bouzane said:
That's it, pitch a fit, classic pokoko. My choice of words was poor but it beats having a pathetic argument backed up by such a poor example. The patrons couldn't breathe because of the mace, did they suffocate? No, they died because they were trampled which is a common occurance in overcrowded nightclubs. If all you can provide are examples of individuals misusing tear gases and disrupting gatherings or as part of physical attacks I can honestly say that you have done virtually nothing to justify government enforced bans on these sprays. I know exactly why it took so much to force you to provide further examples of the misuse of tear gases, because they are rather unimpressive. I know that getting maced will cause you agony, disable you for hours or days and make buildings uninhabitable. I'm not downplaying their potency. What I am downplaying is their lethality. Tear gases are not fatal unless you use them in a situation which would have resulted in death regardless (such as the nightclub example you provided). I don't think I could have cleared out that school (without burning it to the ground) but so what, you still haven't given me a compelling reason for their ban. I once again have to reiterate my point that tear gases make great defensive, non-lethal weapons that should be legally carried because they can be used to prevent violent attacks with minimal harm to the perpetrators. I want you to give me a compelling reason as to why they should be restricted let alone outlawed outright because isolated cases of their misuse resulting in disruption and non-life-threatening injuries isn't cutting it. Tear gases are a tool which can prevent attacks that actually threaten the lives of victims, attacks that I might add are not being prevented by the government in many instances. I apologize for my lack of organization / paragraphs but I hardly care anymore.
|
If you'd replied with respect, I wouldn't have had a problem, but you had to make it personal. Why? I don't know. You say "classic pokoko" but I don't even know who you are. Don't be an ass and then try to take the high road. It makes you look fake. You wanted an argument when you attacked me, don't lie about that. All you had to do was say you disagree but you decide to go with "pathetic"? You meant nothing personal by that? I call bullshit.
If you think directly fatal results are the only form of misuse that matters, so be it. Nothing I can do about your opinion. All I was doing from the very start was showing how it could be misused and the probable reasoning behind the ban. I never even said that I agree with it. Yet, for some reason, people like want to turn that into a fight rather than a discussion. You know what that is? That's pathetic--no insult intended.
