Stop or I'll toot!

True. People have no responsibility for their actions. I should be able to steal peoples shit and use guns to commit violent crimes, because it's all someone elses fault. The government should be giving this guy tax-payer funded heroin!

... and I'm not suggesting this become normal or anything but.

If I could make a million drivers use 4-point harness safety belts, and drive wearing helmets and nomex coveralls, how would accident mortality be affected?

I'm not talking about frequency. A warm, cozy helmet cutting down on visibility and increasing drowsiness will probably increase frequency. But what about the injury severity and fatality rate?

I doubt we will ever know, but I've always wondered.

I also wonder if high-tech safety gear will cut into the GSA shrimp-eating party budget. Proably not, its practically free money.

This is why the term changed from "less than lethal" to "less lethal".

The fatality was Victoria Snelgrove, she was at a post-game riot and the round missed a guy throwing a bottle and struck her in the eye.

Not sure I would want a tazer the eye either.

Part of the problem with tazer is that they are SO safe (statistically, not by opinion and anecdote) and SO effective, that police came to rely on their use TOO MUCH.

Time was, a cop had to hit you with a wooden stick repeatedly to get your submission, maybe get several cops with sticks.. Now, it is as simple as pulling a trigger, we can now employ 5'2" females as cops and they can simply tazer their way out of bad situations. No broken bones (compared to the wooden stick method). The threshold for use is so low, I can go straight from the show-of-force phase to ride-the-lightning. What a time-saver!

Multiply that by a couple hundred thousand cops and 300+ million people and no shit you get abuses. Because the tazer is SUCH an attractive option, it became the go-to less-lethal method, often even instead of de-escalation.

I'd hate to see technology enable cops to non-nonchalantly fire "disabling shots" from firearms into Joe Public's non-vital organs.

Luddite? I'm saddened by your personal attack.

"we need technology..."? I'm sorry, but people who buy guns can decide if that feature is "needed". There's probably some stuff that "we need" to put in your house, in your car, or in your computer.... but since YOU are buying your own house, car, and computer then "we" can go pound sand. I will decide what features my gun "needs", and to be honest that shit pretty much got ironed out by around 1911.

If you are being attacked with lethal force, you jump up to lethal force. You don't gradually escalate through show, shout, and shove before shoot. You go straight to shoot.

The FN303 with bismuth-weighted OC rounds are a fine, and effective less-lethal tool. But NO less-lethal device was EVER designed to replace your revolver. You don't use a revolver to keep rioters away from your concertina fence.

Less-lethal fills the gap between a pocket full of flying arm-bars and a more lethal choices. You look at your toolbox and pick the appropriate tool.

Disabling shots are irresponsible, unsafe, and ineffective.

If you can deal with a situation without lethal force (accounting for disparity of force, ability to do act, and reasonable-person standard of self defense), then you are obligated to do so. You are more likely to miss (especially under stress), will achieve far less knock-down, tells a jury that you are so goddamn awesome that you probably didn't need to shoot, and you are trying to hit something still filled with things like femoral and brachial arteries so it may result in you BOTH being dead.

Center mass if you can, Mozambique if you have to.

The FN303 is a pretty solid piece of less-lethal technology.

Tell that to 321 Studios (DVDxcopy) or DVDFab.

Its funny when the government attacks you for providing secure communications. Then they attack you for having insecure communications.

I suppose snapchat should have said, "the pictures disappear from OUR servers"... but in the end you have a government agency assigning itself powers and jurisdictions, and deciding punishments all by itself.

You haven't read The Mythical Monkey Month have you?

Who are you to say what Cletus can get or what he can do?

If I have to choose between Cletus having a gun and YOU deciding who gets what because you think you are the smartest person... then I choose Cletus.

You really think Stalin, Kim Jung Il, Pol Pot, or Fidel Castro were "sharing" with the rest of their so-called equality societies?
Call me a redneck all you want. You simply ignore the truth. In capitalism, man exploits man. In communism, it is the exact opposite. The difference is liberty to play the game or not.

The people screwing with the sales rep are wrong, and they should know better. A "smart-gun" should be a choice people have, and the market can sort that out. If some of these guys cross the line and find themselves with a felony, removing their gun rights, they shouldn't be too surprised.

What exactly is wrong with cutting and pasting? How much time do you REALLY have to formulate a persuasive essay in THIS venue? Do you have some copy-pasta that proves Feinstein isn't a liberty-hating piece of shit? If you do, I welcome the counter copy-pasta as part of the discussion. The fact remains a lot of politicians swore to uphold the constitution (which, at its core says that government doesn't decide what government is) then make a career of armed robbery to buy votes and championing ideas like disarmament of the public.

Here's the real irony: Liberals say that only the police and military should have guns. Liberals at their core really hate the police and military.

Ohhhh nice!
Forget the issue and attack the poster! Leftist playbook, page 3.

Socialists can't allow people to own firearms. It stands in the way of an omnipotent government. Since leftism are ideas that are SO GOOD, they have to be mandatory and enforced by a powerful government, liberty is incompatible with their ideals. Free speech, property rights... all that has to go away for a leftist agenda to be successful.

And by successful, I mean everyone totally fucked except The Party elites.

It cracks me up when people call Che a "revolutionary". Some elite dudes telling you what you can have, when you can have it, what you can do, and where you can do it... that sounds a LOT like every government BEFORE the enlightenment and "government as a social contract among free people in a state of nature". Just another king. Leaving people the fuck alone to arrange their own affairs, THAT is revolutionary.

I'm going to charge Netflix for the rights to transit my network.