Locked under bed?
So it's going to be pretty useful when you wake up from the noise downstairs as someone breaks into your house, and you stumble around in the dark knocking stuff over trying to find the keys.
An enterprising Arizona woman has redefined the Tupperware party paradigm for the 21st century, and is hosting girlie get-togethers where security-conscious women can get to grips with the US's fave non-lethal lethal weapon - the Taser. According to the Arizona Republic, Dana Shafman, founder of Shieldher Inc, has already …
She said: "I feel like I'm 6 feet tall and 250 pounds. I'm going to buy one for my mom. It's going to be her 81st birthday present."
This is _not a good thing_. Feeling invulnerable because you have a weapon tends to make people take risks that are foolish and unnecessary. This is compounded by the fact that tazers are single-shot weapons. More than one assailant and you're buggered. Literally.
Given that she has to undergo obligatory background checks, it's the best place until she receives her blessing. Then she can hang it off her charm bracelet if she wants.
If tasers have to be out there, I'm all for women having them, but I would like them to be properly trained. Women are often shot with their own handguns, because they aren't trained to use them, only trained (if at all)to point them. In times of extreme fear and danger, it's good to be able to trust ingrained responses. It's why the police and soldiers train.
That, of course, goes for every citizen, not just women. If citizens packed tasers, would the police be as fast to use them? Or would we see even faster 'pre-emptive' tasings by the folks in blue??
..that other countries and cultures think that there's something very, very wrong with American society.
Changing the colour of the Taser's casing isn't going to stop some over-curious child from either finding it or fiddling with it, is it? Mind you, this is the country where people can buy guns over the counter in supermarkets and keep said guns in desk drawers or glove compartments (for self-defence, of course) and still wonder why so many people get shot all the time?
but it's ok for Taser's as they're *less lethal* - you end up just as dead, just not quite so often and it's more tv-friendly, no messy blood you see (because Yankee telly has for decades promoted the idea that you don't bleed - much - if you get shot.)
the lovely Paris for my icon because... just because..
I feel like throwing series of parties educating everyone on the benefits of lining the interior of your jacket with aluminium foil from the closes supermarket. Wonderful way to deal with cocky idiots who think that they have become giants by yielding an electric cattleprod. I will call it "ShortCircuitWare parties" (TM).
Would a conductive vest protect you from a taser shot? Not well-versed on the science of such things but wouldn't the current from the taser flow through the lower resistance vest rather than through the body - perhaps shorting out the taser in the process?
I guess that the taser's prongs might be only conductive at the very tips which penetrate the skin so I can see a potential problem there. The vest would need to be 'prong proof' as it were.
Can anyone comment on the practicality of such a vest, for example for legitimate protesters with medical conditions* wishing to protect their lives from over-zealous cops?
(*I'm thinking no medical proof required; $199.99 mail order.)
And how long will it be before more I-tasered-myself stories hit the internet?
How many of them do you think will have read the story about the guy (with his cat onlooking) who did just that?
Maybe we'll be lucky to have a Darwin Award contender soon...
Now, where did I put my foil suit with a trailing cape, and wellies?
Is it just me or is there something deeply disturbing about this article?
Soccer moms with stun guns?
These things kill people. The police are trained how to use them so they keep the killing to a minimum when they tase you pre emptively, but after an evening with Dana burning holes in a cardboard cutout of Debi's ex husband, the girls are ready to go.
As for her mothers 81st birthday present, is she getting her mother a taser or is she going to tase her?
That of course highlights a dilema. If as a member of the public you tase someone to death - pre emptively, when the police turn up will they tase you or just blow your head off Dirty Harry style because you are carrying a deadly weapon?
"non-lethal weapon"? Well, it says "non-lethal" on the packaging, but that doesn't mean it isn't. Enough people have died to throw a significant amount of doubt on the claim that it is "non lethal". Less lethal than firearms - ok. "Non-lethal"? No, that's the marketing speaking.
... the crooks get hold of these (which, of course, they will) and wander past a victim 15' away then suddenly zap them.
Bingo, one victim nicely immobilised so the crook can rob/ rape/ whatever the poor sod who thought that because *they* had a taser in their bag they were safe.
"So they can activate it remotely (bare with me)..."
No I will not bare with you, thank you very much! Bare skin would make the Taser even more deadly. I think you mean "bear with me". Bear skin is much thicker, covered in dense fur and of higher electrical resistance. Also, if I had a bear with me, they would probably choose to Taser the bear and not me.
On the subject of anti-taser clothing:
Carbon nano-tubes are already being made into ultra strong threads that could be woven into bullet-proof vests. Their high conductivity should also make them Taser-proof.
I got my girlfriend one of these when they first came out (and I live Arizona too). She's been with me to the shooting range and knows how to shoot, but she isn't strong enough to rack the slide on any gun she's ever held and isn't ready to wield one.
I got her the taser because she was hearing a lot of 'bumps in the night' and sleeps safer having the thing. Yes, it is a limited-range weapon 15' (however many furghlongs that is...) and it's a single-shot, but it is the *thought* of it that provides comfort. She *could* miss or it *could* get taken away, but the fact that it is significantly less likely to kill than a gun, I suppose there is a feeling that she wouldn't have to kill someone and that it she got zapped, there is much less likely a chance that she would get killed. If somone is going to kill you, they are going to set your house on fire and stand outside with a rifle, waiting for you to come running out, not sneak in with a knife- especially with a laser sight on their chest!
Of note, the packaging, backround check, instuction manual and DVD all make it VERY, VERY clear that yes, this thing can kill you. It is purely a psychological benefit as compared to a gun. Maybe you live in a country where people don't have them and they are not needed- that would be great! Unfortunately, that is not where I live... meth and other drugs make people do stupid things and guns are too easy to get here. I'd love to throw them all out, but we can't, so I have to level the playing field.
Of course, now that we subsequently live together, an intruder will face my Glock 27 (which I train with weekly and have a permit for). They are getting two verbal warnings, one of which I hope the 911 (emergency services) Operator will most likely hear and record, then it's game-over.
is that when I was at a conference in Scotsdale bacl in 2001 I read an article in one of the local papers (no, I'm not a US citizen) that was lamenting a strange fact about Arizona's "background check" laws.
It seems (unless it's changed, and I sincerely hope it has) that in AZ the authorities get 10 days to perform the checks - if they fail to acomplish this in within the 10 days, then you are automatically entitled to the weapon, regardless of what you previous history with weapons is.
just wait 'til all the FASHIONABLE people carry them...
i can't wait. very much looking forward to all the twitching people in the street. sure, nonlethal, what could go wrong?
maybe the cops will get tired of filling out the mounds of new paperwork created by all the twitchies, not to mention the stiffs and the odd chemical or electric "accident", and they'll have to restrict this AFTER it gets out of hand (errr...duh?).
to be fair, any civilian who tries one of these on me is going to need that laser sight, because if they miss, i will likely make them eat it. 'course, most ex-military types out there, from any country, would probably do the same.
in Michigan, fortunately, it's illegal for private use (according to the article). local types will still shoot you (that's how Motown gets down).
the Paris icon, dahling, because nothing says "Glam!" (and then "BZZERRT!") like a pink Tazer...
Yeah yeah yeah. Now we need the diamond-encrusted blinged-up golden "ghettotaser" for the fashionable gangsta rapper. Hopefully this will lead to "acceptable" drive-by taserings instead of shootings.
And laser pointer are bad for targeting, because ... people search for the red/green dot instead of for the target. Big mistake.
...appearing soon at your local theater.
1) Taser-related suits will be a growth industry (both the conductive foil-lined ones and the judicial ones).
2) Taser-related deaths will highlight the virtues of even-less-lethal alternatives like pepper spray and innovative net-deploying and other non-penetrating munitions.
Until you've gotten your very own Taser, just tell any would-be assailant the following:
"I must warn you that I know judo, karate, aikido and various other Japanese words!"
Dangerous... nothing more, nothing less... its abundantly obvious after reading the comments by a student of the course...
"I feel like I'm 6 feet tall and 250 pounds." utterly retarded, and extremely dangerous! This woman probably has never handled a weapon in her life, now she'll be running around Arizona thinking shes a special agent from the T.W.A.T. team, tasing every male walking alone because he looks suspicious...
i'd have all too much fun if her and i crossed paths, i too live in Arizona, and i am 6 feet tall, weigh 230pounds and, i carry a gun. i would love to see how well her new found bravery via taser holds up while looking down the barrel of a .40cal H&K
...with relying on a weapon to feel secure is that you're pretty much screwed if taken off guard (which you will be if you get overconfident because you have a weapon on you) or if your weapon is not immediately to hand.
No amount of weapons are going to help you if you feel "6 feet tall and 250 pounds" by virtue of having a weapon on you. No one who harbours that attitude should be allowed a weapon. PERIOD.
Feeling "6 feet tall and 250 pounds" is a recipe for disaster under any circumstances. Even people who /are/ 6 feet tall and 250 pounds tend to exercise reasonable judgement and due caution (as they know they're not invincible) and they avoid areas that may be dangerous and/or keep their wits about them.
Some 90lb weaking who feels invincible merely by carrying a weapon is not going to be keeping their wits about them and is not going to be exercising reasonable judgement or due caution. They would not be exercising the level of caution they would normally exercise if they did not have a weapon and felt vulnerable.
So, when the perp with the gun or knife already drawn enters the equation, they're screwed. Peering at your attacker past the barrel of his firearm is not the time to be reaching for your own weapon - doing so is likely to get you shot.
Knives? There's a reason the cops drill at drawing and firing two shots into the centre of mass within a second and a half - Sgt Dennis Tueller (Salt Lake City Utah Police Dept) wrote an interesting article about it back in 1983 and they named the drill after him. Basically, if the perp has a knife and is within 21' (much further than the range of one of those tasers), you have less than a second and a half to draw and accurately fire the weapon - assuming the perp is "kind" enough to wave it about and make his intentions obvious (rather than get up close, pull it from concealment and ram it into your body at contact range in under half a second - the words "I thought he'd just punched me - and then I realised I was bleeding" spring to mind... you don't always get a warning that they're hostile, let alone armed.)
A weapon is not a panacea and dizzy-bitch housewives selling tasers like they're tupperware (and then keeping them in a locked box with the keys up out of reach of the kids) is not going to do any more than provide other dizzy bitches with an ego wank and lull them into a false sense of security.
Having a weapon on your person in the wrong area of town no more makes you safe or "6 feet tall and 250 pounds" than me carrying a scoped 7mm Magnum rifle up in the bush makes me "The Great White Hunter".
Even if they were to undergo proper training in the use of the weapon, legal ramifications and situational awareness (like through Massad Ayoob's Lethal Force Institute or similar), it's still debatable whether they would be mentally able to use a weapon under stress but at least the LFI or similar would have taught them they're not invincible or "6 feet tall and 250 pounds" and to be cautious and aware of their surroundings - so they'd be less likely to get into danger in the first place.
The USA is seriously fucked up as weapons are sold by PFYs in supermarkets and soccer mums at house parties rather than being sold by proper training centres upon completion of training. Training and practising with them is optional instead of mandatory. And then the untrained morons wander around feeling invincible and that they're just as capable of defending themselves as Josh Hamilton (above), with his weekly training sessions, or a trained police officer.
I'm not opposed to having firearms or tasers for personal defence. By all means have them as there are plenty of illegally-owned weapons out there in the hands of criminals - but FFS learn how to use them properly and learn to be aware of your surroundings so you can either avoid using them or at least have them ready and are competent with them when you do need to use them.
I'm waiting for all the reports on how many perps have robbed someone and scored a nice colour-coordinated taser along with the cash.
I certainly do have the right to defend myself. Moreover, I can be reasonably confident that if I do have to defend myself, usually a black eye is the worst that will happen, because the other guy won't be carrying a gun. And if I misjudge a woman then I'll get a slapped cheek, not 40,000 volts or some toxic chemical to the face.
Americans don't have the right to defend themselves, they have the right to carry guns, which is completely different. Their penises may feel bigger but they're much less safe.
This post has been deleted by its author
According to the British Home Office and the British Crime Survey for 2005/2006 it seems you gents may be laboring under a rather sad misconception.
According to Chapter 5, the UK had 2,420,000 violent crimes which equates to about 3992.8 violent crimes per 100,000. Compared to the US at 469.2 per 100,000. Ahh, but the murder rate must be worse in the US because of the guns!
Granted the BCS is probably inflated, but the crime statistics also do not report on rape and violent crime on persons under 16. <Some limey estimates put people under 16 as the victim in >25% of rapes.>
Outlawing guns, knives, and pointy sticks have done nothing for you. I woud look at other causes, e.g. the gentrification of NY which has driven crime down. Birth rates among the poor could also be looked at as an indicator. The US enjoys a rather healthy influx of criminals due to unrestrictive immigration enforcement.
In short, the US and the UK don't really compare well. California's GDP is very close to the UK's, and as far as population centers... it really doesn't scale at all. That's where the devil would be regarding crime statistics. Crime is most easily linked to urbanization... I wonder which country has more people packed into less area? Compare NY to London and you'll find that London has several times the land area of NY.
Can't y'all just get down from your high horse for a minute and talk about the real issue here?
What's the purpose of giving housewives tasers? To make them feel safer. Does it? Apparently so. Is it an inordinate risk? Considering that, per capita, swimming pools kill more people than accidental firearm discharges, and that tasers are far less lethal than firearms, I would say that it seems so.
YMMV of course.
(Incidentally, the only time someone attempted to rob me was in Camden. I've worked in the worst areas of DC, LA, and Las Vegas and never been bothered... but I still don't hold it against you guys.)
Not keeping up to date with current figures but happily quoting Bill Hicks:
"In the United States last year, we had 32,000 deaths from hand guns. In the UK, 13 deaths from hand guns. Let's look at those figures again because there a bit baffling at first. USA - and i think you know how we feel about guns, woot im getting a stiffy just saying the fucking word - 32,000 deaths from hand guns. In the UK where noone has hand guns, 13 deaths from hand guns.
But there's no connection and you'd be a fool and communist to make one..."
99.8% of statistics are made up on the spot.
What you seem to be confusing (deliberately or otherwise) is that of the british figures, probably much less than 1% involved guns OR murder, while over 75% of the US figures probably involved BOTH guns AND murder.
Ever heard of a Straw Man argument ? (Hint - violent crime does not equate to murder by firearm).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019