Wednesday, May 25, 2005
An increase in third-party scientific attention will vindicate stun gun technology
We are getting to the red meat in the raging debate over stun gun technology.
At an upcoming yearly conference for bioelectromagnetics, two scientific societies will examine stun gun technology. Some human rights organizations say the deaths of about 100 people may be attributable to stun gun shocks. I have always questioned these groups' motives and look forward to reviewing the growing body of scientific evidence that, I predict, will vindicate stun guns once and for all.
A May 20 press release issued by Aegis Industries, Inc.—a stun technology manufacturer—announced the upcoming Bioelectromagnetics 2005 Conference. During this June 19 meeting in Dublin, Ireland, The Bioelectromagnetics Society and The European BioElectromagnetics Association, according to the release, plan to look at stun technology's effects on cell tissue and organs.
I predict that scientists' findings, over time, will vindicate stun gun technology. It is possible that stun guns have killed a handful of people, but this is not the point. Stun guns are 'less-then-lethal' weaponry. They have never been 100 percent safe—and, by the way, have never been used by law enforcement for such a mistaken reason.
Earlier this year, the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies issued a report asserting the safety of stun guns if "used appropriately." The report also called for the kind of scientific inquiry that will take place at the bioelectromagnetics conference.
A person has an excellent, nearly certain chance of living after sustaining a stun gun shock. Such is not the case with a bullet, which is designed to and can easily kill a person. It's about time for scientists to add credence to what all already know.
We are getting to the red meat in the raging debate over stun gun technology.
At an upcoming yearly conference for bioelectromagnetics, two scientific societies will examine stun gun technology. Some human rights organizations say the deaths of about 100 people may be attributable to stun gun shocks. I have always questioned these groups' motives and look forward to reviewing the growing body of scientific evidence that, I predict, will vindicate stun guns once and for all.
A May 20 press release issued by Aegis Industries, Inc.—a stun technology manufacturer—announced the upcoming Bioelectromagnetics 2005 Conference. During this June 19 meeting in Dublin, Ireland, The Bioelectromagnetics Society and The European BioElectromagnetics Association, according to the release, plan to look at stun technology's effects on cell tissue and organs.
I predict that scientists' findings, over time, will vindicate stun gun technology. It is possible that stun guns have killed a handful of people, but this is not the point. Stun guns are 'less-then-lethal' weaponry. They have never been 100 percent safe—and, by the way, have never been used by law enforcement for such a mistaken reason.
Earlier this year, the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies issued a report asserting the safety of stun guns if "used appropriately." The report also called for the kind of scientific inquiry that will take place at the bioelectromagnetics conference.
A person has an excellent, nearly certain chance of living after sustaining a stun gun shock. Such is not the case with a bullet, which is designed to and can easily kill a person. It's about time for scientists to add credence to what all already know.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Self-imposed stun gun use guidelines should help police regain credibility and trust
Through self-imposed guidelines, some police departments are beginning to regulate their use of stun guns. As I've argued before, law enforcement's decision to make changes will go a long way to restore credibility and trust even as more human rights groups publicly decry these weapons.
People want to think their elected officials and those who enforce the laws have feelings. Some of that trust has been lost in the translation as law enforcement has begun to use stun guns more and more. A public act of concern about stun gun use by the people who use them will do wonders for the weapon's public relations woes. Public announcements of concern from police who use stun guns should help to reverse the tide.
On May 10, Alan Gathright of the San Francisco Chronicle reported on a regional human rights organization's demand that San Jose, Calif. Police halt stun gun use immediately. The Coalition for Justice and Accountability cited concerns that other groups have over the past months.
We have heard the human rights organizations' concerns time and time again. While nobody is ever 100 percent wrong, these people come pretty close to it when they talk about stun guns.
Yes, stun guns come with risks. No weapon is 100 percent safe, but this has never been the point. If police opt to use stun guns more often than they use their firearms, the net gain should be much safer circumstances for the public. This will be especially true if we develop strict guidelines for usage, as some police departments and associations of law enforcement professionals already have.
The Kansas City Star's Christine Vendel reported on May 10 that Kansas City police have "adopted a policy [that] clarifies situations in which officers can use" stun guns. The May 8 editorial page of Florida Today, in a piece calling for more restrictions on stun gun use, cited Brevard County, Fl. police chiefs who have also recommended new guidelines for stun gun use.
Industry and law enforcement are moving in the right direction on stun gun use. Soon, the extremists' exaggerations will be evident. We must reign in the hyperbole and think clearly about stun guns, which are here to stay.
Through self-imposed guidelines, some police departments are beginning to regulate their use of stun guns. As I've argued before, law enforcement's decision to make changes will go a long way to restore credibility and trust even as more human rights groups publicly decry these weapons.
People want to think their elected officials and those who enforce the laws have feelings. Some of that trust has been lost in the translation as law enforcement has begun to use stun guns more and more. A public act of concern about stun gun use by the people who use them will do wonders for the weapon's public relations woes. Public announcements of concern from police who use stun guns should help to reverse the tide.
On May 10, Alan Gathright of the San Francisco Chronicle reported on a regional human rights organization's demand that San Jose, Calif. Police halt stun gun use immediately. The Coalition for Justice and Accountability cited concerns that other groups have over the past months.
We have heard the human rights organizations' concerns time and time again. While nobody is ever 100 percent wrong, these people come pretty close to it when they talk about stun guns.
Yes, stun guns come with risks. No weapon is 100 percent safe, but this has never been the point. If police opt to use stun guns more often than they use their firearms, the net gain should be much safer circumstances for the public. This will be especially true if we develop strict guidelines for usage, as some police departments and associations of law enforcement professionals already have.
The Kansas City Star's Christine Vendel reported on May 10 that Kansas City police have "adopted a policy [that] clarifies situations in which officers can use" stun guns. The May 8 editorial page of Florida Today, in a piece calling for more restrictions on stun gun use, cited Brevard County, Fl. police chiefs who have also recommended new guidelines for stun gun use.
Industry and law enforcement are moving in the right direction on stun gun use. Soon, the extremists' exaggerations will be evident. We must reign in the hyperbole and think clearly about stun guns, which are here to stay.
Law enforcement must adopt and publicize guidelines for stun gun use
Reports continue to pile about law enforcement's possible misuse of stun guns. Even though the degree of public and media outcry over stun guns may be unwarranted, it is time for law enforcement to develop guidelines for these weapons' use.
A unified stance must communicate responsibility. It wouldn't hurt for law enforcement to publicize these guidelines, once developed. Right now, police across the country are getting an earful about how bad stun guns are. A few bad apples have given law enforcement a bad name in the stun gun debate. It's time to fix this image problem.
Some reports of alleged stun gun misuse have been egregious.
Atlanta, Ga.'s WXIA-TV News 11 ran a story on an incident that occurred at a prison in the state's Gwinnett County. A videotape of the incident showed guards stunning an inmate five times. The man later died.
The news we see about stun guns typically skews toward the negative. Incidents such as the death at Gwinnett County's jail will always command widespread media coverage. Such a story is tragic, and the circumstances demand investigation. Yet many people are not being killed, and it is precisely because police officers now have the choice of drawing stun guns instead of firearms.
Media opinion pages continue to react to the perceived problems of stun gun safety. On May 3, the St. Petersburg Times published an editorial questioning the wisdom behind stun gun sales to civilians, a market that the world's largest stun gun manufacturer, Arizona-based Taser International, is pursuing.
There is a growing backlash to stun guns. While the question of whether civilians should be able to use stun guns is another matter—and I believe they should—law enforcement can do much to rehabilitate its own image in this area. I urge law enforcement agencies to develop and then aggressively publicize well-thought-out guidelines to govern stun gun use.
Reports continue to pile about law enforcement's possible misuse of stun guns. Even though the degree of public and media outcry over stun guns may be unwarranted, it is time for law enforcement to develop guidelines for these weapons' use.
A unified stance must communicate responsibility. It wouldn't hurt for law enforcement to publicize these guidelines, once developed. Right now, police across the country are getting an earful about how bad stun guns are. A few bad apples have given law enforcement a bad name in the stun gun debate. It's time to fix this image problem.
Some reports of alleged stun gun misuse have been egregious.
Atlanta, Ga.'s WXIA-TV News 11 ran a story on an incident that occurred at a prison in the state's Gwinnett County. A videotape of the incident showed guards stunning an inmate five times. The man later died.
The news we see about stun guns typically skews toward the negative. Incidents such as the death at Gwinnett County's jail will always command widespread media coverage. Such a story is tragic, and the circumstances demand investigation. Yet many people are not being killed, and it is precisely because police officers now have the choice of drawing stun guns instead of firearms.
Media opinion pages continue to react to the perceived problems of stun gun safety. On May 3, the St. Petersburg Times published an editorial questioning the wisdom behind stun gun sales to civilians, a market that the world's largest stun gun manufacturer, Arizona-based Taser International, is pursuing.
There is a growing backlash to stun guns. While the question of whether civilians should be able to use stun guns is another matter—and I believe they should—law enforcement can do much to rehabilitate its own image in this area. I urge law enforcement agencies to develop and then aggressively publicize well-thought-out guidelines to govern stun gun use.
