Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!yale-com!leichter
From: leichter@yale-com.UUCP (Jerry Leichter)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Free Drugs - (nf)
Message-ID: <2083@yale-com.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 25-Sep-83 15:05:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: yale-com.2083
Posted: Sun Sep 25 15:05:05 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Sep-83 00:56:14 EDT
References: uiucdcs.2968
Lines: 38

The article I'm responding to, despite its title, asked why there was not a
major effort to develop a non-lethal gun, based on some sort of tranquilizer
dart.  I think the story of the Tasor is an interesting example of the
reaction of our society and government to such devices, and is also a story
that those who talk about gun control - on both sides of the issue - ought
to think about the implications of.

The Taser is a patented device introduced a couple of years ago.  It is a
non-lethal, disabling weapon.  It shoots a small dart trailing a thin wire,
and then applies a controlled, high voltage to it.  The effect on the person
it hits is to produce paralysis of the major voluntary muscles.  It can
probably be deadly when used against someone with a heart problem - as can
the threat of using a club, or even fists! - but otherwise its effect, while
extremely unpleasant, is fairly short-lived.

The Taser was market freely for a while, since it did not fall under any
existing gun regulations, including those in New York City, which are about
the strictest anywhere in the country.  Then a couple of robberies took
place in which the robbers were armed with Tasers.  There was an immediate
outcry, and a demand for - you guessed it, regulation.  Currently, Tasers
can only be purchased legally, at least in NY, by the police.  I don't
know what the situation is elsewhere, but I gather they are no longer widely
available, having been banned in many parts of the country.

Now, think about this situation.  Traditional, lethal guns are made in all
parts of the world in huge quantities, and there are millions of them floating
around this country.  As a practical matter, no criminal has any trouble
getting hold of a gun.  Tasers, on the other hand, are made only by one
company, in limited quanities, hence easy to regulate.  Just what is the
governmental reasoning that says that it is a good idea to eliminate a
non-lethal alternative in a situation where this leaves a lethal alternative
widely available?  Personally, if I were going to be robbed, I'd much rather
be robbed by someone with a Taser - even if he's much more likely to use it -
than by someone with a gun.  Government, however, doesn't see it that way;
it regulates where it thinks it can.  Tasers were easy to regulate, so
they were regulated, and very quickly.
							-- Jerry
					decvax!yale-comix!leichter leichter@yale