Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Defasher wrote (edited )

I've always wondered why cops in the US need deadly weapons. How hard is it to give them guns that only sedate or otherwise incapacitate people? Since they shoot anyone that talks back to them, seems like trusting them with a license to kill is gonna end up getting some rich kid killed, and then there will be HELL to pay.

3

mofongo wrote

For what exactly?

2

PainlessEphemera wrote

I guess they mean as a weapon of self defense.

4

elyersio OP wrote (edited )

Do you think the Las Vegas shooting would've been so deadly if somebody/everybody had a taser?

Edit: I just learned that nobody knew where the shooting was coming from. :(

1

PainlessEphemera wrote

Makes it worse. Could you imagine those first people who died not knowing what happened? Like one second you’re enjoying music and the next, you get intense pain and bleed before you (hopefully) black out.

3

elyersio OP wrote

I'd rather not black out, I'd rather stay alive.

2

sudo wrote

Then you'd have to be right next to the person to stun them. But, if they have a gun, they don't have to be right next to you to shoot you. Our enemies have guns, so we should also have guns if we want to defeat them.

2

elyersio OP wrote (edited )

There are tasers that shoot barbs attached to wires. It's not exactly a sniper rifle, but we could stun people a few yards away with the right taser.

1

sudo wrote

I'm sorry, I had tasers and stun guns mixed up. Yes, tasers do that, but there are some times where the terminals of the taser don't connect to the target's skin, and they have no effect. Plus, they are single-use only, and if your enemy has a gun, they're a lot better off than you are. Maybe if you're a police officer (excuse me, a member of a community self-defense squadron) in a communist country in the far future, where capitalism and its effects are no longer felt, you might be able to carry only a taser and be ok. But I would still want a pistol, just in case.

3