14 ms·
Yep and the point is moot in that sense. There are those who will use the gloves as prescribed, same they wouldn't stoop to beating up a person of interest, etc
by skeledrew 2mo ago
Yep and the point is moot in that sense. There are those who will use the gloves as prescribed, same they wouldn't stoop to beating up a person of interest, etc. And there are those who will go directly for the sensitive areas out of spite, whether it be with glove, baton, gun butt or fist.
- Aachen 2mo agoThis whole subthread (where I never meant safe as "unable to cause any sort of harm to any organism under any circumstance") feels moot. In general though, there's a reason virtually all countries heavily restrict access to weapons. A law enforcement officer who doesn't carry weapons (lethal or otherwise) will have a harder time killing someone by accident, so the person above you brings up a valid concern. The question whether the concern should lead to the gloves being banned is about proportionality, and I'm not sure we can get to a useful conclusion of that pros-and-cons discussion in an HN comment under the size limit