Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!columbia!topaz!josh
From: josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.flame,net.legal
Subject: Re: A new self-defense idea!
Message-ID: <1898@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 6-May-85 18:04:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.1898
Posted: Mon May  6 18:04:00 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 7-May-85 21:59:15 EDT
References: <355@idis.UUCP> <1602@ut-ngp.UUCP> <cybvax0.468> <544@cadovax.UUCP> <358@mmintl.UUCP>
Reply-To: josh@topaz.UUCP (J Storrs Hall)
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 16
Xref: linus net.politics:8242 net.flame:8847 net.legal:1285


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