Police to be armed with stun guns

[Guest alex]

"manc-foplite"

[Fop 1]

"manc-foplite"

A chip off the old block.

[Renton 17825]

Like I said once tasers are generally deployed (unless they happen to kill a kid with one on live TV or something), the general deployment of conventional guns will inevitably follow, and you basically agree.

 

Yes, I disagree, using that logic surely it is inevitable anyway the moment we gave the police truncheons? Wtf that has to do with tasering people for 2 hours or grasing people with bullets I'm still not sure about mind.

 

Again no, as we've been though several times now (keep up), the use of a truncheon doesn't necessarily mean torture (as defined by the UN) or massive wounding.

 

So the issue with their general deployment is different.

 

If you'd have said CS spray then you'd have a point (and it has paved the way for Tasers, without doubt), but then I'm not sure it should be generally distributed either, as we've seen how it's terms of use have massively degraded in the time it has been available.

 

So if the UN hadn't classified the taser as a weapon of torture (surely this is an abritrary term anyway as any weapon can be used for torture and I don't accept being tasered is worse than being shot, but anyway) we'd have no reason to fear guns being generally distributed to the police? Is that what you're saying? I really can't see the connection, please elaborate.

 

Again that's nothing like what I'm saying (although you seem to be agreeing with Manc-foplite that torture isn't torture so long as you legalise torture - as opposed to it just being legal torture ).

 

You're trying to link a fairy tale with distribution policy, which has nothing to do with anything in this thread (although it may take us another X post before we'd walked you far enough to realise it ).

 

I'm actually really trying to follow your line of thought here Fop, in all honesty you seem to be talking gibberish half the time.

 

The UN has stated the taser is a weapon of torture, yes? And it is being introduced to the police for general use, yes? Now how does that bring an inevitability about the general police being armed with guns, especially since they themselves don't want this? What's the connection or the relevance of 'torture'?

[Fop 1]

Like I said once tasers are generally deployed (unless they happen to kill a kid with one on live TV or something), the general deployment of conventional guns will inevitably follow, and you basically agree.

 

Yes, I disagree, using that logic surely it is inevitable anyway the moment we gave the police truncheons? Wtf that has to do with tasering people for 2 hours or grasing people with bullets I'm still not sure about mind.

 

Again no, as we've been though several times now (keep up), the use of a truncheon doesn't necessarily mean torture (as defined by the UN) or massive wounding.

 

So the issue with their general deployment is different.

 

If you'd have said CS spray then you'd have a point (and it has paved the way for Tasers, without doubt), but then I'm not sure it should be generally distributed either, as we've seen how it's terms of use have massively degraded in the time it has been available.

 

So if the UN hadn't classified the taser as a weapon of torture (surely this is an abritrary term anyway as any weapon can be used for torture and I don't accept being tasered is worse than being shot, but anyway) we'd have no reason to fear guns being generally distributed to the police? Is that what you're saying? I really can't see the connection, please elaborate.

 

Again that's nothing like what I'm saying (although you seem to be agreeing with Manc-foplite that torture isn't torture so long as you legalise torture - as opposed to it just being legal torture ).

 

You're trying to link a fairy tale with distribution policy, which has nothing to do with anything in this thread (although it may take us another X post before we'd walked you far enough to realise it ).

 

I'm actually really trying to follow your line of thought here Fop, in all honesty you seem to be talking gibberish half the time.

 

The UN has stated the taser is a weapon of torture, yes? And it is being introduced to the police for general use, yes? Now how does that bring an inevitability about the general police being armed with guns, especially since they themselves don't want this? What's the connection or the relevance of 'torture'?

Again 1 + b ≠ Aardvark.

 

And as I said earlier a lot of police don't actually want the general deployment of tasers.

[Park Life 70]

Like I said once tasers are generally deployed (unless they happen to kill a kid with one on live TV or something), the general deployment of conventional guns will inevitably follow, and you basically agree.

 

Yes, I disagree, using that logic surely it is inevitable anyway the moment we gave the police truncheons? Wtf that has to do with tasering people for 2 hours or grasing people with bullets I'm still not sure about mind.

 

Again no, as we've been though several times now (keep up), the use of a truncheon doesn't necessarily mean torture (as defined by the UN) or massive wounding.

 

So the issue with their general deployment is different.

 

If you'd have said CS spray then you'd have a point (and it has paved the way for Tasers, without doubt), but then I'm not sure it should be generally distributed either, as we've seen how it's terms of use have massively degraded in the time it has been available.

 

So if the UN hadn't classified the taser as a weapon of torture (surely this is an abritrary term anyway as any weapon can be used for torture and I don't accept being tasered is worse than being shot, but anyway) we'd have no reason to fear guns being generally distributed to the police? Is that what you're saying? I really can't see the connection, please elaborate.

 

Again that's nothing like what I'm saying (although you seem to be agreeing with Manc-foplite that torture isn't torture so long as you legalise torture - as opposed to it just being legal torture ).

 

You're trying to link a fairy tale with distribution policy, which has nothing to do with anything in this thread (although it may take us another X post before we'd walked you far enough to realise it ).

 

I'm actually really trying to follow your line of thought here Fop, in all honesty you seem to be talking gibberish half the time.

 

The UN has stated the taser is a weapon of torture, yes? And it is being introduced to the police for general use, yes? Now how does that bring an inevitability about the general police being armed with guns, especially since they themselves don't want this? What's the connection or the relevance of 'torture'?

Again 1 + b ≠ Aardvark.

 

And as I said earlier a lot of police don't actually want the general deployment of tasers.

 

 

The police realise the more weapons they carry the bigger targets they will become. But the powers that be don't give a fuck about that.

[Renton 17825]

Like I said once tasers are generally deployed (unless they happen to kill a kid with one on live TV or something), the general deployment of conventional guns will inevitably follow, and you basically agree.

 

Yes, I disagree, using that logic surely it is inevitable anyway the moment we gave the police truncheons? Wtf that has to do with tasering people for 2 hours or grasing people with bullets I'm still not sure about mind.

 

Again no, as we've been though several times now (keep up), the use of a truncheon doesn't necessarily mean torture (as defined by the UN) or massive wounding.

 

So the issue with their general deployment is different.

 

If you'd have said CS spray then you'd have a point (and it has paved the way for Tasers, without doubt), but then I'm not sure it should be generally distributed either, as we've seen how it's terms of use have massively degraded in the time it has been available.

 

So if the UN hadn't classified the taser as a weapon of torture (surely this is an abritrary term anyway as any weapon can be used for torture and I don't accept being tasered is worse than being shot, but anyway) we'd have no reason to fear guns being generally distributed to the police? Is that what you're saying? I really can't see the connection, please elaborate.

 

Again that's nothing like what I'm saying (although you seem to be agreeing with Manc-foplite that torture isn't torture so long as you legalise torture - as opposed to it just being legal torture ).

 

You're trying to link a fairy tale with distribution policy, which has nothing to do with anything in this thread (although it may take us another X post before we'd walked you far enough to realise it ).

 

I'm actually really trying to follow your line of thought here Fop, in all honesty you seem to be talking gibberish half the time.

 

The UN has stated the taser is a weapon of torture, yes? And it is being introduced to the police for general use, yes? Now how does that bring an inevitability about the general police being armed with guns, especially since they themselves don't want this? What's the connection or the relevance of 'torture'?

Again 1 + b ≠ Aardvark.

 

And as I said earlier a lot of police don't actually want the general deployment of tasers.

 

Regardless, please explain the relevance of torture and how this relates to the inevitability (any time in the infinite future of course) of the police being armed with real guns.

[manc-mag 1]

Like I said once tasers are generally deployed (unless they happen to kill a kid with one on live TV or something), the general deployment of conventional guns will inevitably follow, and you basically agree.

 

Yes, I disagree, using that logic surely it is inevitable anyway the moment we gave the police truncheons? Wtf that has to do with tasering people for 2 hours or grasing people with bullets I'm still not sure about mind.

 

Again no, as we've been though several times now (keep up), the use of a truncheon doesn't necessarily mean torture (as defined by the UN) or massive wounding.

 

So the issue with their general deployment is different.

 

If you'd have said CS spray then you'd have a point (and it has paved the way for Tasers, without doubt), but then I'm not sure it should be generally distributed either, as we've seen how it's terms of use have massively degraded in the time it has been available.

 

So if the UN hadn't classified the taser as a weapon of torture (surely this is an abritrary term anyway as any weapon can be used for torture and I don't accept being tasered is worse than being shot, but anyway) we'd have no reason to fear guns being generally distributed to the police? Is that what you're saying? I really can't see the connection, please elaborate.

 

Again that's nothing like what I'm saying (although you seem to be agreeing with Manc-foplite that torture isn't torture so long as you legalise torture - as opposed to it just being legal torture ).

 

You're trying to link a fairy tale with distribution policy, which has nothing to do with anything in this thread (although it may take us another X post before we'd walked you far enough to realise it ).

 

I'm actually really trying to follow your line of thought here Fop, in all honesty you seem to be talking gibberish half the time.

 

The UN has stated the taser is a weapon of torture, yes? And it is being introduced to the police for general use, yes? Now how does that bring an inevitability about the general police being armed with guns, especially since they themselves don't want this? What's the connection or the relevance of 'torture'?

 

It's his logic thats down the tubes mate. That's the problem and thats the real issue I have. He spans the logic gaps with vast cantilevered agenda bridges and from that point it's fucking hopeless.

 

On a serious note though, it's why a clinically objective approach is always more conducive to proper analysis of the issues.

[Renton 17825]

The police realise the more weapons they carry the bigger targets they will become. But the powers that be don't give a fuck about that.

 

That's true re: guns but apparently not tasers.

 

'The move is backed by the 140,000 rank and file police officers and chief constables.' The Times

[Fop 1]

The police realise the more weapons they carry the bigger targets they will become. But the powers that be don't give a fuck about that.

Aye, and that they will kill people too.

 

Like I said once tasers are generally deployed (unless they happen to kill a kid with one on live TV or something), the general deployment of conventional guns will inevitably follow, and you basically agree.

 

Yes, I disagree, using that logic surely it is inevitable anyway the moment we gave the police truncheons? Wtf that has to do with tasering people for 2 hours or grasing people with bullets I'm still not sure about mind.

 

Again no, as we've been though several times now (keep up), the use of a truncheon doesn't necessarily mean torture (as defined by the UN) or massive wounding.

 

So the issue with their general deployment is different.

 

If you'd have said CS spray then you'd have a point (and it has paved the way for Tasers, without doubt), but then I'm not sure it should be generally distributed either, as we've seen how it's terms of use have massively degraded in the time it has been available.

 

So if the UN hadn't classified the taser as a weapon of torture (surely this is an abritrary term anyway as any weapon can be used for torture and I don't accept being tasered is worse than being shot, but anyway) we'd have no reason to fear guns being generally distributed to the police? Is that what you're saying? I really can't see the connection, please elaborate.

 

Again that's nothing like what I'm saying (although you seem to be agreeing with Manc-foplite that torture isn't torture so long as you legalise torture - as opposed to it just being legal torture ).

 

You're trying to link a fairy tale with distribution policy, which has nothing to do with anything in this thread (although it may take us another X post before we'd walked you far enough to realise it ).

 

I'm actually really trying to follow your line of thought here Fop, in all honesty you seem to be talking gibberish half the time.

 

The UN has stated the taser is a weapon of torture, yes? And it is being introduced to the police for general use, yes? Now how does that bring an inevitability about the general police being armed with guns, especially since they themselves don't want this? What's the connection or the relevance of 'torture'?

Again 1 + b ≠ Aardvark.

 

And as I said earlier a lot of police don't actually want the general deployment of tasers.

 

Regardless, please explain the relevance of torture and how this relates to the inevitability (any time in the infinite future of course) of the police being armed with real guns.

Again 1 + b ≠ Aardvark.

 

But if you want to know why tasers will lead to that (as CS spray as helped lead to tasers), just re-read the thread.

[Fop 1]

It's his logic thats down the tubes mate. That's the problem and thats the real issue I have. He spans the logic gaps with vast cantilevered agenda bridges and from that point it's fucking hopeless.

 

On a serious note though, it's why a clinically objective approach is always more conducive to proper analysis of the issues.

 

Aye, logic like killing someone legally meaning they aren't dead is the future.

[Park Life 70]

The police realise the more weapons they carry the bigger targets they will become. But the powers that be don't give a fuck about that.

 

That's true re: guns but apparently not tasers.

 

'The move is backed by the 140,000 rank and file police officers and chief constables.' The Times

 

"Officials say the gun could be be used against anyone who put the lives or safety of officers and the public at risk. That includes aggressive drunken yobs, knife-wielding criminals and those who go "berserk" in public.

[Fop 1]

The police realise the more weapons they carry the bigger targets they will become. But the powers that be don't give a fuck about that.

 

That's true re: guns but apparently not tasers.

 

'The move is backed by the 140,000 rank and file police officers and chief constables.' The Times

 

I'm sure it's backed "officially" (Smith and her battalions of spin doctors and arm twisters will have seen to that), but unofficially not so much.

 

Much like officially you're not supposed to aim for the head, but unofficially if they are wearing thick clothing that is exactly what will be done.

[Fop 1]

The police realise the more weapons they carry the bigger targets they will become. But the powers that be don't give a fuck about that.

 

That's true re: guns but apparently not tasers.

 

'The move is backed by the 140,000 rank and file police officers and chief constables.' The Times

 

"Officials say the gun could be be used against anyone who put the lives or safety of officers and the public at risk. That includes aggressive drunken yobs, knife-wielding criminals and those who go "berserk" in public.

 

Against alien invaders and vampires they would be indispensable too.

[manc-mag 1]

It's his logic thats down the tubes mate. That's the problem and thats the real issue I have. He spans the logic gaps with vast cantilevered agenda bridges and from that point it's fucking hopeless.

 

On a serious note though, it's why a clinically objective approach is always more conducive to proper analysis of the issues.

 

Aye, logic like killing someone legally meaning they aren't dead is the future.

 

That wasn't the logic and death is a scientific fact which is intrinsic to the definition of 'killing'.

[Fop 1]

It's his logic thats down the tubes mate. That's the problem and thats the real issue I have. He spans the logic gaps with vast cantilevered agenda bridges and from that point it's fucking hopeless.

 

On a serious note though, it's why a clinically objective approach is always more conducive to proper analysis of the issues.

 

Aye, logic like killing someone legally meaning they aren't dead is the future.

 

That wasn't the logic and death is a scientific fact which is intrinsic to the definition of 'killing'.

Yup, that too; if you legally change the definition of "killing" people then they don't "die" when you do that thing that can legally no longer be referred to as "killing" to them.

 

"logic"

[manc-mag 1]

I think you're just hitting keys at random now.

[Fop 1]

I wish you were just hitting keys at random now.

I bet you do.

Edited November 26, 2008 by Fop

[Guest alex]

"manc-foplite"

A chip off the old block.

You could barely be less alike.

[Renton 17825]

"manc-foplite"

A chip off the old block.

You could barely be less alike.

 

My thoughts as well.

 

'Arguing' with Fop is like picking a scab, strangely compelling but ultimately painful and counterproductive.

[Fop 1]

"manc-foplite"

A chip off the old block.

You could barely be less alike.

Aye, he's worse. But he's learning.

 

"manc-foplite"

A chip off the old block.

You could barely be less alike.

 

My thoughts as well.

 

'Arguing' with Fop is like picking a scab, strangely compelling but ultimately painful and counterproductive.

 

Only because you keep losing.