They are called Taser parties — and the fact they are getting a lot of attention lately is anything but shocking.
“I think it’s because I’ve mixed a very commonplace event, like a Tupperware party, with an extremely controversial product like a Taser C2,” said Dana Shafman, an entrepreneur from Phoenix.
So, how are we going to protect curious toddlers from the taser in mommy’s purse? As this weapon becomes more and more common, well, tragedy is inevitable. The only question is, who’s child is going to die?
56 Comments
February 3, 2008 at 9:17 am
Just because the party lady said they “position it as a personal safety device”, it doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t be used as an offensive weapon. Just about anything that can be used to “defend” yourself can also be used to “offend” someone else. What’s going to happen when these unlicensed devices start getting used by muggers to subdue their victims, thus making the removal of their wallets much simpler? Then, as you rightly brought up, BnF, there’s the children. Unfortunately, BnF, I don’t think it’s going to be simply a question of “Whose child dies before society wakes up?”, it’s going to be “How many?”
February 3, 2008 at 9:20 am
Interesting. There won’t be any of these parties held at my place.
So what happens when the attacker get close enough to the woman and grabs her taser before she uses it? And, the taser is only good for one shot so if she misses, then the weapon becomes useless because she has to stop and reload the taser. Must be a stupid Republican that is promoting this weapon. That’s right, Rudy Guiliani has invested in the company that makes tasers. See, just as I thought. A stupid Republican.
February 3, 2008 at 9:23 am
You made some excellent points, Wayne, especially regarding tasers being used by muggers. A celebrity child, probably a cute little white girl, will have to die before taser deaths become a front page story for the “liberal” media.
February 3, 2008 at 9:36 am
Let’s not forget, too, that these devices can be lethal when used on the wrong kind of person (such as a person with a heart condition.) I know they’re touted as being non-lethal, but that’s not 100% accurate. Most normal people would think twice about just pulling a gun on someone and pulling the trigger because they know they might kill them. But they might not hesitate as much if they think they are doing something non-lethal to them. It’s one thing when you taljk about a person using such a device against an actual attacker, but imagine a scenario where a paranoid taser owner believes that the person walking up behind him is about to attack him, and he pulls out the taser and fires, only to discover that it was not a would-be mugger but a very nice person like you or me. Still justified? Still unlikely? How often does that kind of thing have to happen before they are banned for use by civilians?
February 3, 2008 at 10:51 am
Wayne – it’s a frosty here in PA this AM. Poor cat
February 3, 2008 at 10:52 am
I’m going in to knuckle down and watch Wolf Blitzer because I want to hear what Ralph Nader has to say. Catch you later.
February 3, 2008 at 11:14 am
This is horrifying. Of course, when they came out with the “designer” Tasers recently, this is not a terribly large leap.
I can see it now:
Little Suzie Goldecurls was buried today after she accidentally died, having innocently found her mother’s animal print Taser, and fired it at herself. The whole neighborhood turned out to support the devastated Mrs Goldencurls.
OR
Mrs Blackmom was unable to meet bail today, and must stay in the county lockup until her trial in two years. Mrs Blackmom is the rotten mother who so negligently left her Taser just lying around inside her purse on a shelf, and her child died after discharging it on himself. Her other children have been taken into fostercare, and the media is hounding the rest of Mrs Blackmom’s family into hiding.
Yeah, this is total snark — I hope. But either way kids are going to get hurt and killed. It’s not worth it.
February 3, 2008 at 11:16 am
Wayne,
If you’d like the Nader without all the Blitzer, check out his interview on Democracy Now this week:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/31/ralph_nader_launches_presidential_exploratory_committee
February 3, 2008 at 12:07 pm
thanks, toasterhead, but I got through it. Nader knew how to get quite a lot of stuff out without Wolf even having a split second to interrupt. To be honest, I like what he had to say, and I hope that he becomes a third party candidate so I can continue my push for more parties in our system. That is exactly the kind of thing he was talking about today. He even said that a Bloomberg run would be welcome because it would mean more voices, more choices. I believe that I will write about him on my blog soon. I want to get the transcript from today’s interview (which might be available on Nader’s site quicker.) Anyway, that’s all O/T, but I appreciate the link. I could use that, too. I’ll copy it into my blogpost.
Zooey, I agree 100% with what you said – it is not worth it if even one child dies because of this.
February 3, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Zooey – you just wrote the headline stories.
February 3, 2008 at 1:00 pm
OK, so we should ban the tasers because somone might ( just because it hasn’t happened yet) leave it laying around and a child might ( just because it hasn’t happened yet) die from an negligent (no such thing as accidental) discharge?
I can predict a 2nd ammendment arguement on that one.
February 3, 2008 at 1:46 pm
hackerbob – hummm… really?
February 3, 2008 at 2:05 pm
For heaven’s sake, HB. People leave GUNS laying around for children to find, why wouldn’t they leave a “non-lethal” Taser laying around?
If you’ve got a 2nd Amendment argument on this one, I’d love to read it.
Later…after I’ve done some stuff around here.
February 3, 2008 at 2:46 pm
I don’t know if a taser qualifies as “bearing arms”.
IMO, I think the 2nd amendment needs some serious rethinking. This is no longer 1776.
February 3, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Interesting post’s all, I’m hung over this morning, the seperater Lady Z fixed me last night hasen’t worn off yet..I am such a light weight…
So it look’s like a tiny zap from the agressive police or who ever would be the end of me for sure…Since the old pump has been reworked but still only fire’s with a 70% rating it’s as lethel as a 44 slug to the chest…Humm..This kind of shit is pure crazyness..With all the people that have died in it’s use so far make’s me very suspect of intent..Kind of like the article BnF wrote on a couple of month’s about the microwave stuff our Gov. was inventing..The piece of equipment that would fry ya from a distance…..Mentioned in a post yesterday, never trust any of them, alway’s investigate and verify everything…I have no doubt they will try to kill any and all of us at any time…Common sence and past performance tell’s me none of them have ever been trust worthy…..At least not in my life time…..Not trying to scare any one just saying be warey and on guard alway’s….Blessings
February 3, 2008 at 3:09 pm
OK, Zooey, here you go.
Yes, tragically stupid people do leave guns lying around and children kill themselves through negligent discharges. And there may be instances in the near future where a stupid person (or people) leave a taser laying around and a child (or children) die from negligent discharge.
Both the gun and the taser are a form of armed defense and both can also be used for armed offense. And yes, the death of a child by either the gun or the taser would be a tragedy. But both the gun and the taser would be covered by the 2nd Amendment as “the right to bear arms”. The seconds Amendment does not specify the right to bear swords, crossbows, or muskets. It says Arms, period.
So, if you would advocate to not allow private ownership of tasers, then you would likely advocate against the private ownership of firearms. But why stop there? Someone can accidentally stab themselves with a pocket knife, which can also be used as an offensive or defensive weapon.
If this is the case then you advocate for a limitation on personal rights.
And before you pull out the false argument of “The Founding Fathers never envisioned something like the taser.” Consider this; the Founding Fathers were not so naive as to believe that there would not be advances in weapons. That is why the left it as a generic term like arms.
February 3, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Thanks, Robert.
I’ll use your argument when I order my handy dandy pocket-sized nuclear weapon.
We accept reasonable limitations on personal rights all the time. Just because we may have a right to own Tasers, doesn’t mean we ought to do so.
I’m guessing you no longer have a problem with a woman’s right to choose an abortion or not. You certainly wouldn’t want to limit her personal rights…
February 3, 2008 at 3:40 pm
hackerbob,
Okay, I admit I was the first to bring up the word “banned” (though I did add “for civilian use”.) And, to be perfectly honest, I think the NRA argument that the 2nd Amendment guarantees individuals the right to own any kind of weapon they want to is pure bullshit and wrong! Period! You aren’t allowed to own your own thermonuclear weapon, are you? End of argument! There are limits.
People with guns are dangerous. A person with a gun is more likely to harm you (even fatally), whether intentionally or not, than a person without one. Guns are dangerous for the same reason that it’s dangerous that a foreign country has a nuclear weapon with the capacity to launch it over the globe and right at us. It means they can harm us from way over there. Guns are dangerous in the exact same way. It’s all well and good to argue that nuclear weapons are less dangerous in the right hands (though still not foolproof; where were they trying to take those six missing warheads?), and we all agree that they are extremely dangerous in the wrong hands. Well guns can end up in the wrong hands much more easily than nuclear weapons, and the danger to society is increased the easier they are to obtain, legally or not.
I’ll shut up now because I’ve said my piece. So long.
February 3, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Zooey,
Will you please point to a single instance where I have stated that abortion should be illegal? Just because I disagree with the practice in most cases does not mean that I think it should be illegal. Again, personal freedoms.
And your abortion arguement is weak. A taser MAY terminate a life, an abortion WILL terminate a life. See the difference?
February 3, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Last year, GD had a “Build-a-Bear” party. She would probably love a Taser party – none of those nasty “Thank You” notes to write and it would be the talk of the town. Where’s the entrepreneur?
February 3, 2008 at 3:49 pm
A person with a gun is more likely to harm you (even fatally), whether intentionally or not, than a person without one.
Wayne,
Are you saying that a person with a gun is more likely to harm you with a gun than a person without a gun? Should we ban slingshots too? After all, a person with a slingshot is more likely to harm you with it than a person without one.
In your opinion, what “arms” does the 2nd Amendment guarantee?
February 3, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Maybe YOU could point to where I have stated Tasers should be illegal?
Personal rights is personal rights, Robert. Just sayin’
It seems people can always find a reason to limit the personal rights of women, but when it comes to guns anything goes.
February 3, 2008 at 3:52 pm
What does “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” mean?
February 3, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Ok, Robert. I’m out of time. What’s the perfect solution? Give us your wisdom.
February 3, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Wayne,
“well-regulated” refers to the oil industry.
February 3, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Are you saying that a person with a gun is more likely to harm you with a gun than a person without a gun?
Yes. Yes I am. It might be unintentional, but yes.
Now, we can quibble and argue under which circumstances this whole discussion takes place, but I have learned that arguing about the 2nd Amendment yields no satisfying results. Too often, the discussion ranges from what you should be allowed to carry on your person wherever you go to what you should be allowed to have in your home, as if the two (a public place and a private place) are equivalent. Other tangents also disrupt the flow of the discussion.
No. The Supreme Court already ruled that guns can be regulated, hence it was legal to charge a huge amount of money to purchase a stamp to permit you to buy a Thompson Machine Gun.
This argument will revolve around whether or not the Taser (or similar devices) are considered “offensive weapons” or “defensive weapons”. The key is to remember that we are still talking about, what is inarguably, a “weapon”.
So, I’m simply going to state my belief that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee private citizens, particularly ones who are not part of any kind of well-regulated militia, the right to own weapons (or “arms”.)
February 3, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Zooey,
You wanted a second amendment arguement so I gave you one. YOU are the person that brought up “womens rights”. No one was talking about limiting womens rights, except their right to own a taser.
Wayne,
How do you raise a well regulated militia? I’ll give you a hint, with armed people. If you ban arms, you can not raise a militia.
February 3, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Wayne,
You do know that a militia is a group of armed CIVILIANS, right?
February 3, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Just making a correlation in regard to personal rights, that’s all.
I’m not afraid of guns. I’m afraid of fearful people with guns.
It will be decided in the courts.
February 3, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Zooey,
I too am afraid of fearful people with guns. But with that said, just because someone may be irresponsible with a gun, taser, or chopsticks does not mean that we should deny ALL people the right to own them.
Just like your abortion arguement. Just because I think it is wrong and some people abuse the right to an abortion does not mean it should be illegal.
February 3, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Then perhaps to purchase a gun, one must belong to a well-regulated militia. It’s not a very well-regulated militia if it doesn’t exist, is it?
February 3, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Robert,
The militia exists in England, but weapons laws there control when and under what conditions civilians can be armed.
February 3, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Wayne,
OK, I am in the militia. I buy my weapon. I leave the militia. What happens to the weapon? Does the government sieze it from me? Do we want the government to have the right to disarm the populace?
Walt,
I may be wrong, but can civilians own hunting rifles in England, but not sidearms?
February 3, 2008 at 4:23 pm
How about if you leave it, the well-regulated militia can keep your weapon for the person who replaces you. If you bought it yourself, they should re-imburse you for it.
Look, you and I are probably never going to find common ground on this, and I don’t want to get into an angry debate about a subject that fuels much passion on both sides. So I’m going to walk away and say that we are going to disagree.
February 3, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Wayne,
You are correct that we probable never agree on this, but there is no anger on my part. You are right that there is much passion on both sides. I think that was the intent of the language in the 2nd Amendment. Keep it under debate in order to keep reasonable limits.
February 3, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Then I guess I was wrong, hackerbob. We agree that there should be limits.
February 3, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Robert,
That is true, about rifles, but there are restrictions there as to when and how they are used, stored and transported. Assault weapons are banned entirely. Handguns are allowed for guards, but the last time I looked, they must be left at the work site when off-duty. Police could take handguns home (but safely secure them)when their duties were such that they could not return to base when starting duty. Actually, the police (bobbies) did not carry weapons until quite recently.
February 3, 2008 at 4:32 pm
I took the NRA position for the purpose of debate.
Yes, there should be reasonable limits. The hard part is defining the limits in a way that everyone can live with.
February 3, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Walt,
A hunting rifle will kill a person just as dead as a pistol. And if someone wants to do a person harm, I doubt that they are going to say “I would kill this person, but it would be wrong for me to transport this in my vehicle.”
February 3, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Well, hackerbob, as long as you were taking someone else’s positiopn for purposes of debate, please tell me what the NRA’s position is on the first half of the 2nd Amendment? The part that they don’t have inscribed on the stone walls to the entrance to their national headquarters? The part about “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,”? How does that fit in with the second half, the part they like to quote? I’m not sure I ever heard it.
February 3, 2008 at 4:49 pm
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”
ok, I’ll give this one a shot, Wayne.
Put it in historical context. At the time of the Revolution, the Government did not have the funds to raise and arm a military. Instead it depended on a militia, or group of armed civilians, to do the fighting. Therefore, in order to have a militia you had to have an armed citizenry. If you limited the right to bear arms, then you would not be able to raise a militia to secure a free state.
February 3, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Actually, bob, I wanted the NRA’s position on the subject. I do not believe I have ever heard them explain it. But I appreciate your own attempt at deciphering it. And the Revolution was fought before the 2nd Amendment was written, so the 2nd Amendment did not secure anyone’s rights to own weapons for that. In fact, I would not be surprised if those were illegally-owned weapons that our militia fought with.
February 3, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Without being comprehensive, here are some of the major problems I have with the NRA.
They like to say that they protect peoples’ rights to own guns, but that is not why they were founded. As I understand it, an examination of some of our battle fields from the Spanish-American War showed that many of our soldiers (whatever percentage, it was too high) died when the guns they were improperly using exploded in their own faces. The NRA was formed to teach gun safety. Not push for gun ownership in the home or one one’s person, but gun safety.
We agree that the 2nd Amendment presents limits on an individual’s right to own a weapon. But when new legislation is proposed to ban such heinous weapons as assault rifles, however, the NRA is right up in the forefront opposing it as an infringement on an individual’s right to own guns. Every attempt to curtail gun ownership in some way (such as banning hand guns or something) is viewed as an attempt to strip away the right entirely. Every single attempt. There is no “reasonable” as far as the NRA is concerned.
The NRA does not seem to recognioze that the ownership of guns under the 2nd Amendment is tied in some way to membership ina well-regulated militia. You can’t just have the gun in your house, you have to take it out and go to drills and practice your proficiency with it with other members of your militia. Then you can claim some 2nd Amendment right to own guns.
And if the point of allowing citizens to own guns in their homes was because of the need for a “well-regulated militia”, then why do we have a standing army? Shouldn’t the DoD be abolished?
February 3, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Well here I am again….May I say first off I am an avid gun owner as most here know….Have alway’s since my early 20’s been a responsible, well trained person with arm’s….I have never shot any one and on 3 occasion’s while out in the hunting and wilderness areas just having my 44 on my hip saved my life and that of the person’s with me…
The problem’s with our society are huge, gun traffic with bad guy’s is unsurmountable just like drug’s…Our country would need to confiscate all the bad guy’s gun’s and test the mentalety of hunter’s and good citizen’s before allowing them to purchase a gun before anything meaningful would be accomplished…Not ever gonna happen…Along with all that more testing of officer’s and military to see if they had any quirk’s would be needed….There is not now or in the past been enough oversight or even follow up on who is capable of rational thinking that is allowed to own or carry a weapon…..Case in point.Last year in Tacoma I think, an officer who’s wife had complained about his abuse was shot in her car in a parking lot and then he took his own life…Thousand’s of cases every year across this nation and around the world of mass murder from mental problem’s, poverty, jeolesy, war’s….My point here is there realy is no point untill we work harder at being a peaceful nation…..I own my rifle so I can defend myself at a distance, if I am lucky enough to see them coming. I own my 357 for up close and personal, walking the Bear in the dark with all the crazies roaming around and living in a tin can make’s me confortable….Yes I would join a milita if called on….No I would not take a life except in self defence…..Blessings
February 3, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Thank you, Sharon. I shall keep in mind that you walked around armed if Jane and I ever make it out West to visit fellow Critters.
We’ll let you know we’re coming, first.
February 3, 2008 at 5:32 pm
And, Sharon, I do not disagree with you that ours is a dangerous society, nor do I claim to have an answer to the problem. What I am saying is that the NRA’s position on gun ownership has been a flawed and disengenuous one from the beginning, and that were it not for that fact, guns would not be so prevalent in our society. I also reject their blanket assertion that guns are not dangerous. They are, or else there would be no need to discuss whether or not people should be allowed to carry them around.
February 3, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Mind if I interrupt?
You can talk all you want about the 2nd Amendment – it’s not a settled issue by a long shot (no pun intended).
My concern is this, the Taser is widely publicized as a non-lethal weapon. It’s supposed to be safer than a handgun. But around children, it’s just as deadly. And it’s not a hypothetical that a child will die; it’s a statistical certainty.
Now, Bob, if you were a legislator, how would you craft a law that would allow ownership of these devises, yet guarantee public safety. Based on past child deaths with fire arms, you can predict about how many children will die each year from tasers.
Is the trade-off in “security” worth the price of “x” dead children? If so, how do you sell that cost analysis to the American Public?
February 3, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Sorry Wayne, I was typing while you were posting your good post.
I baught a membership to the NRA in 61….Saw an advertisement for a 30-06 for $15.00 through them and liked their magazine “Rifleman”..Got the rifle, all wraped up and coated in cosmaline.. Yuck!.Took me several day’s to disassemble, clean and put back together….I was 20 year’s old and had never owned a gun before..The kid’s were 3,4,5……Fast forward 5 year’s, the NRA was having gun training and safety classes in Mount Lake Terrace, WA and I signed the kid’s (his and mine) and myself up for all the classes…They were 8,9,10…The oldest was his son, the one I gave the 30-30 to a couple of year’s later and then took it away from because he was shooting at anything that moved….I have that 30-30 still…
Year’s later was divorced and remarried to the last husband in Nevada and we both got a life time membership to NRA…..A few more year’s and I was getting buried in junk mail to vote for their Republican candidate’s..They finelly angered me to the point of cancelling the membership and the magazines…..While I was in Northern Idaho they had their champion shoot’s of hand gun’s at Farroget park in Bayview and went to observe but never got involved again….They went from being a training out fit to being political….Like many thing’s that start off being informative and good seem’s they lost the main goal’s…..Blessings…Sorry I am so long typing today.. You all got it that I was born in the wrong time, right.? I would take a good gun over a diamond any day..
February 3, 2008 at 5:54 pm
oh, and abortion terminates a “potential” life.
Once you call a fertilized egg “life” you criminalize miscarriages (negligent homicide). Or, if you say the mother was innocent, then you have “God” killing babies. Do you want to go down that slope?
February 3, 2008 at 5:55 pm
My father used to enjoy hunting and wanted me to enjoy it, too. To get my hunting permit, I had to take a gun safety course which, I am sure, was sponsored by the NRA. I am all for having a group that wants to teach gun safety. But they crossed the line when they went into political advocacy and tried to fight any attempt to curtail gun presence in this country.
Gotta go, the Big Game is about to start, and I haven’t had a New York team in it in years.
February 3, 2008 at 5:59 pm
I guess you guys and gals are aware that a 15 year-old killed his parents and two younger brothers on Friday. Also, yesterday, some dude killed five women at a clothing store in a Baltimore suburb because he needed some money. The story that we get from the NRA is that human life is less valuable then insuring that irresponsible people and criminals can have the right to carry deadly weapons. At the same time, they support the right of our government to classify as felons people who use marijuana to aleve glaucoma.
February 3, 2008 at 6:07 pm
No worries for you and Jane, Wayne…I am not now nor ever been a “brush hunter”.The kind that go out after drinking all night and shoot up the bushe’’s because it move’s..
Great post’s BnF and all…..Blessings
February 3, 2008 at 6:25 pm
We call them “beer hunters” out here…
February 3, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Now, Bob, if you were a legislator, how would you craft a law that would allow ownership of these devises, yet guarantee public safety. Based on past child deaths with fire arms, you can predict about how many children will die each year from tasers.
The same way you craft a law that allows automobile ownership, yet guarantees public safety.
You can’t.
So I guess we should all give up our cars as there is no guarantee of public safety.
February 3, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Once you call a fertilized egg “life” you criminalize miscarriages (negligent homicide). Or, if you say the mother was innocent, then you have “God” killing babies. Do you want to go down that slope?
OK, we start charging mothers for negligent homocide even though most time a woman miscarries it is due to no falt of her own. Who do we charge for a 40 year old man being killed by a heart attack even though he doesn’t smoke, excercises regularly, and has a healthy diet?
You are confusing something that occurs naturally with an un-natural choice.
February 3, 2008 at 9:10 pm
You are confusing something that occurs naturally with an un-natural choice.
No, you’re failing to complete the analogy. If a miscarriage happens “naturally,” then GOD KILLED AN INNOCENT BABY.
There is no way to avoid that conclusion, without disavowing a belief in God.
How can “man” say “all life is sacred, from conception onward,” if God goes around indiscriminately killing babies?