4 ms·

> it will be used to squash protests against dictators. Still, it's an improvement over the lethal bullets currently used for the same purpose.

mschuster91 11y ago
It's not, because killing people marching for their rights can be used by the protesters (martyrs) or by the West (to condemn said regimes). It's not lethal? => Nothing to worry about, move on.
- dogma1138 11y ago
  Are you really arguing that it's more favorable for an oppressive government to mow down protesters with machine guns than use LTL and crowed dispersal techniques just so you could rally your friends for a cause?
  - mschuster91 11y ago
    No, but I'm afraid exactly the scenario I outlined will happen.
    - dogma1138 11y ago
      Clearly you don't live in one of those places my bet would be is given the choice the people who protest there would rather be beaten and a live than dead.
      - mschuster91 11y ago
        Look what Saudi Arabia did a week ago with the 47 executions, or what happened in Egypt a couple of years ago. If I were in the situation of one of the victims, I'd prefer to die a (comparably) quick death on the field rather than being captured, tortured and then killed. At least these people died by firing squad, there's way worse ways to die (e.g. being tortured to death, crucified, ...).
      - Someone 11y ago
        One line of thinking to oppose non-lethal weapons is: if relatively few very brave citizens protest against their government, several things may happen: - the government takes them off the street; the protest fizzles out. - the government takes them off the street; the silent minority becomes angry and rises against the government. - the government listens to the protesters, and makes some concessions. For the "take them off the street" option, the "revolution" outcome probably is more likely if the government uses lethal force. So, with non-lethal weapons, it it less risky for the government to go for the "take them off the street" option and because of that, it is less likely that they will go for the "listen and make some concessions" option. So, yes, most people would rather confront a non-lethal weapon, but for the greater good, it may be better if the government doesn't have that option. Another line of thinking is that non-lethal weapons do not replace lethal weapons where possible, but replace situations where, previously, police officers would try to resolve problems by talking or by waiting for them to cool down a bit. Net effect is that the police will use more force and hence become less trusted, making them more likely to use violence, making them less trusted, etc. looking at some of the "police officer shooting citizen" videos, I think the US has gone through quite a few iterations of that cycle. So, in those situations, the choice (according to this line of reasoning) is not between a bean bag and a real bullet, but between a bean bag and an officer asking "what's up?" I think both lines of reasoning have some truth in them.
  - qbrass 11y ago
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Boston_Massacre_high-res.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Boston_M...
- refurb 11y ago
  Really? You think the better situation is people dying?
- Jugurtha 11y ago
  >It's not, because killing people marching for their rights can be used by the protesters (martyrs) or by the West (to condemn said regimes). This makes sense but doesn't hold against the reality of life. For several reasons: 1 - There are places where people have been killing each other for so long, it wouldn't even make it to the news and wouldn't shock anyone if it did. Who got shocked a few days ago when the Freedom and Democracy Front has overthrown General Babangida causing FOUR THOUSAND deaths in yet another ethnic cleansing disguised as a coup/revolt for "Democracy" in a country that has had one too many of those, considering that the guy gained power in a blood bath in the first place. Who has even heard of that news? Did CNN even bother? I bet no one because I just invented the Freedom and Democracy Front and General Babangida. But I also bet many actually didn't even doubt the information because it seems so plausible. After all, they all call themselves "Freedom and Democracy", there's always a General, who became President in a coup himself. I just Googled "African last names" to make it real. You can put that imaginary news in any scene of any movie of the last 40 years, and it would still pass unnoticed. There's so much wrong in the fact that all of this has become cliché, it's not even funny. 2 - Condemnation or any reaction from the "West", or any country for that matter, is not an idealized object in an isolated system that somehow manifests itself whenever and wherever injustice has stricken. It is just an instrument of statecraft. The same action done by the same State at different times would trigger different reactions based on the status of said state and the interest of the "Condemnators". A State would make a big deal out of an adversary State repressing riots and make it look like a Human Rights issue; at the same time it would make its own repression of riots a Security issue. It would not even comment on an ally State executing people for abusive reasons, certainly not when that State is its ally against an enemy State. That is, until now, which certainly marks the transition and the turning wheel.. The disgrace of an ally and burying the hatch with an enemy state. Condemnation is very akin to slut shaming. States get all ramped up when they're spied on and act outraged, yet they spy on other States. Intelligence Officers call their assets in other countries "brave patriots risking their lives to improve their countries by fighting against their abusive regimes", yet use the term "traitor" for people of their own country who do the same.

mschuster91 11y ago

It's not, because killing people marching for their rights can be used by the protesters (martyrs) or by the West (to condemn said regimes). It's not lethal? => Nothing to worry about, move on.

dogma1138 11y ago
Are you really arguing that it's more favorable for an oppressive government to mow down protesters with machine guns than use LTL and crowed dispersal techniques just so you could rally your friends for a cause?
- mschuster91 11y ago
  No, but I'm afraid exactly the scenario I outlined will happen.
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    Clearly you don't live in one of those places my bet would be is given the choice the people who protest there would rather be beaten and a live than dead.
    - mschuster91 11y ago
      Look what Saudi Arabia did a week ago with the 47 executions, or what happened in Egypt a couple of years ago. If I were in the situation of one of the victims, I'd prefer to die a (comparably) quick death on the field rather than being captured, tortured and then killed. At least these people died by firing squad, there's way worse ways to die (e.g. being tortured to death, crucified, ...).
    - Someone 11y ago
      One line of thinking to oppose non-lethal weapons is: if relatively few very brave citizens protest against their government, several things may happen: - the government takes them off the street; the protest fizzles out. - the government takes them off the street; the silent minority becomes angry and rises against the government. - the government listens to the protesters, and makes some concessions. For the "take them off the street" option, the "revolution" outcome probably is more likely if the government uses lethal force. So, with non-lethal weapons, it it less risky for the government to go for the "take them off the street" option and because of that, it is less likely that they will go for the "listen and make some concessions" option. So, yes, most people would rather confront a non-lethal weapon, but for the greater good, it may be better if the government doesn't have that option. Another line of thinking is that non-lethal weapons do not replace lethal weapons where possible, but replace situations where, previously, police officers would try to resolve problems by talking or by waiting for them to cool down a bit. Net effect is that the police will use more force and hence become less trusted, making them more likely to use violence, making them less trusted, etc. looking at some of the "police officer shooting citizen" videos, I think the US has gone through quite a few iterations of that cycle. So, in those situations, the choice (according to this line of reasoning) is not between a bean bag and a real bullet, but between a bean bag and an officer asking "what's up?" I think both lines of reasoning have some truth in them.
- qbrass 11y ago
  https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Boston_Massacre_high-res.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Boston_M...
refurb 11y ago
Really? You think the better situation is people dying?
Jugurtha 11y ago
>It's not, because killing people marching for their rights can be used by the protesters (martyrs) or by the West (to condemn said regimes). This makes sense but doesn't hold against the reality of life. For several reasons: 1 - There are places where people have been killing each other for so long, it wouldn't even make it to the news and wouldn't shock anyone if it did. Who got shocked a few days ago when the Freedom and Democracy Front has overthrown General Babangida causing FOUR THOUSAND deaths in yet another ethnic cleansing disguised as a coup/revolt for "Democracy" in a country that has had one too many of those, considering that the guy gained power in a blood bath in the first place. Who has even heard of that news? Did CNN even bother? I bet no one because I just invented the Freedom and Democracy Front and General Babangida. But I also bet many actually didn't even doubt the information because it seems so plausible. After all, they all call themselves "Freedom and Democracy", there's always a General, who became President in a coup himself. I just Googled "African last names" to make it real. You can put that imaginary news in any scene of any movie of the last 40 years, and it would still pass unnoticed. There's so much wrong in the fact that all of this has become cliché, it's not even funny. 2 - Condemnation or any reaction from the "West", or any country for that matter, is not an idealized object in an isolated system that somehow manifests itself whenever and wherever injustice has stricken. It is just an instrument of statecraft. The same action done by the same State at different times would trigger different reactions based on the status of said state and the interest of the "Condemnators". A State would make a big deal out of an adversary State repressing riots and make it look like a Human Rights issue; at the same time it would make its own repression of riots a Security issue. It would not even comment on an ally State executing people for abusive reasons, certainly not when that State is its ally against an enemy State. That is, until now, which certainly marks the transition and the turning wheel.. The disgrace of an ally and burying the hatch with an enemy state. Condemnation is very akin to slut shaming. States get all ramped up when they're spied on and act outraged, yet they spy on other States. Intelligence Officers call their assets in other countries "brave patriots risking their lives to improve their countries by fighting against their abusive regimes", yet use the term "traitor" for people of their own country who do the same.