PERHAPS the discovery of a Taser lurking in the bottom of your date’s purse does not bode well for a romantic evening. But a compact version of the electric-shock weapons — which have attracted ample controversy in their use by police officers — will arrive in stores later this month, and it will come in pink.
Taser International, based here, has been selling its device, one that paralyzes targets with a seriously painful zap, for more than a decade. The device is used by roughly 11,000 police departments around the nation, and is sold to consumers, at a hefty price, as a personal defense item.
In a few weeks, Taser will introduce an item that is far more compact and a lot less expensive than the standard Tasers used by police, though its shock is no less potent. The company’s executives say they are trying to capture a market of people looking for a weapon that is more reliable than pepper spray, but less reliable, so to speak, than a gun, and less expensive than the standard Taser.
The new C2, as the weapon is called, looks more like a large disposable razor than a gun, comes in a variety of colors and is $350, all of which Taser executives believe will persuade women to add the weapon to their checklist for the evening: lipstick, wallet, keys, Taser.
“It is a woman’s product,” said Kathy Hanrahan, president of Taser, who says she has experienced numerous shocks as part of her market research.
Of course, the New York Times, from whence this story came, is not too happy about anyone carrying any sort of weapon. They're more in favor of the surrender and submit school of non-self defense. They spend a great deal of time trying to convince the reader that weapons like this shouldn't be in the hands of the general public, but since it's coming from the Times, no one but the most limp-wristed liberals will take their warnings seriously.
Personally, I'm all in favor of personal defense weapons, whether they be tasers or handguns. I've long been a proponent of concealed carry laws and wish I lived in a state that had one. My state believes I should be an unarmed victim if confronted by a criminal, and that's....well, criminal.
No comments:
Post a Comment