Monday, July 11, 2005
The battle over stun guns will set the stage for general acceptance
Reaction to stun gun use continues to build.
A legal battle inSolano County , Calif.
How these and other battles resolve will be critical to the public’s future comfort level with the weapon. Stun gun use is approaching a cross roads. Powerful forces from all reaches of the philosophical spectrum are vying to set the course of this useful, humane weapon’s future.
According to a June 22 article in the Vallejo Times Herald [link unavailable], a Solano County Grand Jury called for police to come up with improved rules to self-govern the use of stun guns.
I agree with the Solano County Grand Jury. I always agree when someone decides law enforcement should be careful with its use of new weapons. Many want to see stun guns become a normal part of law enforcement’s less-than-lethal arsenal under reasonable guidelines. I count myself among these people. I have always said the stun gun is also an excellent alternative to pepper spray for civilians seeking weapons for self-defense.
But other groups in the national discourse seem to embrace a knee-jerk reaction and dismiss all stun gun use as nefarious. Their messages can affect public opinion in fundamental ways to obstruct reason. Some groups seem to adhere to dogma and pie-in-the-sky ideologies that prevent any acceptance of stun gun use whatsoever. This kind of attitude unnecessarily maligns what is essentially a vast improvement over firearms both for law enforcement and civilians seeking a to defend themselves in cases of attack.
In a press release the same day that the Vallejo Times Herald article was published, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) called on the U.S. Department of Agriculture to look into Taser International’s research on animals.
Organizations such as PETA, for instance, and others have agendas. Agendas, no matter their worth, benefit from publicity. Taser is in the news. PETA will get publicity for an extremist pro-animal cause by riding the news Taser itself generates. So will others.
If PETA and other activist organizations actually tried to generate their own news, they wouldn’t even be in the news all that much. They would be placed only in other activist publications. According to a June 22 “Stock Trading Alert” by eLocity, Arizona-based Taser has recently received orders, “including one from an unnamed law enforcement agency,” for one of its stun gun devices to the tune of $1 million.
Taser is also going after, as reported by The Motley Fool and others, USA Today’s parent for allegedly publishing inaccurate statements about how many amperes the stun gun company’s weapon generates. Some say Taser’s suit is retaliation against what the company considers to be unfair stun gun coverage. I agree, but it has become cool to denigrate stun gun technology. To opine against stun gun use is the latest activist’s rallying call du jour.
The stun gun story is about more than public policy. It’s about even more than politics. The stun gun debate is about money. There is money to be made in stun gun technology, and whoever figures out how to reconcile public opinion with the promise of less-than-lethal weaponry is poised to make lots of money indeed.
Reaction to stun gun use continues to build.
A legal battle in
How these and other battles resolve will be critical to the public’s future comfort level with the weapon. Stun gun use is approaching a cross roads. Powerful forces from all reaches of the philosophical spectrum are vying to set the course of this useful, humane weapon’s future.
According to a June 22 article in the Vallejo Times Herald [link unavailable], a Solano County Grand Jury called for police to come up with improved rules to self-govern the use of stun guns.
I agree with the Solano County Grand Jury. I always agree when someone decides law enforcement should be careful with its use of new weapons. Many want to see stun guns become a normal part of law enforcement’s less-than-lethal arsenal under reasonable guidelines. I count myself among these people. I have always said the stun gun is also an excellent alternative to pepper spray for civilians seeking weapons for self-defense.
But other groups in the national discourse seem to embrace a knee-jerk reaction and dismiss all stun gun use as nefarious. Their messages can affect public opinion in fundamental ways to obstruct reason. Some groups seem to adhere to dogma and pie-in-the-sky ideologies that prevent any acceptance of stun gun use whatsoever. This kind of attitude unnecessarily maligns what is essentially a vast improvement over firearms both for law enforcement and civilians seeking a to defend themselves in cases of attack.
In a press release the same day that the Vallejo Times Herald article was published, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) called on the U.S. Department of Agriculture to look into Taser International’s research on animals.
Organizations such as PETA, for instance, and others have agendas. Agendas, no matter their worth, benefit from publicity. Taser is in the news. PETA will get publicity for an extremist pro-animal cause by riding the news Taser itself generates. So will others.
If PETA and other activist organizations actually tried to generate their own news, they wouldn’t even be in the news all that much. They would be placed only in other activist publications. According to a June 22 “Stock Trading Alert” by eLocity, Arizona-based Taser has recently received orders, “including one from an unnamed law enforcement agency,” for one of its stun gun devices to the tune of $1 million.
Taser is also going after, as reported by The Motley Fool and others, USA Today’s parent for allegedly publishing inaccurate statements about how many amperes the stun gun company’s weapon generates. Some say Taser’s suit is retaliation against what the company considers to be unfair stun gun coverage. I agree, but it has become cool to denigrate stun gun technology. To opine against stun gun use is the latest activist’s rallying call du jour.
The stun gun story is about more than public policy. It’s about even more than politics. The stun gun debate is about money. There is money to be made in stun gun technology, and whoever figures out how to reconcile public opinion with the promise of less-than-lethal weaponry is poised to make lots of money indeed.
# posted by IDTheftSecurity.com @ 2:58 PM 
