3 ms·
Honestly, that would be worse. To knowingly say that a non-lethal instrument like a sound cannon is morally equivalent to dogs, hoses, and god-knows-what-else
by sachinag 17y ago
Honestly, that would be worse. To knowingly say that a non-lethal instrument like a sound cannon is morally equivalent to dogs, hoses, and god-knows-what-else is crazy. (And I read the OP as saying sound cannons would be worse, and I don't even know how to begin to express my emotions to that.)
Look, you can have your issues with the police's response to a small group of protesters in Pittsburgh, but you know what the nice thing is about boring photographs? No one there is bleeding to death. No one has been singled out for humiliation and treated as less than human based on the color of their skin.
- pg 17y agoNo one has said either of the two things you say in the first paragraph would upset you. I read the OP as saying what he wrote.
- adriand 17y agoThank you. What I wrote was, in fact, what I meant. It's precisely the success of the civil rights movement and other popular movements that have prompted the development of weapons intended to disperse demonstrations that don't create martyrs or inflame people who aren't actually present at the demonstration.
- prodigal_erik 17y agoNobody but you has claimed they're "morally equivalent". These are on the market because they're thought to be more effective (even if only because they can be used indiscriminately). If that's true we should all be glad the little Eichmanns of the 1960s didn't have them to set back civil rights even farther.