To what end

We are all no doubt pleased that State Opposition leader Isabel Redmond has apparently survived being tasered and 'didn't flinch'. She claims this is not a stunt...if it is not then why do it?

But really this sort of approach to policy is ridiculous. The most absurd would be for proponents of the death penalty to submit to injection/electrocution/gassing...or whatever ...in order to prove that it is 'humane'. This sort of example suggests that being tasered proves nothing at all...other than that attempting to prove the 'humanity' of tasering is pretty pointless; just as attempting to prove the humanity of the death sentence, or corporal punishment or water-boarding by actually submitting to it is futile. It only proves that you (the foolish one who so submits) happily survived it.

There needs to be some more serious thought given to what more objective criteria should be adopted. The emotionalism of a politician undertaking the test, is as futile as the child of the 50s who protests "My father strapped me and ti hasn't done me any harm!"

Until such time as we have more objective criteria, then let us be a bit more circumspect about the promotion of state-sanctioned violence.

Tasing the Opposition

Having grown up with a British Police Force who in those days had the proud boast that they did not carry guns, one wonders about the present Taser debate. One wonders even more why the SA Opposition Leader, Isabel Redmond, is doing anything more than attention-seeking when she is offering to be Tasered herself (here) in order (presumably) to show that it's OK!

There is no doubt that we have a real problem about what to do with armed criminals.

Is it too simplistic to say: Get rid of guns!!! Make it illegal to own them, or use them unless you are licensed, trained, and using them in a full-controlled environment.

Is it all too-simplistic to say the same thing abotu knives also?

In the current hysterical discussion in which the hyperbolic "Gang of 49" language is being used we should all be aware that it is bad to make public policy in the heat of the moment.

The Taser (and there are a number of variants) has a basic problem...and that is that you use it like a gun.

It does nothing to diminish gun violence, and may even provoke it, if we say that you point a gun at someone who is pointing a gun at you.

Most of us here are deeply disturbed by what happens in the US. Less guns seems better than more.

This is a bit of a ramble...but you get the point!