Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Civilian ownership of stun guns warrants fewer safety measures than those for firearms
Concern over civilians' access to stun guns has prompted lawmakers in at least one state to require the kind of background checks long the domain of firearm sales. I agree with commonsense safety measures but also encourage legislators to differentiate between stuns and bullets.
Lawmakers' constituents learn from the news about the worst examples of stun gun misuse. Even though these infractions, mostly law enforcement's, are exceptions to the rule, people get scared and then overreact to the thought of civilians also having access to stun guns.
On June 4, the Chicago Tribune (link unavailable) reported on a new law in Illinois that requires any civilian stun gun buyer to undergo a background check and wait 24 hours before obtaining the newly purchased weapon. Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich signed the law before a media audience and, according to the article, also "claimed victory" over the National Rifle Association by closing a loophole that had been allowing people to avoid the hassles of background checks when buying firearms at private gun shows.
While a background check for a stun gun purchase is reasonable, the slope is a slippery one for Illinois, and I encourage the state's governor and legislators not to place inordinate restrictions on civilian stun gun use. These are useful weapons, after all, for self defense.
Politicians must refrain from grandstanding. Stun guns are not firearms, and it is dishonest politics to conflate these two very different kinds of weapon types to pander for votes and support. The fuss over stun gun safety, I suspect, is partially a byproduct of all the media attention on Taser.
This year has beset Arizona-based Taser International, the world's largest stun gun manufacturer, with unfavorable publicity related to a rollercoaster stock ride and questions about proprietary research into the safety of stun guns.
It's important to remember that stun guns have been available to civilians for a long time. I've trained people on how to use them. This is a useful weapon for self defense, and people who demonize it are misguided.
Concern over civilians' access to stun guns has prompted lawmakers in at least one state to require the kind of background checks long the domain of firearm sales. I agree with commonsense safety measures but also encourage legislators to differentiate between stuns and bullets.
Lawmakers' constituents learn from the news about the worst examples of stun gun misuse. Even though these infractions, mostly law enforcement's, are exceptions to the rule, people get scared and then overreact to the thought of civilians also having access to stun guns.
On June 4, the Chicago Tribune (link unavailable) reported on a new law in Illinois that requires any civilian stun gun buyer to undergo a background check and wait 24 hours before obtaining the newly purchased weapon. Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich signed the law before a media audience and, according to the article, also "claimed victory" over the National Rifle Association by closing a loophole that had been allowing people to avoid the hassles of background checks when buying firearms at private gun shows.
While a background check for a stun gun purchase is reasonable, the slope is a slippery one for Illinois, and I encourage the state's governor and legislators not to place inordinate restrictions on civilian stun gun use. These are useful weapons, after all, for self defense.
Politicians must refrain from grandstanding. Stun guns are not firearms, and it is dishonest politics to conflate these two very different kinds of weapon types to pander for votes and support. The fuss over stun gun safety, I suspect, is partially a byproduct of all the media attention on Taser.
This year has beset Arizona-based Taser International, the world's largest stun gun manufacturer, with unfavorable publicity related to a rollercoaster stock ride and questions about proprietary research into the safety of stun guns.
It's important to remember that stun guns have been available to civilians for a long time. I've trained people on how to use them. This is a useful weapon for self defense, and people who demonize it are misguided.
# posted by IDTheftSecurity.com @ 8:19 AM 
