5 ms·

So potentially non-lethal means of self defence are bad, but a weapon that can slaughter a classroom are A-okay. As a Canadian, American logic is kinda terrify

by keslag 12y ago

So potentially non-lethal means of self defence are bad, but a weapon that can slaughter a classroom are A-okay. As a Canadian, American logic is kinda terrifying.

lisper 12y ago
As an American, I kinda agree with you.
angersock 12y ago
Another way of saying "potentially non-lethal" is "lethal", and another way of saying "can slaughter a classroom" is "can be used to not slaughter a classroom". These "non-lethal" weapons are more likely to get you hurt than either disengaging entirely or engaging with a deadly weapon--to wit, one of the reasons they have officers and MPs go through CS gas/mace is to show them that they remain functional and as such they should never assume that somebody they've used a non-lethal weapon on is incapacitated.
- keslag 12y ago
  QED
fleitz 12y ago
The court that made this ruling would also ban most guns as well. It will likely be overturned on appeal, as they might have well interpreted arms as the things attached to your shoulders.
brandonmenc 12y ago
It's not unreasonable to imagine non-lethal weapons being used with far less discretion than guns. Kids running around tasing people for fun, for example.
- crpatino 12y ago
  With due respect, if your kids think that it's OK to shoot a gun to someone because it is "non lethal" (btw. sublethal would be more accurate), then you are raising a generation of drooling idiots. Which is, by the way, not what direct observation of evidence suggest. After all, baseball bats have been and continue to be much more easily available than tasers, and still you do not see hordes of drooling-idiot teenagers hitting people for fun on the streets. What you see is a small minority of very troubled kids attacking people for more or less rational (or at least, purposeful) reasons with whatever weapons happen to be available to them, more or less regardless of lethality of said weapon. And you are not going to solve that problem by making sub-lethal weapons unavailable to a completely different demography. What you do is to identify those kids and rehabilitate them before they become hardened criminals.

by keslag 12y ago

So potentially non-lethal means of self defence are bad, but a weapon that can slaughter a classroom are A-okay. As a Canadian, American logic is kinda terrifying.

lisper 12y ago

As an American, I kinda agree with you.

angersock 12y ago

Another way of saying "potentially non-lethal" is "lethal", and another way of saying "can slaughter a classroom" is "can be used to not slaughter a classroom". These "non-lethal" weapons are more likely to get you hurt than either disengaging entirely or engaging with a deadly weapon--to wit, one of the reasons they have officers and MPs go through CS gas/mace is to show them that they remain functional and as such they should never assume that somebody they've used a non-lethal weapon on is incapacitated.

keslag 12y ago
QED

fleitz 12y ago

The court that made this ruling would also ban most guns as well. It will likely be overturned on appeal, as they might have well interpreted arms as the things attached to your shoulders.

brandonmenc 12y ago

It's not unreasonable to imagine non-lethal weapons being used with far less discretion than guns. Kids running around tasing people for fun, for example.

crpatino 12y ago
With due respect, if your kids think that it's OK to shoot a gun to someone because it is "non lethal" (btw. sublethal would be more accurate), then you are raising a generation of drooling idiots. Which is, by the way, not what direct observation of evidence suggest. After all, baseball bats have been and continue to be much more easily available than tasers, and still you do not see hordes of drooling-idiot teenagers hitting people for fun on the streets. What you see is a small minority of very troubled kids attacking people for more or less rational (or at least, purposeful) reasons with whatever weapons happen to be available to them, more or less regardless of lethality of said weapon. And you are not going to solve that problem by making sub-lethal weapons unavailable to a completely different demography. What you do is to identify those kids and rehabilitate them before they become hardened criminals.