[temp453463343]

That's not a great rational to not use drones.

You're throwing away tons of money maintaining helicopters that you don't need most of the time because it's too hard to regulate the use of drones?

That's like forcing police officers to only use 18th century muskets so they don't shoot too much

[jlgreco]

> That's like forcing police officers to only use 18th century muskets so they don't shoot too much

I think you could actually sell me on that.

[scarecrowbob]

Well, in the US tasers proliferated, and so has taser use....

the weapon's "cost of use" is much smaller than a firearm so it gets used much more casually as a compliance tool rather than as a last ditch tool to keep officers safe.

[Shivetya]

well, it is far safer and easier to taser someone rather than tackle, club, or otherwise physically subdue them.

[daraul]

Safer for the officer, definitely.

Curiously though, not for the person being tased.

[mpyne]

I take it you've never received a knife stick blow to the head?

[ryanac]

This is like saying "I take it you've never been shot", like knife stick or gun is the only other option. xD

Do you really think they would have subdued the (already held down by 5 officers) kid asking John Kerry uncomfortable questions with a knife stick if they didn't have tasers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE

Pretty sure they would have just handcuffed him and walked him out of the auditorium, untazed and concussion free.

[darkarmani]

I'd love to see some numbers, but my hunch is that they taser a lot more people now than they would have physically subdued, just because it is lower risk to the officer. Before they might try to handcuff the perp first, but now if there is any indication at all in their opinion, they can just taser.