Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota News - Taser party a bad joke

Taser party a bad joke

Jan 09, 2008 - 07:51:08 CST

Already the jokes are getting stale -- "Real 'girl power' is having her own little Taser, pretty in pink!" -- and the Associated Press story is less than a week old.

It told how an Arizona woman's entrepreneurial spirit prompted her first to sell a personal model Taser (it's a brand name) door-to-door. Then she fell on a better idea: If a woman can make a living being a hostess of a crystal party or having lingerie parties, she should be able to sell ladies gathered in a home on protecting themselves with the new Taser C2. Move aside, Tupperware party.

What are we coming to, asserting a person's Second Amendment right to pack and wield 50,000 volts of zap? Maybe better than her drawing down on someone with her Glock .40.

The C2 does have a cool look, described by the Taser Weapons Co. as "cleverly disguised as a flashlight" but likened by others to a lady's electric shaver. It has the same voltage as the formidable M18L with its laser sight used by law enforcement and the military, although the latter packs a more disabling jolt because of an "electro-muscular disruption" pulsing wave that briefly disables muscular control. Other Tasers, including the cute little C2, confine themselves to stunning the central nervous system. The C2 works on an assailant up to 15 feet away but has the added feature of contact stun capability. Grab me? Try this on!

The C2 comes in colors. The leopard spot is chic. But the Arizona saleswoman reports that pink is the hot property at her parties.

Hence the jokes.

They overlay and perhaps diminish the seriousness of the subject. Protecting oneself, loved ones and others from attack is no laughing matter. Neither is using a stun device.

In North Dakota, Tasers and other stun devices are legal for personal use as well as by law enforcement. But the classification in the state statute book is "dangerous weapon." And don't even think about bringing it with you to the saloon or the casino. No, no. And unless you're a cop, in this state you can't carry one in a concealed manner.

And as with everywhere, you're going to need a background check. The C2 has a gizmo that somehow won't let it be activated until the check comes out clean. If you're in New Jersey, fuhgeddabout it. All stun devices, totally illegal. And there are some strict regulations about bringing one along on a plane flight.

It's a weapon. Its degree of deadly force is a lot less than a handgun, granted. But even back in 2005, the Arizona Republic noted 140 deaths in the U.S. and Canada since 1999. Coroners attributed four to stun devices and called its use a factor along with others, including health conditions, in the other deaths.

The Florida student, causing a commotion at a John Kerry rally, perhaps as a dumb joke, contributed to the lexicon by shouting, "Don't Tase me, bro," before getting a zap. But there was not remotely any humor in the use of the device on an eight months' pregnant woman in Seattle in 2005 or Chicago police using one on an 82-year-old woman.

Maybe there'd be less enthusiasm about owning a personal stun device if, like cops during training, people had to experience being zapped once before being allowed to use one.

News > Opinion

Printer friendly version Taser party a bad joke

Comments

Brent wrote on Jan 13, 2008 8:35 AM:

" The Taser is a great option for people who don’t want a gun in the home. If I am a law abiding taxpaying citizen its nobody’s business what I have to protect myself. It’s my right to feel safe and be protected. Taser technology has been available to citizens since 1994 and we have not seen the epidemic of people using tasers on the innocent in the supermarket line or during robberies. And by the way I support the right to carry a gun but the gun nuts should understand that not everyone is prepared to take another life in self defense. They should quit knocking a device like the taser that provides a good option for someone who doesn’t want a gun. The folks at Thunder Ranch even said it is a good option. I owned a gun for 7 years and always felt uneasy having it at home. I do feel better having this in the hands of wife and me. "

You better be sure wrote on Jan 12, 2008 8:47 AM:

" To jim: You may want to list your defense attorney on that sticker too. I love to hunt and shoot, but people that are quick to say they are protecting their property with a firearm give all shooting a bad name. Your intention is fine, advertising it makes us all look bad. It makes it sound like you are inviting trouble, excited to have the chance to shoot someone. "

jim wrote on Jan 12, 2008 8:26 AM:

" like the sign in my window states

protected by smith and wesson, colt, and winchester.

coffee's brewin' can u smell it? "

Denise wrote on Jan 11, 2008 8:00 PM:

" You couldn't stand to be a woman! It's preached at us to be afraid, be very afraid of that person in the bar, the pulpit, the teacher, the doctor, the neighbor. Now, we should passively accept being afraid and not protect ourselves. GET REAL! "

USAFveteran wrote on Jan 11, 2008 9:38 AM:

" Typical liberal story...that people don't have a right to defend themselves...that they should submit to their attacker...just remember, when you need help within seconds, the police are minutes away! "

recovering addict and former sex offender wrote on Jan 10, 2008 6:00 PM:

" the writer of this story obviously has never been a victim of any thing worse than name calling...I grew up on main street big city usa and can tell you fantasyland liberal types that you dont have a clue! Ive been the victim of violent crime and Ive done some things i wish i could go back and change...my point is this, weapons of any kind are good if wielded by a good person.and bad if used by a thug wannabe gansta or rapist ....and they wont hesatate! thats reality! so good citizens everywhere, please arm yourselves and get training and be vigilant ...none of my victims were ...i wish the first one had been,.. "

Giveme Abreak wrote on Jan 10, 2008 3:25 PM:

" The author states, "Maybe there'd be less enthusiasm about owning a personal stun device if, like cops during training, people had to experience being zapped once before being allowed to use one. " How about this instead? The author should experience what it is like to be vaginally or anally raped before being allowed to insinuate that women should be unable to arm themselves against would-be attackers.

Also, your specific analogies - the Kerry incident and the cops tasering a pregnant woman have absolutely NOTHING to do with women protecting themselves from violent crime. And 140 deaths in the U.S. AND Canada from tasering? How does that number compare to the total number of violent crimes against women for the same time period? It doesn't even begin to compare.

Heaven forbid we put "dangerous weapons" into the hands of law abiding citizens. Wake up Bismark Tribune! States that allow concealed weapons generally see a decrease in violent crime. Why do you think that is? How do you think criminals react when there is the possibility that the would-be victim might be armed? Now how do you think they act when they are certain that they're not? "

kev wrote on Jan 9, 2008 6:36 PM:

" Tazers are wonderful devices in stopping combative people. I know first hand after being shot with one how effect they can be if used correctly. They are also wonderful devices that criminals can use to stop anyone from fighting back. Its pretty easy to rob, rap, kidnap or murder someone when they are unable to move for 20 seconds. I don't think we need these devices in the hands of the public. "

Party Goer wrote on Jan 9, 2008 6:24 PM:

" ...and lets not forget, behind every good party is a little alcohol! (I'll alert the ER ahead of time......) "

Doug in SoCal wrote on Jan 9, 2008 1:43 PM:

" Please tell me that the author of the anti-American drivel is joking. Are we to now say that women do not have the right to protect themselves? How dare this writer try to deny a woman the 'choice' of protection. Maybe that girl in Georgia would be alive today if she had been carrying a tazer with her. It is a tragedy that I am getting sick and tired of reading. I guarantee that my daughter will have a tazer with her when she goes to college. "

Edward wrote on Jan 9, 2008 1:04 PM:

" Democrats are alway worried about people protecting themselves. Remember it is better to be assaulted, raped, kidnapped, or killed than injury a perpetrator. "

Emmy wrote on Jan 9, 2008 11:15 AM:

" Clever idea. What do they cost and where can I sign up to host a party? "

Bad analogy wrote on Jan 9, 2008 10:29 AM:

" This editorial insinuates that those who chose to purchase a taser for self/home protection should be required to 'experience being zapped' before being allowed to use one. So are you telling me that since I legally own a 9mm for self/home protection that I should be required to 'experience being shot' with it before I have to use it? "

One of the many women with a brain who find your opinion piece condescending wrote on Jan 9, 2008 10:13 AM:

" What are you trying to say with this story? Millions of responsible men and women carry guns and other protective devices throughout America everyday. Yet, because this Tasor trend is now marketing to women specifically, the group of people highly likely to be raped (I think the stats are now 1 in 4 women will be raped during a lifetime), you think it's silly? Or too cutsie? Seriously--your comments do nothing for the population. Yes, it's a weapon. Even we silly little women know that. Stop people from attacking us, and we'll put them down. Otherwise, best to stay 15 feet away. "

DG wrote on Jan 9, 2008 10:03 AM:

" If you want to carry self protection for use against someone harming you, you might as well carry a handgun and a concealed carry permit. Don't be afraid to use deadly force on someone who is physically harming you. Shoot them dead, then its your word against a dead persons word, not your word against a lying criminal and a defense attorneys word. "

sn68 wrote on Jan 9, 2008 9:31 AM:

" Quote "But even back in 2005, the Arizona Republic noted 140 deaths in the U.S. and Canada since 1999." Please fork over the number of women raped, murdered, or kidnapped since 1999. Less lethal than a handgun, more protection than mace. Needed in ND? Probably not. But as long as there is violence, and violence against women, Taser away. "

Ben Miner wrote on Jan 9, 2008 9:06 AM:

" Unless you live in a state which denies citizens their second amdnement right to carry a handgun, you're far better off keeping a gun handy than a "less than lethal" taser. If your life is on the line do you really want to depend on something that may do little more than piss off your attacker? What if there are more than one? With a taser you get one shot, with a handgun at least seven. "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.