NationStates Jolt Archive


Illinois says: Be good Sheep. Self Defense is Baaaad.

Syniks
03-06-2005, 17:30
Now non-lethal methods of self defense useable by the weak &/or disabled require regulation...

State to restrict stun-gun buys
Firearm ID card, 1-day wait will be required (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0506030170jun03,1,5722054.story?page=1&coll=chi-news-hed)

By Christi Parsons and Gary Washburn
Tribune staff reporters
Published June 3, 2005

Gov. Rod Blagojevich plans to sign legislation Friday that would require people who want to buy Tasers or other stun guns in Illinois to submit to a background check, just as if they were buying a rifle or other firearm.

The legislation, overwhelmingly approved by state lawmakers with little fanfare this spring, is the strongest response so far in the state to concerns that stun guns are potentially deadly and easy to misuse.

At the same time, a Chicago alderman is pushing a measure to require that sellers report the names of stun-gun buyers to the police, creating a paper trail that investigators could use if crimes are committed with them.

The bill on the governor's desk applies to civilians, although the sponsor said it was inspired in part by the death of a Chicago man after police used a Taser on him this year.

The measure would require stun-gun buyers in Illinois to have a state firearm owner's identification card--which requires a criminal background check--and wait at least 24 hours before making their purchase.

Though critics contend stun guns aren't lethal, sponsors of the proposals say they are just as dangerous as firearms.

"It only makes sense that civilians be required to undergo criminal background checks and a waiting period before they buy something capable of administering that kind of force," said state Sen. Jeff Schoenberg (D-Evanston), author of the bill on the governor's desk. "We should make the standards tougher for these things, which have enough voltage to kill somebody."

But sellers are angry about the proposals, which they say wrongly target law-abiding citizens who just want to be able to protect themselves. Stun guns should be available to anyone who thinks they need one, they argue.

Gregory Tropino, owner of G.A.T. Guns in Dundee Township, said he thinks elected officials are trying to solve problems that don't exist. The complaints are generally about how police use stun guns, and not about abuse by civilians, he said.

"I haven't seen statistics that say they're being used that often," Tropino said. "I don't see the necessity for the law when there's not a problem with it."

Stun guns have come under heightened scrutiny in recent years, as increased police use has drawn complaints across the nation that the devices involve excessive force and can kill in some cases. In February, a Chicago man died after police shocked him with a Taser when he tried to bite an officer, though medical examiners said Thursday they aren't certain if the stun gun was a factor in the death.

Though most criticism centers on how about 7,000 police departments nationwide are using stun guns, there are reports of street violence involving the weapons. A 20-year-old Elgin man who died after a mob fight in March was shocked several times with a stun gun by someone involved in the melee, police said, though the coroner determined the cause of death was a blow to the head. And in Round Lake, a high school student was suspended after he shocked another student with a stun gun two years ago.

In response to safety concerns, several cities and seven states have banned stun guns for civilian use, and this year state lawmakers in other states have considered passing almost three dozen laws to restrict the right to buy and own them. Illinois would be the first state to require a firearm license to own a stun gun, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures

Taser International, the maker of Tasers, said it has sold more than 100,000 stun guns to private citizens since 1994, when the company began selling to the public. The company is pushing to increase civilian sales but refused to say how many Tasers have been sold in Illinois.

Stun guns work by delivering a high voltage, low amperage shock that makes it difficult for the target to move and function for a few seconds. Often similar to a television remote control in shape and size, many stun guns require the user to make physical contact with the target.

The Taser models, on the other hand, can work from several feet away. They use compressed nitrogen to propel wires capped with electrodes. Because they don't use gunpowder, they aren't considered handguns and so are not regulated by the federal government.

Some stun guns sell for as little as $30. Tasers marketed to private citizens can cost as much as $1,000.

Illinois law generally prohibits people from carrying stun guns anywhere but at their homes and businesses. Bradley Tusk, a top aide to the governor, said Blagojevich would sign the new measure into law Friday.

Chicago Ald. Edward Burke (14th) originally proposed a ban on the sale and possession of stun guns in the city. But after he discovered that ownership is legal under state law, he decided to push instead for an ordinance requiring sellers to report all sales to the Police Department. Police would keep track of those sales.

If a stun gun is used in a robbery or other crime, Burke argues, police will have the advantage of knowing to whom the device was sold.

The proposal is awaiting consideration by a City Council committee.

Although Tasers are available on the Internet, Burke believes the company would voluntarily comply with an ordinance.

"They are a vendor to the city, and every police sergeant now has Taser," Burke said. "If they would not comply with notification and registration provisions, the city would not agree to purchase their product."

The maker of Tasers insists the products are not deadly. Taser International officials said the company requires criminal background checks for civilians who buy directly from it and refuses to sell to felons.

Any time a civilian model is fired, it releases at least 20 pieces of tiny confetti bearing the serial number, making it possible to trace to the company's records of registered owners.

"No other weapon in the world--guns, knives, chemical and pepper sprays, electronic defense units, or batons--can be traced from evidence at the scene of the crime to the registration of the user," Taser International spokesman Steve Tuttle said.

The National Rifle Association did not actively oppose the stun-gun measure in the legislature. But some local gun dealers, many of whom also sell stun guns, said the changes are a bad idea.

Roger Krahl, owner of R Guns in Carpentersville, said the licensing requirement amounts to at least a monthlong waiting period for people who don't have the firearm identification card. State police can take that long to process an application.

"It's getting to the point where it's ridiculous," Krahl said.

"What's next? Are we going to need a FOID card to own kitchen knives?"
-----
If you live in England, possibly....
Whispering Legs
03-06-2005, 17:40
You can get a pepper spray canister the size of a small fire extinguisher.

It's far more fun than a Taser (the pain doesn't stop). With a Taser, the pain stops when you take your hand off the button.

With the spray, the agony lasts for a while.

Legal in most places, and doesn't require a license.

I'm surprised that although police have noticed the following, the news organizations haven't caught on that criminals aren't running out and buying cheap cans of pepper spray to commit crimes. They have been used, but it's been a few rare incidents across the country.

A similar pattern for stun guns.

What most people don't know about the Taser is:

1. When you use the unit, the time is recorded inside the weapon.
2. When the darts fly out, a lot of little plastic chips with an ID number on them scatter around the area. This number is registered with the company that makes the gun.

Use a Taser, and you won't be able to pick up the chips. You won't be able to erase the record of firing in the unit.

Stupid.
Niccolo Medici
03-06-2005, 17:41
Why the need for registration? Have there been abuses? You'd look for some kind of cause for this "effect", or is the state just being a dick?

Stun Guns are NASTY, not exactly a cuddly, friendly way of taking someone down, they just about kill you, but leave you alive. Still, if they are tracable, why go through the trouble of pre-tracing them?
Drunk commies deleted
03-06-2005, 17:42
Just buy a powerfull refillable spray can and load it up with a strong solution of pool shock. Imagine the look on a mugger's face when his eyes are suffering from severe chemical burns!
Marmite Toast
03-06-2005, 17:47
I hope the anti-self-defense people get mugged.
Whispering Legs
03-06-2005, 17:48
Why the need for registration? Have there been abuses? You'd look for some kind of cause for this "effect", or is the state just being a dick?

Stun Guns are NASTY, not exactly a cuddly, friendly way of taking someone down, they just about kill you, but leave you alive. Still, if they are tracable, why go through the trouble of pre-tracing them?

There are many types of governance:

1. The nanny state: People are all irresponsible, and all people are guilty until proven innocent. Therefore, no one can be trusted with anything that might, in extremis, pose a threat.

and make this a sliding scale to...

6. Everyone else: Most people are responsible, and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, people in general can be trusted with anything.


Now we have the Legs Scale of Government Relations With Its People.

This legislation is a "1"
Syniks
03-06-2005, 17:51
Just buy a powerfull refillable spray can and load it up with a strong solution of pool shock. Imagine the look on a mugger's face when his eyes are suffering from severe chemical burns!
Yeah, but that sort of thing really sucks when it leaks all over your Brooks Brothers....

Oh, as an aside, I had a buddy of who was in EOD that told me that if he ever saw me coming at him unannounced with a squirt-gun he would shoot me for general purposes...

Of course he told me this after I showed him a neat little trick with DMSO and a spray bottle...
Lacadaemon
03-06-2005, 17:55
Wait!

How are drunks going to get stun guns to chase each other around with then?

That's what I want to know.
Seangolia
03-06-2005, 18:09
Stun guns aren't deadly. High voltage doesn't kill you. It causes immense pain, but it doesn't kill. Amps is what kills you. Stun guns simply(in general) do not have enough amps to cause any major harm to the person being harmed.

However, people are stupid...

Thus a "Stun-Gun" IQ test must be taken before you can get one. Problem solved.
Whispering Legs
03-06-2005, 18:11
Of course he told me this after I showed him a neat little trick with DMSO and a spray bottle...

Now, was that DMSO and nicotine, or DMSO and methyl mercury?
imported_Berserker
03-06-2005, 18:16
Stun guns aren't deadly. High voltage doesn't kill you. It causes immense pain, but it doesn't kill. Amps is what kills you. Stun guns simply(in general) do not have enough amps to cause any major harm to the person being harmed.

However, people are stupid...

Thus a "Stun-Gun" IQ test must be taken before you can get one. Problem solved.
There is a chance however, that the low-amp shockshock could lead to arrhythmias, which can kill.
Seangolia
03-06-2005, 18:28
There is a chance however, that the low-amp shockshock could lead to arrhythmias, which can kill.

True... but that's not very likely.

There's a chance someone will die if you hit them in self defense, does that mean we should ban self defense all together?

Note, this is not directed towards you, just those who want to ban tazers.
East Canuck
03-06-2005, 18:46
I see nothing wrong in a legislation that makes you wait 24 hours before letting you go out with a dangerous weapon that can be used to perpetrate crime.

It's not a ban or anything of the sort. It's a security precaution. One the manifacturer of the taser is doing on his own (background check) I might add.

This is blown way out of proportion.
Whispering Legs
03-06-2005, 18:49
I see nothing wrong in a legislation that makes you wait 24 hours before letting you go out with a dangerous weapon that can be used to perpetrate crime.

It's not a ban or anything of the sort. It's a security precaution. One the manifacturer of the taser is doing on his own (background check) I might add.

This is blown way out of proportion.

Good thing I can go down to the mall, and visit Chesapeake Knife & Tool (http://www.ckandt.com/shop) and buy a sword with no waiting period, no license, and no background check.
Glorious Discordia
03-06-2005, 18:55
Why the need for registration? Have there been abuses? You'd look for some kind of cause for this "effect", or is the state just being a dick?

Stun Guns are NASTY, not exactly a cuddly, friendly way of taking someone down, they just about kill you, but leave you alive. Still, if they are tracable, why go through the trouble of pre-tracing them?

Tasers and stun guns aren't all they're cracked up to be. Most of the larger people I know who have taken a hit with them found it painful but not incapacitating. I've seen people who didn't even go down, and alot of people get back up as soon as the shock stops. The problem with Tasers is that they become less effective the heavier someone is (200 pounds is when they start to lose their punch) and the higher their pain tollerance is.
Glorious Discordia
03-06-2005, 18:57
Just buy a powerfull refillable spray can and load it up with a strong solution of pool shock. Imagine the look on a mugger's face when his eyes are suffering from severe chemical burns!

Two words: Bear Mace.
East Canuck
03-06-2005, 18:57
Good thing I can go down to the mall, and visit Chesapeake Knife & Tool (http://www.ckandt.com/shop) and buy a sword with no waiting period, no license, and no background check.
One weapon at a time, it seems.
Whispering Legs
03-06-2005, 18:59
One weapon at a time, it seems.
I've visited the in-mall store before, and bought as many as six at once.

Of course, I live in Virginia...

I can also go buy a pistol, and walk out of the store with it after the instant background check.
East Canuck
03-06-2005, 19:02
I've visited the in-mall store before, and bought as many as six at once.

Of course, I live in Virginia...

I can also go buy a pistol, and walk out of the store with it after the instant background check.
Let me rephrase that, then. Legislation will come one weapon at a time it seems.

But that is besides the point I was trying to make. This is a story blown out of proportion where those denouncing the bill are the only ones that are talking about a ban.

I don't care if you can buy a pistol in Virginia without a wait-period. This is entirely besides the point.
Ilek-Vaad
03-06-2005, 19:05
Why the need for registration? Have there been abuses? You'd look for some kind of cause for this "effect", or is the state just being a dick?

Stun Guns are NASTY, not exactly a cuddly, friendly way of taking someone down, they just about kill you, but leave you alive. Still, if they are tracable, why go through the trouble of pre-tracing them?


There have been abuses, but so far only by law enforcement, the tasered five year old leaps to mind or the eighty year old woman , or the man in Portland tasered repeatedly while in handcuffs until he was dead.
Anarchic Conceptions
03-06-2005, 19:08
If you live in England, possibly....

I would object. But meh, our state is stupidly nannyish at times.
Syniks
03-06-2005, 19:23
I see nothing wrong in a legislation that makes you wait 24 hours before letting you go out with a dangerous weapon that can be used to perpetrate crime.

It's not a ban or anything of the sort. It's a security precaution. One the manifacturer of the taser is doing on his own (background check) I might add.

This is blown way out of proportion.
Not exactly. It requires a 24 hour wait for people who have already undergone an extensive background chect to get the Illinois Firearm Identification Card

Getting a FOID can take over a month. How nice for your stalker/ex. They get 1 month + 24 hours to mess with you before you can even get a NON-LETHAL self-defense tool. After going through the hassle of getting an FOID, you might as well go buy a good handgun. They cost less than a Tazer anyway.
East Canuck
03-06-2005, 19:30
Not exactly. It requires a 24 hour wait for people who have already undergone an extensive background chect to get the Illinois Firearm Identification Card

Getting a FOID can take over a month. How nice for your stalker/ex. They get 1 month + 24 hours to mess with you before you can even get a NON-LETHAL self-defense tool. After going through the hassle of getting an FOID, you might as well go buy a good handgun. They cost less than a Tazer anyway.
Well, if you have a stalker, there are other ways than taking matters in your own hands and go buy a dangerous weapon to stop it.

You might want to consider calling the police, being accompanied by friends, etc...

Furthermore, if you have a stalker who's following you *now*, getting in a shop and buy, say, a gun is not always an option. For one thing, with your high stress level you are more prone to inadvertenly shoot some bystander than actually stop the stalker.

Just points to consider...
Domici
03-06-2005, 20:42
I hope the anti-self-defense people get mugged.

The anti-self defense people are, for the most part, police groups. To you or I a taser or can of pepper spray is a way to defend you against a mugger. For a cop, a taser in anyone else's hand is a way for people to resist police arrest.

I've been told that in NYC even bullet proof jackets are illegal unless you have a job that authorizes it. You would think that a bullet proof jacket is something purely defensive. No cop could protest, right? But to a the PBA, their need to shoot the occaisional criminal who may protect himself from police bullets trumps your need to avoid stray bullets (not that most parts of the city have that many stray bullets these days).
Whispering Legs
03-06-2005, 20:52
Well, if you have a stalker, there are other ways than taking matters in your own hands and go buy a dangerous weapon to stop it.

You might want to consider calling the police, being accompanied by friends, etc...

Furthermore, if you have a stalker who's following you *now*, getting in a shop and buy, say, a gun is not always an option. For one thing, with your high stress level you are more prone to inadvertenly shoot some bystander than actually stop the stalker.

Just points to consider...

You obviously have no experience with stalkers. I do. So does my wife. So do the 104 women I've trained.

Not one is truly protected by the protective order from the court. In fact, women are more likely to be killed AFTER obtaining such an order. More likely to be attacked. More likely to be raped. And police are under NO obligation to provide service to such a woman - any more than they are required to provide service to anyone else. The stalker waits until the police leave and then they do WHATEVER they want.

Your friends also cannot remain with you at all times. And until the friends leave, the stalker will remain in the background. You WILL see him.

Stalkers are ex-husbands and ex-boyfriends - most of whom began not by stalking, but by physically abusing the woman.

Stalkers do not stop until they are either dead or threatened with death. There are women who are being stalked from prison - their ex-husband is using phone call and mail privileges to keep tabs on her so that when he gets out...

The only thing these men understand is raw naked force. It WORKS. None of the women I have trained have had a repeat of stalking, abuse, harassment, or any attempted violence.

The protective order from the court defines the man as an immediate threat to life and limb - she has a concealed carry permit and a weapon.

Put everyone in the same spot, and she has essentially a license to kill him.

Notify the man of that situation - explain it to him - and it's something he understands.

He can't get a gun because once you're the subject of a protective order, you can't buy one - for the rest of your life. You're in the government computer forever. And the police WILL come and search your property for firearms - and take them away.

Now, you can be the big, bad wife beater. Disarmed. And your ex-wife has a license to kill you if you come into sight.

It WORKS. They stay AWAY.
Syniks
03-06-2005, 21:08
Well, if you have a stalker, there are other ways than taking matters in your own hands and go buy a dangerous weapon to stop it.

You might want to consider calling the police, being accompanied by friends, etc...

Furthermore, if you have a stalker who's following you *now*, getting in a shop and buy, say, a gun is not always an option. For one thing, with your high stress level you are more prone to inadvertenly shoot some bystander than actually stop the stalker.

Just points to consider...
Canuck, a Taser (or any stun gun) is certainly NOT a "dangerous weapon". That's its main selling point. It is a device for rendering someone teoporarily helpless for a short period with minimal physiological damage. If they had a multiple-use non-wire-attached ranged capability I'd carry one myself.

The entire point of the thread, and the problem that SHOULD be apparant to people who don't like guns is: If you have to get a background check/FOID to purchase an over-priced cattle-prod you might as well buy a GUN since you have the license anyway.

This is the idiocy of this program. "Guns are bad" so you need to get a license to buy one. But if you have to get the same license to buy a NON-GUN, then you steer people into gun ownership (yay). But "guns are bad". :rolleyes:

Does that make any sense? It apparantly does to the Illinois legislature/Govorner.
East Canuck
03-06-2005, 21:17
Canuck, a Taser (or any stun gun) is certainly NOT a "dangerous weapon". That's its main selling point. It is a device for rendering someone teoporarily helpless for a short period with minimal physiological damage. If they had a multiple-use non-wire-attached ranged capability I'd carry one myself.

The entire point of the thread, and the problem that SHOULD be apparant to people who don't like guns is: If you have to get a background check/FOID to purchase an over-priced cattle-prod you might as well buy a GUN since you have the license anyway.

This is the idiocy of this program. "Guns are bad" so you need to get a license to buy one. But if you have to get the same license to buy a NON-GUN, then you steer people into gun ownership (yay). But "guns are bad". :rolleyes:

Does that make any sense? It apparantly does to the Illinois legislature/Govorner.
Granted, a taser is not as deadly as a weapon. But it is dangerous. It can incapacitate a person for a varying lenght of time.

As such, I am for a background check. An Firearm ID is going overboard, I'll grant you that, but since the system is already in place, why not use it? It cut the cost for the government.
Syniks
03-06-2005, 21:32
Granted, a taser is not as deadly as a weapon. But it is dangerous. It can incapacitate a person for a varying lenght of time.

As such, I am for a background check. An Firearm ID is going overboard, I'll grant you that, but since the system is already in place, why not use it? It cut the cost for the government.

Um, because it draws/pushes people to gun ownership? I would think that alone would be enough for most anti-gun people to oppose it.

Sadly it becomes more and more apparant that anti-gun people aren't anti-gun, they are anti-self defense.

IMO if you are anti self-defense you are pro criminal predation - i.e. pro sociopath. I just can't understand that.
The Bridgette
03-06-2005, 22:33
Well, if you have a stalker, there are other ways than taking matters in your own hands and go buy a dangerous weapon to stop it.

You might want to consider calling the police, being accompanied by friends, etc...

Furthermore, if you have a stalker who's following you *now*, getting in a shop and buy, say, a gun is not always an option. For one thing, with your high stress level you are more prone to inadvertenly shoot some bystander than actually stop the stalker.

Just points to consider...


yeah, from that you obviously don't have a clue. go watchh that stalker movie on lifetime for a clue

like a little piece of paper is going to save you from being beaten/raped/killed

after your friends go home and the police says the it seems to be clear now

do you even know how scary and helpless you feel from that, i say give them their safty blanket if it helps take the edge off.