	Article Directory		Article Submission Service		Article Marketing Blog		Publishers		Member Log In

Article Directory :: Social Articles

Stun Guns: Controversy and Context

By Paul Wise

Republish: EasyPublish™
Published: 25Aug2009
Word count: 423
Viewed: 275 time(s)

Get Free Content For Your Site

Stun guns are powerful but typically non-lethal devices which have generated some controversy because, well, they are "only" "typically" non-lethal. Stun guns work, in theory, by shocking the target with an electric discharge and temporarily disabling his or her body. The discharge disrupts normal muscular functions - but unfortunately, this has included the heart, which is a muscle, too.

Thus the series of deaths arising from electroshock weapons, often at the hands of police whose departments had thought the devices to be safe firearms alternatives. Manufacturers' instructions state a mere half-second shock is known to cause intense pain, with muscle contractions. The effects are exponentially magnified with each passing second of exposure, resulting in conditions of total exhaustion, with impaired breathing and even possible cardiac arrest. In this regard, one manufacturer even builds its latest model with an automatic stop after a few seconds, requiring another pull of the trigger to send a further discharge, as previous versions allowed for continual discharges by simply holding down the trigger.

Indeed, this particular manufacturer, a pioneer in the electroshock weapons market, no longer advertises its products as being non-lethal, advising instead that they are, in effect, only less lethal. However, independent tests have confirmed that stun guns do not interfere with pacemakers or implantable defibrillators. Such tests, however, have only involved otherwise healthy individuals, and much more research seems necessary to resolve the debate more conclusively.

Moreover, stun guns may not be the self-defense wonder weapons they're typically made out to be. There is also the concern, common to any product or service related to personal protection, that the user would likely derive a false sense of security and power. After all, most stun guns actually require continuous, uninterrupted physical contact with the target, and this could result in situations detrimental to the user. An aggressive, larger target, one well-trained in close unarmed combat in particular, could quite plausibly be imagined to overpower the user and even turn the stun gun against him or her! For despite the muscle spasms caused, any break in physical contact, when employing such stun guns, would result in enough of a respite for determined, physically strong aggressors to recover the initiative and prevail in hand-to-hand combat.

For all that, having one would probably be better than not having one, and stun guns are effective enough as weapons such that many jurisdictions limit their use or even prohibit any possession in the first place. Where legally available, stun gun owners should probably undertake specific technical training in their effective use.

Article written by Paul Wise. Paul has done extensive research on Stun Guns. If you need Stun Guns, or even a Stun Baton, visit DefendWell.com.

EasyPublish™ this article - publishers click here