A couple of things: The language in SB 956 was good, for tasers. 956 was killed because of the way it would have restricted parents coming to pick up their kids. This is not so big here in Portland, but in rural communities, parents have their guns in the back of their pickups, and they wouldn't have been able to go onto school property without getting arrested. What we saw, regarding tasers, is a problem with "stuffing" a bill. I have zero problem banning students from carrying weapons, even if they are over the age of 18...most folks wouldn't. Put that up to a straight up vote, and it would pass with flying colors. Making a parent a class C felony and then disenfranchising them for having a can of pepper spray or a taser on their person when they go to pick up Jane or John from class at the end of the day is what will trip up such a bill (and that that was what could have happened.) Second: Tasers and stun guns are just a HORRIBLE defense. Tasers are generally not "guns"...they don't project force in the way that a firearm does, i.e. they don't allow you to use them unless the person is RIGHT up next to you, close enough to touch them. If they are that close and quite bent on causing you physical harm, they are there. A can of pepper spray is better for that reason: they allow you to project force, and keep you at some amount of physical distance, although most of the 4oz sizes aren't capable of long distance projection. However, the spray pattern is very very imprecise, and affected by wind (don't p**s into the wind, my grandpa told me once,) and location (dont' spray in an elevator, for instance.) As is the case with anything electrical, there must be a conductor in place for Tasers or stun guns to be effective, and unless you are able to make that connection happen, it will make some noise, and not much else. For that reason, heavy jackets, leather jackets, some shirts/vests, and other items will block it. Most purses, backpacks, etc, will render them useless. That brings us to a "gun" style of these things. This is going to get a bit wonky, so bear with me: Shooting is easy. There are a LOT of folks that shoot. Heck, I would love to take you shooting, Amanda. I am a member of the Pink Pistols, and we would love to take you out and teach you how much fun it is to make holes in paper and make potatoes explode. But a bullet is a relatively aerodynamic item, propelled at a high velocity, with nothing connecting back to the firearm that contained the original propellent. At interpersonal ranges, say <15 feet, its trajectory is limited by the obstacles in its path. In other words, it's stable. A Stun gun "shoots" using compressed air (typically), a projectile who's purpose is to latch onto the target. That projectile, or dart, is tethered to the capacitance device in the shooters hand. Trailing each dart is a pair of wires. This lends a degree of instablity to its inflight trajectory. Couple that with the relative low mass of the darts, the amount of charge used to propell that dart, and its not a winning combination for someone unless they have a LOT of training, and other means of subjugation at their disposal, AKA: Backup. Each time the unit is fired, it must be "recharged" or a new propellent unit must be applied, and the wires/darts wound up and returned to battery in order for it to be re-used. Now, most Police Departments *do* that training, and they recertify yearly, IIRC, but the average person is unlikely to practice with their "stun gun" and instead rely on sheer luck. The combination of inaccuracy, technical skill to return to battery, unlikelyhood of practice and cost for practice makes this a poor choice for someone to use as a defensive measure. They are better off with a baseball bat--universally available, cheap as dirt at goodwill, and fairly devestating on the less-lethal front. Sjamboks apply the same principle as a baseball bat, but tack on another foot or so of length (more distance is better for our purposes here) and physics to give the user even greater defensive capabilities. Of course, we all know that tasers only work part of the time. Thats why you rarely see ONE police office taking on a suspect with them...they want many stun guns around, in case of a miss or a heavy jacket. These stun guns can't be re-shot. Once they are done, you have to coil it back up, re-charge the propellent, and only THEN can you use it. Now, I am unsure how the above factors come into play when using a stun gun or taser as an OFFENSIVE weapon. I know that pepper spray is used, and in countries where firearms are banned, like South Africa, you see club-like devices as their weapon-of-choice for killings and assaults, but the same factors that make these electrical devices a poor choice for defense also make them less-reliable for offense. Sorry for going all wonky on ya. ---------------- My opinions are my own, and my own only. they do not reflect those of my employer, my wife, my kids, my dog, my cats, my chickens, or my government.

I'd love to go target shooting with the Pink Pistols, JJ! Send me an email and let's set it up. Growing up in England, they used to use live ammo at the target-shooting booths at carnivals, and let kids play. Don't know if they still do. Anyway, that was always my favorite stall, and I was pretty good, although that was using rifles. Thanks for expanding my post - good information. It's not quite accurate that you have to be close enough to touch a person with all Tasers - as you note later in your post, the gun-style allows it to be shot at a distance of least 20 feet. Good point about having to reload after a miss, though - that would cut down on its effectiveness as an offensive weapon.

* One of the local TV stations did a piece on Tasers yesterday - did anyone see it? * If you're looking for self-defense, and you're female, take the Womenstrength class. It's open to all ages, and excellent. They teach strategies more effective than using weapons of any kind, including pepper spray. Participants are sworn to secrecy about what they are, so take the class if you want to know.

Wow. It has been a long time since you were back in England, hasn't it? http://preview.tinyurl.com/y8wwml is the wikipedia entry on gun control in England. Post Dublane, there is nothing like what you experienced growing up. Indeed, they have to grant exceptions for Olympic shooting events in 2012. There are essentially no legal guns in the hands of citizens in all of the GB, with the exception of certain types of shotguns. And yeah...the distinction between "taser" and "stun gun" is blurred. I chose to use "Taser" to represent the hand-held, non-projectile variety, and "Stun Gun" to represent the projectile firing variety. I apologize for not making that clear :-) My opinions are my own, and my own only. they do not reflect those of my employer, my wife, my kids, my dog, my cats, my chickens, or my government.

Gun ownership wasn't legal in the UK when I was growing up (I immigrated here in 1979). Only at the fair - and nobody got shot, even there. I guess when guns are legal only at carnivals, only carnival-goers have guns, and they're too busy trying to win the "cuddly toy" (aka stuffed animal) to shoot anyone. You're right, times have changed.

cCxsip propecia 253636 cialis gyh tramadol myzvcx xanax 033 accutane online %-OO