Friday, April 29, 2005
The use of stun guns is progressive and healthy
As I've blogged about recently, news reports suggest that at least one legitimate competitor, Stinger Systems of North Carolina, has entered the stun gun market. This indicates that stun guns are becoming a permanent fixture in law enforcement’s arsenal -- a development I welcome as a healthy response to the realities of human behavior.
A number of human rights groups seem to be fighting stun guns every step of the way. While it is healthy in a free society to subject new practices to the microscope, people need to understand that the use of stun guns is healthy as well, an improvement in the relationship between ordinary citizens and law enforcement.
The reality is, some humans are violent, and police frequently face the tough decision of when to resort to deadly force. With a stun gun, law enforcement now has a tool to safely diffuse situations that, in the past, may have resulted in certain death.
A bullet is designed to kill. A stun is designed to incapacitate someone temporarily. Police officers must not abuse stun guns or resort to using the weapons too quickly in any given situation, but these are challenges that proper training can solve, just as it has with the use of pepper spray.
On April 25, The Associated Press again reported on the rise of Stinger Systems, a North Carolina-based company that has shipped samples of its stun guns to more than 1,000 interested law enforcement agencies.
This market is only going to expand and become more competitive. It means stun guns are here to stay.
On April 23, John Moore of The Morning News reported on research from the Department of Justice suggesting that stun guns have made law enforcement safer for police and civilians.
Stun guns are safe and preferable to traditional firearms. The focus of debate must shift from a discussion of halting their use to one of managing their use.
In its press releases, Stinger continually claims to manufacture a stun gun that is safer than the counterpart from Taser, the world's largest manufacturer of stun guns.
The two companies, as the Associated Press report suggests, are at odds over the sale of stun guns to civilians. Stinger’s CEO, Bob Gruder, is on record as questioning Taser’s wisdom in marketing the weapons to the general public. Stinger’s weapon is also different than Taser’s, utilizing a small amount of gunpowder vs. nitrogen, which Taser’s uses.
Gruder is off the mark. All we need to do is to restrict and regulate civilians’ use of stun guns, just like we do with traditional firearms.
A stun gun is safe for civilians who receive proper training. It is, in fact, the perfect weapon for young women who seek an alternative to mace or pepper spray to protect themselves against stalkers and sexual predators.
As I've blogged about recently, news reports suggest that at least one legitimate competitor, Stinger Systems of North Carolina, has entered the stun gun market. This indicates that stun guns are becoming a permanent fixture in law enforcement’s arsenal -- a development I welcome as a healthy response to the realities of human behavior.
A number of human rights groups seem to be fighting stun guns every step of the way. While it is healthy in a free society to subject new practices to the microscope, people need to understand that the use of stun guns is healthy as well, an improvement in the relationship between ordinary citizens and law enforcement.
The reality is, some humans are violent, and police frequently face the tough decision of when to resort to deadly force. With a stun gun, law enforcement now has a tool to safely diffuse situations that, in the past, may have resulted in certain death.
A bullet is designed to kill. A stun is designed to incapacitate someone temporarily. Police officers must not abuse stun guns or resort to using the weapons too quickly in any given situation, but these are challenges that proper training can solve, just as it has with the use of pepper spray.
On April 25, The Associated Press again reported on the rise of Stinger Systems, a North Carolina-based company that has shipped samples of its stun guns to more than 1,000 interested law enforcement agencies.
This market is only going to expand and become more competitive. It means stun guns are here to stay.
On April 23, John Moore of The Morning News reported on research from the Department of Justice suggesting that stun guns have made law enforcement safer for police and civilians.
Stun guns are safe and preferable to traditional firearms. The focus of debate must shift from a discussion of halting their use to one of managing their use.
In its press releases, Stinger continually claims to manufacture a stun gun that is safer than the counterpart from Taser, the world's largest manufacturer of stun guns.
The two companies, as the Associated Press report suggests, are at odds over the sale of stun guns to civilians. Stinger’s CEO, Bob Gruder, is on record as questioning Taser’s wisdom in marketing the weapons to the general public. Stinger’s weapon is also different than Taser’s, utilizing a small amount of gunpowder vs. nitrogen, which Taser’s uses.
Gruder is off the mark. All we need to do is to restrict and regulate civilians’ use of stun guns, just like we do with traditional firearms.
A stun gun is safe for civilians who receive proper training. It is, in fact, the perfect weapon for young women who seek an alternative to mace or pepper spray to protect themselves against stalkers and sexual predators.
# posted by IDTheftSecurity.com @ 6:56 AM 
