SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the founding-fathers-didn't-have-tazers dept.
Massachusetts' ban on the private possession of stun guns—an "electrical weapon" under the statute—does not violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the state's top court has ruled.
The decision says ( http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/stungunMA-ruling.pdf ) (PDF) that the US Constitution's framers never envisioned the modern stun-gun device, first patented in 1972. The top court said stun guns are not suitable for military use, and that it did not matter whether state lawmakers have approved the possession of handguns outside the home.The court, ruling in the case of a Massachusetts woman caught with stun gun, said the stun gun is a "thoroughly modern invention" not protected by the Second Amendment, although handguns are protected.
(Score: 5, Informative) by tibman on Tuesday March 10 2015, @03:49PM
I was in the US Army and was issued a "stun gun" for a few weeks. It seemed perfectly suitable for that job. I also had a shotgun with various less-than-lethal rounds. I had a compressed air gun (like a paintball gun) that shot fin-stabilized rounds. I had assorted less-than-lethal rounds for my m203 (a shotgun-like 48x 48cal pellet round and a foam projectile round). I had a pepper spray like devices, one that shot streams and one that shot fog. I had pepper spray grenade things. They landed, self-righted, then popped up into the air before exploding pepperspray down onto people. There were some mounted systems ones too, like the LRAD (long range acoustic device). I was also issued a stick (they called it a baton).
The best weapon to use for a less-than-lethal situation was ALWAYS the stun gun. OC/Pepper spray stays around afterwards and basically continues to attack the subject even after they are complying. Rubber pellets and torpedos can kill (saw an X-Ray of a rubber round inside someone's skull). Compressed air gun can kill, like the shotgun. M203 could kill. The glue that holds the foam dart to the plastic casing could melt. Firing it would cause the foam dart to veer off target. The weighted plastic part stays on course. Not good. I never fired the massive m203 48 pellet grenade and TBH was afraid too. Shit was huge and barely fit into the breech. LRAD was like lasers and shrill sirens had a baby. It was a good deterrent but worthless to control any situation. Stun gun was the best less-than-lethal weapon. That "top court" is stupid.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:22PM
<sarcasm>Don't worry this case like the old one I linked to are not about a judges understanding of what are useful to the military and in actual use but about their personal feelings on ownership of arms.</sarcasm>
The issue in the first case was around the ownership of a sawed off shotgun and there the government argued that there was not military purpose for one of those. Even though during WWI sawed off shotguns were very effective and even had a name for how they were used and they were very effective in trench fighting. One thing of note in the old case is that the defendant was black and there seemed to be a lot of racism at play in that one and in this new case I wonder if a similar thing is going one. I have no way to tell as the defendant's race isn't mentioned and I can't find a picture of her but it wouln't surprise me to find out the defendant is a minority.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:41PM
Stun gun was the best less-than-lethal weapon.
The fact that you were trained with them, yet apparently believe that they are not in the 'can kill' category that you put some other less-lethal weapons in is slightly alarming. They're likely to be fatal to anyone with a heart condition or pacemaker and can be lethal to otherwise healthy people depending on where you hit them and a few other factors. There is no such thing as a 'less-than-lethal weapon' there are only less-probable-to-be-lethal weapons.
One of the problems with giving the police Tasers is that they are far more likely to fire a 'non-lethal' weapon at someone than a gun (though the police in the USA seem to be redressing this) and are often not aware of how likely that weapon actually is to be lethal.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:37PM
You are actually mixing terms. Non-Lethal means that it cannot kill. Less-than-lethal means that it is designed to be non-lethal but can result in death. Lethal is a weapon intended to kill. I was never trained with a non-lethal weapon.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday March 10 2015, @06:53PM
I've been tazed four times, each time by Clark County, Washington Sheriff's Deputies. The last time I grabbed the wires and yanked them free of the tazer.
Note that these were law enforcement tazers, they have a much higher voltage than the public is permitted to use.
The effectiveness of a tazer has a lot to do with that it is frightening. There's not a whole lot that frightens me, with the exception of security cameras everywhere I go.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:59PM
I think you are both right and wrong :) Yes, it is intended to be frightening. But you were only able to pull the wires out after the tazing was done (or it was dialed down). My buddies and i tazed each other while attempting to perform simple duties (like tying a shoe) and it is impossible. I can do it while holding the electrodes in one hand, or if the electrodes did not penetrate my skin. But if those electrodes bury themselves in you like intended then nothing short of pliers are going to get them free of your body. Those wires are over 10 meters long too. So "yanking them free of the tazer" would require pulling several meters of wire towards you. But maybe you are different and can perform actual tasks. That's far better than myself and buddies ever managed.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:40PM
Nah. You can watch federal agents taser one man multiple times [youtube.com], and each time he's mobile (which, yes, depends on where the electrodes hit) and has them pulled out almost immediately by himself or by other bystanders. Later photos show him bloody [nydailynews.com] in spots, but pliers are absolutely not required. There have also been several news reports I've read (but cannot remember enough details to quickly find) that give accounts of lone individuals being tasered and pulling out the electrodes themselves.