|
Look at just about every "cop brutally case" there is. Trayvon Martin case. Michael Brown case.
With every case, the cop claims there was a physical scuffle before he shot the man. This means, the cops were up close and personal to them.
Now, I know some people will argue that this isn't true, but that's besides the point. Let's pretend the cops are 100% telling the truth.
If you're that close, in a physical fight, there's no reason why you can't use a taser over a gun. It's just as fast to deploy, just as fast to fire. One female police officer even sued Taser before because she said the tasers were so similar to a real gun that she got them mixed up once and shot an innocent.
The truth is, there's almost never a reason for a cop to shoot at a distance. The only time it's acceptable is if someone is firing a gun while running towards you, but this never happens. Like maybe 0.0000000000001% of the time that happens.
Cops don't need guns. |
|
|
but how will cops protect from bad guys!! |
|
|
"Cops don't need guns."
Unless there's an actual threat and not just a kid waving a nerf gun around
i mean tasers can only go so far and if you're too far away and someone is actively trying to shoot a bullet into your brain you probably won't get much of a chance to close the distance |
|
|
Guns are more effective. Sometimes you need a gun over a tazer. Cops should have both. |
|
|
In the event of a greater threat(ex. an armed target or multiple aggressing targets)
Cops need guns.
Besides, what detriment to society is being made by taking out a thug? |
|
|
@mikey
Please don't just read one sentence when you reply.
@tonsof
As I said, this is almost never the case. The very limited times it is the case, they should send in something like the SWAT team specifically for those cases. Regular cops shouldn't even be dealing with cases like that.
@rhett
Cops shouldn't be and usually aren't dealing with "multiple aggressors," and they lose anyways because that's not what they're trained for. Cops aren't trained to fight 5 "bad guys" with guns.
If you have a threat like that, you send in the SWAT team, not the police.
And even if you sent in the police, they'd die anyways. One police officer with a gun isn't necessarily any better than one "bad guy" with a gun. Cops who engage in gunfights die all the time.
And I really find it disgusting how you little value you hold on human life. |
|
|
possibly bait
possible troll |
|
ezt12Join Date: 2014-07-09
Post Count: 1531 |
tasers are ineffective against a minority of people. you can't risk it. |
|
|
@OTFreezer
http://www.roblox.com/Forum/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=150425543
@“e“z“t“1“2“
“
Tasers are almost never ineffective. The changes they won't work is probably not much different than the chances your gun will jam.
My dad is a cop and just yesterday he stopped a gunman by using his taser.
Tasers are more effective than guns in a close-range gunfight. A gun will hurt the person but not stop them, so if you draw at the same time, they could still shoot you after you shoot them. With a taser, it instantly freezes up all your muscles, so they're down instantly.
“ |
|
ezt12Join Date: 2014-07-09
Post Count: 1531 |
"With a taser, it instantly freezes up all your muscles, so they're down instantly. "
like i said, an increasing number of people are immune to this effect (especially the mentally ill), which would mean not only would you have just wasted made the target more angry, they also have more time to shoot you. |
|
KotawlJoin Date: 2013-06-22
Post Count: 23595 |
bah, just use injections |
|
|
ChibtrioJoin Date: 2011-02-02
Post Count: 4103 |
Yes, because getting up close and personal with someone who could have a knife is a splendid, much safer idea. Plus what about... Certain situations involving bombs. Not saying any more, as I don't want a banhammer to the face.
I made a new word! It's called plagiarism! |
|
ScootrbroJoin Date: 2008-04-12
Post Count: 11145 |
Here something else you can do
Don't resist arrest |
|
CarabaosJoin Date: 2011-11-25
Post Count: 214 |
Cops need guns.
Look this title up on youtube, can't post it here because it has mild language
Black Man Gets Tazed and Takes It Like a Boss SLOWMOTION
That is why cops need weapons. |
|
|
If you're pumping adrenaline or are on drugs, tazers might not a do a thing
Also, civilians can come across guns pretty easily |
|
|
Cops with guns can not only protect themselves from violent criminals but also stop them with guns before they harm other people. |
|
|
>"Black Man Gets Tazed and Takes It Like a Boss SLOWMOTION"
He's probably using an outdated taser. Old tasers only targeted the sensory system and so they could be ineffective at times. New ones target the motorneural system so no matter how strong you are, you can't "take it like a boss".
>"Yes, because getting up close and personal with someone who could have a knife is a splendid, much safer idea."
Your statement makes no sense. First of all, tasers have pretty good range. Second of all, if a person has a knife, why not let them get close to you? By the time they are two yards in front of you, they're still too far to hit you with the knife, but you'd have to be a moron to miss them with your taser.
>"Plus what about... Certain situations involving bombs. Not saying any more, as I don't want a banhammer to the face."
Are you talking about suicide bombers? I'm not talking about Afghanistan. If you're referring to the people who hold up buildings with bombs, send in the SWAT team. You don't need a regular officer handling that.
>"If you're pumping adrenaline or are on drugs, tazers might not a do a thing"
No, that's a myth based on old tasers. New tasers are impossible to overcome.
>"Cops with guns can not only protect themselves from violent criminals but also stop them with guns before they harm other people."
And accidentally kill innocent people.
Cops with tasers can not only protect themselves from violent criminals but also stop them with tasers before they harm other people.
And not accidentally kill innocent people.
|
|
|
"cop brutally case" there is. Trayvon Martin"
>Trayvon Martin wasn't killed by a police officer.
"Michael Brown case. "
>The forensics say that his arms were at his side.
>The bullets were fired at the top of his head.
Now lets pretend you aren't an idiot. |
|
|
@Creepy
Again, you people are really freaking stupid, just READ THE ENTIRE POST BEFORE REPLYING.
I SPECIFICALLY stated that I was assuming that the cops or pseudo-cops were telling the truth and that they fired out of self-defense.
I stated this because discussion about whether it was a just shooting is completely irrelevant to my argument. |
|
ScootrbroJoin Date: 2008-04-12
Post Count: 11145 |
Sorry i don't read post made by liberals
And those people aren't innocent, They broke the law, They have to pay the price |
|
|
"And accidentally kill innocent people.
Cops with tasers can not only protect themselves from violent criminals but also stop them with tasers before they harm other people.
And not accidentally kill innocent people."
what if there's more than one armed suspect? (btw some clothing can block taser darts)
one cop with a taser for every suspect? sounds like a great idea |
|
|
MaoPartJoin Date: 2009-12-31
Post Count: 206 |
They do need guns. But they should get automatically fired or arrested if they use it in the wrong way, like murder or brutality. |
|
|
i disagree. cops need to be more careful for when they discharge their weapons and not just empty a clip on a person suspected of a crime and get away scot free because the police department is in bed with the DA. |
|