Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

cdhostage · May 27, 2002, 09:24 PM

i wsa reminded by a thread over at AI about the second amendment. Then I saw Insomnia and everyone important got shot.

What if handguns were declared illegal and all were confiscated, including from the police? What would the police carry?

Pepper spray is not very accurate and can spread to hit innocents - tha's sorta OK as long as it's nonlethal.
Tasers are short-distance - the wires ca nonly beso long.

Can anyone think of something the poilice can carry that won't kill someone but is still an effectice weapon?

::maroma:: · May 27, 2002, 09:29 PM

Bean bag bullets. Yes, they are fired from a gun, but they are non-lethal. They are very effective in subduing a suspect, and fairly accurate. That was the first thing to come to mind.

SimeyTheLimey · May 27, 2002, 09:45 PM

What about point-ed sticks?

nealconner · May 27, 2002, 09:51 PM

You won't take away my right to own guns until you pry one from my cold dead Libertarian Objectivist hands.

cdhostage · May 27, 2002, 10:14 PM

Flashbang grenades!
You could even build a little projectile weapon to throw these things a computer-calculated distance to stun the most people.

Mmmmmmm... in Larry Niven's books, there ar esuch things as anesthetic guns. Fire sprays of crystals which dissolve into the blood and promote a good sleep.
The real probleem with such things is dosage control - too much downer = death.

Lemme see... Rubber bullets are good too. MInd you I said hundguns are illegal. So the things that fire small pieces of lead very fast are illegal.

Of course, it's easy to make a gun given steel and a warehouse full of talented criminal-types.

talisker · May 27, 2002, 10:23 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What about point-ed sticks?<hr /></blockquote>What sort of brutal facist bully boy are you? Soft cushions are the answer. I bet you'd probably condone the <shudder> comfy chair.

Millennium · May 27, 2002, 10:42 PM

What about a board with a nail in it?

No weapon is truly nonlethal; only the likelihood of lethality is reduced (Brandon Lee was killed by blanks, after all). Given that, there's little point.

I wouldn't mind if every single gun on the entire planet were to vanish at exactly the same time. But that's not going to happen, and there's a saying: "Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who do not."

Beyond Redemption · May 27, 2002, 10:52 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by talisker:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What about point-ed sticks?<hr /></blockquote>What sort of brutal facist bully boy are you? Soft cushions are the answer. I bet you'd probably condone the <shudder> comfy chair.<hr /></blockquote>Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

FERRO · May 27, 2002, 11:06 PM

First thing that comes to mind is a "tazer-on-a-stick"

Say it could have a stun (625,000v 1milli-amps 1/1000th of a second) and a kill setting... (400V 76A 3 second charge)

Remember THX-1138...

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/oxygon1/.Public/thx.jpeg" alt=" - " />

I also heard that the movie "Minority Report" is filled with non-lethal weapons... I heard of one device called a "sick" stick that makes you feel ill instantly...

Also there is a technoligy in development that uses the ionized air of a ultraviolet lazer beam to "beam" the energy from a tazer to a target...

------------------------------------
<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/oxygon1/.Public/sigpicsmall81b.jpeg" alt=" - " />
� FERRO 2001-2002

Laauuren · May 28, 2002, 12:09 AM

Yeah right, the last thing I'm gonna do is make suggestions for how someone can get away with carrying a lethal object.

daimoni · 02:07 AM

.

Gee4orce · May 28, 2002, 03:33 AM

Uh - here's a radical idea: how about not carrying weapons. Works for us in the UK, but then hey, we're civilised.

...of course, on the rare occasion that someone goes ape with an assault rifle, then you need a SWAT team to come and just shoot the f*cker.

Seriously though - if you disarm the police, and ordinary civilians, then there's no reason for criminals to carry firearms because they don't need that extra firepower. Arming the police just sets up an arms race.

As for non-lethal weapons (I assume this means ranged ones) - there's a microwave gun that induces burning pain just under the skin (supposedly without harm), but my favourite has got to be the sonic weapon that instantly and uncontrollably loosens the bowels. Yeuch !

AlbertWu · May 28, 2002, 03:42 AM

ooh! a hand phaser set on stun! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

theUpsetter · May 28, 2002, 03:55 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gee4orce:
Uh - here's a radical idea: how about not carrying weapons. Works for us in the UK, but then hey, we're civilised.

...of course, on the rare occasion that someone goes ape with an assault rifle, then you need a SWAT team to come and just shoot the f*cker.

Seriously though - if you disarm the police, and ordinary civilians, then there's no reason for criminals to carry firearms because they don't need that extra firepower. Arming the police just sets up an arms race.

As for non-lethal weapons (I assume this means ranged ones) - there's a microwave gun that induces burning pain just under the skin (supposedly without harm), but my favourite has got to be the sonic weapon that instantly and uncontrollably loosens the bowels. Yeuch !<hr /></blockquote>Is that why the UK has had a rising crime rate for almost the last hundred years, as long as they've been producing gun control legislation?

Personally, if i was a criminal in the UK I'd carry a gun and be secure knowing that any body in any house i break into will not have the means or the capacity to combat my weapon.

shanraghan · May 28, 2002, 04:01 AM

I still think nation-wide required Aikido lessions would be very beneficial.

Nimisys · May 28, 2002, 04:07 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by theUpsetter:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gee4orce:
[qb]Uh - here's a radical idea: how about not carrying weapons. Works for us in the UK, but then hey, we're civilised.

qb]<hr /></blockquote>Is that why the UK has had a rising crime rate for almost the last hundred years, as long as they've been producing gun control legislation?
<hr /></blockquote>for the same reason texas gets lower gun incident rates... the concele carry law... if you had a gun in a gunless society you rule, you got a gun n an armed society you become a target if you **** up

smacintush · May 28, 2002, 04:45 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gee4orce:

Seriously though - if you disarm the police, and ordinary civilians, then there's no reason for criminals to carry firearms because they don't need that extra firepower. Arming the police just sets up an arms race.
<hr /></blockquote>No offense, but there is a problem, a little thing we call "reality". Take a look at the crime statistics in nearly ANY disarmed society, you'll get a big surprise.

It is hard to make the case to someone from Great Britain however, because they don't come from the same "right to bear arms" background. The British seem to simply have a different outlook on the matter.

In the USA Concealed Carry laws are proven to improve crime rates nearly every time it is tried. There are a few exceptions (very few) where certain cities have actually increased violent crime rates but there are also other extenuating circumstances that effect the outcome.

We have concealed carry laws in Indiana and the violent crime rates are generally low, except in places like Gary and Indianapolis where, guess what? They don't allow guns! Gee it sure helps there. Same thing with Chicago�

�but I digress�

There are a lot of new technologies being developed for the police but the thing is, whatever they use should be as near to 100% effective as possible when properly used. Many of the non-lethal weapons work fine most of the time, but there is always the nutjob whacked out on something that manages to get past them. Guns work nearly every time the police use them with intent to kill.

Tigerabbit · May 28, 2002, 06:09 AM

Sticky expanding foam, when aimed at the body, expands and traps the target. It could be lethal if fired at someone's head by blocking air passages.

Slippery foam (AFFF and the like) aimed at target's feet prevents them from running off, but how to do approach them to arrest them? If they're armed you're SOL.

As for gun control, it's too late to put the djinn back in the bottle here in the US. Start confiscating guns and 1) crime will go up because the wolves know there are more sheep to fleece, and 2) the politicians involved in the confiscation won't be re-elected. It's a lose-lose proposition. The best bet here is train the individuals who have guns (legally, that is) as to how to properly use them.

Face Ache · May 28, 2002, 06:47 AM

<a href="http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20020525&Category=NEWS16&ArtNo=205250 007&Ref=AR" target="_blank">Ouchie.</a>

Beyond Redemption · May 28, 2002, 07:08 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Face Ache:
<a href="http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20020525&Category=NEWS16&ArtNo=205250 007&Ref=AR" target="_blank">Ouchie.</a>

<hr /></blockquote>One can only hope that he hadn't already reproduced and now has lost the ability to do so.

Millennium · May 28, 2002, 08:42 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gee4orce:
Seriously though - if you disarm the police, and ordinary civilians, then there's no reason for criminals to carry firearms because they don't need that extra firepower.<hr /></blockquote>Sure they ndo. You have more firepower than the other guy, and you dominate the other guy. Criminals would love to get be able to do that.

That's the problem with pacifism; it assumes that deep down, no one likes violence, no one would dominate another through force if needed, and everyone wants peace. And the sad fact is, that's just not true. Not everyone shares the values of the absolute pacifists.

I dislike violence myself. But as long as there are those who would do me harm, I'd damn well better be prepared to deal with them, because it won't be on peaceful terms. Not everyone can or will be reasoned with.

The Jackalope · May 28, 2002, 09:03 AM

I know! We can outlaw knowledge as well! Then no one can make a gun anymore! Anyone who starts becoming smart enough will be jailed! Have machinist skills? Then expect to fill out federal background check information and be constantly checked up on by the BATFM (bureau of alchohol, tabacco, firearms, and machinists). If you are suspected of having illegal possesion of a metal lathe, they come into your place in full on federal ninja gear, stomp on your family pets to death, and shoot you in bed!! Oh yeah! That will teach people to have possesion of skills that could eventually lead to the making of a weapon!

Oh yeah...and to who spoke of the "civilized" English who don't have firearms. You can go back to smoking your crack now. You know we had a war to kick you miscreants out of our country for a reason now, didn't you? (And yes, my grandfather was from England, and I still have relatives over there.)

I suggest you go and see what happens historically in disarmed societies at <a href="http://www.jpfo.org" target="_blank"> the JPFO</a>.

You really think that the feds would give up the power of weapons? Man. I've seen some foolish people in my time, but damn.

The Jackalope · May 28, 2002, 09:08 AM

Oh, and about England being a safer society, even the extremely leftist Boston Globe has admitied that gun control over there isn't working. See article <a href="http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/146/focus/Targeting_a_myth+.shtml" target="_blank">here</a>.

cdhostage · May 28, 2002, 03:32 PM

<a href="http://www.darwinawards.com/" target="_blank">http://www.darwinawards.com/</a>
plenty of man-shoots-self in crotum stories there. not many woman shoots self in ovaries. adomnial shots are usually lethal.
A Darwin Award happens when someone improves the human race by taking their genes out of the pool by doing something incredibly stupid. Read the site. hell, read the two books.

Having an armed but educated populace is the only way to make sure that the government does not get too cocky.

Beyond Redemption · May 28, 2002, 03:37 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Having an armed but educated populace is the only way to make sure that the government does not get too cocky.<hr /></blockquote>Ok, so when the government gets too cocky, you go right ahead and put your assault rifles up against a few patriot missiles. Sorry, that argument lost its credibility when the weapons used by the government surpassed what the civilian population could have.

WildZero · May 28, 2002, 03:42 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Beyond Redemption:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Having an armed but educated populace is the only way to make sure that the government does not get too cocky.<hr /></blockquote>Ok, so when the government gets too cocky, you go right ahead and put your assault rifles up against a few patriot missiles. Sorry, that argument lost its credibility when the weapons used by the government surpassed what the civilian population could have.<hr /></blockquote>Goddamnit! Does this mean I have to return the SCUDs I bought at the surplus booth last flea market?

Chuckmcd · May 28, 2002, 03:49 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Beyond Redemption:
Ok, so when the government gets too cocky, you go right ahead and put your assault rifles up against a few patriot missiles. Sorry, that argument lost its credibility when the weapons used by the government surpassed what the civilian population could have.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>Do you think the Brittish or the US government didn't have canons in the 1700's? oh, they have a bigger gun so we'll just let them take our freedom then... If we've lost the courage to defend our freedom, or we've lost the courage to cope with dangers our freedom may entail, than we've lost the right to have that freedom.

[ 05-28-2002, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Chuckmcd ]

ford prefect · May 28, 2002, 03:51 PM

Very cool stuff.

I love mystery men. Lot's of nonleathal stuff.

Beyond Redemption · May 28, 2002, 03:57 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Chuckmcd:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Beyond Redemption:
Ok, so when the government gets too cocky, you go right ahead and put your assault rifles up against a few patriot missiles. Sorry, that argument lost its credibility when the weapons used by the government surpassed what the civilian population could have.<hr /></blockquote>Do you think the Brittish or the US government didn't have canons in the 1700's? oh, they have a bigger gun so we'll just let them take our freedom then... If we've lost the courage to defend our freedom, or we've lost the courage to cope with dangers our freedom may entail, than we've lost the right to have that freedom.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>First of all, the weapon of choice was the musket. Cannons were used, but the following analogy does not work...

Canon:Musket::F16 armed with heatseaking missiles:Assault Rifle

Give me a break. You can't honestly say that the military technology of today could absolutely trounce any fight that any militant american group could put up with a simple sneeze.

WildZero · May 28, 2002, 04:02 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Beyond Redemption:
Give me a break. You can't honestly say that the military technology of today could absolutely trounce any fight that any militant american group could put up with a simple sneeze.<hr /></blockquote>Sorry bub, not trying to push anyone's buttons here, but that military technology didn't do a hell of a lot of good against a handful of people with boxcutters last fall.

Never underestimate a determined foe.

clod · May 28, 2002, 05:04 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by WildZero:
Sorry bub, not trying to push anyone's buttons here, but that military technology didn't do a hell of a lot of good against a handful of people with boxcutters last fall.

Never underestimate a determined foe.<hr /></blockquote>That's true. A very large rebellion of maybe 1 000 000 or more has the potential to overthrow the government.

I think that a cattleprod type thing would work well as a nonleathel weapon.

Beyond Redemption · May 28, 2002, 05:06 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by WildZero:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Beyond Redemption:
Give me a break. You can't honestly say that the military technology of today could absolutely trounce any fight that any militant american group could put up with a simple sneeze.<hr /></blockquote>Sorry bub, not trying to push anyone's buttons here, but that military technology didn't do a hell of a lot of good against a handful of people with boxcutters last fall.

Never underestimate a determined foe.<hr /></blockquote>In the scheme of things, 3,000 civilians does not a government break.

smacintush · May 28, 2002, 05:15 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Beyond Redemption:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by WildZero:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Beyond Redemption:
Give me a break. You can't honestly say that the military technology of today could absolutely trounce any fight that any militant american group could put up with a simple sneeze.<hr /></blockquote>Sorry bub, not trying to push anyone's buttons here, but that military technology didn't do a hell of a lot of good against a handful of people with boxcutters last fall.

Never underestimate a determined foe.<hr /></blockquote>In the scheme of things, 3,000 civilians does not a government break.<hr /></blockquote>No, it only caused a big ripple in the world economy.

Beyond Redemption · May 28, 2002, 05:25 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by smacintush:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Beyond Redemption:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by WildZero:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Beyond Redemption:
Give me a break. You can't honestly say that the military technology of today could absolutely trounce any fight that any militant american group could put up with a simple sneeze.<hr /></blockquote>Sorry bub, not trying to push anyone's buttons here, but that military technology didn't do a hell of a lot of good against a handful of people with boxcutters last fall.

Never underestimate a determined foe.<hr /></blockquote>In the scheme of things, 3,000 civilians does not a government break.<hr /></blockquote>No, it only caused a big ripple in the world economy.<hr /></blockquote>Note the word you used: ripple. A ripple does not destroy a pond. It only shakes things up for a short amount of time and goes away. There is no permanent damage.

smacintush · May 28, 2002, 05:29 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Beyond Redemption:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by smacintush:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Beyond Redemption:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by WildZero:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Beyond Redemption:
Give me a break. You can't honestly say that the military technology of today could absolutely trounce any fight that any militant american group could put up with a simple sneeze.<hr /></blockquote>Sorry bub, not trying to push anyone's buttons here, but that military technology didn't do a hell of a lot of good against a handful of people with boxcutters last fall.

Never underestimate a determined foe.<hr /></blockquote>In the scheme of things, 3,000 civilians does not a government break.<hr /></blockquote>No, it only caused a big ripple in the world economy.<hr /></blockquote>Note the word you used: ripple. A ripple does not destroy a pond. It only shakes things up for a short amount of time and goes away. There is no permanent damage.<hr /></blockquote>The point is how much of an effect a few people can have on the world. You can't see that?

Beyond Redemption · May 28, 2002, 05:33 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by smacintush:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Beyond Redemption:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by smacintush:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Beyond Redemption:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by WildZero:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Beyond Redemption:
Give me a break. You can't honestly say that the military technology of today could absolutely trounce any fight that any militant american group could put up with a simple sneeze.<hr /></blockquote>Sorry bub, not trying to push anyone's buttons here, but that military technology didn't do a hell of a lot of good against a handful of people with boxcutters last fall.

Never underestimate a determined foe.<hr /></blockquote>In the scheme of things, 3,000 civilians does not a government break.<hr /></blockquote>No, it only caused a big ripple in the world economy.<hr /></blockquote>Note the word you used: ripple. A ripple does not destroy a pond. It only shakes things up for a short amount of time and goes away. There is no permanent damage.<hr /></blockquote>The point is how much of an effect a few people can have on the world. You can't see that?<hr /></blockquote>A few people funded by a large group of terrorists. So really, not a few people. Anyway, we are talking about individual citizens fighting the government if they get too cocky. You never explained how they were supposed to do any serious damage. The WTC incident does not fit here.

WildZero · May 28, 2002, 05:42 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Beyond Redemption:
A few people funded by a large group of terrorists. So really, not a few people. Anyway, we are talking about individual citizens fighting the government if they get too cocky. You never explained how they were supposed to do any serious damage. The WTC incident does not fit here.<hr /></blockquote>Too cocky is probably the wrong event for a popular uprising. For that type of rebellion to happen the government would have to be really out of whack. In any event, the idea is that the government won't become too abusive if it knows that its citizens have the power to take control, either by voting or by force.

I didn't mean to get sidetrack this thread with WTC talk. I was just trying to illustrate that a small number of organized individuals can fight effectively against a force that outnumbers and outguns it. Such was the case during the American Revolution when Americans practiced gurilla warfare against the British and won.

Beyond Redemption · May 28, 2002, 05:51 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by WildZero:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Beyond Redemption:
A few people funded by a large group of terrorists. So really, not a few people. Anyway, we are talking about individual citizens fighting the government if they get too cocky. You never explained how they were supposed to do any serious damage. The WTC incident does not fit here.<hr /></blockquote>Too cocky is probably the wrong event for a popular uprising. For that type of rebellion to happen the government would have to be really out of whack. In any event, the idea is that the government won't become too abusive if it knows that its citizens have the power to take control, either by voting or by force.

I didn't mean to get sidetrack this thread with WTC talk. I was just trying to illustrate that a small number of organized individuals can fight effectively against a force that outnumbers and outguns it. Such was the case during the American Revolution when Americans practiced gurilla warfare against the British and won.<hr /></blockquote>Again, what tactics do you suggest to use against F16s and Navy Seals? Remember, a few thousand civilian lives and some buildings do not a successful uprising make.

WildZero · May 28, 2002, 06:24 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Beyond Redemption:
[QUOTE]Again, what tactics do you suggest to use against F16s and Navy Seals?<hr /></blockquote>Too many potential variables to take into consideration to give you a hypothetical answer. I'm leaning toward poisoned water supply, but the best way would depend on what the circumstances were. Think assymetrical. You can't shoot at something that isn't facing you head on.

 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Remember, a few thousand civilian lives and some buildings do not a successful uprising make.<hr /></blockquote>WTC wasn't an uprising. It was a calculated strike against specific targets for the purpose of inciting fear and terror. Speaking as someone from the area, I'd say that thoese goals were reached.

Beyond Redemption · May 28, 2002, 06:27 PM

Look, we are talking about Americans defending themselves against a government that becomes "really out of whack." How exactly does poisoning the water supply win the support of the general population? Try again.

WildZero · May 28, 2002, 06:29 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Beyond Redemption:
Look, we are talking about Americans defending themselves against a government that becomes "really out of whack." How exactly does poisoning the water supply win the support of the general population? Try again.<hr /></blockquote>I answered your questions, you keep changing them. I'm not going to play this game. Your mind is made up, I don't intend to change it.

Good day to you sir.
-W0

Beyond Redemption · May 28, 2002, 06:30 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by WildZero:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Beyond Redemption:
Look, we are talking about Americans defending themselves against a government that becomes "really out of whack." How exactly does poisoning the water supply win the support of the general population? Try again.<hr /></blockquote>I answered your questions, you keep changing them. I'm not going to play this game. Your mind is made up, I don't intend to change it.

Good day to you sir.
-W0<hr /></blockquote>The question never changed. You only answered what you wanted the questions to be. I'm not going to play this game. Your mind is made up, I don't intend to change it.

Good day to you sir.

The Jackalope · May 28, 2002, 07:09 PM

Irish Republican Army.

Around less than 100 people making asses out of the British government constantly.

The British gov't has plenty of exocet missles, harrier jets, etc.

So if even 20% of the 80,000,000 gun owners took up arms against a fedgov that turned sour (perhaps sooner than people think), that would still put up a ****load of determened people against a fedgov.

See also: North Vietnamese and the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, amoung others.

BRussell · May 28, 2002, 07:21 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by The Jackalope:
Irish Republican Army.

Around less than 100 people making asses out of the British government constantly.<hr /></blockquote>Why go out of the US? You have McVeigh, Oswald, Weston, and Koresh to look up to.

Beyond Redemption · May 28, 2002, 07:24 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BRussell:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by The Jackalope:
Irish Republican Army.

Around less than 100 people making asses out of the British government constantly.<hr /></blockquote>Why go out of the US? You have McVeigh, Oswald, Weston, and Koresh to look up to.<hr /></blockquote>All minor blips on the giant scheme of things radar.

cdhostage · May 28, 2002, 10:04 PM

Maybe it would be better if we dropped guns and everyone who wants to can learn karate...

Mmmm... If it was legal, I'd carry my cane-sword everywhere I go. In Connecticut, it counts as a concealed weapon. I believe so does any sword in its sheath.

finboy · May 29, 2002, 06:29 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gee4orce:
Uh - here's a radical idea: how about not carrying weapons. Works for us in the UK, but then hey, we're civilised.

...of course, on the rare occasion that someone goes ape with an assault rifle, then you need a SWAT team to come and just shoot the f*cker.

Seriously though - if you disarm the police, and ordinary civilians, then there's no reason for criminals to carry firearms because they don't need that extra firepower. Arming the police just sets up an arms race.

<hr /></blockquote>I think we should just use harsh words.

You first.

Beyond Redemption · May 29, 2002, 07:02 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by finboy:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gee4orce:
Uh - here's a radical idea: how about not carrying weapons. Works for us in the UK, but then hey, we're civilised.

...of course, on the rare occasion that someone goes ape with an assault rifle, then you need a SWAT team to come and just shoot the f*cker.

Seriously though - if you disarm the police, and ordinary civilians, then there's no reason for criminals to carry firearms because they don't need that extra firepower. Arming the police just sets up an arms race.

<hr /></blockquote>I think we should just use harsh words.

You first.<hr /></blockquote>You are a ninny!