A bunch of jurisdictions -- according to a student paper I read, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, plus Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. -- ban the possession of tasers. Are there any sensible justifications that I'm missing for such bans, and for bans on carrying tasers outside the home?
He lists a number of factors. On the negative, the obvious reason that they could be used by criminals. On the other hand, he notes that they can be quite useful for self-defense.
When it's illegal to carry a gun, whether because carry licenses are generally unavailable, or because the person is 18 to 20, and licenses are only available to those 21 and older.
When there's a legal obstacle to the person's possessing a gun, for instance, when the person is an ex-convict (perhaps even someone convicted of a nonviolent felony), is underage for gun purchases, or lives with someone who is an ex-convict and who might be said to "constructively possess" any guns that his housemates possess.
When the defender isn't willing to use a deadly weapon, even against an attacker.
Acknowledging that Tasers aren't perfect, in that they are a "one shot" weapon, meaning that you don't get a second chance to make a first impression, that despite the non-lethal claim, deaths occur nonetheless (oops), Eugene concludes that their benefit for self-defense outweighs the detriment.
While the use of Tasers has been the subject of many posts here, not to mention plenty of great party videos, and I am certainly in favor of things that cause fewer rather than more deaths, I find myself unable to agree.
It's people. Without arms, they hurl nasty words and the occasional fist. Feelings are bruised more often than body parts, but they'll get over it. No one ends up lying on the ground, incapacitated, possibly dead.
People get angry. When angry, they do foolish things that they later regret. Give them the tools to do ever worse things when they're angry, and I fear they will use them. I don't want to enable or facilitate people harming each other in the heat of the moment, creating problems afterward for themselves and others that ruin lives. I don't trust people.
On the other side of the equation, I don't see that the need for self-defense is all that great. I am unaware of an epidemic of minor league violent crime sweeping the nation, such that it's unsafe for any honest citizen to walk the streets unarmed. Mind you, Tasers aren't a particularly good defensive weapon when confronted by a person with a gun, since their shot causes more damage than your shot. It's not a good trade-off.
I'm sure that anyone willing to put in the effort can come up with one hundred instances in the past week where a Taser might have helped defend a person against an attack. But in the scheme of a fairly large nation, this would be a miniscule number, and statistically insignificant as an example of need. I just don't see any real need.
New York City, which provides my view of the world, is filled with angry people. I've met many of them during my 25 years of practice. Many didn't wake up in the morning with the intention of committing a crime, harming someone else or ending up arrested, but they did. Many, many more got themselves into stupid scuffles with other angry people, but shook the dust off afterward and went home to nurse their bruises, whether real or mental. I dread to think what might have happened if they possessed a Taser. Angry people demonstrate poor discretion.
No, I think that we're better off without people walking around with Tasers. I still don't trust people with clubs either.