The times we live in

[fpd]

Agreed on both parts.
A cop should never shoot anyone unless they are being shot at. They are trained to take down people in "nonviolent" (in other words, not wounding them more than "Ouch, that hurt" for more than a day or two)

Your in a hostage situation, a man with a knife is holding a 10 year old hostage. You get a clean shot you know you can make, do you take it? Do you let him continue to threaten the child?

So a man attacks you. He is winning. He starts choking you to death. Others around are cheering him on. You would just sit there and die?

You respond to a domestic abuse call, Crazy boyfreind (big guy) is yelling at his wife and threatening everyone in sight. At one point he grabs an aluminium Baseball bat and starts walking tword you aggresivly. Do you let him beat you to death?

Those "nonviolent" ways of taking someone down are NOT guarenteed, nor 100% effective. Hand to hand combat is much more confusing and ineffective than you know

Tazer.
Thanks,
GG bye

[x5060]

Tazer.
Thanks,
GG bye

Most officers dont carry tazers =\

either they arent cleared for them, or their department cant afford them. And as i said before, they are not garunteed to work, peperspray is even less likely to incapacitate a person. You cant just dismiss my arguments with the sweep of your god like hand like that.

[Original Sin]

Agreed on both parts.
A cop should never shoot anyone unless they are being shot at. They are trained to take down people in "nonviolent" (in other words, not wounding them more than "Ouch, that hurt" for more than a day or two)

Your in a hostage situation, a man with a knife is holding a 10 year old hostage. You get a clean shot you know you can make, do you take it? Do you let him continue to threaten the child?

So a man attacks you. He is winning. He starts choking you to death. Others around are cheering him on. You would just sit there and die?

You respond to a domestic abuse call, Crazy boyfreind (big guy) is yelling at his wife and threatening everyone in sight. At one point he grabs an aluminium Baseball bat and starts walking tword you aggresivly. Do you let him beat you to death?

Those "nonviolent" ways of taking someone down are NOT guarenteed, nor 100% effective. Hand to hand combat is much more confusing and ineffective than you know

Tazer.
Thanks,
GG bye

Please go to page 2 and see my rant for the breakdown of non lethal methods.
And X5060 is right. Most officers do not carry them.

[fpd]

Tazer.
Thanks,
GG bye

Most officers dont carry tazers =\

either they arent cleared for them, or their department cant afford them. And as i said before, they are not garunteed to work, peperspray is even less likely to incapacitate a person. You cant just dismiss my arguments with the sweep of your god like hand like that.

I never said they had them.
That is how to fix those situations, except the hostage situation, which is a completely different type of situation, which involves another life being threatened but their own, which then the kind of rules of engagement stuff goes in, except not for war.

[x5060]

I never said they had them.
That is how to fix those situations, except the hostage situation, which is a completely different type of situation, which involves another life being threatened but their own, which then the kind of rules of engagement stuff goes in, except not for war.

Well, its kind of a moot point since they didnt have them, so im not sure this pretains to the situation.

Also just as a point of interest, you dont want to use a taser while in contact with the assailent. Its not going to arc, but its still really not a good idea.

[bunnydreams]

I got lost in Gary once...I was scared..

Isn't it one of the top rated dangerous cities in America..;_;

Thats horrible to read about stuff like though.

[sam]

i fail to see the difference in time from pulling out a taser and a gun...and one is more fatal...

[Pumeleon]

I just have to make a peripheral point here:

Lengthening sentences or keeping certain offenders incarcerated would work EXCEPT that our prisons are already overcrowded anyway filled with nonviolent criminals who were caught doing things that are way overpunished (such as Posession of Marijuana; I could go on a tirade about that, but it's a peripheral point). The class of criminals I'm talking about don't hurt anyone but themselves but are still in prison sucking away tax dollars and creating an environment in which pedophiles and rapists get shortened sentences because there isn't room for them.

Rapists and other varied sex offenders spend an average of 8.5 years behind bars.

Drug users spend an average of 3.5 years in jail.

"Wait", you may say, "That's a lot less!"

However, that's only half the story: Multiply the numbers by the average number of people incarcerated for the class of their crimes per 100,000 people (560 drug crimes, 30 rape: I can't find stats on other sex crimes, I'll doube it and make it 60) You get a correlatory product of 510 for rape and 1960 for drug crimes.

This tells me that the government is wasting space on (mostly) harmless people who just want to get high, and then free rapists so they can jail the hippies!

Who would you rather jail: Someone who smokes dope, or someone who gets their jollies from spying on a three year old?

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st202/st202c.html
http://www.tgorski.com/criminal_justice ... 0-1999.htm
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_rap_cap
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_dru_off

Oh, and this was a really short 5 minute report, if you have any other well formed arguments with statistical data, please let it be known. I cannot vouch for the total accuracy of this with the little time I spent on it (which is more time than most people spend on thier posts )

I must also say that I don't indulge in drugs, alcohol, or tobacco and probably never will. Just because I don't enjoy doing something dosn't mean I should get rid of it; it dosn't affect me, so live and let live (or live and let go as the case may be).

[Original Sin]

i fail to see the difference in time from pulling out a taser and a gun...and one is more fatal...

The difference is that guns are generally regarded as lethal force.
Tasers are usually not...

HOWEVER.

The type of tasers they are pushing the police force to use are known to cause death in certain cases. Therefore, they can't really be classified as non-lethal force when there is that kind of chance. It's more or less a gamble. They might live, they might die, regardless of where they're hit with the taser.

A gun, depending on how it's used, can either be extremely lethal, or quite non lethal. A shot to the knee will generally take down almost anyone, rendering them almost completely harmless (and unable to escape), and yet it won't kill them. A gunshot wound will only kill you if it hits a vital organ, or a major blood vessel. And even then, generally only if you're left to die from it.
A taser doesn't have to hit vital organs or blood vessels to kill you.
I'm not sure what the actual death toll from these tasers are, but for the time being, there is still that chance of death, so they can't be classified as 'non lethal.' Basically, they can be just as lethal (if not more) than a gun shot wound.
Furthermore, tasers have an extremely limited range. Even the new ones they're testing out with the police only have a range of like, 15-20 something feet if I remember correctly.

And in the case of you being choked by someone, and trying to use a taser on them...that's not a good idea, just as X5060 stated. Even if you're lucky, and the current doesn't come in contact with your body, you're electrocuting someone who has their hands tightly clasped around your neck.
What do people do when they're electrocuted?
Their muscles tense up.
There's a chance he's STLL going to be choking you, while you're frying his ass.

[sam]

uhhhhh police officers are trained to shoot at the bulk of the mass...head or body...most any shot by an officer will be lethal.

a taser of course can be fatal if you have heart issues but personally i still don't see why officers need guns...there are plenty of areas where officers don't cary firearms and they get by just fine

[Original Sin]

Yeah, they're trained to shoot for the chest. However, if you're any good with a gun, you know how to adjust your aim to hit different things. Just because you're trained to shoot for the chest doesn't mean you have to hit the chest. I grew up shooting pop cans, but that doesn't mean I can only shoot pop cans. If you can accurately hit someone's vitals, you can hit someone in a non-lethal area, especially at close range.

Officers carry guns for self defense, amongst other reasons. If criminals knew that an officer didn't have a gun, especially a violent criminal, they wouldn't listen to them at all, especially if said criminal was armed. It would instantly give criminals the upper hand.
I don't leave my house without some kind of weapon, and I'm a civilian. However, my life isn't something I'm willing to take chances on. And the nature of an officer's job puts them in dangerous situations rather frequently. This doesn't mean they'll need their gun on a daily basis, but some days, they might. You'll never know which. It's the same reasons a lot of officers wear bullet proof vests. You can't decide which day someone's gonna shoot at you.

Perhaps some of you haven't heard this quote. It's one I'm rather fond of.
"Pray for peace. Prepare for war."

Why are there seatbelts in cars? Why is it required by law to wear them? It can help save your life in a car accident. Of course you're not going to get in a wreck every time you go out on the road, but there's a chance. It could happen, when you least expect it.
If you put yourself in danger, as police officers, soldiers, rescue workers, or anyone in a dangerous type of work does, you need to think about what MIGHT happen, not what happens on a daily basis. The odds are you won't have to use these back-up measures (in this case, a gun.) But what if you do? Personally, I'd much rather have it, than not. Even if you don't HAVE to use it, it's much better to have it by your side anyway, because you never know when someone will try to take your life, or when you might need it to save someone elses.

[x5060]

uhhhhh police officers are trained to shoot at the bulk of the mass...head or body...most any shot by an officer will be lethal.

a taser of course can be fatal if you have heart issues but personally i still don't see why officers need guns...there are plenty of areas where officers don't cary firearms and they get by just fine

As i said earlier, MOST PEOPLE SHOT BY THE POLICE LIVE. only about 1/3rd (adn thats being very generous) actually die from the resulting wounds. See, you are trying to turn this into a cut and dry issue, where it isnt. Tazers are not 100% effective, people have been known to pull the prongs out, Not too mention ther actual accuracy is 6MOA at 15 feet, the trailing wires have a tendancy to tangle.

As for the center mass argument (which head is not included in), only portion (my guess about 20%, but ive heard higher and lower) when wounded would actually cause a fatality.

There are one place in the world where police dont carry firearms, Britan. Which has a booming crime rate and growing violent crime.

[fpd]

There are one place in the world where police dont carry firearms, Britan. Which has a booming crime rate and growing violent crime.

Well I know that's wrong.
I'll give you some proof later when I'm not at school and bored as fuck.

[Pumeleon]

There are one place in the world where police dont carry firearms, Britan. Which has a booming crime rate and growing violent crime.

Well I know that's wrong.
I'll give you some proof later when I'm not at school and bored as fuck.

Actually, he's right. I did some research on this a while back. Crime rates exploded when guns were banned.

[fpd]

There are one place in the world where police dont carry firearms, Britan. Which has a booming crime rate and growing violent crime.

Well I know that's wrong.
I'll give you some proof later when I'm not at school and bored as fuck.

Actually, he's right. I did some research on this a while back. Crime rates exploded when guns were banned.

I don't mean the crime rate
*edit*
Oh, and off the top of my head. In Japan it's illegal to fire a gun, so cops can't use them.