Everyday chemical warfare

Originally posted by usernamehere
reply to post by Domo1

 

You are the epitome of absurdity. I am simply asking people whether they think it appropriate these weapons are in use and highlighting the fineline we walk in there use. Semantics of lethality or speculation as to whom it might be a gate-way for are beyond the scope of this discourse. No more time for you.

It's like gate-way drugs each little exception is a step toward full blown addiction. Now it's pepper spray, which are beyond the levels of the treaties, tomorrow it's.....

Uhhh...

reply to post by jimmyross

do you know what the poilice used in the past in stead of mace? battons. Battons can do a lot more damage then mace also have killed way more people. sore eyes is better then broken limbs and missing teeth.

They also used dogs and firehouses. In the case of Kent State, they used M1 Garand rifles chambered for 30.06. And before rubber bullets they used 12 gauge shotguns with "riot control" 00 buck shot. Police still use batons, Tonfas and cobra whips. and that fun all to be all, tasers of every shape and size.

Todays less than lethal is mostly that. Only rarely does someone die as a result. What does occur is the repression of civil rights. Any one who thinks that charges aren't trumped up, exhorbitant fines levied, lengthy waits for trial and long sentences handed down now more than ever, well then I will bow out and leave you all to your utopian society.

reply to post by intrptr


So you agree that the less lethal alternatives are better... Mace may be a good idea when compared to police dogs, rifles and batons?

Do you think that OC spray should be banned from use by police or private citizens? Do you own any?

reply to post by Hefficide


I am no idealist and understand mans propensity for evil but, I also understand there are many elements interwoven to create the society we have and to claim the alternative to our current system is exponentially worse when none have even truthfully attempted it is wrong. I do appreciate your input but I am not willingly to accept that it's just the way of the world and one should just get on with it.

reply to post by Domo1


Well baited but I will leave it to other to read and verify the thread. my follow up comments are exactly that and not the OP. You are clearly trolling.

reply to post by usernamehere


I am completely on board with that! I am very eager to hear your ideas for alternatives! I think that we could get a lot of people involved in a positivity based dialogue of that nature.

My input - to start? Better police training for dealing with crowds. And, also, better access to mental health care for the more excitible elements in our society! I'm all about solutions!

~Heff

Originally posted by usernamehere
reply to post by Domo1

 

Well baited but I will leave it to other to read and verify the thread. my follow up comments are exactly that and not the OP. You are clearly trolling.

Why because I disagree with you? I'm not trolling at all. You liken OC spray to weapons of mass destruction. I called you out on it because it's disgusting and an insult to anyone who has had their life destroyed by such horrendous weapons.

reply to post by Domo1


No I said they are chemical weapons. It's as plain as daylight. I mean no disrespect to those who have been injured or lossed their lives due to chemical warfare but feel sure they would support my point of view and would wish to stop any more loss of lives. In retrospect it is you who have twice now insinuated that so I will stick with my last conclusion. Troll.

I am happy to discuss the pro's and the con's but to argue the for will take more than the argument of lethality to congince me it is correct these weapons are in use.

Deaths occur.
It is a weapon.
It is a chemical.

reply to post by usernamehere


Well what would you prefer? I would love to live in a world where I fart rainbows and everyone is nice and nobody ever needs to defend themselves. That is not the case, and probably never will be. Should we just say screw the weak, force multipliers are barbaric and it's better to break a suspects nose rather than giving them a tasty shot of mace?

Should women and frail people have no means of defending themselves against violence?

Is it honestly that big of a deal if someone gets maced?

reply to post by Hefficide


I believe the majority of uses of pepper spray stem from disempowerment. Yes we can get carried away and sometimes get out of control(whatever that is) but most of these events are a lack of recognition of the individual acting out, whether they deserve that recognition or not. It's kinda like kids seeking attention whether bad or good.

Most of these cases can be dealt with internally by the immediate community with open discussions and involving people in the world around them instead of having them simply feeling as cogs in a machine of death. Frustration is another trigger for events but this too can be stemmed via education and communication.

My argument is basically: Modern society pushes us into situations which require a response and while that response might not always be appropriate it should not be denied as it is important for individual development. I truly believe we need no system of policing but people have become so disempowered, so disenfranchised, they cannot see a society without them because they don't even trust themselves. When people are responsible through experience and knowledge, when truly enlightened, they recognise their power and can act accordingly. The imprisoned often throw faeces, to which most reel in disgust, but wouldn't you fight tooth and nail and faefes literally to fight your oppression (Not everyone in jail is meant to be there remember)

reply to post by usernamehere


In the past two days I have posted very similar statements regarding spree shooters. My main theory there is that we tend to "treat" troubled people by incarcerating them. And that is sad because therapy and a myriad of medications are available to help troubled folks. Also social inequality is a huge factor in the marginalization of many people... a little dignity and respect ( along with job prospects that offer minimial flexibiility and fair pay would also help greatly ). But even then, if a person takes it upon themselves to cross the line and become a danger to others - we simply must have remedies handy to protect the many from the few.

It's a long road ahead, but I think we can create a world where far fewer police with far less dangerous weapons could be necessary.

reply to post by Domo1


Yes it is a big deal.

And no I do not want to just roll over and accept it as just the way it is. Why are those people attacking or acting out? Not everyone does and some never do, yet those that do are obviously seeking something. Forget prevention I'm talking cure but these things take time and so in the interim we should limit the damage done. There are many alternatives to chemical weapons, and while I would argue against each of them, it is not like there aren't alternatives. I suppose my immediate goal is to raise awareness provoke discussion and assist in reducing the size of batmans utility belt.

reply to post by Hefficide


That is where we differ in opinion I do not believe there must always be rogue elements intent on harming others regardless of consequence to themselves.

I do like your attitude and appreciate your insights thanks for sharing.

What happens if you pepper spray a cop?

You'd get shot.

i agree get hit with pepper spray is nasty but is in no comparison to M1 Garand rifles and 12 gauge shotguns. why bring that up? the issue is that pepper spray is a dangerous weapon that should be band not what police weapons can seriously hurt people

FYI Business owners also have the right to have their businesses protected by police in the event of a riot. Not everyone wants to live in a tree