trio@idis.UUCP (04/12/85)
[this is a .357 mag bug killer]
I feel rather guilty planning to purchase a firearm for self defense, when some
of you in *certain* states can't do the same. So, to ease my conscience, I
came up with this alternative.
Have you ever seen the guns they use to mark cattle or shoot tranquilizer
darts into animals (the same Nel-Spot 007 pistol used in the National Outdoor
Survival Games)? Well, why not use them on the animals in the street? Just
load up one of them darts with some incapacitating agent. It's not a
firearm, technically, since it uses a CO2 cartridge to propel the projectile.
Thus, when some punk comes up to you, intending to do some serious damage
to your soon-to-be corpse, you pull out your gun (it's a rather nasty looking
beast) from your shoulder holster (it's too big to conceal with a conventional
hip holster), and BLAST him!!!
The only drawback is that someone has to develop a safe, yet effective,
incapacitating agent. I do not condone this use of the gun for defense
usage unless you check the laws carefully, preferably with the help of an
attorney.
But, then again, it does serve double duty, should you want to mark some
cattle!
--
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Nick Trio -If you don't like the answer,
Grad Student - Sociology don't ask the question-
U. of Pittsburgh
...{decvax, ihnp4, duke}!mcnc!idis!trio
---All of these views are mine and no one else's. So What?---mercury@ut-ngp.UUCP (Larry E. Baker) (04/13/85)
[guns don't kill kids...kids kill kids] > Have you ever seen the guns they use to mark cattle or shoot tranquilizer > darts into animals (the same Nel-Spot 007 pistol used in the National Outdoor > Survival Games)? Well, why not use them on the animals in the street? Just > load up one of them darts with some incapacitating agent. It's not a > firearm, technically, since it uses a CO2 cartridge to propel the projectile. > > Thus, when some punk comes up to you, intending to do some serious damage > to your soon-to-be corpse, you pull out your gun (it's a rather nasty looking > beast) from your shoulder holster (it's too big to conceal with a conventional > hip holster), and BLAST him!!! An interesting thought. Like you said, though: it won't be useful 'till someone can come up with an immobilizing agent that not only works nearly instantaneously, but can't overdose and/or kill the victim accidentally. Ahh, don't you mean 'jerk from your hip holster; it's too big to conceal with a conventional shoulder holster?' Visions of Dirty Harry walking through Toumbstone come to mind. I personally like the 'taser' devices that have come out not-all-that- recently. A *very* bright light attached to a little device that shoots little wires into the assaliant and runs something like 40,000 volts through him. It looks like a pocket flashlight. I've seen it demonstrated; it seems to be pretty effective against a single assailant. -- - Larry Baker @ The University of Texas at Austin - ... {seismo!ut-sally | decvax!allegra | tektronix!ihnp4}!ut-ngp!mercury - ... mercury@ut-ngp.ARPA
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/15/85)
In article <1602@ut-ngp.UUCP> mercury@ut-ngp.UUCP (Larry E. Baker) writes: > An interesting thought. Like you said, though: it won't be useful 'till > someone can come up with an immobilizing agent that not only works nearly > instantaneously, but can't overdose and/or kill the victim accidentally. Great. Just what we need. Then anyone who wants to commit a crime will simply shoot first, walk up to you, and do whatever he or she wants. > I personally like the 'taser' devices that have come out not-all-that- > recently. A *very* bright light attached to a little device that > shoots little wires into the assaliant and runs something like 40,000 > volts through him. It looks like a pocket flashlight. I've seen it > demonstrated; it seems to be pretty effective against a single assailant. This has the advantage that it's not as versatile a weapon as a gun, so it won't be taken up much for commiting street crime. Disadvantages include the possibility that it could be lethal, depending upon the condition of the zapee (though I haven't herad of anyone dying from these yet.) There's also the obnoxious possibility of its use for torture, though there's no shortage (ugh, a pun) of electric cattle prods and other such items which can also be used. I think the quest for safety through an ideal personal weapon is a fantasy, because your potential opposition will have access to the same weapons. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
jrrt@ahuta.UUCP (r.mitchell) (04/15/85)
REFERENCES: <355@idis.UUCP>
Nick Trio:
I feel rather guilty planning to purchase a firearm for self
defense, when some of you in *certain* states can't do the same.
So, to ease my conscience, I came up with this alternative.
Have you ever seen the guns they use to mark cattle or shoot
tranquilizer darts into animals (the same Nel-Spot 007 pistol used
in the National Outdoor Survival Games)? Well, why not use them on
the animals in the street?
In New Jersey, those guns are classified as "pistols," and require
one to get a pistol permit from the authorities before use. I learned
this from the NJ State Police when I tried to organize a Survival
game in this state.
Rob Mitchell {allegra,ihnp4}!ahuta!jrrthollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (04/16/85)
In article <468@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >> I personally like the 'taser' devices that have come out not-all-that- >> recently. > > Disadvantages >include the possibility that it could be lethal, depending upon the >condition of the zapee (though I haven't herad of anyone dying from >these yet.) I heard on the local news a day or two ago that someone here in L.A. died after being shot with a Taser. I expect the lawsuits are warming up. -- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
mike@amdcad.UUCP (Mike Parker) (04/17/85)
> > I personally like the 'taser' devices that have come out not-all-that- > > recently. A *very* bright light attached to a little device that > > shoots little wires into the assaliant and runs something like 40,000 > > volts through him. > > This has the advantage that it's not as versatile a weapon as a gun, so > it won't be taken up much for commiting street crime. Disadvantages > include the possibility that it could be lethal, depending upon the > condition of the zapee (though I haven't herad of anyone dying from > these yet.) According to the San Jose Mercury, a man died last week after the policemen who were arresting him used a taser to subdue him. He apparently did not die immediately, so it is not certain that the taser was to blame. An autopsy was to be performed. If they print the results, I'll post them. Mike @ AMDCAD
brent@cadovax.UUCP (Brent Rector) (04/19/85)
>> I personally like the 'taser' devices that have come out not-all-that- >> recently. A *very* bright light attached to a little device that >> shoots little wires into the assaliant and runs something like 40,000 >> volts through him. It looks like a pocket flashlight. I've seen it >> demonstrated; it seems to be pretty effective against a single assailant. > >This has the advantage that it's not as versatile a weapon as a gun, so >it won't be taken up much for commiting street crime. Disadvantages >include the possibility that it could be lethal, depending upon the >condition of the zapee (though I haven't herad of anyone dying from >these yet.) Actually here in Los Angeles last week a man died in police custody after having been subdued by a shot from a taser. I believe the reported cause of death was a heart attack. The police were claiming it was probably due to the drugs the man was allegedly high on rather than any result of the high voltage from the taser. As usual the reporting of the event ended within a couple of days and I haven't heard what the coroners report was (assuming it has been completed).
crandell@ut-sally.UUCP (Jim Crandell) (04/19/85)
> > > I personally like the 'taser' devices that have come out not-all-that- > > > recently. > > This has the advantage that it's not as versatile a weapon as a gun, so > > it won't be taken up much for commiting street crime. Interesting theory. I say that because the first time I ever heard of the Taser was 11 years ago, while I was in California. The incident that brought it into the news was its use in -- you guessed it -- an armed robbery. ``Shrewd,'' I said to myself. ``The average individual, having no experience with the thing, doesn't perceive it as a serious threat, so in the public (and by rather trivial extension, legal) eye, its use doesn't constitute deadly force. After all, we have the manufacturer's own word that the things can never cause fatal injury; that's why they were invented, right? So if the crooks get caught, they escape the assault-with-a-deadly-weapon rap a priori. With legal fees as high as they are, that's a real plus.'' Now I don't claim to be an expert on the workings of the criminal mind, but it seems to me that versatility is not the only consideration in the selection of a holdup weapon. -- Jim Crandell, C. S. Dept., The University of Texas at Austin {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!crandell
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/19/85)
In article <1649@ut-sally.UUCP> crandell@ut-sally.UUCP (Jim Crandell) writes: > > > This has the advantage that it's not as versatile a weapon as a gun, so > > > it won't be taken up much for commiting street crime. > > Interesting theory. I say that because the first time I ever heard of the > Taser was 11 years ago, while I was in California. The incident that brought > it into the news was its use in -- you guessed it -- an armed robbery. > ``Shrewd,'' I said to myself. ``The average individual, having no experience > with the thing, doesn't perceive it as a serious threat, so in the public (and > by rather trivial extension, legal) eye, its use doesn't constitute deadly > force. After all, we have the manufacturer's own word that the things can > never cause fatal injury; that's why they were invented, right? So if the > crooks get caught, they escape the assault-with-a-deadly-weapon rap a priori. > With legal fees as high as they are, that's a real plus.'' > > Now I don't claim to be an expert on the workings of the criminal mind, but > it seems to me that versatility is not the only consideration in the selection > of a holdup weapon. And how many other cases have you heard of? Major disadvantes of a taser for holdups include: 1) It may not be taken seriously as a weapon, especially if it is recognized. 2) At most, it can only control one or two people at a time. 3) Misses are more serious because of the smaller number of loads. 4) It is useless if the target is protected behind so much as a sheet of cardboard. It's quite likely that there are some loopholes in laws that the taser could exploit: until law catches up with technology. However, there is no shortage of other laws under which a taser-wielding robber could be charged. useless in a shootout if.) -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
wfi@unc.UUCP (William F. Ingogly) (04/20/85)
> Major disadvantes of a taser for holdups include: > ... > 2) At most, it can only control one or two people at a time. > > 3) Misses are more serious because of the smaller number of loads. > > 4) It is useless if the target is protected behind so much as a sheet of > cardboard. I just heard on Ted 'takeover' Turner's Network this morning that a taser was used in a holdup somewhere (sorry, I wasn't taking notes :-). It seems there were two holdup men; one of them held a gun on the clerk and the other zapped the clerk with the taser to incapacitate him. -- Bill Ingogly
david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter) (04/21/85)
Mr. Huybensz doesn't believe that an ideal personal defense weapon can be
made because the criminal can use it against you. I disagree.
How about a device that stops incoming bullets and knives? Or, more generally,
a self-defense shield, of some sort (suggested by Issac Asimov in the FOUNDATION
trilogy, by Frank Herbert in DUNE, by Poul Anderson, and many others.) Such a
shield would be useful mostly for defense. It would not matter that a criminal
might get hold of one.
[generic disclaimer] {n.f.q}crandell@ut-sally.UUCP (Jim Crandell) (04/23/85)
>In article <1649@ut-sally.UUCP> crandell@ut-sally.UUCP (Jim Crandell) writes: >> > > This has the advantage that it's not as versatile a weapon as a gun, so >> > > it won't be taken up much for commiting street crime. >> >> Interesting theory. I say that because the first time I ever heard of the >> Taser was 11 years ago, while I was in California. The incident that >> brought it into the news was its use in -- you guessed it -- an armed >> robbery. > > And how many other cases have you heard of? Not many, understandably. I hear the Taser's not selling well, and besides, let's face it -- most common criminals just aren't that smart. > > Major disadvantes of a taser for holdups include: > > 1) It may not be taken seriously as a weapon, especially if it is recognized. Not taken seriously, eh? No problem; the user can remedy that soon enough. I forgot to point out that that's exactly what happened in the incident in CA. The poor victim didn't know what the thing was; he'd never seen one before. But I recall his reaction to it implying (I don't remember his exact words, unfortunately) that he'd certainly take it seriously in the future! This is where the Taser really shines, if you'll pardon the expression. If you point a gun at someone and he laughs at you, you'd have to be a dope-crazed idiot to go and blast a hole in him just to get his attention. Murder is a pretty serious charge, even in California. With the Taser, you brook no dissent; you just let him have it. Saves time, too. > 2) At most, it can only control one or two people at a time. So, how many people would you try to mug at once, King Kong? > 3) Misses are more serious because of the smaller number of loads. I suppose, but there are lots of recognized short-range, single-shot weapons around, and that aspect of their nature doesn't seem to reduce their effectiveness or their appeal. How many loads do you get with a switchblade? But with the Taser, you don't have to get nearly as close as a knife necessarily takes you, and besides, the overwhelming advantage (no pun intended) is that you don't threaten, you don't argue, you just shoot, take what you want, and split. > 4) It is useless if the target is protected behind so much as a sheet of > cardboard. Right. I ALWAYS carry a big sheet of cardboard with me when I'm out at night. -- Jim Crandell, C. S. Dept., The University of Texas at Austin {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!crandell
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (04/26/85)
> > > I personally like the 'taser' devices that have come out not-all-that- > > > recently. A *very* bright light attached to a little device that > > > shoots little wires into the assaliant and runs something like 40,000 > > > volts through him. > > > > This has the advantage that it's not as versatile a weapon as a gun, so > > it won't be taken up much for commiting street crime. Disadvantages > > include the possibility that it could be lethal, depending upon the > > condition of the zapee (though I haven't herad of anyone dying from > > these yet.) > > According to the San Jose Mercury, a man died last week after the > policemen who were arresting him used a taser to subdue him. He > apparently did not die immediately, so it is not certain that the > taser was to blame. An autopsy was to be performed. If they print > the results, I'll post them. > > Mike @ AMDCAD You'll notice, if you look at the top of this rapidly growing pile of mutterings, that the original issue was: is the Taser a good alternative to firearms for self-defense. Let me tell you a little story. Some years ago (I think it was 1980), my wife and I became concerned about the high crime problem in our city (Santa Monica, CA). We took a class in tear gas use, got a permit, and bought ourselves tear gas. Thank goodness we never had to use it. The tear gas instructor made a point of mentioning how ineffective tear gas was, but we weren't really listening, because we really liked the idea of non-lethal weapon that would protect us in the event we were attacked. Tear gas, like many other substances, behaves quite differently on differently people. People are who very drunk or very stoned are frequently unaffected by the stuff. Unfortunately, these are the people you most have to worry about attacking you. (Do drugs lower inhibitions, so the doped become criminals, or are criminals attracted to intoxicating substances? Chicken or egg problem.) As a consequence, we ended up buying a Colt .45 Government Model semiauto pistol because while less powerful weapons have been known (repeatedly) to fail to stop a determined or drugged attacker, it is quite rare for .45 ACP to fail to ***immediately*** incapacitate someone. Note that the goal then, as now, is not to *kill* the attacker, but to render them unable to continue to endanger our lives. My considerable research on the subject has failed to come up with an acceptable alternative --- and that includes the Taser.
robg@mmintl.UUCP (Robert Goldman) (05/03/85)
As I understand it, a very real concern about the taser is that it may be used as a torture device. I'm afraid I don't know the details about this, but it's a sobering thought.
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (05/07/85)
The Taser is a poor stopgap for a defense weapon, awkward and ineffective. However, the probable future development of a really usable "stun gun" (I have no particular one in mind) leads to an interesting thought: It is generally considered legitimate to wound or kill in self-defense. A workable stun gun would change this--someone armed with one need not inflict permanent injury to protect himself from harm. Thus someone who could have had a stun gun, but didn't, and was attacked, and had to use expedient force to defend himself, would be held partially responsible for the results, out of negligence. Such a liability might find itself enshrined in law, making it mandatory for all people to carry stun guns at all times--a direct result of society's concern for the well-being of hoods and assailants! --JoSH
jhull@spp2.UUCP (Jeff Hull) (05/08/85)
In article <358@mmintl.UUCP> robg@mmintl.UUCP (Robert Goldman) writes: >As I understand it, a very real concern about the taser is that it may be >used as a torture device. I'm afraid I don't know the details about this, >but it's a sobering thought. Unfortunately, it's more than a thought. It's happening! There is a case in Los Angeles right now. I don't know what really happened, but the paper reported, with pictures showing burns, that a policeman had repeatedly shocked a suspect (presumably to get a confession. I guess there are some people who just don't want the world to get any better than it is. Sigh. -- Blessed Be, Jeff Hull {decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,scdrdcf,ucbvax} 13817 Yukon Ave. trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jhull Hawthorne, CA 90250 34o3'15" N by 118o14'28" W