrorists (aside from the airplane thing) as we are about stupid people.

The concern is there's a culture of irresponsibility around lasers in America. And you need a license to carry a gun around. There is no license or background check required to carry this laser which really, is just as dangerous as a gun, if not moreso. Instant blindness and setting fire to skin within seconds, just from pointing it at somebody? Very dangerous.

Are you reading what you just wrote? This laser is NOT more dangerous than a gun, not even in the same ballpark (well, maybe the laser is at home and the gun in in the outfield somewhere). Gun > You get shot and die; Laser > Blindness/Mild Burns (which, to be fair, at least a few household chemicals can do if thrown anyway, unless those are also as dangerous as guns).

Yeah, but a 1W laser should last a fair while before the battery is depleted, so it doesn't suffer from the ammunition/reloading limitations of a firearm. Furthermore, with a firearm, anyone in the area would realise what you're up to pretty quickly, and they'll try to get away; it'd be hard to kill more than a few people before someone calls the police (or, if they're armed, they might shoot back at you). But if you have a laser that can blind people even with diffuse reflections, people aren't going to realise what's happening in time to do any of those things, so you'd probably be able to harm a greater number of people. If anyone does realise what's happening in time, they'd need to cover their eyes to protect their vision, so they're vulnerable anyway - if you have this laser and a firearm, you'd be much more dangerous than if you had a firearm alone.

[Pez Dispens3r]

You're defending Meatyochre? After he said, "There is no license or background check required to carry this laser which really, is just as dangerous as a gun, if not moreso"? Look, let's get two armies, and equip one with firearms and the other with 1W lasers. Who will win? Furthermore blinding, say, tens of people in a shopping mall (likely including yourself) does not really make you more dangerous than someone who shoots three or four people dead. Potential to be very bad in crowded areas? Given. As bad as guns because they don't need reload time or some shit? You're off your rocker.

[Sockmonkey]

If you wanna scare the crap out of people blinding a mall full of them is just as effective because live blinded people walking around the city with their canes and dogs would be a constant reminder to everyone.

[Xeio]

if you have this laser and a firearm, you'd be much more dangerous than if you had a firearm alone.

News flash, you are more dangerous with two weapons than one, why you would choose a laser over a second gun though...

Now, I'm not arguing that these shouldn't be regulated. But stop comparing their deadliness as equivalent to guns, or I'm going to have to call you an idiot.

I'm not really buying the "it's more dangerous in the hands of an idiot" though. So are guns, and we allow people to have those (there are plenty of accidental shootings from guns). Wicked Lasers themselves have HUGE warnings all over the site (try adding the item to your cart too), the 1W laser even comes with safety goggles. Should they be regulated? Probably, especially considering I doubt they'll stop at 1W (though, when we'll see a higher power laser at this price point, who knows). Are they worse than guns? No, you're fucking nuts if you think that.

[PhoenixEnigma]

if you have this laser and a firearm, you'd be much more dangerous than if you had a firearm alone.

News flash, you are more dangerous with two weapons than one, why you would choose a laser over a second gun though...

Now, I'm not arguing that these shouldn't be regulated. But stop comparing their deadliness as equivalent to guns, or I'm going to have to call you an idiot.

I'm not really buying the "it's more dangerous in the hands of an idiot" though. So are guns, and we allow people to have those (there are plenty of accidental shootings from guns). Wicked Lasers themselves have HUGE warnings all over the site (try adding the item to your cart too), the 1W laser even comes with safety goggles. Should they be regulated? Probably, especially considering I doubt they'll stop at 1W (though, when we'll see a higher power laser at this price point, who knows). Are they worse than guns? No, you're fucking nuts if you think that.

^This, more or less. A 1W laser, by definition, delivers 1J in 1 second. Even a .22LR bullet delivers a couple orders of magnitude more energy than that. It's not a weapon. It has the potential to be dangerous, and some idiots will undoubtably do idiotic things, but that is more due to people not knowing much about laser safety, and less due to the device itself being overly hazardous.

[meatyochre]

You're defending Meatyochre? After he said, "There is no license or background check required to carry this laser which really, is just as dangerous as a gun, if not moreso"? Look, let's get two armies, and equip one with firearms and the other with 1W lasers. Who will win? Furthermore blinding, say, tens of people in a shopping mall (likely including yourself) does not really make you more dangerous than someone who shoots three or four people dead. Potential to be very bad in crowded areas? Given. As bad as guns because they don't need reload time or some shit? You're off your rocker.

The fact is that there is no license required to purchase said laser, no background check necessary, and there exists a culture of irresponsibility regarding pointing of lasers at people and random things. I'm still not seeing how you can possibly disagree that a laser weapon has more potential for misuse and abuse than a gun.

It's not just comparing the weapons to one another. It's comparing the culture surrounding them and analyzing who is likely to buy one and use it improperly. Do you honestly think it's just as likely for a bored 18 year old kid with access to daddy's trust fund to buy a gun as it is for him to buy a sweet blue laser with a handle like a light saber? I believe anyone who doesn't recognize this distinction between the weapons is frankly delusional, or at the least uneducated in basic human psychology.

also, I'm a she.

[phillipsjk]

I fail to see what legitimate use this device has that cannot be met by a lower-powered Laser such as 150mW (I think that would be class 3B)

Protocol IV of the "Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects" prohibits Laser weapons such as this.

The only purpose of a hand-held Laser of this power is to blind people.

• Lasers used for astronomy still work at lower power
• Laser pointers still work at lower power, even for large distances.
• This Laser is not powerful enough kill a conscious person (they should have time to find cover)
• Industrial Lasers would be installed in a fixed installation
• Similar lasers in Blu-Ray drives or DLP projectors are kept in an enclosed space with interlocks to shut-down the laser.
• This laser is too powerful to "dazzle," or cause temporary blindness (unless you are at least 211 m away (nearly 700 feet))
• Laser Light shows are computer controlled, as is the range of motion.
• Lasers that start fires will work at lower power, but may take longer. (just use a (piezoelectric) lighter/torch!)

Is there anything I am missing?

Further reading I stumbled across while trying find prohibitions on combat Lasers: Blinding Laser weapons

[Pez Dispens3r]

also, I'm a she.

oops: my apologies.

The fact is that there is no license required to purchase said laser, no background check necessary, and there exists a culture of irresponsibility regarding pointing of lasers at people and random things. I'm still not seeing how you can possibly disagree that a laser weapon has more potential for misuse and abuse than a gun.

Potential for misuse, certainly. But that's very different than saying "as dangerous as, if not moreso". Accidental misuse is most likely to blind the user (you don't go, "Hey, I have this new laser - instead of trying it out right now, I'm going to the mall before I turn it on.") Irresponsible use is likely to be limited ("Oh God! I made that person blind! This is the worst thing I've ever done!"). Malicious use is likely to be incredible rare, and even then you could only blind a certain amount of people. With a gun, the outcome of any of those scenarios could result in death. Both can be misused; one is clearly much more dangerous.

[Glass Fractal]

Is there anything I am missing?

Prestige. Obviously no one needs this device but the ability to construct a Class 4 laser that a middle class person can afford is something of a landmark, as they mention on the site this would have been impossible just a few years ago.

[Gelsamel]

If we take the statistical expectation value of the rate of damage caused from the commercial use of those lasers vs the commercial use of guns then I would not be surprised if the lasers have a higher damage rate than guns, thereby making the lasers more dangerous for certain definitions of "dangerous".

Sure, bazookas can theoretically caused much more damage than auto-lighting fireworks designed for 5 yr olds, but that doesn't mean that saying those fireworks are more dangerous than bazookas is wrong because, by certain metrics, the fireworks are more dangerous. Nuclear weapons cause the most destruction of all, but I'm more afraid of the remote dangers of flying in a plane than I am of nuclear weapons.

For guns you need to get a liscence or a background check or what ever and most of the time are taken seriously and are locked up and have safety switches. There will always be horror stories but if someone I don't know in the room has a gun and someone I don't know in the room has that laser then I'm more afraid of the laser because the chances they're stupid and are going to wave it around like a lightsaber without precautions is vastly higher than the chance that they're so absolutely stupid that they're going to wave a loaded gun around without the safety on and shoot a few things next to people or the chance that they're absolutely fucked and want to kill someone...

To add another variable to the equation, guns have safeties and generally only hurt the things they're aimed at and are nearly always taken seriously. Whereas the potential for collateral while using this laser is much higher, especially considering it's shaped like a lightsaber handle and doubtfully has a safety mechanism other than the trigger itself (or maybe it does, can't see anything on the site though).

[Xeio]

To add another variable to the equation, guns have safeties and generally only hurt the things they're aimed at and are nearly always taken seriously. Whereas the potential for collateral while using this laser is much higher, especially considering it's shaped like a lightsaber handle and doubtfully has a safety mechanism other than the trigger itself (or maybe it does, can't see anything on the site though).

It says it has both a button (on/off) as well as a lock out tail cap, so presumably about as much security as a safety.

[Glass Fractal]

To add another variable to the equation, guns have safeties and generally only hurt the things they're aimed at and are nearly always taken seriously. Whereas the potential for collateral while using this laser is much higher, especially considering it's shaped like a lightsaber handle and doubtfully has a safety mechanism other than the trigger itself (or maybe it does, can't see anything on the site though).

You have to hold the button down continuously for activations and it has a mechanism to lock it in the off position for safety, they even ship appropriate goggles along with it. I'd say that the makers have a good handle on what the safety concerns are. The issue is with the consumer.

[Gelsamel]

Of course the issue is with the consumer, otherwise guns (and lasers) would never hurt someone accidentally.

[Glass Fractal]

Of course the issue is with the consumer, otherwise guns (and lasers) would never hurt someone accidentally.

Then why say the people who made the laser probably disregarded both US law and common sense when they built it? I mean if someone constructed a gun with a hair trigger and no safety then the issue of people getting hurt accidentally would turn towards them.

[Goplat]

According to Wikipedia's article on laser safety, a class 4 laser causes permanent eye damage even from just seeing a diffuse reflection. If so then this is far, far more destructive than any gun: for example at a sports game you could aim this at the field, thereby blinding thousands of people at once, and get away unscathed (by "luckily" being one of the few people looking away at the time).

But, I have to wonder how this is actually possible. If you look at a diffuse reflection from, say, 10 meters away, and your eye has 6 square cm of area, the geometry says that only about a millionth of the reflected light enters your eye. (6 cm^2 out of a 6280000 cm^2 hemisphere.) So such a diffuse reflection from our 1W laser would effectively be only 0.001 mW - which supposedly is not enough to be dangerous. Can anyone explain this?

Edit: I'm guessing diffuse is only hazardous if you're close enough... wikipedia could stand to be a bit clearer here, the only mention of this is in the section on the old system, where it says "Diffuse reflections of the laser beam can be hazardous to skin or eye within the Nominal Hazard Zone" (what the Nominal Hazard Zone is isn't mentioned elsewhere). Well, looks like this is pretty much limited to blinding a few people at a time, so it's no good for dramatic 9/11-level massacres, but there's still plenty of potential for evil (albeit slow-paced evil).

[Pez Dispens3r]

Goplat if you don't really understand something why claim the 1W laser could blind thousands of people by aiming it at the field? Making such an unsubstantiated claim before admitting ignorance is borderline trolling.

[ConMan]

You have to hold the button down continuously for activations and it has a mechanism to lock it in the off position for safety, they even ship appropriate goggles along with it. I'd say that the makers have a good handle on what the safety concerns are. The issue is with the consumer.

Oh good, so you can ensure that *you* don't get blinded by it. As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, there are plenty of people who I will term "idiots" who point lower-power lasers at trucks and planes and people, causing temporary blindness, for kicks. I'm not going to get into the argument about whether the laser is more or less dangerous than a gun, but I'm willing to guess that there are a lot more people who will do the same thing with the 1W laser (and in the process risking massive accidents) than would do so with a gun. So the potential for "havoc as a result of someone wielding one of these things without thinking their actions through and just wanting to have some fun" is almost certainly higher for the 1W laser than for a gun, regardless of how "dangerous" either one is.

[Goplat]

You have to hold the button down continuously for activations and it has a mechanism to lock it in the off position for safety, they even ship appropriate goggles along with it. I'd say that the makers have a good handle on what the safety concerns are. The issue is with the consumer.

Oh good, so you can ensure that *you* don't get blinded by it.

Maybe the $200 laser is a loss leader: the real profit for Wicked Lasers is going to come from selling the safety goggles alone to anyone who wants to be able to go outside without the risk of being randomly blinded by psychopaths who bought the laser. Great business model.

[Steax]

One problem is that a lot of people have no idea what a class 4 laser is, or how strong a 1 watt laser is. Some non-owners will eventually get their hands on them and play with them. A big yellow sticker of "class 4 laser" will invoke the "WHOA COOL" response, while "1 watt" will make them think "I got 100 watt lightbulbs, this thing is harmless- AAAAAAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH"

Also the text on that wicked lasers site isn't the "here is a new, powerful laser. be careful with it. It's capable of a lot of damage." kind, it's the "look dude, 1 watt laser, it's _THE_ most dangerous laser ever made, and I'll sell it to you for just 200 bucks! Awesome!" type. Might just be my point of view though.

[phillipsjk]

I have to admit, I did not realize how powerful the Lasers were in Blu-ray (and presumably DVD drives). If I had the inclination to play with them, I may have lost some vision assuming the laser remains Class 2 after removal from the drive

Now if I do such a thing, I will be careful to check out the datasheet of the component. The clear warnings are one thing "Wicked Lasers" did right.

[Xeio]

Also the text on that wicked lasers site isn't the "here is a new, powerful laser. be careful with it. It's capable of a lot of damage." kind, it's the "look dude, 1 watt laser, it's _THE_ most dangerous laser ever made, and I'll sell it to you for just 200 bucks! Awesome!" type. Might just be my point of view though.

Yes, it's your point of view. Indeed, they are marketing their product as cool (as would any company that actually wants to, you know, sell things), but they are also very informative about the dangers associated with the laser (seriously, try to buy one, not only do you get a few warning popups, they require a scanned photo ID/social security card to purchase).

[Steax]

I see, I didn't try buying one. Nice to know that they're taking proper measures to avoid people buying them off the shelf like they were toys or something.

[Sockmonkey]

Should I be informing the local police of this thing like that one guy did earlier in this thread or are they likely to get a heads-up from offical sources anyhow?

[Pez Dispens3r]

Don't stop at the local police. Alert your congressman, lord, or dictator immediately.

[Sockmonkey]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, agreeing in a whimsical way, or both.

[Peetelser]

Meh, I am unconcerned. It is no more dangerous than a gun, and even if it is not quite as difficult to obtain as a gun, they do make you sign some papers and any customers will have been told what could happen. I suppose people might be careless with it, but I don't think its purchase ought to be restricted because some people will do stupid things with it.

Its not just guns you need to be concerned about. If you leave that thing lying around, some kid are bound to lose an eye.

[Sockmonkey]

Doesn't help that the thing looks like a toy as well. People were mounting the low-power "safe" laser pointers in toy lightsabers long before this.

[nopacman]

Weeell, this sure looks interesting. I just had my optics final exam two weeks ago, so i'll try and get some data conclusions for you guys. For the fun of it. And to be scolded for my bad grammar and/or wrong calculations.
So, P=1W, lambda=445nm monochromatic, i suppose.
If the output hole is circular, the intensity distribution at a distance will be some pretty Airy rings (Fraunhoffer (far-field) difraction at a circular aperture). The central one of those will be the most intense an with an approximate radius of 1.22*distance to the objetive*lambda/aperture diameter and will contain the 83.8% of the initial power (0.838 W, hah).
I imagine the aperture diameter to be 2mm. Then at a distance D you will have a bright spot of D*1.22*445*10⁻⁹/2*10⁻³=2.72*10⁻⁴ * D meters, and so an average intensity of 0.838*2.72*10⁻⁴*D Watts/m² .
How much intensity is needed for a blue laser to permanently harm an eye? Dunno. Someone please look for it. If not, it can be extrapolated from the optical density of the glasses announced, but it's a pain. And of course my calculations are just an upper estimate as the absorption and scattering of the air is to be taken into account too (and it's blue so it will be more scattered in comparison to others but it's a pain for me to do calculations like this out of my head. Especially with exponentiation)
Just for precaution, I recommend wearing white and looking around only behind a digital camera.
And prostetic eyes FTW. They look good on Bâto, they would look good on me XD.

[New User]

I mounted a 1W laser to my gun. Now which is more dangerous?

[Sockmonkey]

The nut holding it.

[Vieto]

note to self: 1-watt lasers would go well on sniper rifles.

[SlyReaper]

note to self: 1-watt lasers would go well on sniper rifles.

No, they'd be terrible actually. Just as you're getting a shot on your target's head, your target will feel a spot on the side or back of his head getting very warm and will move. Also, scuttlebutt has it that you can actually see the beam of these even without there being dust in the air, so the target's bodyguards are likely to see it, push him down out of your sight, and start shooting in your general direction.

[New User]

note to self: 1-watt lasers would go well on sniper rifles.

No, they'd be terrible actually. Just as you're getting a shot on your target's head, your target will feel a spot on the side or back of his head getting very warm and will move. Also, scuttlebutt has it that you can actually see the beam of these even without there being dust in the air, so the target's bodyguards are likely to see it, push him down out of your sight, and start shooting in your general direction.

If I blind the bodyguards with my 1W laser they will see no such thing.

[SlyReaper]

note to self: 1-watt lasers would go well on sniper rifles.

No, they'd be terrible actually. Just as you're getting a shot on your target's head, your target will feel a spot on the side or back of his head getting very warm and will move. Also, scuttlebutt has it that you can actually see the beam of these even without there being dust in the air, so the target's bodyguards are likely to see it, push him down out of your sight, and start shooting in your general direction.

If I blind the bodyguards with my 1W laser they will see no such thing.

However, their sudden blindness will alert them to there being something wrong.

[Telchar]

Actually, the goggles they provide are woefully inadequate.

[Dream]

Actually, the goggles they provide are woefully inadequate.

You mean, they do nothing?