December 17, 2004 12:15 PM PST

Stun guns to include video

Related Stories

The (painful) body electric

January 15, 2004
Two manufacturers of stun guns will equip their weapons with video cameras next year in an effort to ensure that the weapons aren't used inappropriately.

Stinger Systems, based in Charlotte, N.C., will start selling an add-on for its guns called the TruVu camera that will film MPEG 4 video in the first quarter, the company said earlier this month, while rival Taser International will release an audio/video recorder in the first half of next year.

The video cameras will essentially record whenever a person is hit with one of the guns, which immobilize a victim by shooting massive amounts of electricity through them. The electricity does not kill or permanently damage a person hit, according to the companies, but being hit hurts quite a bit.

Critics charge that the guns are dangerous and are misused. Police, on the other hand, say the weapons are a nonlethal alternative to guns. Amnesty International said in a November report that more than 70 people since 2001 have died in the United States and Canada after being hit with such an electrical weapon. In response, Ontario chief coroner James Cairns said this week at a hearing in Toronto that he has studied the data and concluded that no deaths can be attributed to the weapons.

The controversy continues to escalate as more of the guns are bought legally by people outside law enforcement. Taser started selling the X26C weapon to consumers in September. The $999 weapon is legal to carry, but Massachusetts, Rhode Island and some other states have placed restrictions. Rival Stinger, meanwhile, has said consumer sales, if they occur, will be governed by existing gun regulations.

Ideally, a video record will give all parties, including courtrooms, greater evidence of what really occurs in stun gun shooting incidents. Law enforcement agencies also use car dashboard video cameras to record incidents.

Currently, the guns spray confetti with the serial number of the weapon written on the confetti bits so that the gun can later be identified.


Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Got mine. Better than HAVING to use my gun.
I ordered two from, one for me and one for my wife. I love these liberal *********. They would rather I carry my gun and kill the perp than just stun him and hold him for arrest.

GOD FORBID the citizenry should be allowed to defend themselves in a non-lethal manner.

As Rosie ODonnel (liberal to her lezbian core c#nt) pointed out: Nobody should be allowed to own weapons (i.e. guns). EXCEPT her body guards. Her body guards should be able to carry full autos into her children's kindergarden. Cause her wealthy children need protection.

Promptly doing what our founding fathers DIDN'T want to happen: only the filthy rich is allowed guns to SUPPRESS the populance.
Posted by (75 comments )
Reply Link Flag
well pal....
I generally agree with your view on guns. Rosie is an idiot on the subject, for certain. Although I'm not rushing out to buy a stun-gun. IMO, less than lethal weapons are more likely to be used, as people don't worry about "killing." The last thing we need to do is encourage people to shoot each other with "safer" weapons. In the event that I fear for my life enough to actually shoot somebody... We're talking last-line self defence here... Live or die moment. I'd rather have the real gun. I think stun guns are great for cops and bodyguards, though... along with their usual sidearms. When an armed perp is running away, there is no need for real bullets.
Posted by David Arbogast (1709 comments )
Link Flag
In theory, ...these weapons can be used as a "NON-LETHAL" form of force, ...INSTEAD OF resorting to a "deadlier-force" such as a "...gun".

But, the REALITY is that quite a few experts and analysts, based upon the application of this 'device' in actual use, have now begun to conclude that...

1. They (TASERS) are, in fact, proving to be far more DANGEROUS than they are claimed to be (by those 'selling' and 'using' them).

And, Also very importantly...

2. Some 'Police Agencies' seem to be using them FAR MORE READILY, than they should (police-officers are willing to use them much more readily than they would resort to the use of 'other' forms of 'force', such as 'physical-restraint', 'batons', etc.).

In fact, in some cases 'Tasers' have seemingly been used as little more than 'Terror-weapons' designed to inflict 'SEVERE PAIN', force compliance with officer-wishes, ...NOT truly to protect citizens, or even, neccesarily, to uphold actual laws.

It is this, now apparent, 'potetial-danger' and such 'potential-abuses' which has so many people concerned, and which, SHOULD BE addressed.
Posted by Raife (63 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Just where do you get your stats?
Down the opium pipe or the tv tube? Where was it published (except in UFO Daily) that cops in the US have used these as forced torture devices?

Where are the stats on police more ready to use these tasers when they've actually stopped using it for the past few years pending further studies?

HINT: When you have to lie to support your point, Maybe, just maybe, you DON'T HAVE A POINT.
Posted by (75 comments )
Link Flag
Let me guess
You either don't like authority or have been arrested at some point in your life. Terror weapons, I don't think so. As far as using the baton instead of the taser, you are far more likely to be seriously injured by the baton then the taser. Why don't you go stick your liberal head up your liberal A**
Posted by Gerald Quaglia (72 comments )
Link Flag

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot



RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.