Tasers are weapons used by tools, Zing! In all seriousness, I find it scary how so many people think weapons are tools (in my world, weapons are not necessary). Also, why use a sword to cut down a tree when an axe works so much better?
Poll: Are tasers tools or weapons?
- Thread starter Thaluikhain
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You really hit the nail on the head actually. Something is a weapon, only insofar as it is used as one. A gun can be a tool, or a recreational device, yet not a weapon if it is being re-purposed (or maybe just 'purposed'?) in a non-lethal/harmful activity (a shooting range, for example, or maybe by a weird artist that wants bullet damage as part of a culturally relevant aesthetic).Crenelate said:
Likewise, a tool like a hammer/screwdriver/spanner can be a weapon when used in a violent and/or harmful way, or a tool when used in a non-violent, productive way.
So I guess this would be applicable to a taser in that, when used to subdue/hurt/kill someone, it is a weapon, and when it is used recreationally/productively, it is a tool.
I read the post. Very little pisses me off more than the argument that "Oh the criminal doesn't want to hurt you, just steal your things and/or money." That is the ass-pull of someone who has never stepped into the real world. I'm glad you are so sure the knife armed stranger just wants to rob me, I'll just risk getting raped/murdered to keep this scumbag safe and sound.tsb247 said:
I hardly think its funny, but I agree otherwise.
Because the slap on the wrist and a double helping of state benefits is working so well.J Tyran said:
There is a guy who is well known around here, one of those on benefits because he gets a better deal by being on benefits was arrested 247 times last year for public order offences (drunk & disorderly, fighting and so on). Every time it is the same punishment, an £80 fine. How does he pay it you ask? Well if you're on benefits here they can only take a certain (minuscule) amount out of your benefit each week, meaning subsequent offences are just been added to his tab. In this country the average arrest plus paperwork takes 5 police hours, so this is clearly costing us, the tax payer, a ridiculous amount since we're paying for cops and effectively paying his fines.
They should have locked him up long ago, a year or so in a prison cell with no money or alcohol would be cheaper and better for everyone else. Then if he reoffends he can have 2 years. He is not a productive member of society. He is an awful person who takes great pleasure in making everyone else's life worse and wasting our tax money. Prison would be cheaper and better for society.
^This. Regardless of the suspects age or gender, pulling a taser on anyone when there are safer alternatives is never the right thing to do.Zachary Amaranth said:
I'm normally on the side of the police on this sort of thing, but not in that situation.
I implied I was on the cop's side on this one, nothing more.Zachary Amaranth said:
What I complained about was all the "Your opinion is different than mine, so I'm going to assume and imply you aren't worthy of being human." going on over there, from both sides. I didn't take that kind of stance, I took a "Adult running from police versus irresponsible cop." stance, and based my opinion on facts.
And you can disagree with what I said, rendering this loaded, polemic terminology pointless. Just because I will respect your opinion doesn't mean I'm not gonna take sides. I still have my own opinion, and so I will not change it to suit other people.
What I find funny is this:
Before tasers- reliable ones- became commonly available, boards and forums were full of demands and moans about how Police should do everything...including risk unneeded threat to life and limb...to avoid using the only real tools they had: firearms and batons/nightsticks.
Then tasers came out, and they were hailed as the next step in non-lethal capture and control techniques, so police (the trigger-happy corrupt abusive bastards) couldn't use their nasty firearms against the poor, defenseless criminals.
...and now, *tasers* are far too dangerous! There's a chance those poor murderers might be *hurt accidentally!!!*
Seriously, we have entire threads based on such a black-and-white situation blaming the Cop, blaming the Taser, I mean...really? The Taser is a device that the public widely applauded when it first became available, and now...
Before tasers- reliable ones- became commonly available, boards and forums were full of demands and moans about how Police should do everything...including risk unneeded threat to life and limb...to avoid using the only real tools they had: firearms and batons/nightsticks.
Then tasers came out, and they were hailed as the next step in non-lethal capture and control techniques, so police (the trigger-happy corrupt abusive bastards) couldn't use their nasty firearms against the poor, defenseless criminals.
...and now, *tasers* are far too dangerous! There's a chance those poor murderers might be *hurt accidentally!!!*
Seriously, we have entire threads based on such a black-and-white situation blaming the Cop, blaming the Taser, I mean...really? The Taser is a device that the public widely applauded when it first became available, and now...
As has been said before, tools and weapons aren't complete separate classes of object.
Axes? Both tool and weapon. Same for hammers. Knives are tools and weapons. It basically boils down to the fact you can use damn near anything as a weapon. Some cotton out of a pillow? shove it down there throats and suffocate them. It all depends on how... creative you are.
Axes? Both tool and weapon. Same for hammers. Knives are tools and weapons. It basically boils down to the fact you can use damn near anything as a weapon. Some cotton out of a pillow? shove it down there throats and suffocate them. It all depends on how... creative you are.
A weapon is a tool so this discussion is silly. Almost any tool can be a weapon as well. The only difference between the classification for a given item is the intent of the user.
Tis the way of the world I suppose. People like new things but god help us if they have unintended consequences.
Guns were treated in much the same way. They were hailed as tool that would equal the odds. Nobody should have to fear anyone else. Guns put everyone on equal footing. Now we have people trying to ban them claiming guns are the cause of all crime everywhere.Rottweiler said:
Tis the way of the world I suppose. People like new things but god help us if they have unintended consequences.
I didn't so much mean funny as in, "haha," but funny as in, "Strange and out of touch with reality," funny; a way of thinking that is laughable because it is so absurd.Chevalier noir said:
But yes. I am glad to see that so many find that way of thinking... more than a little out of touch. It just doesn't make sense at all, and ends up creating (possibly dead) victims.
What is terrible is that I have heard that glove issue come up in conversation before. *facepalm*FelixG said:
I have always seen Tasers as being preferrable to the Asp (extendable baton for the layman).
In fact, officers who use their baton are far more likely to be accused of brutality than if they use their firearm or their Taser. In the end, the Taser and/or firearm are seen as betters tools for the job. A buddy of mine who became a police officer a few years ago shared this little tid-bit with me after he finished his traing.
I also find it odd that some people get so upset with police officers for tasing people when the alternative is much worse... You know... A bullet.
Because a bullet is not the alternative. "The cop could just shoot her" Is a terrible argument.tsb247 said:
For the last time, it was a 100 pound handcuffed perp, running away. The least dangerous option should be taken if the subject doesn't pose a serious threat to the officer or anyone else and she most certainly didn't. Shooting her for running would most definitely get the cop fired. I'm more concerned that people imply instant death (by shooting her) in this situation is acceptable use of force.
Weapons are designed to hurt people, tools are designed to aid in constructive things.
A saw can cut someone, but it's made for cutting wood.
A gun can hurt someone, but can it cut wood?
Take this metaphorically.
The problem cops have is they see tasers as non-leathal and then just figure they can use them whenever they want. They seem to equate "non-lethal" with "not hurting anyone at all under any circumstances."
A saw can cut someone, but it's made for cutting wood.
A gun can hurt someone, but can it cut wood?
Take this metaphorically.
The problem cops have is they see tasers as non-leathal and then just figure they can use them whenever they want. They seem to equate "non-lethal" with "not hurting anyone at all under any circumstances."
Except when you stated you certainly weren't on the "side" of the woman who was doing drugs. Come now.waj9876 said:
And I know, I know. It's different in your case. It's always different.
A tool is an object for a specific purpose. A weapon is a tool to cause harm, lethal or not is irrelevant. Therefore a taser is both. The difference is semantics, nothing more.