Talk:Project grants/Taser: Difference between revisions
(This is excellent) |
(re to Stevie) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
I'm sorry to burst the bubble, but have you done a full cost / benefit analysis that leads you to believe that a taser would be more effective than, say, CS gas or a water cannon? Can you also show that the taser (or other non-deadly weapon) will be used collaboratively? [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:14, 1 April 2014 (BST) | I'm sorry to burst the bubble, but have you done a full cost / benefit analysis that leads you to believe that a taser would be more effective than, say, CS gas or a water cannon? Can you also show that the taser (or other non-deadly weapon) will be used collaboratively? [[User:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|Stevie Benton (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Stevie Benton (WMUK)|talk]]) 15:14, 1 April 2014 (BST) | ||
:Correct use of a taser requires at least two people, the taserer and the taseree. Many models of taser allow a skilled operator to taser two people at the same time (when they are standing sufficiently close to each other). In this respect I think it is sufficiently collaborative. While a water cannon is more collaborative in this respect, I'm not sure that being seen to be using that much water would be a good thing for the charity's environmental credentials. [[user:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] (talk: [[user talk:Thryduulf|local]] | [[w:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wp]] | [[wikt:user talk:Thryduulf|en.wikt]]) 16:18, 1 April 2014 (BST) | |||
===Endorsements=== | ===Endorsements=== | ||
*''Community member: add your name and rationale here.'' | *''Community member: add your name and rationale here.'' | ||
#[[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage]] As everyone knows I'm in favour of violence as a rule. Perhaps we can explore offering miscreants the chance to makes a donation instead of being tasered? Obviously we would taser them irregardless. | #[[User:Katherine Bavage (WMUK)|Katherine Bavage]] As everyone knows I'm in favour of violence as a rule. Perhaps we can explore offering miscreants the chance to makes a donation instead of being tasered? Obviously we would taser them irregardless. | ||
Revision as of 16:18, 1 April 2014
I'm not certain you are being specific enough with your targets. Can you provide a ball-park figure for how many taserings you expect will be required each month? Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 14:53, 1 April 2014 (BST)
- Perhaps target practice should be built into the proposal? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2014 (BST)
I'd argue that some volunteers already have access to tasers as well as other non-lethal weapons. If there is existing equipment available then that should be used before any significant expenditure can be justified.--Stuart Prior (WMUK) (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2014 (BST)
I'm sorry to burst the bubble, but have you done a full cost / benefit analysis that leads you to believe that a taser would be more effective than, say, CS gas or a water cannon? Can you also show that the taser (or other non-deadly weapon) will be used collaboratively? Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2014 (BST)
- Correct use of a taser requires at least two people, the taserer and the taseree. Many models of taser allow a skilled operator to taser two people at the same time (when they are standing sufficiently close to each other). In this respect I think it is sufficiently collaborative. While a water cannon is more collaborative in this respect, I'm not sure that being seen to be using that much water would be a good thing for the charity's environmental credentials. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 16:18, 1 April 2014 (BST)
Endorsements
- Community member: add your name and rationale here.
- Katherine Bavage As everyone knows I'm in favour of violence as a rule. Perhaps we can explore offering miscreants the chance to makes a donation instead of being tasered? Obviously we would taser them irregardless.