Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ut-sally.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!ut-sally!crandell
From: crandell@ut-sally.UUCP (Jim Crandell)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame,net.legal
Subject: Re: A new self-defense idea!
Message-ID: <1685@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Apr-85 14:29:41 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.1685
Posted: Tue Apr 23 14:29:41 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 24-Apr-85 07:36:15 EST
References: <355@idis.UUCP> <1602@ut-ngp.UUCP> <468@cybvax0.UUCP> <1107@amdcad.UUCP> <1649@ut-sally.UUCP> <480@cybvax0.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 54
Xref: watmath net.politics:8655 net.flame:9479 net.legal:1598

>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