Police to be armed with stun guns

[Renton 17825]

Jesus wept Fop, you're embarassing yourself.

 

You dodged the question!!

 

I'd rather be grazed by a bullet Fop. Now please answer, how is the question relevant?

[Guest alex]

[Fop 1]

Jesus wept Fop, you're embarassing yourself.

 

You dodged the question!!

 

I'd rather be grazed by a bullet Fop. Now please answer, how is the question relevant?

 

So does that therefore mean you'd rather be shot by a gun than tasered?

[Renton 17825]

Jesus wept Fop, you're embarassing yourself.

 

You dodged the question!!

 

I'd rather be grazed by a bullet Fop. Now please answer, how is the question relevant?

 

So does that therefore mean you'd rather be shot by a gun than tasered?

 

No. Are you feeling OK?

[Fop 1]

Jesus wept Fop, you're embarassing yourself.

 

You dodged the question!!

 

I'd rather be grazed by a bullet Fop. Now please answer, how is the question relevant?

 

So does that therefore mean you'd rather be shot by a gun than tasered?

 

No. Are you feeling OK?

 

So basically then you agree with me that it's NOT the issue.

[Renton 17825]

Jesus wept Fop, you're embarassing yourself.

 

You dodged the question!!

 

I'd rather be grazed by a bullet Fop. Now please answer, how is the question relevant?

 

So does that therefore mean you'd rather be shot by a gun than tasered?

 

No. Are you feeling OK?

 

So basically then you agree with me that it's NOT the issue.

 

You've lost me. Are you saying that tasers are usually used to shoot someone constantly for two hours, and that marksmen with firearms aim to graze?

[Fop 1]

Jesus wept Fop, you're embarassing yourself.

 

You dodged the question!!

 

I'd rather be grazed by a bullet Fop. Now please answer, how is the question relevant?

 

So does that therefore mean you'd rather be shot by a gun than tasered?

 

No. Are you feeling OK?

 

So basically then you agree with me that it's NOT the issue.

 

You've lost me. Are you saying that tasers are usually used to shoot someone constantly for two hours, and that marksmen with firearms aim to graze?

 

That you agree that their potential use in differing situations is completely independent of and nothing to do with, their overall deployment policy.

 

It sometimes takes a few posts, but we get there in the end.

[Renton 17825]

Jesus wept Fop, you're embarassing yourself.

 

You dodged the question!!

 

I'd rather be grazed by a bullet Fop. Now please answer, how is the question relevant?

 

So does that therefore mean you'd rather be shot by a gun than tasered?

 

No. Are you feeling OK?

 

So basically then you agree with me that it's NOT the issue.

 

You've lost me. Are you saying that tasers are usually used to shoot someone constantly for two hours, and that marksmen with firearms aim to graze?

 

That you agree that their potential use in differing situations is completely independent of and nothing to do with, their overall deployment policy.

 

It sometimes takes a few posts, but we get there in the end.

 

I think we're talking about entirely different things. I'm talking about real life, you are stuck on planet Fop. There are obviously different issues between general deployment of guns and tasers, which would you prefer to happen?

[Fop 1]

Jesus wept Fop, you're embarassing yourself.

 

You dodged the question!!

 

I'd rather be grazed by a bullet Fop. Now please answer, how is the question relevant?

 

So does that therefore mean you'd rather be shot by a gun than tasered?

 

No. Are you feeling OK?

 

So basically then you agree with me that it's NOT the issue.

 

You've lost me. Are you saying that tasers are usually used to shoot someone constantly for two hours, and that marksmen with firearms aim to graze?

 

That you agree that their potential use in differing situations is completely independent of and nothing to do with, their overall deployment policy.

 

It sometimes takes a few posts, but we get there in the end.

 

I think we're talking about entirely different things. I'm talking about real life, you are stuck on planet Fop. There are obviously different issues between general deployment of guns and tasers, which would you prefer to happen?

 

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.

[manc-mag 1]

Jesus wept Fop, you're embarassing yourself.

 

You dodged the question!!

 

I'd rather be grazed by a bullet Fop. Now please answer, how is the question relevant?

 

So does that therefore mean you'd rather be shot by a gun than tasered?

 

No. Are you feeling OK?

 

So basically then you agree with me that it's NOT the issue.

 

You've lost me. Are you saying that tasers are usually used to shoot someone constantly for two hours, and that marksmen with firearms aim to graze?

 

That you agree that their potential use in differing situations is completely independent of and nothing to do with, their overall deployment policy.

 

It sometimes takes a few posts, but we get there in the end.

 

I think we're talking about entirely different things. I'm talking about real life, you are stuck on planet Fop. There are obviously different issues between general deployment of guns and tasers, which would you prefer to happen?

 

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.

 

Give us a timescale if you dont mind.

[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.

[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.

 

Therein lies just about every problem with Chompsky.

[Fop 1]

Jesus wept Fop, you're embarassing yourself.

 

You dodged the question!!

 

I'd rather be grazed by a bullet Fop. Now please answer, how is the question relevant?

 

So does that therefore mean you'd rather be shot by a gun than tasered?

 

No. Are you feeling OK?

 

So basically then you agree with me that it's NOT the issue.

 

You've lost me. Are you saying that tasers are usually used to shoot someone constantly for two hours, and that marksmen with firearms aim to graze?

 

That you agree that their potential use in differing situations is completely independent of and nothing to do with, their overall deployment policy.

 

It sometimes takes a few posts, but we get there in the end.

 

I think we're talking about entirely different things. I'm talking about real life, you are stuck on planet Fop. There are obviously different issues between general deployment of guns and tasers, which would you prefer to happen?

 

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.

 

Give us a timescale if you dont mind.

 

I know you think I'm amazing, but I can't quite predict the future with 100% certainty (yet).

[Park Life 70]

Jesus wept Fop, you're embarassing yourself.

 

You dodged the question!!

 

I'd rather be grazed by a bullet Fop. Now please answer, how is the question relevant?

 

So does that therefore mean you'd rather be shot by a gun than tasered?

 

No. Are you feeling OK?

 

So basically then you agree with me that it's NOT the issue.

 

You've lost me. Are you saying that tasers are usually used to shoot someone constantly for two hours, and that marksmen with firearms aim to graze?

 

That you agree that their potential use in differing situations is completely independent of and nothing to do with, their overall deployment policy.

 

It sometimes takes a few posts, but we get there in the end.

 

I think we're talking about entirely different things. I'm talking about real life, you are stuck on planet Fop. There are obviously different issues between general deployment of guns and tasers, which would you prefer to happen?

 

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.

 

The police are pushing for space based weapons platforms.

[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.

[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.

 

Therein lies just about every problem with Chompsky.

Except, of course, it doesn't.

[Fop 1]

The police are pushing for space based weapons platforms.

 

You think that GPS vehicle speed monitoring system Labour were trying to big up wouldn't have been tied into the police databases?

Edited November 26, 2008 by Fop

[manc-mag 1]

Jesus wept Fop, you're embarassing yourself.

 

You dodged the question!!

 

I'd rather be grazed by a bullet Fop. Now please answer, how is the question relevant?

 

So does that therefore mean you'd rather be shot by a gun than tasered?

 

No. Are you feeling OK?

 

So basically then you agree with me that it's NOT the issue.

 

You've lost me. Are you saying that tasers are usually used to shoot someone constantly for two hours, and that marksmen with firearms aim to graze?

 

That you agree that their potential use in differing situations is completely independent of and nothing to do with, their overall deployment policy.

 

It sometimes takes a few posts, but we get there in the end.

 

I think we're talking about entirely different things. I'm talking about real life, you are stuck on planet Fop. There are obviously different issues between general deployment of guns and tasers, which would you prefer to happen?

 

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.

 

Give us a timescale if you dont mind.

 

I know you think I'm amazing, but I can't quite predict the future with 100% certainty (yet).

 

Just looking for a bit of foresight to balance your ubiquitous hindsight.

 

It was a confident prediction so a timescale if you dont mind, just to give it an ounce of credibility.

[Park Life 70]

The police are pushing for space based weapons platforms.

 

You think that GPS vehicle speed monitoring system Labour were trying to big up wouldn't have been tied into the police databases?

[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.

[Fop 1]

Just looking for a bit of foresight to balance your ubiquitous hindsight.

 

You've already seen it, I predicted tasers would be handed out like sweets ages ago.

 

It was a confident prediction so a timescale if you dont mind, just to give it an ounce of credibility.

It depends on what the Government can wangle, and how much it's pushed. We already see guns deployed to many situations they wouldn't have been just 10-15 years ago (even 7 years ago in some cases). So I expect we'll see them ever widened in steps before general deployment.

[manc-mag 1]

Just looking for a bit of foresight to balance your ubiquitous hindsight.

 

You've already seen it, I predicted tasers would be handed out like sweets ages ago.

 

It was a confident prediction so a timescale if you dont mind, just to give it an ounce of credibility.

It depends on what the Government can wangle, and how much it's pushed. We already see guns deployed to many situations they wouldn't have been just 10-15 years ago (even 7 years ago in some cases). So I expect we'll see them ever widened in steps before general deployment.

 

It was a simple enough question. Guns=when?

[Park Life 70]

Just looking for a bit of foresight to balance your ubiquitous hindsight.

 

You've already seen it, I predicted tasers would be handed out like sweets ages ago.

 

It was a confident prediction so a timescale if you dont mind, just to give it an ounce of credibility.

It depends on what the Government can wangle, and how much it's pushed. We already see guns deployed to many situations they wouldn't have been just 10-15 years ago (even 7 years ago in some cases). So I expect we'll see them ever widened in steps before general deployment.

 

Dey lova da weapons innit.

[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 ).

[Fop 1]

Just looking for a bit of foresight to balance your ubiquitous hindsight.

 

You've already seen it, I predicted tasers would be handed out like sweets ages ago.

 

It was a confident prediction so a timescale if you dont mind, just to give it an ounce of credibility.

It depends on what the Government can wangle, and how much it's pushed. We already see guns deployed to many situations they wouldn't have been just 10-15 years ago (even 7 years ago in some cases). So I expect we'll see them ever widened in steps before general deployment.

 

It was a simple enough question. Guns=when?

In the future.