A State Representative from Rhode Island, Edith Ajello, is proposing a ban on stun guns. She believes that they are too dangerous, and should only be
in the hands of police officers. Stun guns have replaced firearms for many in the search for affordable self defence, they are preferred by women
especially. Recently many police departments around the country have issued Tasers to their officers in an effort to reduce the number of shooting
deaths - especially 'suicide by cop', which is a disturbingly common trend across the country.
www.abc6.com
A state lawmaker is proposing a ban on private ownership of stun guns.
The stun guns, also known as tasers, emit a powerful electric shock and can disable those they're used against.
State Representative Edith Ajello's bill would outlaw private ownership of the weapons.
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
So is this a well intentioned bill to save lives, or a calculated effort to further disarm an already controlled population? I think the potential
for abuse of stun guns is high, especially for use in robberies. However, I also think the potential for abuse of bricks is high, especially for use
in robberies. The age old issue of gun control once again rears its ugly head.
There will probably not be much resistance to this measure, which is unfortunate I think, because it builds upon an already dangerous precedent. As
our civil liberties become more and more corroded, we become that much more susceptible to the influence of those armed parties who reside in our
society - cops and crooks.
It's my understanding that police wearing vests would be all but impervious to stun guns, and so that's likely not the issue. I'm sure the key
issue is the potential to use these devices in aggrivated assault and robbery. Now, I may be way off base here, but if you were being robbed, would
you rather be stunned and lose your wallet, or be shot/clubbed/stabbed and lose some blood, maybe your life?
[edit on 3-4-2005 by WyrdeOne]
[edit on 3-4-2005 by WyrdeOne]