Jump to content

Talk:Taser/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Taser

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elvey (talk | contribs) at 02:43, 15 November 2016 (Cleanup per WP:NLT - blatant Chilling effect (law) intent totally unencylopedic. Company has a history of such threats. "there appears to be an aggressive effort by the company to silence critics" - http://archive.is/msEWw (and BS at the end.)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1Archive 2

Statement by the UN Committee against Torture

I included a direct quote from the UNCaT; Flatscan changed it back to a more euphemistic form, apparently objecting that the leading phrase "The Committee was worried that...", as used in the UN reference document, is misrepresented by saying that the "Committee reported that". I have included the full sentence in the UN reference document, which on the one hand begins with that "..was worried that...", and on the other hand refers flatly to the use of the Taser as constituting a form of torture; not "can be a form of", or etc.Kiwanda (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The full quotation satisfies my objection. Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"does not rely on pain compliance"

Flatscan has removed a change of mine from the first paragraph of the article, clarifying the role of "pain compliance" in the use of Tasers. Prior to my clarification, the article was logically incoherent, or at best misleading: the first paragraph stated that "Tasers do not rely on pain compliance...", while the "Drive Stun" mode, as described in the "Drive Stun" section, is all about "pain compliance". The revision by Flatscan replaced that first sentence by "In their primary mode, Tasers do not rely on pain compliance...", which is at least not logically incoherent, but remains misleading: it soft-pedals, until later in the article, the character of "drive stun".

Finally, in both modes the target is subjected to excruciating pain, which aids in "compliance" whether the subject is temporarily paralyzed or not. Thus my wording "Taser does not rely only on pain compliance" is more accurate.Kiwanda (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your reasoning. I prefer to avoid the "#Drive Stun" section link if possible, due to the unsightly "#" prefix and —fixed Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC) its linking back to the same article. I'll try to think of a way to reconcile our points.
Please try to avoid reverting multiple edits. I made 4 discrete edits, which you summarily reverted, despite only discussing two of them. Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the reversion of the four discrete edits, my apologies, I did not intend any changes that I did not discuss. I'm not sure what happened.Kiwanda (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Spelling "tazer"?

I notice that tazer redirects to taser, but with no mention in the article. Is "tazer" a valid variant spelling or just a plain error? SpectrumDT (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a misspelling; I tagged the redirect with {{R from misspelling}} around a year ago. For more information, see #Style above. Flatscan (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Excited delirium

It strikes me, looking at US police chase 'documentaries' on TV that excited delirium is predominantly taking place in the brains of US police officers rather than in fugitives or suspects. In these chases, the police finally have their alibi to go berserk. I reckon that the same is taking place when they use the 'innocuous' taser. Ever heard of 'let go and catch later?' as a policy? The controversial nature of the issue of excited delirium leads me to propose that the section on that topic be skipped completely. It is a typical example of US pseudorationality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.178.72 (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Particularly after reading the article on excited delirium (which itself seems particularly POV by nature), it seems like its inclusion here is solely to dismiss criticisms from those who claim taser usage is abused by essentially claiming it to be the victims fault and not the fault of taser abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.117.210 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Style

Capitalization of noun

The most common style on Wikipedia is "Taser", with the exception of the title and lead of TASER International. Flatscan (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

On recent review of What links here, I have seen "taser" used more often. Flatscan (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
TASER International is now at Taser International, per your comment and per the Manual of Style. --Ckatzchatspy 05:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Brief discussion at Talk:Robert Dziekański Taser incident#Article name: "Taser" or "taser"?, settled on "Taser". I noticed a consistent use of lowercase "taser" in articles from The Globe and Mail. Flatscan (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, most of the refs I reviewed from that article used "Taser", The Globe and Mail was the exception. Flatscan (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Verb

  • Taser/taser
  • Tase/tase, backformed from Tase-r, generally uncapitalized

I'm not sure if there's a clear "winner" by current Wikipedia usage. As of the UCLA Taser incident (November 2006), usage in news articles was inconsistent. Following the University of Florida Taser incident (September 2007, "Don't tase me, bro!"), popular usage supports "tase". "Tase" appears to have been in use by law enforcement prior to both of these incidents. Flatscan (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

  • tased/tasered

It looks to me that tasered is far more often used than tased. A search on Google will proof that. Try http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=tased (248.000 hits)

and tasered: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=tasered (785.000 hits)

or compare google news tasered (about 800 hits) vs. tased (about 450). Looks like we have a clear winner, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.25.254 (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My search results concur with yours. I was under the impression that "tase" had become more common than "taser" recently, but it appears that "taser" is still in common use. I prefer "tase" due to its use by law enforcement and its easy disambiguation between the device (Taser) and the activation (tase). Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You suggest that the verb "to taser" is dying out, yet it is increasingly more common than "to tase". Therefore now is the time to use the already far more common "to taser" (as Google will confirm). It's easy to circumvent "disambiguation" by using "Taser" (capital T) for the electroshock gun, and "taser" (small t) for the verb. No problems of "disambiquation" in the past tense either.

Law enforcement in Canada and New Zealand consistently prefers the usage of the verb "to taser" and also many US law enforcement have used "to taser" in the many interviews. Given the scope of usage, the solution to circumvent "disambiguation", and it's general usage by the general public at large as well as world-wide law enforcement the verb "to taser" would most likely be the most preferable one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.25.254 (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Precise Time

I don't know how to edit the sentence, "At the present time, there are two main police models, the M26 and X26" in the first paragraph. When is the present time? And making matters more confusing, there's an apparently-new sentence about the X3—does this change the fact to three police models or two civilian models? I'm pretty sure this is not the best place to put this part of the discussion, but this is my very first official edit anywhere in Wikipedia, and I apologize for not being able to find a tag (like "citation needed") that would just say this for me simply—and since I bring it up in context of the "At the present time" issue, I just hoped for the best in putting it somewhere on this discussion page. ParodyKnaveBob (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Legality- Australia

Just about any weapon in Australia is 'illegal', especially one that looks like a gun. For example, in New South Wales it is illegal to carry ANY cutting implement, allowance being made for tools etc, under 'reasonable excuse' provisions. Security guards can't even buy their own collapsible batons anymore, the employer has to provide.

I haven't looked into it yet having just found this article. But the chances of private ownership of a Taser or similar device is about ZERO. The chances of it being illegal in every state, except for police use, is about 99.9% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.28.25 (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality in use in schools

This statement is not consistent with the Wikipedia policy on neutrality: "As a result, tasers should either be prohibited in schools or classified as lethal weapons" and should probably be removed or altered. However we personally feel on the issue, Wikipedia is not a place for mixing political opinion with encyclopedic fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.228.221 (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Nova Technologies "Taser"

A new Taser (called th Stun Ray) is being developed by Nova Technologies in cooperation with Oleg Nemtyshkin. This taser uses unshielded wires, and less energy and as a result has a cost of about 1/5th of current tasers (3£ vs 15£) refs= http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-05/21/russian-man-aims-to-reinvent-'taser'-technology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.227.212 (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2010‎ (UTC)

Sweden firearms law


I updated the Sweden section because Sweden law does NOT make any firearms prohibited. Any firearm is legally possessable and useable as long as you have a license for that specific firearm (with that specific serial number)

Translated:
3 § What are said about firearms also apply to:

a) Devices which its functioning and using is similiar to firearms,
b) Non-functional firearms which in a functional state would be a firearm,
c) Start and emergency guns which are loadable with cartridges,
d) armborsts,
e) Tear gas and similiar devices,
f) bolts, silencers, pipes, frames, boxes and drums intended to be used with firearms, or a
armborst frame equipped with a string release,
g) Devices which can be carried in the hand, and with electrical current, are designed to stun
people, or cause pain to them, and
h) Devices that enable a firearm to be used with a another ammo type than which is intended for
the firearm.
Sebastiannielsen (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Legality- Japan

Does anyone know are tasers legal in Japan? (Would like to get it added.) 91.156.229.157 (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Too much on controversy

It seems to me that the article focuses too much on the controversy, especially since it's rather fringe and illogical - tasers aren't 100% nonlethal, sure, but they're MUCH safer than traditional weapons. It's nonsense and a perfect solution fallacy to oppose them for that reason. It needs to be discussed, but I think this article is pretty excessively weighted both towards discussing the controversy vs. other aspects of tasers, and towards giving undue weight to the claims of Amnesty International et al. The majority of qualified people is what matters for undue weight: AI and such are mostly political spin organizations, and their grasp of the science and the statistics is generally poor. (Also, political groups such as AI have a clear motive to create or exaggerate problems.) 98.194.47.147 (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The balance of this article is heavily dependent on available sourcing. Most news coverage is of specific incidents involving injuries or alleged abuse. When content is cited to Amnesty International, it is typically indicated in the text (rather than in a footnote), and the reader may judge it accordingly. A specific issue – that I have been intending to work on for a long time – is the poor quality of the Taser safety issues article. Once that is fixed, the Safety concerns section here can be rewritten and reduced as a proper summary. Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur that the article gives way too much weight to the claims of amnesty international.. it should be fairly noted that amnesty international is an "agenda driven" organization not a fact finder.. it should also be noted that Taser International has not lost a single lawsuit.. and not ONE claim has ever been substantiated against the company or the product. When properly used the taser is NON-LETHAL period.. just becuase some dies after being tased does not mean that the taser caused it.. in fact in most cases that I have reviewed it was drug overdose that killed the individual not the taser.. and medical examinations have concluded that the indivudal would have died from the drug overdose whether tased or not.. furthermore, many cases medical reports have shown time after time that the taser likely saved the live the "victim" since they were able to be quickly restrained and given immediate medical care for their "pre-existing" condition which led to them being tased in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.151.155.125 (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

When properly used the Taser is NON-LETHAL. This is the problem as it is rarely used properly. The Taser is supposed to be a non lethal alternative to using firearms but police, as records support, inevitably end up using it as an alternative to talking to an offender or when pepper spray should be the next step simply because it is so easy to use. Recent cases such as a 72 year old woman tasered because she swore at the officer "making him fear for his safety" highlight this. Australia is considering introducing tasers for police and already we have a death. The media originally reported the death based on the police report, excited delirium after being tasered three times. After the data was downloaded from the Taser it revealed he was tasered 28 times in two minutes and the case is now being investigated to determine if the police involved will be charged although the Deputy Police Commissioner stated "There is no specific guideline that restricts the number of times the trigger can be pulled" so a serious charge is unlikely. There is talk now in the media here that only special squads be issued the Taser rather than police officers in general. If police can't be trusted to use the weapon properly then it should not be used and any controversy no matter how small is justified. Wayne (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
"When properly used the Taser is NON-LETHAL. " you can make the same claim about any instrument of torture, but sometimes the victims still die.76.103.102.240 (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Doing a quick fact check shows that a taser can not be deployed 28 times in two minutes. Every pull of the trigger results in 5 seconds of electricity so 28 times 5 is 140 seconds or 2 minutes and 20 seconds. The number is an obvious exaggeration by the foes of Taser International. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.167.255.152 (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Beyond some point, using a taser probably is torture, not 'being used properly'. The fact that a tool is or isn't frequently abused is probably notable, particularly when a famous organisation makes it notable by commenting on it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"Excited Delerium" is another way of saying "Fight-or-Flight" response, which is a human response to situations out of our control. Giving it another name like "Excited Delerium" to me seems like an attempt to attribute the need for the use of in this case non-lethal force on some heretofore unknown temporary psychosis. And what about the officer trying to control the situation? I'm sure that their heartrate is up, along with respiration, endorphines are released into their bloodstream etc. It's something I'm sure is at least explained somewhat when a person is training to become a police officer. How to deal with a person who is freaking out while at the same time controlling your own level of "excited delerium" is at the core of incidents resulting in unecessary injuries and unfortunate fatalities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.214.234 (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The article drones on like a broken record of Taser-related deaths, but flatly ignores other conditions involved, such as general health and (more specifically) drug use. Additioanlly, it ignores the alternatives to Tasers, specifically guns and batons, except to sing the false praises of pepperspray and mace (people have died after being sprayed; most LE agencies now prohibit their personel from putting someone in the back of a patrol vehicle or face down for as much as an hour after being sprayed). to balance the article, eitehr the entire section has to be removed, or the counterpoint included (the best solution is to split off the cotraverseies, and include the counterpoints). Anything less is blatant grandstanding and nothing else.174.25.71.57 (talk) 06:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON

NPOV

Citing number from the CEO of the company and in the same breath saying there is "some" controversy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketil (talk • contribs) 11:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Taser studies

CBC News last week reported that a number of studies that conclude Tasers do no harm were actually paid for by TASER International. I saw the report on The National and don't know if it's online but we should probably check to see if there are any sources (eg in newspaper articles etc) in regards to the funding of the studies that are cited in the article. CBC said the Arizona Republic has run an expose on TASER and I believe the articles examined the funding of the studies as well as TASER's attempts to dissuade coroners and scientists from finding TASER responsible for deaths or injuries. Does anyone have access to this Arizona Republic series? Reggie Perrin (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the studies' funding, I know that a recent IEEE study/report (not in the article, I think) was funded substantially by TASER International. I couldn't find the link, but I remember that the author took care to disclose and explain the nature of the funding. The Bozeman study was funded by the National Institute of Justice (source already in the article).
There are two Arizona Republic articles from 2005 mentioned in related articles Taser controversy#Deaths and injuries and TASER International#Criticism. The second criticizes TASER for downplaying its involvement in research, so I think it is the exposé you mention. The articles do not have "Related articles" links, but there are a large number of results when searching that site for "Taser". The Arizona Republic has covered TASER for a long time, including a detailed examination of coroner reports from 2001 (IIRC) that has since been removed from their site. Flatscan (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The IEEE Spectrum article was co-written in two parts by Mark W. Kroll and Patrick Tchou, with an introduction by Sandra Upson. Tchou explains the nature of the funding:
Taser International covered the costs of the testing equipment and the costs of laboratory use, but none of Taser's funding covered my time or that of any other physicians involved in the studies.[1]
Flatscan (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
The December 2007 hardcopy version of this Taser article [2]by Dr. Tchou and Mr. Kroll in the IEEE Spectrum was criticized on a number of fronts in the Comments section of the publication. If I remember correctly the majority of comments, mostly from the engineering community, criticized the article, the lab or the findings.
I don't have any heartburn about the equipment being loaned to the researchers by the gun manufacturer since it was clearly disclosed. But with regard to the technical points, among issues I remember were the premise of correlating the body of a pig to that of a human; differences in impedances; too much focus on peak current values while ignoring average current and energy; claims the testing was not comprehensive enough to cover the wide range of real-life permutations; and perhaps there were some claims of omissions. I'll read the article again and come back to edit as needed.
DonL (talk) 05:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mark W Kroll has been on the Board of Directors of Taser International for many years and is responsible for the majority of Taser Internationals safety documentation.Midnightvisions (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Use in schools and on children

In this part I'm wondering why the sentence "Taser International asserts that the taser is safe for use on anyone weighing 60 pounds (27 kg) or more." is added behind the case of a 6 year old being tasered. nearly no 6 year old weighs 27 kg or more. Adding this sentence implies that tasering a 6 year old is safe, whereas in reality the sentence is no guarantee for that at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.120.181.203 (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the sentence to the beginning of the section before the 6 year old is discussed as it seems likely relevant to the issue of 'use in schools and on children'. However I noticed the claim itself doesn't seem to be supported by any of the sources in that section (or at least the ones that work) so I've tagged it for verification, preferably with a source indicating relevence to use in schools or on children. Nil Einne (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

move for name of 'Less-Lethal Weapon'

These are not 'non-lethal' weapons. The United States Justice Department themselves name these devices 'Less-Lethal Weapons'

citation:http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/plus/e0903/final.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.119.13 (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

SHOTGUN FIRED TASER MUNITIONS

The article must keep abreast with current developments:

Shotgun Taser™ munitions are a newer development in the field of electric less-than-lethal equipment for law enforcement personnel. A self-contained Taser device is the projectile component of a 12-gauge shotgun cartridge. The projectile's is fired at a relatively slow muzzle velocity, but delivers impact force before the devices electrical probes enter the target's skin and deliver a charge. The device will also shock someone who tries to remove the device from the target. The device will deliver a charge for a short period of time allowing officers to take a suspect into custody. The range of this weapon is many times further than that of the standard taser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I found an article on Taser's website about the XREP (eXtended Range Electronic Projectile). I think it could be its own article or added to the bottom of the current Taser article. Somebody better at making templates should try it out.Rachelskit (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.taser.com/products/law/Pages/XREP.aspx

http://www.policeone.com/police-products/less-lethal/taser/press-releases/81387/

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-14-2006/0004281420&EDATE

I suggest moving the XREP information to TASER International#Wireless long-range electric shock weapon. It appears that the XREP delivers an electric shock like a Taser, but it is otherwise quite different. Flatscan (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a video that shows more info on XREP.

gizmodo.com/gadgets/owwwww!/video-of-xrep-wireless-taser-shotgun-shocking-some-dude-276481.php

BOB WAS NOT HERE! (Devrit) 03:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I copied the XREP information to TASER International#XREP, then removed it from the lead. If there are no objections to the move, I will archive this discussion and add links between the two Talk pages. Flatscan (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As of Dec 31, 2011, Taser Int. has stopped advertising and promoting the XREP shotgun and cartridges. They will sell their remaining stock on hand and continue to support those already in the field, but no more will be made. Lack of sales and profitability was cited as the reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.1.215 (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The citation number 18 ("Corporate History". Taser.com. February 5, 2007. Retrieved October 14, 2009.) links to: http://www.taser.com/company/Pages/factsheet.aspx which returns a "404 resource cannot be found". I was able to find the page on archive.org and have provided it below:

http://web.archive.org/web/20100206025030/http://taser.com/company/Pages/factsheet.aspx

However, I am unsure what Wikipedia's policy is on using archive.org and changing the source. Is it preferable to leave the source as is, or change it to the archive.org source? What is the correct format for doing so? ("Corporate History". Taser.com via Archive.org. May 2, 2007. Archived February 6, 2010. Retrieved August 20, 2012.)?

If a more experienced editor can tell me the correct procedure or link me to some guidelines I'd appreciate it.

Sakibomb222 (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is preferable to leave the original URL in the citation, and in addition add to the citation a second URL to a web archive service such as "archive.org". The procedure for handling such broken links is described at Wikipedia: link rot. --DavidCary (talk) 09:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


Lawsuits

Can we add some information about how Taser, Inc. sues medical examiners who report taser deaths.[3] (via [4]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.0.8 (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a mention of the three Summit County, Ohio cases at Taser safety issues#Notable Taser deaths. Flatscan (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


Any of you thought about adding the fact Tasers have been held to be protected by the second amendment in People v. Yanna (Mich. Ct. App. June 26, 2012) http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/27/michigan-court-of-appeals-strikes-down-stun-gun-ban-says-second-amendment-applies-to-open-carry-in-public/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.23.85 (talk) 10:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Angle Drive Stun = 3-point Drive Stun ?

UK police are taught two methods of 'pain compliance' - 'Drive Stun' and 'Angle Drive Stun'. Can anyone explain the difference ?

The M26c manual says "Probe spreads of less than four-inches (including drivestun) result in little or no effect from NMI and become primarily a pain compliance option. If a close range deployment resulting in limited probe spread does not incapacitate the subject, apply a drive-stun (as described below) to a point away from the probes. This will effectively widen the contact area and can achieve NMI."

The terminology is confusing 'NMI' is Neuro-Muscular Incapacitation, whereas 'Drive Stun' is more of a shock than a stun (More 'Go' than 'Stop'). Like a Cattle prod. The procedure above turns a shock into a stun, so doesn't fit the 'drive' purpose. (Or am I misunderstanding the word 'drive' - the manual say you have to shove the Taser hard into the subject's body to maintain contact - is that the meaning of 'drive', rather than 'move along there' with a cattle prod ? )

Version 14 of the training says: "It is an acceptable technique to fire the cartridge from close range or in contact with the body of the subject. If needed the officer can then apply a drive-stun back-up with the cartridge still in place away from the deployed probes and cause a “three point” contact. This can cause NMI."

Maybe "Angle Drive Stun" is a corruption of "Tri-Angle Drive Stun", triangles having three points ?

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Found a video by Senior Master Taser Instructor, Don Gulla. Seems he is using a hybrid technique. If the projectiles are too close for NMI, you can 'Drive Stun' at another point. The drive electrodes are also too close to each other to induce NMI. So he tilts ('angles') the 'gun' to break one of its contacts, so that it arcs over the whole distance from the projectile impact to the 'gun'. Current flows from one 'gun-contact' to one 'projectile contact'.
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I should perhaps say that my interest stemmed from a news report on BBC Radio 4 when someone (ACPO rep ?) used the term "Angle Drive Stun" without explanation. It is too subtle and not relevant to the discussion IMO. Perhaps it was a response to "the use of the weapon in 'drive-stun' mode often serves only to antagonise the victim further."
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Range controversy

Tasers are advertised for their larger range. But the danger is already reduced with increased distance between attacker and victim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.50 (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Larger range than a knife or baton. Less range than a real gun. Danger to the user, or danger to the 'target' ? What is the controversy ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, perhaps you are considering that the victim is a member of the public using the taser for self-defense ? That begins to make sense ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Taser vs TASER CEW Comment

I have recently noticed a lot of back-and-forth on this article between capitalisations of "Taser" and its manufacturer. From what I could gather from existing discussion, "Taser" is the preferred capitalisation, but it continues to be changed to "TASER CEW". I have also noticed that most of the users doing this have no other contributions. I am relatively new to Wikipedia; does anyone with more experience think something should be done about this situation? pwnzor.ak (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 14 October 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 21:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Taser → Electroshock gun – I have generalized the article to include products by other manufacturers and retargetted the redirect – Petr Matas 16:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, the instructions for contesting weren't totally clear to me, the instructions indicated I should move the discussion the contested area but weren't clear on if my rationale should wait for the discussion at the article's talk page to begin. However, given the existence of previous discussion over the common name of this topic and the best positioning for it pagewise, I expected that it would not be a purely technical decision.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to support but found Electroshock weapon. I'm not sure which article should cover which subject. Tazer may be a good dedicated topic. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Technical Section would be nice.

Could we get a mention of the voltage ranges of common tasers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.250.78.26 (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Proper or not?

Is it taser or Taser? The article seems confused on that question. I know it's a brand name, but brand names sometimes become common nouns and lose their capitalization. We need to be consistent on this, whichever way we decide to go. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be little interest in this, so I went ahead and looked into it, and it looks like Taser is the way to go. I will modify the article accordingly. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Taser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taser/Archive_2&oldid=749583998"