# US Military's new plasma weapon to cause maximum pain



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

> *Maximum pain is aim of new US weapon*
> 
> The US military is funding development of a weapon that delivers a bout of excruciating pain from up to 2 kilometres away. Intended for use against rioters, it is meant to leave victims unharmed. But pain researchers are furious that work aimed at controlling pain has been used to develop a weapon. And they fear that the technology will be used for torture. Read the whole New Scientist article


Good to know that the US military is putting all that extra defence spending to good use. What a wonderful new field of endeavour for them, eliminate those pesky demonstrators and with a torture bonus, too. I guess this is just another useful tool to help them spread peace, freedom and democracy throughout the world.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

the americans have always been at the forefront of death and destruction. remember the atomic bomb? they killed 200,000 civilians with it. f*cking heroes.


----------



## sketch (Sep 10, 2004)

The US Government never ceases to disgust me. Hypocrites!


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

> eliminate those pesky demonstrators and with a torture bonus, too


I haven't read the whole article, but it says <i>rioters</i>, not demonstrators, right in your post.

There is a difference between the two.

Also, if this new weapon does leave the victim unharmed, then it is miles ahead of the riot dispersal weapons currently available.

Just saying.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

PB, sorry I was just reading between the lines. I'm sure that the makers of this weapon will tell us what wonderful and lofty intentions they have for it. Please excuse me if I'm somewhat skeptical. The fact that there are sick and twisted minds at work today coming up with stuff like this is disgusting enough.

How many actual riots occur these days that are were not political demonstrations? Not many. As we know often peaceful political demonstrations are changed into riots by overzealous riot squads. Then it only takes one hothead or provocateur in the crowd to throw a bottle and the police wade in with force or teargas. It happens time and time again.

While current methods aren't pleasant, I'm sure this weapon won't be either, never mind the unknown possible dangers. And a weapon like this will allow police or soldiers to decide that a gathering is illegal and lay waste to the whole crowd indiscriminately from a distance.

I think someone would have to be pretty naive to think that this weapon would not be abused by police, military and torturers. Especially in these days of heightened security being an excuse for curtailing demonstrations.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

All weapons are abused, but if this one leaves people unharmed in he end I'd say it's better. bean bag "non leathal" bullets currently used in 12 guage shot guns to pacify crowds can kill people if they strike near the heart, and can cause serious damage if they hit anywhere sensitive. 

Tear gas, batons, tasers, they're all abused as is. Remember the demonstrators that were pepper sprayed right here in Vancouver?

You're right, though, there are a lot of demonstrations these days. Of course, I haven't been paying that close attention, but I don't recall the last time that bean bag/rubber bullets and tasers were used at a demonstration.

Demonstrations are after all legal. It's just when a group of demonstrators turns into a mob of rioters that weapons may need to be there.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Hmmm, non-political riots - how about the hockey riots? I'm sure there are others. The hockey riots in particular aren't even related to demonstrations. 

And I have to agree with PB, there is a big difference between a demonstration and a riot. And it's not over-zealous riot squads that cause riots, most of the time it's a handful of trouble-makers in the demonstration only there to start a riot that cause a riot.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

PB, one of the issues raised further in the article is that scientists are concerned because the long-term physical and psychological effects of this sudden burst of pain are unknown.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Call me crazy... I'd rather live with the side-effects of pain rather than the side-effects of death.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

Could this weapon have helped in the case of the L.A. Riots?

I'm sure it could have. There would have been a lot less devastation if this weapon could have been deployed to subdue the rioters.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MaxPower said:


> Could this weapon have helped in the case of the L.A. Riots?
> 
> I'm sure it could have. There would have been a lot less devastation if this weapon could have been deployed to subdue the rioters.


You are kidding right? I'm missing something here, so we can spend millions of dollars developing less than lethal technology to quell protestors, but no we can't spend any money actually solving the issues of poverty and racism that start those riots in the first place.

BTW... nice to see another member from Grimsby.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

I'm completely serious.

This was just a hypothetical question. I'm not saying that the issues of poverty or racism were right, but let's look beyond that. I was just using the L.A. Riots as an example. Or pick any other riot that has gotten out of hand and caused extreme damage.

But at the very least the intent to use this weapon should be a last resort. PB and Manny are on the right track.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

MaxPower said:


> I'm completely serious.
> 
> This was just a hypothetical question. I'm not saying that the issues of poverty or racism were right, but let's look beyond that. I was just using the L.A. Riots as an example. Or pick any other riot that has gotten out of hand and caused extreme damage.
> 
> But at the very least the intent to use this weapon should be a last resort. PB and Manny are on the right track.


But wait a sec unless we are talking about a sports riot (and in that case you get what's comming to you), most protests are just that protests. So what you are saying is that we are planning to "zap" people because they are exercising their rights to protest.

Case in point, WTO meetings have afrequent violent protests. These protests usually become violent because the "authorities" (and I use the term loosely) get heavy handed and that the protestors feeling disenfranchised already push back and things get out of hand.

So rather than creating a forum for the disenfranchised to be heard lets develop a weapon system that will put them in their place... I think that is wrong.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Call me crazy... I'd rather live with the side-effects of pain rather than the side-effects of death.


Depends on those side-effects; I might take death over some things. Say, long-term pain from nerve damage, certain severe psychological issues. It's hard to say what anyone is willing to live with until they are living with it.

Then again, I'm in therapy for a reason.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

That's typical... blame the "authorities" and not the hooligans who travel incognito with the protesters who cause the real problems.


----------



## MaxPower (Jan 30, 2003)

Keep in mind da_jonsey, that I never once mentioned protesters. I purposefully referred to Riots. Big Difference.

There's a saying that says "Don't let one bad apple spoil the bunch." Yes there are a few rogue authority figures (Police Military etc.) that are a bad example but don't let those few give the rest a bad name.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Why not clone Jean Chretien? He seems adept at providing non-lethal force and has a verbal mode in which he is able to put anyone within 30 feet asleep. What's more, although some victims have complained of the pain inflicted at the time, it has no lasting effects (e.g. no legacy).


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> But wait a sec unless we are talking about a sports riot (and in that case you get what's comming to you), most protests are just that protests. So what you are saying is that we are planning to "zap" people because they are exercising their rights to protest.


Protesting is fine, RIOTING, on the other hand which includes the destruction of public and private property is illegal as far as I know and police have the right to take action. Even you made a distinction between riots and protests - we are discussing riots.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> That's typical... blame the "authorities" and not the hooligans who travel incognito with the protesters who cause the real problems.


Look, the "authorities" are supposed to be the responsible ones. If they were serious about democratic process and civil liberties they would provide a forum for all to be heard. But more often than not, they are not interested democratic process or respecting civil liberties, they are looking to advance the interests of their constituents and shareholders.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Kosh said:


> Protesting is fine, RIOTING, on the other hand which includes the destruction of public and private property is illegal as far as I know and police have the right to take action. Even you made a distinction between riots and protests - we are discussing riots.


I suppose my issue is that weapons like this are too easy to use to "quell" the masses, regardless of the nature of the civil unrest.

I think that they are a "cop out", an easy way to deal with an issue rather than getting to the root of the problem. We are supposed to live in a civilized society, I suppose that developing "less than lethal" weapons has it's place and I would rather that police use a taser than a 9mm on an individual, however weapons like the "plasma" thing aren't meant for use on individuals they are meant to be used against LOTS of indivduals. So what if the police in Alabama and the US South had this technology in the 50's and 60's during the civil rights riots that happened there... who do you think would be the targets?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

da_jonesy said:


> Look, the "authorities" are supposed to be the responsible ones. If they were serious about democratic process and civil liberties they would provide a forum for all to be heard. But more often than not, they are not interested democratic process or respecting civil liberties, they are looking to advance the interests of their constituents and shareholders.


The "authorities" are also responsible for maintaining order and protecting the general public, which includes those who do not agree with protester's politics or beliefs -- if they see a group of people trying to cause distruption to the general public (stopping traffic, attempting to take over building premises), smashing property, they will take the steps necessary to maintain that order. If that group of people maintain a civil demonstration, then nothing bad happens.

How hard is that to understand?

There's been two demonstrations that have occured near my place of work over the last four years -- both of which there was property damage to the neighboring buildings (smashed windows, objects thrown, etc.) and confrontations by "demonstrators". I felt my life was in danger, in spite of my non-participation and non-affiliation with political or coporate mongers, from these people were allegidly protesting against.

I believe people should be allowed to voice their opinion, and I believe they have every right to protest if need be (publically)... but I also believe in my right to ignore you and go about my business, unhindered and unthreatened.

If you [email protected] with that, don't expect me to stand by with a sh!t-eating grin.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> The "authorities" are also responsible for maintaining order and protecting the general public, which includes those who do not agree with protester's politics or beliefs -- if they see a group of people trying to cause distruption to the general public (stopping traffic, attempting to take over building premises), smashing property, they will take the steps necessary to maintain that order. If that group of people maintain a civil demonstration, then nothing bad happens.
> 
> How hard is that to understand?


Tell that to the protestors getting pepper sprayed at the APEC conference. How hard is that to understand? They were sitting down... they weren't rampaging through city streets. Don't you get it? Don't you understand? At what point do you figure they've gone to far and start lobbing the tear gas. Oohhh I'm sorry they're blocking city streets and causing you to be late for your next meeting, but don't you think that is point. These people feel disenfranchised, they have no voice whatsoever...



« MannyP Design » said:


> There's been two demonstrations that have occured near my place of work over the last four years -- both of which there was property damage to the neighboring buildings (smashed windows, objects thrown, etc.) and confrontations by "demonstrators". I felt my life was in danger, in spite of my non-participation and non-affiliation with political or coporate mongers, from these people were allegidly protesting against.
> 
> I believe people should be allowed to voice their opinion, and I believe they have every right to protest if need be (publically)... but I also believe in my right to ignore you and go about my business, unhindered and unthreatened.
> 
> If you [email protected] with that, don't expect me to stand by with a sh!t-eating grin.


OK try this one out... next time there is protest (like a WTO thing) step into the middle of it. Who do you think is going to lob a crowd control device at you first? The protestors or the cops? 

If given the opportunity to be heard people wouldn't riot in these situations. 

BTW... 



« MannyP Design » said:


> but I also believe in my right to ignore you and go about my business, unhindered and unthreatened.


I'm not sure, but I think that this is half of the problem right there... by not listening, by not getting involved you are giving silent consent. We all do this, myself included. Sometimes the protestors need to be admired, for standing up for what they feel is right.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

So da-jonesy to use your "logic", you have NO problem with a riot damaging personal and public property? I mean come on we all know the difference between a peaceful protest or demonstration and a riot. If a protest is peaceful and organized with the authorities I don't think they have any worry about being harmed. You seem to point at one or two protests where they used pepper spray, I can think of many protests (most of them Union or farmer protests) that have not had any incident. Living in Ottawa, you do get used to them.

Also, which would you rather see, someone protesting being pepper-sprayed, or being shot???


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Kosh said:


> So da-jonesy to use your "logic", you have NO problem with a riot damaging personal and public property? I mean come on we all know the difference between a peaceful protest or demonstration and a riot. If a protest is peaceful and organized with the authorities I don't think they have any worry about being harmed. You seem to point at one or two protests where they used pepper spray, I can think of many protests (most of them Union or farmer protests) that have not had any incident. Living in Ottawa, you do get used to them.
> 
> Also, which would you rather see, someone protesting being pepper-sprayed, or being shot???


Let me put it this way... perhaps we should be thinking about stopping a riot before it starts? It strikes me that the world would be a better place if we invested nearly as much as into enfrachising individuals and groups as we did on coming up with weapons of less lethal mass destruction.

BTW... I did say earlier that I think taser's are a good idea, and yes I'd prefer their use over that of a gun. You see a taser is a different sort of thing entirely... you use a taser on an individual... not a group. 



Kosh said:


> Also, which would you rather see, someone protesting being pepper-sprayed, or being shot???


But surely you aren't suggesting that the police be allowed to use live ammunition when there is a riot breaking out.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

I think Police and other authorities do look at stopping riots before they happen. After all it saves them work and hopefully saves public property being destroyed. They do this through:

- have a good police presence
- register all demonstrations - the location of the demonstration, the start and end time, demonstration leaders, etc...
- provide a buffer zone between the demonstration and the public and/or the place being demonstrated against.
- identify problems to the demonstration leadership and let the demonstration leadership handle it if possible.

For non-demonstration type riot prevention:
- have a good police presence
- deter loitering and congregating - deters mobs and the mob mentality
- watch for troublemakers - ex. people previously arrested 
- have adequate amenities for events
- implement proper security measures
- etc...

Proper advance planning can often minimize rioting. 

Of course, unlike police, businesses (especially defence businesses) are into creating riot gear which they can sell to make money. Not in preventing riots. This is the same old argument of why does the US spend so much money are defence.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Kosh said:


> - register all demonstrations - the location of the demonstration, the start and end time, demonstration leaders, etc...
> - provide a buffer zone between the demonstration and the public and/or the place being demonstrated against.


Ick and more ick... register demonstrations? so what if you fail to get a permit to demonstrate? That's the whole point isn't it? it's a demonstration. When I first heard the the Toronto police force wanted to do this I thought we are only a couple of steps away from facism.

I have since softened my view of this to that it is an incredibly right-wing authoriarian approach to this problem. And again it does nothing to solve to social issues at hand, it's only purpose is to prevent those who are disenfranchised from having ANY voice at all.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*Register demonstrations?*

So the police get to decide if your demonstration is lawful or an illegal assembly? And if it's an illegal assembly and you are told to disperse and do not, you are now a rioter? Then the police can stand a safe distance away and administer pain to every human in a given area, whether participating or not, using their brand new weapons?

It's the 40th anniversary this month of a famous and important "illegal assembly", the Selma march of 1965. A group of peaceful and respectful African-American protesters decided that they would march into Montgomery, Alabama and register to vote. Registration had been systematically denied to them because of an entrenched system of administering literacy tests to black people, that nobody, even PhDs, could pass, - if they were black, that is.

When they came to the Edmund Pettus bridge, outside of Montgomery, the local sheriff warned them that their march was an "illegal assembly" and that they must disperse. They did not, they were citizens of the USA and insisted that they had every right to go and register to vote. Within seconds, the police violently descended upon them with billy clubs and tear gas. This violence was shown on US television and around the world, which resulted in worldwide outrage and very swift passage of the US Voting Rights Act.

What percentage of riots are nothing more than the authorities declaring a public gathering to protest or demonstrate to be an illegal assembly and become "riots" only when riot police decide to force the protesters to disperse? Other then a few cases of mass drunken revelry, resulting from sporting events, my guess is that it's most of them.


----------



## ivanjs (Jan 24, 2005)

TroutMaskReplica said:


> the americans have always been at the forefront of death and destruction. remember the atomic bomb?


Yes, but apparently our math education is better than some-Stalin killed 20 million or more of his own people. Hitler killed 6 million or more. 

Don't think the U.S. is quite number one yet, LOL!
John


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

i don't know - 200,000 civilians in a foreign country is pretty ballsy, but i see your point. there was more than enough atrocity to go around during those years.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> So the police get to decide if your demonstration is lawful or an illegal assembly? And if it's an illegal assembly and you are told to disperse and do not, you are now a rioter? Then the police can stand a safe distance away and administer pain to every human in a given area, whether participating or not, using their brand new weapons?
> 
> It's the 40th anniversary this month of a famous and important "illegal assembly", the Selma march of 1965. A group of peaceful and respectful African-American protesters decided that they would march into Montgomery, Alabama and register to vote. Registration had been systematically denied to them because of an entrenched system of administering literacy tests to black people, that nobody, even PhDs, could pass, - if they were black, that is.
> 
> When they came to the Edmund Pettus bridge, outside of Montgomery, the local sheriff warned them that their march was an "illegal assembly" and that they must disperse. They did not, they were citizens of the USA and insisted that they had every right to go and register to vote. Within seconds, the police violently descended upon them with billy clubs and tear gas. This violence was shown on US television and around the world, which resulted in worldwide outrage and very swift passage of the US Voting Rights Act.


Thank You... someone gets it.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Why is it so hard to distinguish between a demonstration and a riot? If the crowd becomes violent, attacking people and destroying property then it's a riot. Period.

Certainly, in the past police have pushed some demonstrations into riot territory, but just as many have been riots from the start. You might argue that with a weapon like the one being developed police might become overzealous, but police already become overzealous with the non-lethal weapons that they already have. 

The difference is that if this weapon does indeed leave the victim unharmed (and for those who pointed out that the weapon is untested and the long term effects unknown, that's why I said "if") then it's going to be way ahead of the game.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

PosterBoy said:


> Certainly, *in the past* police have pushed some demonstrations into riot territory, but just as many have been riots from the start.


PB, I think you are too quick to assume that those days have ended, I think they've never left us, police are provoking riots around the world on a regular basis. My sense of this is exactly the opposite from what you state. 

Every time I read the news about a peaceful non-violent demonstration where riot police have become involved, I read accounts from reasonable credible sounding folks, about how the police made the first violent move, by firing teargas, rubber bullets, beanbags water cannons or whatever else they have at their disposal into a non-violent crowd.

Sometimes someone in the crowd responds by pushing back at advancing riot shields, or even just yelling at an officer. This is then followed by an arrest and if anyone protests this they are arrested too. Often the police, no doubt hyper as hell, will go over the top and get physically violent with those who are not in any way resisting arrest, other than being passively resistant and going limp. The news footage of the day always shows what looks like the police wading into a war zone, so naturally people think that the police are just subduing an already violent crowd, but reports from people on the scene often chronicle how the crowd was festive and cheerful even, before a riot squad ramped up the situation.

Political demonstrations are on the whole attended by non violent people whose only law breaking activity is to refuse to disperse when ordered to, as in Selma. 

I don't say that this is always the case, but my sense of it is that it is more often than not, the case. I think often the drunken revelry type of riot is a situation that the police are not expecting and not prepared for, like a political demonstration. In those revelry type of riots you have idiots hoping to get some kicks.

As far as the discussion of this potential weapon, we can be sure that it is not being developed out of respect for the health and well being of rioters. To use non-lethal force, or more correctly less-lethal force, is done for the sake of crowd control efficiency and to not cause the public to be overly concerned with riot police methods.

Whether it's water-cannons, pepper spray, and tear gas or sonic cannons, microwave and plasma weapons, it's still the same thing. These weapons are designed for crowd control and will almost certainly also be used in the world's growing torture industry. That government's agencies like the US military spend millions or billions on these sorts of things, is I think, rather sick. 

There is a large industry at work trying to develop the next generation of less lethal weapons, sometimes known by the term "soft kill" weapons, because they can be used in warfare to kill or neutralize people, but in a way that is less disturbing on the evening news. Beautiful.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

GA said:


> PB, I think you are too quick to assume that those days have ended


And if you'd read my entire post you'd see that I haven't assumed anything of the kind.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

PosterBoy said:


> The difference is that if this weapon does indeed leave the victim unharmed (and for those who pointed out that the weapon is untested and the long term effects unknown, that's why I said "if") then it's going to be way ahead of the game.


Let me put it to you this way...

Let's say you are out for a walk and someone comes up and mugs you? Now what would you prefer? That he had a handgun, a taser... or that he didn't mug you at all?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Since in your scenario you are talking about one person mugging another, I am having a hard time seeing how it relates to a mob of people randomly attacking people and property. Care to elaborate?


----------



## gundamguy (Mar 2, 2004)

In all honesty if it wasnt for the atomic bomb being used when it was Japan may have defeated the US in a drug out even more bloody war.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

God, this thread has gone to the crapper in a hurry... now were talking about mugging? Going a little off-topic aren't we folks?  Clearly, if someone is going to mug you, they'll do so regardless of what social/economical problems that may/may not exist in any given place. Creating a Utopia won't stave violence... some people will do what they want, regardless of their background. It's in their nature -- you can't fix everything.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> Ick and more ick... register demonstrations? so what if you fail to get a permit to demonstrate? That's the whole point isn't it? it's a demonstration. When I first heard the the Toronto police force wanted to do this I thought we are only a couple of steps away from facism.
> 
> I have since softened my view of this to that it is an incredibly right-wing authoriarian approach to this problem. And again it does nothing to solve to social issues at hand, it's only purpose is to prevent those who are disenfranchised from having ANY voice at all.


Did I say anything about a permit??? God you sound like a kid. The idea is to be adult like and organize things like demonstrations. Who was saying we should look into preventing riots??? Well, this is how you prevent riots, you get the demonstations registered so that the police know who the leaders of the demonstation are so that the police can advise those demonstration leaders. So then the leaders of the demonstration can take care of their own. The police will also protect the demonstrators by creating a buffer between them and the public and by baracading streets where the demonstrators will be demonstrating. You obviously haven't seen organized civil demonstrations da_jonesy and have no idea what you're talking about! Being in Ottawa you get to see and enjoy  many demonstrations and protests. Believe it or not, the police help the demonstrators just as much as the public, if you organize your demonstration with the police.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Amen Kosh -- someone gets it.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

PB said:


> And if you'd read my entire post you'd see that I haven't assumed anything of the kind.


Sorry, if I misread your post or didn't get your meaning, PB. What I was responding to was your use of the words "in the past", which led me to think that you believe that riot police attacking peaceful demonstrators was only something that happened in the past. Obviously from the points I made, I think it still occurs. 

Humble apologies if I failed to comprehend the meaning of your posting, but I did, in fact, read it.



PB said:


> Since in your scenario you are talking about one person mugging another, I am having a hard time seeing how it relates to a mob of people randomly attacking people and property.


It is my sense that a mob of people randomly attacking people and property is an extremely rare occurrence. I believe that the deployment of riot squads is usually done at the scene of political demonstrations and is what often leads to the conflicts and violence that occur and also justifies the use of ever more specialized weapons. Although I hope I'm not misinterpreting da_jonesy, this is the mugging that I think he is getting at.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

GA, a mob randomly forming is pretty rare occurrence, but riots aren't only born of political demonstrations. Take, for example, all the angry people that came out of the 1994 Canucks game here in Vancouver, or the mob rounded up by the Asiatic Exclusion League in Vancouver in 1907, or all the football hooligan incidents in the UK and elsewhere.

I understand your concern about police riots, but they are by no means the only way things happen. I'm not trying to say that they aren't a concern either. What I am trying to say is that once a riot is in full gear, if it can be ended quickly and safely (ie with as little harm to people and damage to property as possible) then I am all for it.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

PosterBoy said:


> Since in your scenario you are talking about one person mugging another, I am having a hard time seeing how it relates to a mob of people randomly attacking people and property. Care to elaborate?


Sorry I thought you and some of the others would be able to understand what I was getting at with this analogy (BTW... it has nothing to do with mugging). The point which was missed was rather than plan and accept the worst, wouldn't it be better to address the issues in the first place? Rather than choose to be taser'd or shot (and that went back to the post which stated that this plasma weapon would be better than shooting rioters) maybe we could chosse not be mugged (which would be a better option).

Clearly my abstraction was lost in this example... my bad, I will try and keep it more simple in the future.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Kosh said:


> Did I say anything about a permit??? God you sound like a kid. The idea is to be adult like and organize things like demonstrations. Who was saying we should look into preventing riots??? Well, this is how you prevent riots, you get the demonstations registered so that the police know who the leaders of the demonstation are so that the police can advise those demonstration leaders. So then the leaders of the demonstration can take care of their own. The police will also protect the demonstrators by creating a buffer between them and the public and by baracading streets where the demonstrators will be demonstrating.


Look, I'm not even going to respond to inflamitory crap like "God you sound like a kid"...

I've been saying we should look into preventing riots by allowing the disenfranchised to have a voice. Registering for a demonstration is counter to the whole point of a demonstration... or haven't you been living in the past 100 years?

Do you think half of the civil liberties that western culture now enjoy would even be here if people didn't excercise their rights to demonstrate? Are you even aware of the social unrest of the 1920's?



Kosh said:


> You obviously haven't seen organized civil demonstrations da_jonesy and have no idea what you're talking about! Being in Ottawa you get to see and enjoy  many demonstrations and protests. Believe it or not, the police help the demonstrators just as much as the public, if you organize your demonstration with the police.


I've seen and been in civil demonstrations. I know people who have been harassed (actually harass is too polite a word for being arrested and strip searched) because they are standing up for what they believe in when it comes to issues like homelessness and poverty.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

There are protesters who honestly belive that marching with signs will do some sort of good or will sway public opinion in some way (despite the massive evidence to the contrary)...

And then, as PB and others have noted here, there are determined sh*t disturbers who are simply planning on comitting mayhem. While using a peaceful protest to hide in.

You can usually recognise these vermin because they are always joining into peaceful non-violent protests.... while packing black masks and pieces of steel pipe or molotovs or even bombs in their backpacks. Many of them are career-type sh*t-disturbers, and are very well known to the police.

Their handlers ship them all over the country in buses, so that they can faithfully "attend" whatever protest happens to be going on in any major city. And they are always ready and willing to freak out and start a major disturbance. And to commit violent acts. In fact...that's what they are there for.

And a whole bunch of well-paid lawyers are patiently waiting on the sidelines with pre-written letters of "outrage" against the normal police reaction to this violent behavior, as well.

Ho-hum. Silly stuff. Stuff that was carefully crafted to support a failed political philosophy that is now long dead. A politica policy from a bygone age. A propaganda ploy that was designed to mobilise a poverty-stricken proletariat to rise up and wipe out any sort of locally sucessful businesses so that state-owned...and union-powered...monopolies could replace them.

Luckily no one is really buying it anymore.

Are you? If so...then WHY?

You MIGHT want to think about this. Just for a minute.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

da_jonesy said:


> Sorry I thought you and some of the others would be able to understand what I was getting at with this analogy (BTW... it has nothing to do with mugging). The point which was missed was rather than plan and accept the worst, wouldn't it be better to address the issues in the first place? Rather than choose to be taser'd or shot (and that went back to the post which stated that this plasma weapon would be better than shooting rioters) maybe we could chosse not be mugged (which would be a better option).
> 
> Clearly my abstraction was lost in this example... my bad, I will try and keep it more simple in the future.


Oh, we got it... you just ignored the rest of the discussion. Clearly you believe a Utopian society is not only possible, but you think everybody would/will buy into your rose-tinted 60's ideas. Not everyone shares your beliefs... until you can think of a way to make everyone happy, give me a call; I have a flying pig that needs a good home.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Oh, we got it... you just ignored the rest of the discussion. Clearly you believe a Utopian society is not only possible, but you think everybody would/will buy into your rose-tinted 60's ideas. Not everyone shares your beliefs... until you can think of a way to make everyone happy, give me a call; I have a flying pig that needs a good home.


No I'm not ignoring it... not at all. You are failing to understand that money spent on weapons to quell rioters could be better spent addressing the social issues that cause the riots in the first place.

You are failing to understand that these weapons have a high potential to be abused.

You are failing to understand that civil disobedience and unrest has brought us many of the civil liberties that we now enjoy.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

You assume all riots are of the same nature/purpose.

Riots happen because one or more things: Alcohol/drugs, intolerance, discontent/anger, opportunity (to steal, or damage property), stupidity/herd mentality, with large groups of people and a lack of, or undermanned security/police personnel.

What would you propose to do?
How would you stop a riot from happening?
How would you stop a riot from getting worse?

You seem to have all the answers... educate me.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> What would you propose to do?
> How would you stop a riot from happening?
> How would you stop a riot from getting worse?
> 
> You seem to have all the answers... educate me.


Please... I do not even begin to think I have all the answers. What I do know is that weapons designed to inflict MAXIMUM pain on GROUPS of people is a very bad thing. Regardless of what reason they may be designed for, their use will be perverted and abused. 

What do you think authoritarian regimes would do with such a weapon? What would happen if this type of weapon would fall into the wrong hands... want to rob a bank? I've got the weapon for you.

I'm not against developing less than lethal weapons to stop individuals (I applaud the effort), but developing this technology to be used on groups of people is perverse.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> Look, I'm not even going to respond to inflamitory crap like "God you sound like a kid"...


I said that because you are acting like one. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall or a peace a wood. Nothing's sinking in! In fact if we look at all you're posts you're saying the same damn thing over and over and over... you don't want to seem to hear anything. Sounds just like a kid to me.



da_jonesy said:


> I've been saying we should look into preventing riots by allowing the disenfranchised to have a voice. Registering for a demonstration is counter to the whole point of a demonstration... or haven't you been living in the past 100 years?
> 
> Do you think half of the civil liberties that western culture now enjoy would even be here if people didn't excercise their rights to demonstrate? Are you even aware of the social unrest of the 1920's?


I don't care about social unrest of 1920's. What the **** does social unrest of 1920's have to do with demonstrations and riots of today. da-jonesy you need to get out of living in the past and live in the here and now!

Demonstrations today are organized, they are not casual spure of the moment demonstrations. And the better you organize them, the less chance you'll have a riot. And if you'd read my emails what I'm saying is when you expand that organizing to include the police, the police have a better feeling that the demonstration is NOT going to get out of hand and that the demonstration people can handle themselves. In fact the police will enfranchise (man you seem to love that fancy word) them to handle themselves as long as they can show they can handle themselves. The police will not interfere with their demonstration.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

I notice that a lot of the PRO-plasma weapon arguements are coming from people located in Ottawa. I can appreciate their plight when it comes to civil disobedience getting out of hand.

Don't you think however that maybe there is a problem with the way in which the political/social system works? What would the Charter of Rights and Freedom say in regards to the use of this weapon? 

(Actually this is a general question? Are we garanteed the right to assembly? or is that a US Constitutional thing? I'm never sure about these things)

Don't you think that weapons designed to quell the masses is just another example of the tyranny of the majority over the minnority. Which makes this arguement ironic given that Canada is made up of a plurality of minorities.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Oh, we got it... you just ignored the rest of the discussion.


Yeah, he seems to read what he wants, interprests it how he wants, and ignores the rest. 

I'm starting to get tired of talking to a brick wall.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Kosh said:


> I said that because you are acting like one. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall or a peace a wood. Nothing's sinking in! In fact if we look at all you're posts you're saying the same damn thing over and over and over... you don't want to seem to hear anything. Sounds just like a kid to me.


Sound like a kid eh? Maybe you should listen to a kid once and while. It sounds like they have a better grasp of right from wrong than you have. Your comment below pretty much proves this.



Kosh said:


> I don't care about social unrest of 1920's. What the **** does social unrest of 1920's have to do with demonstrations and riots of today. da-jonesy you need to get out of living in the past and live in the here and now!


Congratulations on posting one of the most ignorant rebuttal comments of the decade. I could go on about how history repeats itselfs, but that quote is almost a cliche now. This one is far better...

_If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience.

George Bernard Shaw_ 

Please note the sarcasm in his words if it is not too plainly obvious.

Do you need me to explain where we have come from? where we need to go? Do I need to use small words with few syllables?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

> History repeats itself


This thread is most indicative of that statement.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

> We can draw lessons from the past, but we cannot live in it.
> Lyndon B. Johnson (1908 - 1973), December 13, 1963


What I was saying is that things have changed alot since the 1920's. You can live back then if you want and think that's what riots are like today, but I'm discussing demonstrations and riots of today! In other words, we have learned alot from the past and MOVED ON. Of course some people keep on bringing up the past again and again, and never seem to learn from it. they just love dredging it up to piss people off.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

> Don't you think that weapons designed to quell the masses is just another example of the tyranny of the majority over the minnority. Which makes this arguement ironic given that Canada is made up of a plurality of minorities.


Kind of assuming the worst, no? Would this particular weapon not serve well in stopping riots without or risking people's lives? Why would an society of any kind (especially one of superior firepower) create a weapon to quell, instead of kill people?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

> We can draw lessons from the past, but we cannot live in it.
> Lyndon B. Johnson (1908 - 1973), December 13, 1963


Yup. great quote. This comming from a guy that perpetuated and escalated the Vietnam war. 

To his his credit, Johnson did work towards establishing some civil rights, but not until civil rights riots were being broadcast all across America and the world during the evening news. That was clever that you would quote Johnson given that his tenure as President saw some of the worst riots of that generation. Did you mean to do that, or had you forgotten your history?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Kind of assuming the worst, no? Would this particular weapon not serve well in stopping riots without or risking people's lives? Why would an society of any kind (especially one of superior firepower) create a weapon to quell, instead of kill people?


The simple fact of the matter is that many of YOUR freedoms and rights that you enjoy come from blood of the same protestors that you would "ZAP" until they wet themselves in a quivering heap after being submitted to a weapon like this.

They didn't have weapons like this in 60's or 20's. If they did they would have been used and as a result we wouldn't have organized labour and Black's in the US still wouldn't be allowed to vote.

And if you think that our society still isn't all that it could be, then you haven't been paying attention to the fact that there still is civil disobedience and unrest (and yes riots)in this day and age.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Riot... Protest... Riot... Protest... Riot... differentiate please.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Riot... Protest... Riot... Protest... Riot... differentiate please.


Civil rights riots, specifically the Watts Riot


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

What does this have to do with a humane way of dispersing riots?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> What does this have to do with a human way of dispersing riots?


It has EVERYTHING to do with it. Man, you guys are saying that talking to me is like talking to a brick wall? 

The point is (and that I have painfully trying to make) that maybe we should stop a riot before it starts? Maybe we have social issues that need to be addressed. Even if the money which is put into developing a plasma weapon system was put into creating mechanism to give the disenfranchised a voice that would be heard, that has to be a better solution than "INFLICTING MAXIMUM PAIN" on a group of demonstrators.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> What does this have to do with a humane way of dispersing riots?


BTW... nice quote, there again is something ironic in the use of the word "humane" when we are talking about a weapon which "INFLICTS MAXIMUM PAIN".


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

As opposed to death?

Name on weapon/tool that is able to quell, disperse or otherwise stop a group of rioting people without killing or injuring them.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> As opposed to death?
> 
> Name on weapon/tool that is able to quell, disperse or otherwise stop a group of rioting people without killing or injuring them.


There are NO weapons that can stop a group of people without killing or injuring some of them. If you think that this weapon is a magic phaser set on wide stun where everyone magically goes to sleep you are mistaken. It is designed to "INFLICT MAXIMUM PAIN"... it will cause heart attacks, seisures, strokes, etc... everything you can think of that comes from the result of the human body being overly stressed.

If you think it is humane, why not try and taser yourself or apply an electric cattle prod to your tongue... whatever you experience will not be nearly as bad as what this thing will do to a crowd of people.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

So we should just settle for what we have at the moment and forgo the formalities...

Tazer uses direct electricity to subdue a person -- as far as I know, there is no Tazer made to subdue more than one person at a time. The plasma weapon gives the maximum amount of pain *that will not injure or harm* a person (as mentioned in the original article). There are an abundant variety of weapons that already exist that can be used for torture if used in the wrong hands... now this weapon is suddenly a problem?

But the article says nothing about heart attacks, seizures, strokes -- that's your presumption.

So to sum it up, by your logic, it's okay to use a Tazer on one disgruntled person but not a group of rioting people.

Yup, I can see where you're coming from.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> But the article says nothing about heart attacks, seizures, strokes -- that's your presumption.


What do you think will happen? Honestly? Do you think everyone gets a shock, pees themselves and run home? The article may not say anything about heart attacks, seizures, strokes, but any REASONABLE partially witted individual would understand that a weapon designed to inflict pain, will exacerbate an already stressfull situation and heart attacks, seizures, strokes, etc... will result from that.

At this his point to the best of our knowledge this weapon has not (thankfully) been deployed in a live situation, which means that they have at best only tested it in very controlled conditions.



« MannyP Design » said:


> So to sum it up, by your logic, it's okay to use a Tazer on one disgruntled person but not a group of rioting people.
> 
> Yup, I can see where you're coming from.


No, clearly you can't see where I'm comming from as there is a big difference between an indivudual being subdued by a law enforcement officer by a taser to the MILITARY developing a weapon to inflict pain on a large group of individuals. You don't see the difference do you?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> The point is (and that I have painfully trying to make) that maybe we should stop a riot before it starts?


While I appreciate where you're coming from, you're assuming that all riots are born of the same underlying problems. They are not.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

PosterBoy said:


> While I appreciate where you're coming from, you're assuming that all riots are born of the same underlying problems. They are not.


This fair enough, and I did state at the very beginning that sport rioters get what's comming to them.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I'm not just talking sports riots. People do all kinds of stupid things when in large groups. There was a riot once in the US when the price of beer was raised.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

PosterBoy said:


> I'm not just talking sports riots. People do all kinds of stupid things when in large groups. There was a riot once in the US when the price of beer was raised.


Well whoever raised the price had that comming didn't they


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Actually, the idea of using a non-violent weapon, ie: a weapon that does not use life-threatening ammunition, is quite a revolutionary idea of waging war against a foe not only in the way that it could save your enemy's lives, but it could very well save the lives of your own soldiers. Seems too crazy to be true...

Much better than the current methods, IMHO. Could you image the impact this plasma weapon could have on Japan if it existed during the Second World War?










Obviously, you're the one who cannot can see the difference, nor differentiate between the nature of a riot (and the various circumstances that cause them), a demonstration, armed robbery, and armed conflict. Your whole point rests on one _possible_ scenario where this weapon _could_ be misused. Not only that, but you clearly do not understand the ideas of _how_ the weapon works (and how it really effects the human body) and immediately draw your conclusions that a) It will kill a person if misused; b) It will cause heart attacks/seizures/whatever if used on anyone; and c) that it will be used to obliterate freedom of speech and expression.

And to make it worse you believe that all of life's problems can be solved regardless of human nature... that money can solve all of society's ills.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Seems too crazy to be true...


You honestly have to be crazy to even begin to think that this could be true.



« MannyP Design » said:


> Much better than the current methods, IMHO. Could you image the impact this plasma weapon could have on Japan if it existed during the Second World War?


If you think that this would be an effective combat weapon you are nuts... remember in a war situation your enemy is trying to kill you, and while I think that the American use of incindeary devices on Tokyo and subsequent use of Atomic weapons was outrageous and a war crime (by any definition of the term)... the fact of the matter those weapons were used during a time of war.

If you are interested in a first hand account by the "military accountants" that fought that war in the Pacific, I highly suggest that you watch the movie "The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara" (This is a recent film 2003).

His words are chilling, and the inference that we are repeating our mistakes are completely obvious.


BTW. I trust that you are not suggesting that a riot is the same thing as a war?



« MannyP Design » said:


> Obviously, you're the one who cannot can see the difference, nor differentiate between the nature of a riot (and the various circumstances that cause them), a demonstration, armed robbery, and armed conflict. Your whole point rests on one _possible_ scenario where this weapon _could_ be misused. Not only that, but you clearly do not understand the ideas of _how_ the weapon works (and how it really effects the human body) and immediately draw your conclusions that a) It will kill a person if misused; b) It will cause heart attacks/seizures/whatever if used on anyone; and c) that it will be used to obliterate freedom of speech and expression.
> 
> And to make it worse you believe that all of life's problems can be solved regardless of human nature... that money can solve all of society's ills.


Worse? worse? Ignorance is ignorance... I've come to see that some people just are that... ignorant. To suggest that I think that throwing money at a problem will solve all of societies ill's is you infering something that I have not even remotely suggested. What I said was that money could be BETTER spent on activities to give the disenfranchised a voice, over developing weapon systems meant to incapacitate large crowds. Get it straight.

Look you can read whatever you want into that article... if you think that a weapon designed to "INFLICT MAXIMUM PAIN" is going to be harmless when used on other human beings... you really need to find a dictionary and look up the word "obtuse" as it applies in this case.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

You've suggested quite a lot in this thread... your last post being the best by far. Too bad you can't remember half the ****e you spew. I may be obtuse, but at least I'm not nonsensical.

Cheers,


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> You've suggested quite a lot in this thread... your last post being the best by far. Too bad you can't remember half the ****e you spew. I may be obtuse, but at least I'm not nonsensical.
> 
> Cheers,


Give me an example where I don't remember it or contradict what I've said previously? As for being nonsensical... in the dictionary under the definition of nonsensical it says... see MannyP Design.

As for your poor attitude and the "****e you spew" comment... kiss my ass buddy.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Ha ha ha ha!

Poor attitude? Kiss my ass? his from the guy who resorts to name calling?

ROTFLMAO!!!

Look, relax okay? Chill for a bit before you start crying or something. Geez.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Ha ha ha ha!
> 
> Poor attitude? Kiss my ass? his from the guy who resorts to name calling?
> 
> ...


ha ha ha... that's pretty good


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Cute, eh?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Cute, eh?


yeah i'll have to keep that one around... it could come in handy


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Free for anybody who needs to use it.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

This seems appropriate:










For so many threads here in Everything Else.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

It seems that this thread has degraded far enough, the idea is to debate the purpose of using a non-lethal weapon for riot control not shooting barbs. If it doesn't clean up I'm going to lock it as there is no need to insult another person on ehMac no matter how much you disagree with them.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Oddly enough...I was just thinking exactly the same thoughts. 

Am I out of character here? 

(Heyyyy...I thought that I was the local sh*t disturber! WTF!!??!!)


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Chealion said:


> It seems that this thread has degraded far enough, the idea is to debate the purpose of using a non-lethal weapon for riot control not shooting barbs.


I thought that was what we were doing?



Chealion said:


> If it doesn't clean up I'm going to lock it as there is no need to insult another person on ehMac no matter how much you disagree with them.


Clean up? can you explain that one to me?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Chealion: It's alright, no offense taken/meant. It's all water under the bridge... yesterday's news. 

Macnutt: I see your log-in problem seems to have fixed itself...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Chealion: It's alright, no offense taken/meant. It's all water under the bridge... yesterday's news.


Agreed


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

da_jonesy - That's clean up.  It wasn't apparent when I wrote the post, it was actually looking ugly but knowing Manny, there had to be something I was missing.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Ahhh...good. Everyone is making nice again.   

Manny...my log-in problems have been "solved" by using a complex set of workarounds. And if I do not follow then to the letter, then I am SOL.  

You guys didn't think that a simple log-in glitch would keep me away from ehmac for very long, did you? Not likely. 

Wayyyy too much fun around here for me to give up that easily.


----------

