December 11, 2008
Ban Tasers?
Eugene Volokh notes that civilians are banned from owning Tasers in seven states and four cities in the U.S., and questions why that's so.
Volokh offers three rationales for carrying a Taser:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. When the defender isn't willing to use a deadly weapon, even against an attacker.
Given that criminals are willing to ignore weapons-related prohibitions, what is to be gained by prohibiting law-abiding members of society from using less-than-lethal self-defense devices?
The comments following Volokh's post provide a number of interesting tidbits:
A quick google search indicates [Taser cartridges] cost something like $50 per 'shot'. I would think that would discourage inappropriate use to some degree.
If, however, a private citizen uses their TASER in legitimate self-defense situation, and provides TASER International with a copy of the police report for such incident, the company will replace the dart cartridge for free.
One other factor mitigating against misuse, and in favor of the bans being silly: When a TASER is fired, it disperses about 30 colored pieces of paper (they look like the detritus from a 3-hole punch, only smaller) imprinted with the serial number of the dart cartridge ... these "anti-felon ID tags", as TASER International calls them, can generally be recovered from the scene of a TASER discharge and the purchaser of the weapon that fired them identified.
This is not foolproof (TASER weapons or cartridges could conceivably be lost, borrowed or stolen), but it serves to further reduce the risk of misuse.
Fifty dollars per shot? That'll discourage casual (mis)use of the stun gun.
But the reasons for opposing sale to non-government actors still mystifies me. Why allow gun ownership, but not something less dangerous than a gun?
I suspect that another commenter was close to the truth when he said that it's all about discouraging self-defense, the mindset that each person has some stake in his own safety, the goal being complete dependence on the State from cradle to grave.
Posted by Mike Lief at December 11, 2008 09:51 PM
| TrackBack