The Case For Tasers
Posted Wednesday, July 2, 2008 at 2:17:22 PM
A great Op-Ed in the New York Times today discusses the importance, or rather, the irrelevance of the recent Supreme Court decision overturning Washington D.C.’s ban on handguns. Paul H. Robinson, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, argues that for self-defense, a taser is in almost every instance better than a handgun.
Main Points:
Tasers immediately stun attackers by triggering a muscle spasm, whereas guns must hit the attacker in a certain location, “such as the area between the eyes.”
One is only legally allowed to use deadly force (guns) to halt imminent and very serious aggression (rape, murder, kidnapping). Tasers can be used to stop any kind of illegal aggression!
Conclusion:
“As effective less-than-lethal weapons proliferate, the laws of self-defense may ultimately relegate last week’s court decision to the status of an odd little opinion, one that works mainly to ensure some special constitutional status for gunpowder technology. Gun collectors will be fond of it, but for most of society, it will have little practical effect.”
Posted by Jack Craver.
Anonymous (July 3, 2008 @ 12:04am):
Dear Jack,
Maybe more people would care about what you posted on this blog if you weren't just repeating what other people had to say about national issues. Try at least adding some of your own opinions or talking about something UW or at least Wisconsin related.
Sincerely,
People who wonder why they even bother to check the BH website over the summer
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
