I agree with you Chris on several points. I think that tasers are a helpful alternative to firearms, so long as they are used by law enforcement with the same caution that firearms are used. If the restrictions on taser use were anywhere near as strict as restrictions around the use of firearms in law enforcement, we would have far fewer fatal incidents surrounding tasers.

I do worry about the effects of mass distribution of tasers to ordinary citizens. I imagine that one of the many reasons that gun violence is more common in the states is because of the overabundance of firearms in the hands of frightened people. No doubt, in many situations, there is good reason to fear, yet there seems to be great consequences when society is overcharged with weapons. Abundance of weapons, to me, seems to increase fear rather than assuage it. I don’t want to sound like the perpetually naive idealist, but wouldn’t it be nice if we could take a collective deep breath and just opt to demilitarize in all aspects of public/private life.

Good point about the Langdon man. I have a heirloom item that is also a blunt object to hit folk with if they come to my house in the middle of the night, However my comment about fearful suburbanites was more to point to the number of people living in fear about their safety (gated communities, neighbourhood security forces, ect.). I question how real the threat is and how much the threat is intensified by media. I don’t think people are justly frightened, so we disagree on this point.

If I were ever to use a taser myself, or give the iTaze to Laura as a gift, I would do so with full knowledge that I am responsible to the well-being of any person I use it on. If the moment came to zap an intruder (or a movie talker!), I would zap knowing that I am choosing to risk the other persons life, which is a serious thing indeed. I don’t think the Best Buy security guard tased this agitated customer responsibly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdCUdR8qNF4

I believe that tasers should indeed be used as an alternative to firearms for law enforcement, but I don’t believe they should be used as a lazy form for apprehension as in the Robert Dziekanski example where other techniques could have easily been used.

In response to your comment about the lethal weapon for the frightened suburban and urban mid-to-upper class, I would rather see a frightened world of people protecting themselves with (non-leathal) tasers over hand-guns or knives. Last week in Langdon a man was stabbed to death and another is in critical condition after a botched home invasion. In the USofA, this would have been two simple bullets in the head; in Canada we use knives. What would have happened with a taser?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2008/01/03/langdon-invasion.html

Last week there were 4 home invasions in the Calgary SE (my quadrant of town) and one incident ended with the use of bear spray as protection. In a world where people are justly frightened, what would be an appropriate means of defense? How would you protect Laura if someone kicked in your door?

Ian, I think a legal ruling about tasers would go a long way to make things safer. I understand that security guards at malls have them as well as police (and, soon enough,high school teachers!). That means teenagers who are rowdy or shoplfting are getting tased. I hope more people will take taser usage seriously.

Is it safe to assume this is only being released in the USA? The Dziekanski incident is still so fresh in Canadians’ minds that I can’t imagine this going over well. I agree, the authorities need to admit that Tasers are weapons and handle them accordingly, including how they are distributed to the public. A legal ruling that Tasers can kill would, I think, make people think twice about the consequences of using one of these things unnecessarily.