Not Thinking About the Consequences 

I caught a story on Google News about Amnesty International's claim that Tasers should be banned because they say they're not 100% safe:

Police and military officers should be banned from using Taser International Inc. stun guns until their safety can be proven, Amnesty International said in a report released today.

The electronic weapons have contributed to more than 70 deaths, Amnesty International said. Police are using Tasers "as a routine force option'' rather than to avoid using lethal weapons, the London-based human rights group said.

Amnesty's 93-page report comes after stories by the New York Times and CBS News connecting Taser weapons to deaths. Taser, the largest maker of stun guns, denies any connection to deaths, and says that its weapons have been deemed safe by the U.K. and U.S. governments. The company's shares had more than tripled this year as more police departments and armed forces bought the guns.

First of all, there is a reason that law enforcement groups don't call these sorts of weapons non-lethal. If you listen to the lingo, they are actually called "less than lethal weapons". This is to reinforce the fact that these sorts of weapons aren't guaranteed to be safe. I'm not saying that Amnesty International's claim is true. Their claim is hotly disputed, and they really haven't presented any evidence to support what they're saying. But even if they are correct - what would banning Tasers do for law enforcement. Would it reduce the number of deaths? If a cop has a choice between using a Taser, and using a gun to protect himself, and you take away the Taser, do you think he's not going to use the gun? Do you think that a gun is a less lethal alternative to a Taser?

These weapons are routinely used as an alternative to lethal force, not an alternative to no force. Of course they would like you to believe otherwise:

The weapons' "capacity to inflict severe pain at the push of a button without leaving substantial marks'' makes them open to abuse, Amnesty said. In "many'' instances, their use may have been in violation of international laws against torture and rules on the conduct of law enforcement officers, the report said.

"We applaud the idea that people are coming up with alternatives to deadly force and a way for police officers to protect themselves,'' said LeMille. "But 80 percent of the time Tasers are being used on unarmed people.''

First of all, I'm only concerned with state and federal laws that govern the behavior of law enforcement personnel. I'm really curious what "international laws against torture" apply here. People throw around the term "international law" way too easily. Secondly, where are they coming up with this 80% number? They never actually say. Finally, they claim that because they don't make any substantial marks, they're open to abuse. While true, they then jump to the conclusion that because they could be abused, that they are abused, with no other supporting evidence. That is quite a leap. Read their version of the press release. There is not one cite in it to verifiable statistics, or any independent report backing up a single statement they make.

If they are honestly concerned with reducing the number of unnecessary deaths, then they ought to at least create a report that can stand up to minor statistical scrutiny before attempting to take away a less than lethal alternative from law enforcement that saves lives.