Why Not Carry a Taser?
The hub of the Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene, asks whether there is a justification for states banning citizens from carrying Tasers.
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.
I am notoriously anti-handgun having seen far too many accidental or mistaken shootings. I would far prefer my wife to carry a taser in her purse than a handgun because, even though they can cause death, they usually don't and they usually deter an assailant. She would likely shoot herself with a handgun.
Besides, should she get mad at me with cause probably, I figure my chances of survival are much higher with the taser instead of the handgun.
Reply to this
I hadn't given much thought to a marriage exception. After all, there are so many deadly items around the house already...
Reply to this
Well, yeah. I don't understand why anybody would want to carry a taser or pepper spray when this stuff -- http://is.gd/bl5b -- goes for $5.99.
A little bulky, but, hey, you can't have everything.
Unfortunately, despite my requests, they won't make it in a 3oz size; I guess they're not buying my story that I need it to clean a teeny weeny little oven.
Reply to this
It'd be hard to get any decent distance with the nozzle but that could probably be fixed.
And hey! It's a lot less bulky than carrying an entire police officer.
Reply to this
This is a topic where we really disagree.
I am not a 90lb teenage girl nor am I pretty single woman who lives alone. I know however that their defense needs are far different from mine.
Having said that, there are many instances where a taser or pistol are inadequate for defense. There are also many times where a raised voice or fist are going to be absolutely worthless. (Ever try telling a charging feral hog to stop?)
I know people do stupid things when they are angry. (For that matter, there are many people without the temperament to drive the Dallas North Tollway but they are on it anyway.) I'll accept the losses from accidents as the payment to keeping people well armed.
My primary disagreement is that I do see the great need for self defense. I was arguing the point with my father, a Vietnam veteran, who stated that outside of combat, he had never had the need for a firearm.
My reply was that people usually do not discuss those times that they needed one but didn't have one and often have not lived through the encounter.
Generally speaking, situations that require more than your fists aren't those you get to "try again."
I might trust people a bit more too.
Reply to this
Ever try telling a charging feral hog to stop?
I just took away its credit card. BadumumpBUMP. I'll be here all week, folks; try the veal.
Well, that's two jokes; enough. I'm tempted to post a serious response to what I think of as a serious post, and I'll either -- with the host's permission, or not at all -- do that, or shut up now.
Reply to this
Not only do you have my permission, but I am very interested in your serious views. On this one, you are certainly far more expert than me.
Reply to this
Well, since you put it that way . . .
Here's where you're right: there is no epidemic of violent crime in the US. In the US, most (albeit, last time I looked at numbers, just barely most) urban, non-felon, working-class-or-worse-off black people will go through their whole lives without being the victim of a violent crime (albeit just barely), and that's the (law-abiding; criminals have higher risks) high-risk law-abiding demographic; look at a paler, richer, and/or less packed-in population, and the risks go down.
And much of that violent crime is, well, all in the family. Toss out the business opportunity murders between criminals, and it's hard (not impossible, but difficult) to find stranger-on-stranger murders in the pile of folks-who-know-each-other-ones; child molestation is almost never "Stranger Danger", but a trusted friend, teacher, or family member; rape is rarely the BTK killer and his van, but much more often Billy the Boyfriend who won't listen to "no" when he gets drunk.
I fail to see how a taser (or my preferred self-defense tool) is likely to be useful in most of those circumstances.
Here's where you're also right: people do stupid stuff, from time to time, and tools of any sort can make the stupid stuff more harmful. (The tool I really worry about is the one that does the most damage -- the automobile -- but even if the Big Three go out of business, we'll not get rid of those.)
And, one last time, here's where you're right: there's some obvious temptations to use tasers to do stupid stuff. I just spent a few minutes looking for incidents of noncops succumbing to those temptations with tasers, and haven't been able to find any, but maybe that's just because there's relatively few noncops with tasers out there. People doing stupid stuff with tools of all sorts? Sure. Guns, clubs, tire irons, bottles -- with or without broken necks -- kitchen knives, a pizza, a coffee mug, a beer mug, a bottle of Clorox bleach . . . and that's just the stuff I've been around for, and I don't get out much.
But here's where you're wrong: there is violent crime out there. And in some ways, it's gotten worse. It's barely in living memory when people in parts of Manhattan, on hot summer nights, used to take pillows and blankets out of their hot tenement apartments and head down a block or two to sleep in the relative coolth of Central Park. I know that Central Park doesn't quite deserve its mythic rep as a crime scene that it has out here in the Midwest, but, even so, that happening a lot lately? When I moved to my city, some years ago, there wasn't a neighborhood in the city I'd be at all concerned about walking through in the daytime. I haven't just gotten older and grouchier (although I have); some places have gone unsafe.
Continued on next rock...
Reply to this
... the next rock . . .
Here's also where you're wrong: having a useful tool handy can (not necessarily will, but can) make a difference. I not only know people who have been victims of violent crime, and people who have prevented themselves from being victimized by muggings and such because they've been lucky enough to have the right tool handy and have been able to get it out, but I am one.
Now, realistically, I'm unlikely to need such a tool again -- yay -- but, well, I'm also unlikely to be in another car crash; I'll still fasten my seat belt and tend to keep appropriate tools handy, when and where it's allowed.
Here's also where you're wrong: if somebody's going to be reaching for a tool while doing something stupid, a Taser is about the least bad choice. I have no desire to get hit with a taser (I've passed up an opportunity to volunteer), but I'd much rather get zapped than clubbed, and even untrained feet and hands can do a lot of damage.
All in all, if somebody is going to do something stupid to me or somebody I care about, I'd rather they a: be able to afford $350 up front; makes it more likely that they won't be judgment proof, later on b: leave quite literally hundred of piece of evidence lying about that they used it (the little tags that the Taser generates), than not.
So, all in all, I'm in favor of decriminalizing Taser possession. Might do some good; unlikely, IMHO, to often make a situation worse. Most of the time, it won't do much of anything, eithr way.
The one situation where it will, predictably, is where it tempts somebody into doing something stupid that they wouldn't otherwise do; I don't worry about that, basically on the grounds that you can't make anything foolproof, because the fools are far too ingenious.
Not my ox being gored, for once. When I travel to places where I can't carry my preferred self-defense tool (and I do, from time to time), I don't check the local laws to see if tasers are lawful there; I'm not overly fond of them, and I'd just rather speak softly, carry a cane (not some sword cane that'll land me in Federal hospitality -- just one of the wooden things), and only look like I actually need to lean on it when I'm hobbling past one of those folks who carry tasers and badges and guns.
Which is what I do. If somebody else wants to get some electronic toy, well, that's okay with me.
And I'd rather they carry the zapper than the oven spray, come to think of it; I might be downwind, and while I'll choke down some lutefisk now and then, lye in the air doesn't sound all that good an idea to me.
Reply to this
And I thank you for your thoughtful views. That said, I don't get the feeling you're even persuaded that there's either need or purpose to possession of Tasers by the public, and have just defaulted to the "better armed than not, all things being equal," position. You had no zeal in there. No joie de vie. No verve. No elan. I was left feeling empty, though not used.
Good point on the paper tags, but the way. It's one of the things about a Taser that was very smart to do.
Reply to this
You're welcome, of course; I apologize for the lack of zeal, but not for expressing it.
Reply to this
It wasn't an "apology" thing. I just wondered if there was another reason for the lack of passion on this one. You are usually such a passionate voice, you know.
Reply to this