"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> > I'm not into this "eye for an eye" thing, I think you should sort your
>
> > own shit out, and to that end I think you should avoid killing someone
> > wherever possible, and avoid harming them wherever possible, etc.
>
> I concur wholly with this. The thing you are overlooking is that it is not always
> possible now, is it?
Sorry, I wasn't aware that we were meant to remain within the bounds of the possible here.
> > I'd rather a population heavily armed with tazers, say, than machine
> > pistols.
>
> I take the opposite view. Arming everyone with tazers that you know won't kill anyone
> will make people shock happy, preferring to shock first and ask questions later,
> because its easier than dealing with a confrontation and coming to a resolution.
Hey, I'd rather be tazered by a drunk than your alternative.
> Women will shock men at the end of a date cause they don't want to go through the
> unpleasantness of telling the guy to buzz off and risk a bad response to the
> rejection.
> Making the consequences of employing force high forces people to deal with a
> situation as well as they can FIRST without resorting to any force, whether it is
> lethal or non-lethal.
This assumes, once again, that people are always rational. When people are prepared to behave like adults, as I said, then sure, give em all tac nukes. But until then, I like the idea of a disarmed populace. It's a nice place to live.
Dwayne
--
mailto:ddraig@pobox.com http://i.am/dwayne
"the cricher we kno as dwayne is only the projection
into our dimension of something much larger and
wirder."
---clae@pa.ausom.net.au
....return....to....the....source....