| [Ben]: | To tase or not to tase ... | No discussion found | I agree with Chris Watson (bold - emphasis mine). Tasers are just too dangerous and too likely to hurt someone. I'll just stick with my .45 to make Amnesty International happy.
Tasers for me, not for thee.
ALBERT LEA, Minn. — Gun shop owner Milan Hart feels so strongly about the benefits and safety of the Taser stun gun, he was willing to take a 50,000-volt hit from one on camera to prove his point.
"It's intense," said Hart, describing the impact to FOX News.
So, too, is the recent controversy targeting Taser's updated consumer model.
Amnesty International says the newest stunner is too risky for public use and claims it has documented more than 70 people killed by police Tasers since 2001.
"We're calling for an outright ban on the consumer version," said Amnesty spokesman Christopher Watson.
But the company itself says its products are not to blame and contends that both the police and civilian models are safe. Executives from Taser, which has sold stun devices to the public for more than a decade, admit their products aren't completely risk-free but argue that medical research has come up short in documenting clear risks.
"There is always a chance that something can go wrong," said law enforcement consultant Steve Ashley. "But there have been tens of thousands of exposures with very few injuries. Most of the injuries have happened because someone falls down after being shocked."
Currently, citizens may use Tasers for personal protection in 43 states. But some maintain such devices should be left to the authorities — not the public. |
| 2005-03-04
Permanent Link:
To tase or not to tase ... |
