Pick Your Poison: Why It Doesn’t Make Sense to Ban Tasers

It’s a little after 10 p.m. and you’re finally done with your shift as a nurse at a county hospital in a somewhat scary part of town. The parking garage isn’t very well lit so you try to hurry to your car across the garage. As you walk you hear footsteps behind you and a man quietly clears his throat. You tell yourself it’s someone else heading to his car, but you notice the pace is the same as yours and heading in the same direction. It’s possible he’s parked near you, but it’s also possible you’re in danger. At this point fear might be setting in, and your mind is probably racing to figure out what you’re going to do to avoid a possible confrontation or how you’ll react if it happens.

Pause.

If you had the luxury of choosing what weapon you were about to be attacked with, would you choose a gun, a knife, or a Taser? I don’t think there is a woman (or man, for that matter) who wouldn’t choose to be attacked with a Taser, as it has the least potential for lasting injury and certainly least likely to cause death. Other injuries can certainly occur in addition to being tased, but obviously much more serious injuries could occur from the use of a knife or gun.

So having emphasized that Tasers are less harmful than most potential weapons, why are Tasers are so controversial for possession and being debated more vigorously than weapons such as knives, or even “homemade” weapons like tire irons, baseball bats, chains, etc. As an example, in Portland, Oregon in 2004 a group of juvenile boys were convicted of assault using deadly weapons. One of those weapons was a chain anchored by a padlock. Not to trivialize the serious nature of that crime, but there was no rush to ban chains anchored by padlocks after that incident. As well there is no controversy over the legality of the possession of a baseball bat. The idea is ridiculous, right? Why then, are Tasers being so heavily debated and criticized when they are capable of nowhere near the injuries the previously mentioned items are? At the very least, Tasers should be granted the same leniency those weapons are, and held to the same standards of punishment when used intentionally for violent crime.

Tasers are relatively new concept to the general public, and that always comes with uncertainty and caution. But more often than not Tasers have proven to be helpful rather than hurtful, and undoubtedly saved countless more lives than they’ve taken. History has shown that crime cannot be stopped by banning the weapons involved, so the most the government can do is increase the consequence for misuse of said weapons. Tasers should definitely not be exempt from legislation on those matters; rather, it would go a long way for consumer confidence if Tasers were accepted into the mainstream of self-defense and awareness about them was increased. Remember, if you would choose to be attacked by a Taser over most other possibilities, why are the efforts not doubled to ban other, infinitely more dangerous weapons? Because it doesn’t make sense and neither does banning Tasers.