Combined Taser and MP3 Player

Not a joke, apparently.

Posted on January 22, 2008 at 6:17 AM • 54 Comments

Comments

PelleJanuary 22, 2008 7:14 AM

Just make sure you put the right pair of buds in your ears before turning the thing on...

Christophe ThillJanuary 22, 2008 7:24 AM

What's it for ? Well it's obvious, isn't it ? It's programmed by the RIAA. And anyone listening to unlicensed music is in for a shock...

Shakin' StevensJanuary 22, 2008 7:52 AM

And the best thing of course is that you don’t have to spend additional money on dance lessons.

Fred PJanuary 22, 2008 9:06 AM

I'm really confused; how can Tasers be legal to sell in the United States or nearly any country? The United States of America is a ratified signitory to United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture ), heck, we presently hold the Vice-Chair and Rapporteur positions on the Committee against Torture.

That committee, has, of course, arrived at the conclusion on Friday, November 23 2007, that the use of the electric pulse Taser gun constitutes a "form of torture" and "can even provoke death." (source: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/112707G.shtml )

From my understanding of this treaty, if Tasers are legally sold in the United States now, there should be a law banning them so as to follow the requirements of this treaty.

KathrynJanuary 22, 2008 9:18 AM

Oh, its a joke alright. Just because it is being produced and sold does not make it any less of one.

peter pressureJanuary 22, 2008 9:45 AM

Fred P., your a real DEEP thinker, aye? So if a Gun in the wrong hands can kill folks, than surely the UN must ban them in all "progressive" nations...

If hitting a person is defined as tortue, then if in an act of self defense I hit someone, I should be brought up on charges of torture?

I hope by now you see how ridiculous your BAN on tazers would look like. All citizens of free countries have the right to protect themselves as outlined in many of our founding documents. Take your little Nanny state United Nations Human Rights Watch BS and stick it where my tazer will be if you try and take away my pepper spray/tazer/gun collection....
-PeterPressure

bobJanuary 22, 2008 9:45 AM

Cool idea, combining 2 tools you already carry at the same time. But instead of buying a taser, I wonder if I can just get an MP3 holster for my handgun?

peter pressureJanuary 22, 2008 9:54 AM

Fred P.

In case you needed it spelled out a bit clearer. Can a Tazer sitting on my coffee table torture someone? The obvious answer is, NO, it takes a human to torture soemone. We already have laws against assaulting people, we dont need LAME laws against in-animate objects like Batteries, Capacitors or Tazers.

Oh wait, maybe your twelve? Sorry, you need to be 18 to buy a Tazer, unless you live in a Communist State like Massachusetts, where Tazers are already illegal due to Nanny state legislators and congress men liek Kerry and Kennedy et al ....

AntiJanuary 22, 2008 10:24 AM

@Peter Pressure

You seem to be going after Fred P when he makes a really good point.

>Can a Tazer sitting on my coffee table torture someone? The obvious answer is, NO, it takes a human to torture soemone.

I think it pretty much any form of tortue requires some human involvement. Shocking, burning, cutting, waterboarding all require direct human action.

I think one of the problems is since tasers in most cases arent lethal they are more easily used than say a gun. So they are abused more often.

So case in point, rather than have 5 uniformed security guards hold a young student down so we can handcuff him, lets just taser him.

The result is pain and fear to get the person to comply...or otherwise known as torture.

Granted I think a taser has its place and everyone should be entitled to defend themselves. But really what kind of message are we sending when your taser package can also we an mp3 player? And if a legal committee (that the US is a big part of) has determined this to be a form of tortue, than the US should uphold itselves to the law.

peter pressureJanuary 22, 2008 11:01 AM

Anti,
Once again, you and Fred are confusing, owning a Tazer and the Act of Torturing someone....

If the UN says torturing someone with a device is illegal, than it is the act of of torturing soemone with said device which is illegal. Not the ownership of the device.

>Granted I think a taser has its place and everyone should be entitled to defend themselves.

Exactly, thank you for proving my point!

>But really what kind of message are we sending when your taser package can also we an mp3 player?

Is that any of your business? A Tazer is a legal item in most states, so frankly I could care less what a private company wants to bundle a Tazer with, that is there business, not yours...

Please stop trying to infringe on my rights to own an MP3/Tazer with your contention that were sending the wrong "Message". What next, you'll say, "it's for the children!!!"

AnonymousJanuary 22, 2008 11:11 AM

@Peter Pressure
So then what's America's' problem with other countries such as Iran, Iraq or North Korea having nukes? After all, as long as they aren't used, they aren't harming anyone...

havvokJanuary 22, 2008 11:27 AM

"All citizens of free countries have the right to protect themselves as outlined in many of our founding documents."

True.

"Please stop trying to infringe on my rights to own a/n blah, blah, blah"

Yet another mouth-breather who equates self-defence with firepower, and equates the possession of firearms with freedom.

Why does it seem that these guys come crawling out of the woodwork whenever the election process gears up in the US?

True North, Strong and Free, baby!

So back on to the topic of the post, the taser aspect is interesting, but I would like to see a nice mp3-player case for my leatherman. Something a little more practical and certainly has the "target the geek with disposable income".

Fred PJanuary 22, 2008 11:38 AM

@peter pressure-

Guns are weapons; as far as I'm aware their normal usage does not constitute a form of torture under this convention. Can you, as you point out, torture with a gun? Yes. You can also torture with a finger; no rational law is going to cut off your fingers just due to this possibility. In any event, most interpretations of the 2nd amendment constitute at least some limited recognition of the right of non-felons to bear firearms; the U.S. constitution supersedes any conflicting treaties. Note, however, that this does not hold for all weapons - there are numerous jurisdictions within the U.S.A. where openly wearing a Halberd or Pike is illegal where openly wearing a licensed gun is perfectly legal.

Tasers, on the other hand, are very ineffective as weapons; their effective range is tiny (at least some civilian versions have an effective range that is smaller than that of a knife), their effective conditions small, and they are far easier to defend against than a firearm. They are, however, very effective portable, low-trace torture devices.

In any case, I'm merely wondering how the failure of the U.S.A. to have a ban on the sale of Tasers is consistent with its obligations under the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. I may be missing something (as I'm not an expert in international law), but if not, it seems that such a law should be passed soon.

I'd like to thank you for noting that Tasers aren't permitted for civilian use in a number of states and jurisdictions, although I'm confused as to what District of Columbia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Wisconsin have to do with Communism; last I noted, they were all representative Democracies (save, to some degree, District of Columbia, which has next to no say in federal matters - but this exception doesn't seem to make it Communist by any stretch of the definition I can find). I'm also unclear as to why you think that federal legislators directly impact state laws.

AnonymousJanuary 22, 2008 11:46 AM

"I'm really confused; how can Tasers be legal to sell in the United States or nearly any country?"

You can also buy knives at every grocery store, and wooden planks at every home store, and staplers, and pencils, and all sorts of other torture devices.

You've made the classic mistake that technology folks make about laws: you forgot about *Intent*.

Laws are all written about intent: buying a taser with the intent to torture someone should be illegal (that law would be fine with me). Actually torturing them is already illegal under hundreds of different assault laws.

DarkFlibJanuary 22, 2008 12:11 PM

The point that all the "right to arm bears" brigade seem to forget is that a taser has only one use, torture...

Sure, you can use a gun to torture, but it can also be used to kill outright, whether thats a person or an animal. While killing in non-war situations is illegal, in war it is not. Torture is illegal in both situations.

Now the people equating a taser with a knife or 2-by-4, both have legitimate uses... cutting food, sharpening pencils etc for a knife and as raw materials for building in the case of a plank of wood.

Building an mp3 player into a holster for a taser just goes to show just how ingrained weapons are in everyday culture in the US, even weapons that should be illegal by international law.

Fred PJanuary 22, 2008 12:14 PM

@Anonymous-

No, I did not forget about intent; according to multiple opinions from the Supreme Court of the United States, the intended uses of a device depend on the likely effective uses of that device. This is, for example, why locksmith's tools can be regulated. See http://supreme.justia.com/us/392/40/case.html as the canonical example of how possession can imply intent; this upheld N.Y.Pen.Law of 1909, § 408, which makes the mere possession of "burglary tools" a crime.

The Committee against Torture did not state that Tasers can be used to effect torture. That would be a silly and pointless statement, as anything (water, CO2, fingers, books, etc.) can be used to torture.

They stated that the use of the electric pulse Taser gun constitutes a "form of torture". If this is accurate and controlling, I don't see how tasers can legally be sold in the U.S.A. Heck, if accepted as a definition for U.S. law (as opposed to strictly for this single treaty), this seems to be an unconstitutional device, via the 8th amendment.

Lou the trollJanuary 22, 2008 12:17 PM

Oh let me guess... y'all are gonna take issue with me sticking the proton emitter tube of my attic cyclotron out my back window and lightin' up all the squirrels in my back yard...

It's amazing that anyone pays attention to anything at CES anymore.

anonymous canuckJanuary 22, 2008 12:38 PM

And what about plan B?

I'm not advocating a position on banning or not banning tasers.

I think Fred P. asks a good question. Specifically, under the treaty is there a requirement to ban or restrict tasers? What commitment and obligations do treaty signatories have? (I don't know and haven't read the treaty).

As for tasers, the larger question is if anyone uses them, are there valid uses? Legitimate self-defense is probably one. Most of the abuse of these devices, I've read about seems to be by various authorities (including the RCMP) and seems to have a lot to do with poor training. There is a point where "hit'em again" isn't working and a good plan B is needed.

Also, without looking it up, I suspect the definition of torture includes some kind of repetition. The expectation that it will continue until you do comply probaly makes that cut. Tasing someone once or twice legitimate circumstances doesn't. Problem is, if the person doesn't stop or go down. Oh, that would be plan B again.

The flip side is there are responsibilities and liabilities that people who have any kind of a weapon must face. They are responsible for proper and safe storage, handling, and use. Failure to excercise that responsibility should have fair and reasonable consequences. What exactly those are would be a question of public policy and for your lawmakers.

I live in Canada and our public policy is different from the US. If US public policy bothers me enough, I might consider changing my behavior (such as travel plans).

The odds of my being tased are probably up there with getting hit by lightning. But I would feel a whole lot better if the people using these were properly tained and had a good plan B.

As for the law and intent, it's true but tricky to determine until there is a pattern or action. Making a law about intent before an action sounds like the thought police. Setting a penalty after intent is clear is another matter. But isn't that why we have degrees of murder?

So what the heck does the treaty actually require?

Now putting personal tasers on the street is not a problem yet (AFAIK). But it could become one. There's that plan B again.

BTW. I personally think the product is stupid. But that's just me.

AntiJanuary 22, 2008 1:12 PM

@Peter Pressure

>>Granted I think a taser has its place and everyone should be entitled to defend themselves.

>Exactly, thank you for proving my point!

No problem. What that means is your avg Joe on the street cant get one. I would say it should even be a stricter regulation than guns due to the potential (and history) of abuse.

I would even hope for a phsycological test too. Which I am afraid would bar you from getting one. There is always an iPod though if your desperate for an mp3 player.

Fred PJanuary 22, 2008 1:56 PM

@anonymous canuck-

Good question. Here ( http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/bible/englishinternetbible/partI/chapterIV/treaty14.asp ) is a source for reservations to this treaty (as well as a link to the treaty).

The U.S.A. has a reservation that in part, reads "(b) That the United States understands that the definition of torture in article 1 is intended to apply only to acts directed against persons in the offender's custody or physical control.", which seems to exclude remote forms of torture such as what a taser could be used for from the U.S.'s obligations as far as article 1 is concerned. However, then taser usage would appear to fall under article 16. However, Article 16 seems to exclusively apply to officials, which need not have anything to do with public sale of these devices.

So, if I'm understanding the U.S.A.'s obligations to this treaty correctly, it appears that it would be a violation of that treaty to sell tasers to officials (such as police officers), but not to civilians (assuming that they're using/intending to use it against people not in their custody or control). I'm guessing that I'm missing something; as I previously stated, I'm not an expert in international law.

a.m.January 22, 2008 2:19 PM

"Take your little Nanny state United Nations Human Rights Watch BS and stick it where my tazer will be if you try and take away my pepper spray/tazer/gun collection...."
-PeterPressure

Must be hard to live with such fear.

peter pressureJanuary 22, 2008 2:28 PM

>So then what's America's' problem with other countries such as Iran, Iraq or North Korea having nukes? After all, as long as they aren't used, they aren't harming anyone...

Posted by: Anonymous

Excuse me, but your WAY off-topic... Or you think Nukes and Tazers should be regulated the same way.... Either way, your either wrong, or off topic...

peter pressureJanuary 22, 2008 2:32 PM

@ DarkFlib

>The point that all the "right to arm bears" brigade seem to forget is that a taser has only one use, torture...

Really, a Tazer has no use in Self Defense? This may be your opinion, but here in Fact land, we know a Tazer has many lawfull uses such as Self defense.

William BlackstoneJanuary 22, 2008 2:32 PM

People look a little silly to me when they try to be lawyers. The law is so hopelessly complicated that licensed attorneys don't even want to smell anything outside their specialty.

The best we can do is judge for ourselves based on our own world view.

Tangerine BlueJanuary 22, 2008 2:35 PM

> judge for ourselves based on
> our own world view.

Well, in my view, a better bundle would have been a taser/laser pointer.

peter pressureJanuary 22, 2008 2:48 PM

@ Fred P

>Tasers, on the other hand, are very ineffective as weapons;

So this is FACT or your own opinion? Once again, you and others are stating an Opinion, That Tazers are ineffective weapons for Self Defense. I sir, disagree, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one....

>In any case, I'm merely wondering how the failure of the U.S.A. to have a ban on the sale of Tasers is consistent with its obligations under the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. I may be missing something (as I'm not an expert in international law), but if not, it seems that such a law should be passed soon.

I am not an expert either, but again I'll repeat, The Tazer device, CANNOT torture anyone, if used for self defense. That si why French police use them, as a non lethal alternative to shooting.

>I'd like to thank you for noting that Tasers aren't permitted for civilian use in a number of states and jurisdictions, although I'm confused as to what District of Columbia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Wisconsin have to do with Communism; last I noted, they were all representative Democracies (save, to some degree, District of Columbia, which has next to no say in federal matters - but this exception doesn't seem to make it Communist by any stretch of the definition I can find).

Well, I live in Massachusetts, so I know what it is like to live in a Quasi socialist/communist state where My 2nd ammendment rights are being infringed upon every single day. Just for the record, I do possess a Concealed Carry permit, but the State of Massachusetts, has restricted it to a point where it can barely be used for self defense even on my own property whereas my Non- resident concealed carry permit I have from my neighbouring, non-socialist/communist state , New Hampshire, that honors our constitutional rights to self defense, lets me carry concealed anywhere I want in NH, even though i am not even a citizen of that state!!

>I'm also unclear as to why you think that federal legislators directly impact state laws.

Well, I could name one example, where the federal government decided to call, certain models of Semi-automatic rifles, Assault weapons, and ban them in EVERY state like they did in 1994, but luckily that was repealed in recent years, EXCEPT for in Massachusetts!! go figure....

I think you really need to live in a State that decides to ignore constitutional rights to understand what I mean when I refer to Taxachusetts as a quasi communist/socialist state, A state where the citizens vote for one thing (decreased income tax) and the state legislators ignore it... Oh well....

peter pressureJanuary 22, 2008 2:50 PM

@ Anti

>I would even hope for a phsycological test too. Which I am afraid would bar you from getting one.

As I noted in my above post, I am licensed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to carry a concealed firearm, so again your just plain wrong...

Fred PJanuary 22, 2008 4:05 PM

@peter pressure

"Once again, you and others are stating an Opinion, That Tazers are ineffective weapons for Self Defense. I sir, disagree, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one...."

-Perhaps I'm not that familiar with tasers, then; are there civilian models that have a effective range larger than (say) a throwing knife? The models I looked up briefly gave a maximum range on the order of 15 feet. Making the assumption that their minimum effective range is similar to handguns, they end up with a far smaller effective range than a throwing knife (which has a larger maximum effective range than 15 feet). Like a throwing knife (and unlike a handgun), you can't immediately re-use it on another target. Unlike a handgun, it's ineffective wherever the leads are likely to be unable to penetrate to skin, or encounter higher conductivity than skin. Unlike a throwing knife, it's cheap, easy and legal to wear armor that appears to be impenetrable to a taser. Even if you go for the high-end tasers, with ranges more like 80 feet, that's still far less than a rifle.

So I'm unclear as to how you'd use a taser as an effective weapon, for self-defense purposes or otherwise. For most purposes, if my opponent were using deadly force, I'd prefer a handgun, rifle, or knife; if I wanted to immobilize the opponent with little or no injury, I'd use a jo, yawara stick, nightstick, or my hands. Perhaps you'll enlighten me.

"I am not an expert either, but again I'll repeat, The Tazer device, CANNOT torture anyone, if used for self defense"

I was referring to the opinion of the Committee against Torture, not mine. However, it seems that the U.S.A.'s reservations to the treaty may mean that this determination has less meaning than I originally thought in the U.S.A.; specifically it suggests that (as I mention above) this treaty only bans official use of tasers (as opposed to private use).

peter pressureJanuary 22, 2008 5:20 PM

@ Fred P

>So I'm unclear as to how you'd use a taser as an effective weapon, for self-defense purposes or otherwise.

If you cannot see how a Tazer is an effective self defense device, then I think this conversation is over.

>For most purposes, if my opponent were using deadly force, I'd prefer a handgun, rifle or knife;

Not every state allow its citizens to carry arms, as the Recent DC-Heller supreme court case has reminded us. A woman with a knife better be trained and skilled in the use of hand to hand knife combat, personally, Id rather my wife have pepper spray or a tazer since she is not strong nor skilled enough to knife most attackers.

> if I wanted to immobilize the opponent with little or no injury, I'd use a jo, yawara stick, nightstick, or my hands. Perhaps you'll enlighten me.

Again, my wife cannot use her hands or a stick, she woudl most likely be overpowered. I like how I have to PROVE to you what is most effective for MY wife to carry when she has to travel the mean city streets at night. Why cant you just leave that choice up to HER, and in her case she carries pepper spray since Tazers are illegal in Massachsuetts, and Boston does not give out Carry permits.

peter pressureJanuary 22, 2008 5:33 PM

@ Havvok

>Yet another mouth-breather who equates self-defence with firepower, and equates the possession of firearms with freedom.

Yes, freedom of speech and freedom of owning and protecting oneself & property are about the most freedom loving notions we have.

>Why does it seem that these guys come crawling out of the woodwork whenever the election process gears up in the US?

Why does it seem you only notice us during an election cycle? Oh yea, you need our vote. I can picture John Kerry going bird hunting as we speak.

peter pressureJanuary 22, 2008 5:49 PM

In simpler terms, I'll reframe my question, Do you really think that because torturing someone WITH a Tazer is illegal, Tazers themselves should also be illegal?

Regardless of any "reasonable" personal use?

havvokJanuary 22, 2008 6:54 PM

I'll bite.

The reason why the taser is a torture implement is the feature called "Drive Stun". I have to take the definition from Wikipedia, as Tasers website is blocked by my employer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser#Drive_Stun
Taser defines "Drive Stun" as "the process of using the EMD weapon [Taser] as a pain compliance technique. This is done by activating the EMD and placing it against an individual’s body. This can be done without an air cartridge in place or after an air cartridge has been deployed."

This is where the issue of 'taser-as-torture' comes in to play. Read the definition of torture according to UNCAT:
Here is an excerpt:

severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person

The term "pain-compliance" is a polite euphemism for torture. You want someone to do something they don't want to do, so you hurt them if they don't. Torture.

Just as a burglars tools are illegal as they are sole purpose, "pain-compliance" tools should be illegal as they are sole-purpose.

unaryJanuary 22, 2008 7:15 PM

i have enough issue with my non-less-than-leathal mp3 player and my pudgy fingers cranking the noise instead of changing tracks.... i don't need the constant fear of frying my own good self in the mix...npi

with all the talk of right to bare arms (are t-shirts and tank-tops really such an issue in puritan america??) and the torture/protection pov's above, can someone explain the youtube videos of teenage "entertainment" using tassers, and which category (either protection or torture) this behavior falls into?

also, a few of you need to read up on the concept of cognitive dissonance, imnsfho.

have a nice day. :)

CTheSoupJanuary 22, 2008 8:27 PM

When I use a Tazer, it's in self-defense. I am neutralizing an attack. I am NOT using a Tazer to extract a confession, inflicting punishment or coercing anyone. It's all about intent. It's a dual purpose tool. If it could ONLY perform torture functions, then it would be considered a "torture device." But that's not the case...

My German Shepherd is used as a pet. He can also be used as a self-defense dog to protect myself and property (if properly trained). In addition, I can use him as a torture device (again if properly trained), to inflict pain, punishment or extract a confession through fear of being viciously attacked.

So my dog Otto should be termed a "torture device" and be made illegal because he has the capability to be used for torture? Again, it's about intent.

EricJanuary 22, 2008 9:04 PM

Here are a few titles to load on the MP3 player before you go out tasering your bros...

"It's Electric" - Diamond Head
"Shocking" - Catherine Wheel
"Ride the Lightning" - Metallica
"Shoot to Thrill" - AC/DC

and, of course, "Electric Boogie" by Marcia Griffiths (doing the Electric Slide is optional)

averrosJanuary 23, 2008 1:59 AM

Ah, the standard leftist voodooism - ascribing moral qualities to inanimate objects. Guns are bad, Tazers are bad, cigarettes are bad, ad nauseum.

The problem with Tazers, by and large, is that cops have way more rights (such as rights to kill anyone deemed "threatening" or torture anyone they consider "non-cooperative") than regular citizens, and are not subject to the same laws as regular citizens.

Give the cop abusing his Tazer the same sentence a regular Joe would get for the same actions, and the problem with the abuse will mostly go away - while leaving Tazers available as a valuable self-defence and law enforcement tool, something which can stop a violent criminal with far less risk of killing him compared to shooting.

That's an awfully simple prescription - having equal rights for all people (and not allowing some of them to be more equal than others); something we all have heard in school, but mostly failed to understand.

BTW, how often members of general public use Tazers for torture? Eh?

playlist#3January 23, 2008 3:49 AM

Oh, and ...

Shock The Monkey - Peter Gabriel
Gimme Gimme Shock Treatment - The Ramones
Shock Me - Kiss
Electric Rendezvous - Al Di Meola
Electric Avenue - Eddy Grant
Electric Message - Pink
Curious Electric - Jon & Vangelis
Electric Funeral - Black Sabbath
Torture - Berlin
The Torture Never Stops - Frank Zappa

And ...

Taser To A Gunfight - Exit Only

Anonymous ScandinavianJanuary 23, 2008 8:43 AM

@Peter Pressure.
Hey, I'm as big a fan of violence as anyone, but if you really want your wife to be as safe as possible, teaching her to run real fast is probably the best thing you can do for her. At least most statistics I've been shown claims to document that the chance of getting hurt only increases if you are armed.

Or if she's to busy to go to weekly classes, just tell her that the chance of being molested is really tiny, and if she'll get mugged, she should just give up her valuables and give up.

Wasn't it Paul who said "fear is the mind killer?"

AnonymousJanuary 23, 2008 1:33 PM

Those playlists are great. I think they should ship this product with all those tracks already loaded.

Fred PJanuary 24, 2008 10:31 AM

@peter pressure-

As far as your wife is concerned, you might be surprised about how effective even a few hours of a self-defense course (or a martial art) can be. If she's short, I'd suggest a soft martial art (Judo, Juijitsu, Aikijitsu, etc.) Even if she's armed, unarmed training never hurts, and can help quite a bit.

I think we aren't making progress in our arguments about tasers - you seem to feel that it's obvious that they're useful weapons, I find little evidence supporting that conclusion. I can create fairly unlikely hostage situations in which they could be useful (since a miss would be less likely to kill the hostage than a firearm)- but that seems more like a possible tool for a SWAT team, not something particularly useful to me as a civilian, or even for routine police use.

CipherChaosJanuary 24, 2008 10:37 PM

OK, first of all, the thing's ridiculous. Who would take it seriously?

Second of all, for all you people whining torture: There's a big difference between a single blast from a Taser, and repeated blasts.

A single blast could be self-defense, but if you sit there all day pulling the trigger, of course it's torture.

Just don't forget - weapons aren't evil, but their users can be.

cdmillerJanuary 25, 2008 10:22 AM

Wow. All these people wanting to take away tazers from the common folks of the U.S.A via some U.N. "law". OK. Take my tazer, I'll use a hand gun with probable lethal results to defend myself instead. After all, if I don't shoot to kill, is it torture?

wmJanuary 25, 2008 10:50 AM

My 2nd ammendment rights are being infringed upon every single day. Just for the record, I do possess a Concealed Carry permit, but the State of Massachusetts, has restricted it to a point where it can barely be used for self defense even on my own property whereas my Non- resident concealed carry permit I have from my neighbouring, non-socialist/communist state , New Hampshire, that honors our constitutional rights to self defense

AnonymousJanuary 25, 2008 11:07 AM

Drat, I seem to have hit "post" without indending to. Either that, or my browser has a mind of its own... What I meant was this:

@peter pressure: "My 2nd ammendment rights are being infringed upon every single day..."
"it [concealed carry permit] can barely be used for self defense even on my own property"
"whereas... New Hampshire... honors our constitutional rights to self defense"

At the risk of starting a flamewar I'd rather avoid, what with gun control being a fairly emotive issue, I'd say that it's by no means clear that the Second Amendment grants any rights at all to individual self-defence.

Looking at the Wikipedia article on it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ), and particularly section 6.2, it seems that much analysis concludes that it covers only the use of weapons within a state militia (collective rights).

To summarise, that section concludes with the following text:

"Presently, nine of the federal circuit courts support a collective rights model, two of the federal circuit courts an individual rights model, and the Supreme Court and one federal circuit court have not addressed the question."


--------
Required disclaimer:
The views expressed above are entirely those of the writer and do not represent the views, policy or understanding of any other person or official body.

wmJanuary 25, 2008 11:09 AM

And now I've hit post without my name on it. It really isn't my day...

Last post was me again.

simple simonFebruary 15, 2008 5:16 PM

Amusing idea that sounds as if its from Clockwork Orange.

The problem isn't whether I can get one, but whether every other nutball can and will.

So here is a movie plot. You walk up an unfamiliar set of stairs and get tasered with date rape tipped darts ... waking up a few hours later somewhere else having lost your id, clothing and dignity. Returning you discover your identity has been changed, those who knew you before have been confronted with concocted details about you that makes them think they do not know you.


you all stupidApril 11, 2008 10:30 PM

seriously you people who are outraged or confused are morons. I live in an up and coming neighborhood. My girlfriend likes to walk the dog and run but refuses to carry this big tazer. I don't want her carrying a gun because i figure some one will take it from her and use it on her. So this mp3 tazer solves both my problems she can ware it on her arm and listen to it while she runs. Also NO ONE is going to fuck with her while she has it on her arm. so all you torture "this is ridiculous" people can think twice when this liberates my girlfriend to go out and exercise.

Leave a comment

Allowed HTML: <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre>

Photo of Bruce Schneier by Per Ervland.

Schneier on Security is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Co3 Systems, Inc..