1. Dull tipped, won't penetrate bodies.
2. While in use, no direct body contact between you and the other.
3. Effective, since human doesn't really have much strength in the chest / stomach area.
I don't think Mirror chose a good picture for the use, this one's probably better: http://news.china.com.cn/txt/2010-04/30/content_19937607.htm
Honestly better than guns and more effective than shields.
Turkish war of independence from whom? Are you referring to the Balkan wars of independence from the Ottoman Empire?
If the people have guns, then the authority will say they have to resort to tanks.
If the people have tanks, the authority will say they have to resort to nukes.
What a confused, surreal train of though made you say that? Regular citizens with guns vs. one of the biggest armies in the world, which can reach them by ground and setup an endless supply chain while simultaneously blockading Hong Kong. That's just forfeiting whatever international political capital you have earned and trading it for misery.
Nothing would please more China than having those civilian protesters plausibly described as a military group.
For example, the French Republicans didn’t march into a field and square off head-to-head with the royal army. They stormed the Bastille to get the weapons there then caused a bunch of ruckus: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storming_of_the_Bastille. What followed was a complex mix of political events and violence that led to the downfall of the monarchy.
A more recent example: Bangladesh won its independence when fighting caused Bangladeshi members of the Pakistan military to defect. The hostilities then drew in military support from neighboring India. But you can’t start the war if all you have is kitchen knives.
Perhaps that's your interpretation, but the second amendment doesn't specifically allow or disallow any particular type of armament (an armament being defined in the dictionary as "military weapons and equipment").
Reasonable people agree that not all military weapons should be able to be owned by civilians - I don't think anyone serious is coming out in defense of civilians owning intercontinental nuclear missiles, for example. Where the line is drawn is a matter of opinion (and disagreement).
This does not mean that I am in favor of private citizens today having nukes, or even howitzers. I'm just saying, at the time of the Second Amendment, it was more or less unlimited.
Edit: This was an unfounded question, see below.
You are thinking of tesla troopers in RA2?
For some reason, when I read the article, I got the impression the "forks" delivered an electric shock. I went back and re-checked, and it says no such thing. I have no idea where that came from.
> It is believed that some of the crowd control devices are capable of emitting electric shocks in a bid to neutralise any perceived threat...
> The control weapons, which potentially have the ability to shock people, have been part of the training...
> Amnesty added that it has information that more than 200 shock capturing forks were sold to the Linhe District Public Security Bureau back in 2014.
It kinda implies these devices could deliver an electric shock without actually stating so..
also in the text
"It is believed ... some .. devices are capable of emitting electric shocks... "
It's a strange way to write an article. Unless you are doing it for the clicks.
Not a man catcher?
> repeatedly do this without long-lasting identifiable physical traces, makes them a favoured tool of torture
if i understand this correctly it seems that the risks are either pretty low or the artifacts don't last very long.
anyway, is the mechanism similar to e.g. Taser? if so seems much ado about nothing here, American cops have been getting off on using those for decades
and this is the tool?
what a twist!