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