Re: WEAPONS: More Non-Lethal Weapons (was Re: Cryonics propaganda...)

Joe E. Dees (
Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:23:52 -0500

Date sent:      	Thu, 3 Jun 1999 06:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:        	WEAPONS: More Non-Lethal Weapons (was Re: Cryonics propaganda...)
Send reply to:

> dwayne [] wrote:
> >Not that I am overly squeamish about killing people, I just think that
> >as a mark of self-respect you should minimise the harm you cause
> >wherever possible.
> With the possible exception of Joe, I think everyone in this discussion
> would agree with that. It's the people who disagree (i.e. violent
> criminals) who we're worried about.
You just can't miss a chance to lie, can you, Mark? Of course harm should be minimized; that's the purpose of my proposed laws.
> >I'd rather a population heavily armed with tazers, say, than machine
> >pistols.
> Even if that resulted in higher crime rates because crooks who wouldn't
> shoot their victims with machine pistols before robbing/raping/whatever
> would happily stun them with tazers? Even if people who would have walked
> away from a fight if armed with machine pistols start having tazer shootouts
> in the street? Even if people start tazering others and then bashing their
> brains out? Even if crooks who would have surrendered peacefully if their
> only other choice was to machinegun a cop will happily have a tazer
> shootout, knowing that it won't kill them?
> Non-lethal weapons create many, many new problems of their own.
> Mark