Comments on: Military Taser Has 200-Foot Range—and Safety Concerns

By: jeff

jeff — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:50:46 +0000

Just another typical manifestation of the American urge to subdue and force compliance. If there becomes a way to use this against civilians, it will be done. The really shameful part is that the most heavily armed people in our nation (cops and soldiers) are also the stupidest and least discerning.

By: kurt k

kurt k — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:17:47 +0000

last time I checked the goal of war was to kill the enemy. Not treat them like suspects in a criminal case.
America needs to get real about war and fighting a war.
I would rather see the enemy dead, then released latter to kill Americans again.
What a supid idea.

By: Jocko

Jocko — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:11:57 +0000

It’s only a matter of time until it’s used on the streets of the USA. Case in point – LRAD. We already live in a police surveillance state with plans for total martial law already in place. How can anyone think this won’t get used here?

By: martha mendez

martha mendez — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:48:25 +0000

i think that the army guy is cute

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:48:31 +0000

Innocent until proven guilty, unless we think you might have done something bad, in which case if you don’t do what we say you will be subject to violence until compliance

By: scribbler

scribbler — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:41:48 +0000

I think fox nailed it…

These devises end up being used against the elderly, females and children, before it is all said and done.

And let’s not be mistaken, they can and do kill.

When used to disable as opposed to killing a person, yes, these are great tools. When over used to subdue the weak at the risk of death or serious injury, they are dangerous and cruel.

Tasers have been certifiably used on a child of six and a woman over eighty.

Good tool but the need for education and restraint is essential.

By: ntraveler

ntraveler — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:42:06 +0000

Seriously? The complaint is that the new weapon MIGHT kill someone? “Might” has a lot better survival rate than a bullet does.

By: Julian

Julian — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:33:23 +0000

I can see a line of cops holding these at another protest in a college town, and nothing that happens afterwards is good.

By: Left_Wing_Fox

Left_Wing_Fox — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:43:09 +0000

Which leads to the other big problem with these “Non-lethal” weapons: not that they might accidentally kill someone you would have had to kill otherwise, but that they get used a lot more on targets you wouldn’t have used lethal force against in the first place.