Is it a phone? Is it a Taser? No, it's a cattle prod!
Novel explanation for mobile stun gun
A Queensland man yesterday pleaded guilty to possession of a Taser disguised as a mobile phone.
In his defence, Carl Townroe claimed the device was a cattle prod and not in disguise. Mind you, he also pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana, so the weed may have got to him.
Tasers are nasty things and we can think of no legitimate reason why a civilian should have one, let alone one that pretends to be a phone. Neither can Australia's Customs and Border Protection, which last December intercepted a consignment from China of 20 electric-stun-guns-pretending-to-be-phones.
Their intended recipient, Michael Van Hout, 44, a Gold Coast resident, was fined $8,000 yesterday for illegal importation.
We are perhaps being a little loose with the word "Taser", which is a brand name of a highly reputable company that likes to shock people.
No-brand electric stun guns, such as those contained in Van Hout's parcel can be much more powerful, and that means much more dangerous, than official Tasers. ®
Disarm the peasants.
"Tasers are nasty things and we can think of no legitimate reason why a civilian should have one..."
Weapons? Only for the king and the king's men.
"Civilians" should have access to these weapons because they are useful for non-lethal self-defense (or defence, pick your English). The right to preserve your own life and safety is the most fundamental right of a sentient being.
Is that a phone in your pocket?
Or are you just shocked to see me?
Were these Tasers or Stun Guns
Tasers work from a distance using electrified projectiles. Stun Guns (and Cattle Prods) require the victim to be touched by the device to receive a shock. So which was it? Stun Guns aren't all that scary to me.
And as for why a regular Joe would need one, have you read this? http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bella/2010/08/ouch_todays_hard_lesson_on_yel.php
Taser International - "a highly reputable company"
Taser International - "...a highly reputable company..." That's a matter for debate...
The basic issue is that, in their marketing of tasers, they claim essentially perfect safety. The only risks that they highlight are secondary issues such as falling down or drowning in puddles. Their medical director writes articles about how the taser cannot possible affect the heart, how it has a "15-to-1" electrical safety margin, and how the risk of cardiac effect is "essentially zero". They claim the output is only "2mA average", and imply that this average measurement is somehow relevant.
In reality, tasers are not as safe as claimed, the X26 taser has a much lower cardiac safety margin than claimed, and the risk of death from direct effects (while low) is actually many orders of magnitude higher than they imply. They also claim legal victories that were actually settlements. The actual output from the X26 taser is about 150mA RMS, or about 30 to 50 mA 'Effective'. Taser International also promotes "excited delirium" as an explanation for the many taser associated deaths (their lawyer even registers websites).
For reference, I direct your attention to the following search topics:
1) The Braindwood Inquiry
2) Excited-Delirium blog
3) The taser's "Curious Temporal Asymmetry"
4) How many amps in a police taser?
There are MAJOR issues with the marketing of tasers.
Re: max allen et alia
"(can you oscillate from NANDs?)"
You have GOT to be kidding me ... Does nobody reading this forum actually understand basic electronic theory? Look up "multivibrator", and get yourself a tiny chunk of an education ... if your country's firewall doesn't "protect" you from such information, that is.