Talk:Electroshock weapon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Law Enforcement (Rated B-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


Less than lethal?[edit]

2014 Aug 20: the general consensus now is they are "less than lethal" to try to reinforce the idea that they are not expected to kill, but have been known to. One of older comments talks about an agenda some have in calling the useless. Thus is in fact sometimes true. There are claims for instance that your putting yourselves and others at risk for relying on them instead of a firarm. That may well be true. Swift death from 8 .30 caliber pellets impacting your chest at 1200fps certainly is more incapacitating and effective that 10 or 20 seconds from a taser, or the pain and discomfort of getting pepper sprayed. Does that mean a 12ga is the answer to all your security needs? It depends. Are you a sociopath with no remorse or compassion. If so, you might actually live keep some of the uses for a taser that many complain about, but you probably prefer a gun if you need to defend your self.

The issue of whether I WANT to shoot someone is actually what led me to research these weapons,and brought me here. I'm being stalked by my whackjob ex girl friend. I have a permit for a concealed weapon, but don't usually carry it unless I'm doing something like meeting a guy off Craig's List to buy possibly buy a makes sense when your plan is to wait a couple blocks away while your brother checks out the boat, then come with the cash. But now I'm worried. Recent events have made me concerned that she's turning violent. So I try to prepare, both in having the tools I need and being mentally prepared. And that last part highlighted the problem. I thought it completely through,she still has a copy of my key, trips the alarm, and I feab the 12ga. And there she is in the living room pointing a gun at me. And it occurs to me, I'm not going to shoot her. I won't be able to. The keyboard commandos on the internet can talk big all they want, but they are either sociopaths or blowhards that don't want to think it through. She quite litterally is mebtaly I'll and crazier than a sack of weasles, and I'm scared of her, (and we can go on for days about why i deluded myself into overlooking it) but what kind of normal person could shoot someone they were once close to and not be traumatized, even if they could do it.

So the long and the short is, in these cases, firearms are 100% useless. The ONLY viable option is something less than lethal. It matters little of there are more effective options if your unable or unwilling to use them.

So the question of effectiveness comes down to the situation. Is it more appropriate than pepper spray? Then spray comes first. Of that doesn't work time for some volts. Is unarmed combat involved? Better get in shape, and start or resuming training in an appropriate martial art.

The concepts of X is best and Y is "useless" because its not quite as good as Z arevbest left to 13 year olds arguing over their favorite sports car, 3 years before they even have a license, much less the kind of job that could pay for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

they ARE still claiming tasers are non-lethal[edit]

try going on their own website instead of just citing another wikipedia entry

"TASER® Weapons fire 50,000 Volts up to 15 feet, with more stopping power than a .357 Magnum. Absolutely the best non-lethal protection for your home"

They are non-lethal. So are BB Guns, but people have been killed by those. Just because something wasn't made to kill doesn't mean that it's impossible. Would you prefer that our LEO's simply go unarmed? Scissors aren't lethal weapons, but people have been stabbed to death by them. Should we ban them in schools? A few isolated accidents do not make an object a lethal weapon. (talk) 06:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Effectivness of electroshock guns[edit]

With regards to the claims that stun guns are ineffective in a self-defence situation, can you provide some more evidence for that than just one website? And are the people making such claims advocates of the use of conventional guns for self-protection - do they have another agenda, in other words? --Robert Merkel 22:23, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, I provided two more links (just by typing "stun guns worthless" and "stun guns useless" at Google brings up a lot of stuff!). By making some in depth-study some common points can be found between the various articles, reports, forums, stories etc.:

  • Stun guns seem to be only IRRITATING to a victim(?)/attacker if aimed at limbs, they are much more effective if aimed at the torso or even the head.
  • In such a case, it only causes pain but DOESN'T impair one's ability to fight back or move away from the gun.
  • They won't magically stop a punch/knife stab from being delivered to their intended target, and they also seem to have very little DETERRING power, unless used on people who CANNOT FIGHT BACK (handcuffed people, prisoners etc.).
  • The most effective ones are Tasers (which SHOOT their darts and have better chances of delivering a prolonged shock, and maybe Batons which give some extra range.
  • There are people who due to physical constitution (high skin resistance), clothing or even SPECIFIC TRAINING can resist the shock delivered by stun guns and fight back immediately. There are even people who use stunguns on friends or themselves FOR FUN !!!
  • Stun guns voltage can range from 50kV up to 750kV for some models, and anything under 200kV is mostly considered "irritating" by law enforcers.
  • There are free schematics around for building a home-made stun-gun, with the most common ones consisting of an oscillator circuit, a resonant circuit and a step-up audio transformer. Diode-Capacitor "voltage multiplier" circuits are avaiable too (I provided external links).
  • There are even people who LIKE being shocked by Stun guns! Check this link for starters, but a simple Google search will reveal that there are people around who like to experiment with stun-guns on thenselves "for fun" or as part of a S&M game...
  • As for the Righteous Warrior Temple...I'd suggest to check out their website. It's not very clear who/what they are, but they sure have a lot of pragmatism in their thoughts/articles!

EpiVictor 09:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RWT seems to be yet another bullshido scam... Not sure, but I think it's been debunked over at eBudo, among other things. I would say they should not be accepted as a source for any article on Wikipedia. YMMV. That said, I would discount most electroshock weapons for self-defense use, except in the hands of someone who is already accomplished in hand-to-hand combat, due to the limied range and extended contact needed to incapacitate. A determined, drugged or skilled attacker will not, IMO, be deterred by a defender with such a weapon that does not have above-average familiarity with them, and a lethal knife attack can be executed in less time than most of these weapons take to stun. The executive summary: non-ranged versions are useful tools for a skilled hand-to-hand combattant, but otherwise more likely constitutes false security against really dangerous attackers. Again YMMV. This section should be fleshed out with better sources. Zuiram 03:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • ... pain to subjects who would not be able to escape or effectively defend themselves anyway (..., animals, ...): Some animals can quite well defend themselves against humans. Ask a vet or a livestock farmer or a zookeeper. Anthony Appleyard 09:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No deny on that. Consider however cattle prods, which are essentially stun-guns: Cows and sheeps e.g. rarely turn against humans, while the reaction of a rabid or guard dog or a lion or a bull to being shocked with a stungun would probably be quite different (either fear or fury). The reference in the article applies more however to those people torturing animals (...or other people, or even themselves...) with stunguns for fun, as they are a conventient and apparently "clean" way of inflicting pain, with little physical effort by part of the torturer. EpiVictor 13:01, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Robert Merkel - I think you would be better off looking at the websites of those advocating the use of stun-guns - the majority are selling stun-guns and similar products themselves. They perhaps might not be the most impartial observers.

With regards to the two websites Epivictor posted, the OUPD site states that the "Air Taser 1" may be effective where the stun guns they tested were not. Paxton Quigleys page describes the "Air Taser 1" as ineffective for anybody but police. If you had read the entire OUPD page, you would have realized that the OUPD is against civilian possesion and use of any self-defense weapon. ANY. Guns, knives, OC, electroshock weapons. This is an extremely biased page which seems pointed towards discouraging weapon carry by OU students. I think the following quotation sums up their view on self-defense weapons. "The only self-defense "device" that OUPD endorses for use by the public is a simple, loud, whistle. (The kind you blow.) We even distribute "personal safety" whistles at some crime prevention events." If anyone can cite credible sources on the effectiveness of electroshock weapons, please do. These are almost laughable. Please find a source which has self-tested late-model military and police tasers, and preferably has experienced similar non-lethal weapons such as OC or CS/CN. The redacted citations are here: 21:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Stun guns and cattle prods operate off of pain compliance and it is entirely possible to push through the pain and continue to attack. The current model Taser weapons disrupt neuromuscular control causing the person to lock up, even mid stride, and topple over. The effect overrrides any voluntary control of the affected muscles and cannot be overcome by force of will or dulled pain sensitivity due to drugs or adrenaline. The probes can arc through a cumulative two inches of clothing so they don't actually have to penetrate the skin to be effective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, military combat training usually includes hand to hand against stun weapons. The taser is different from an electroshock weapon. Electroshock weapons operate on the heart or the large muscles of the rest of the body. Against the chest, they can trigger a heart muscle contraction that stays contracted for a few seconds. That stops blood flow until the shock is released, and usually knocks people down because they black out. Against other parts of the body, they basically work two ways. First, they cause violent muscular contraction that is sustained. This causes pain, cramping and depending where it is applied, debilitation due to loss of control. Second, the intense muscular effort causes those muscles stimulated to pull in large amounts of glucose from the blood stream which can cause a short term blood sugar low. This makes the person woozy and feel sick. It can also cause them to black out. Once in a while, this kind of stimulation can cause such violent contraction that the muscle tears, causing serious injury.
The effect of low blood sugar is less the better physical condition a person is in. For a well conditioned athlete, it's not a big deal. A person with a bit of practice can learn to use other parts of the body to get away from a shock stick type weapon.
Tasers use a different principle, and can't be defeated this way. Tasers in stun mode also can't be defeated except by moving away from them.
In all cases except a taser with the tines stuck to a person, a well conditioned or experienced attacker can deal with everything else pretty well and it is likely that an inexperienced person will be overcome by them. (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC) J. Toradze

Article name[edit]

Does anyone actually use the name "Electroshock gun"? A google search for "electroshock gun" -wikipedia returns a mere 300-ish results, and many of those are uncredited Wikipedia mirrors. taser -wikipedia, by contrast, returns 792,000, and "stun gun" -wikipedia returns 433,000. I could see an argument between "taser" and "stun gun", but it seems to me that "electroshock gun" is a ridiculous place to put this article. --Delirium 04:47, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Kaldari 23:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
It's not an unreasonable name, as this article really talks about a variety of electric based weapons. I don't know that there's enough "Taser" specific information to justify a seperate article just for that. A "taser" is specifically a device that's capable of shooting barbs that pierce through clothing and skin to deliver a powerful and incapacitating electric shock. A "stun gun" is the handheld gizmo with 2 prongs that delivers a point blank zap and really just causes pain. These days, most tasers also offer a "drive-stun" mode which makes them work like a stun gun -- rather than firing barbs and piercing skin, they offer a stun gun type shock through prongs on the front which is significantly less debilitating than a real barbed taser hit.--TheCynic 05:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, naming the article "Electroshock Weapon", "Electroshock Device", "Eletric Weaponry" or similar might be better, since not everything being listed qualifies as a "gun". Meh.--TheCynic 20:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I like "Electroshock weapon". I think "stun gun" confuses the issue - in its prevailing meaning, none are shaped like firearms or fire projectiles, except the Taser, which has the "drive stun" mode, but really isn't a "stun gun". Flatscan 02:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the Article name should be changed to Electronic Control Weapon. This title covers both traditional stun technology and Electro- Muscular Disruption Technology like that which is found in the Electronic Control Device known as a Taser. This term is widely accepted in the law enforcement community and appears on several documents addressing that community as a whole. [1] [2] [3]Thank You.Wedy (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should consider renaming this article. I don't know if there's any particular reason for the use of "electroshock".

Google WP:Search engine test:
  • "electroshock gun" 4,240
    • "electroshock gun" -Wikipedia 3,000
  • "electroshock weapon" 6,670
    • "electroshock weapon" -Wikipedia 5,470
  • "Electronic Control Weapon" 271
  • "Electronic Control Device" 155,000
    • "Electronic Control Device" -Taser 144,000; all of the results on the first page seem to be related to machinery

I'm leaning towards Electronic control device. There are no articles for either capitalization. If disambiguation is necessary, "(weapon)" can be appended. Flatscan (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree but think that disambiguation is necessary. Both 'devices' are ' weapons' and are classified in the " less-than-lethal weapons" category.
Google WP: Search engine test  :

[Warning...ahead is my longwinded, overly detailed reply to this discussion. It is a large amount of text to read but should resolve this dispute altogether, to be quite honest.]

Taser is a brand name, not a technical term. T.A.S.E.R.® (Thomas A. Swift Electric Rifle) is now the popular name for all hand-held, electric-discharging muscle immobilizers. This is similar to the 'Xerox machine' at your office, even though it's probably not an actual Xerox brand machine, as well as the common usage of 'Do you have a Kleenex?" to ask for a facial tissue, even if it isn't actually a Kleenex branded tissue.

The name of this article is correct as is. Taser has its own article by now, though, so this discussion may be pointless; nevertheless I will chime in anyway in detail with why the article should not be renamed at all.

Taser state on their website that they make, using the very simple term, "electrical weapon(s)". However, they also use the terms 'Electronic Control Device", but this is not accurate for this article, as this would include things that are not weapons, but used more for controlling a strategic point rather than as a weapon, such as electric riot shields, or even an electric fence used to keep a prisoner in an area. The TASER brand makes devices that are differentiated from things like stun guns and cattle prods using the refined term Conducted Electrical Weapon (CEW). Of course, because they are unique in this way, using Conducted Electrical Weapon as the article page would exclude any other type of Electrical weapons such as the aforementioned stun gun, etc, and CEW should be its own separate article (and in fact redirects to the Taser article, as it should.

The term CEW, in my opinion, is a misnomer. The correct term is CED (Conducted Energy Device, or Conducted Energy Weapon). CED is more scientifically accurate, as the weapon itself starts off with electrical potential energy, but once electrical potential energy has been delivered from the electrodes into the target, it is converted into other types of energy, such as to kinetic energy (via muscle spams), and heat energy. Basically, electrical energy is only potential energy based on potential and current, and once it hits the target, it is no longer electrical energy. The effects on the target are due to other types of energy, rather than the electric potential which is described by the term 'electrical energy'. See electrical_energy.

However, the term "conducted energy weapon" or "device" may be TOO broad and refer to other weapons that operate similarly but do not incapacitate via an electrical shock (I do not know any in particular by name, but I cannot exclude them from existing. Heat can also be conducted, not just electricity, and since this article refers specifically to electrical units, I don't think CED is correct either. Electroshock weapons are types of conducted energy weapons that operate via administering electric shock to the target. This may be overly nitpicky to some, but if you really want to know the 'exactly proper article title', then Electroshock weapon is correct, as is.

The term "Electroshock weapon" is correct on the basis of being the self-defining and specific enough to this article's contents (by its own terms/name), but broad enough to be the parent group of all the included types in the article (CEW, stunguns, electrical batons etc.) Electroshock weapon as a term defines a family of weapons that rely on administering electricity to the target, and causing the target to undergo the medical condition Electric_shock "Electroshock weapon" is also not open to debate as to its meaning, whereas CEW and CED are, in the realm of energy science.

Therefore, these are Electroshock weapons. The title is correct as is.

In reply to the arguments presented above based on google results of popular usage of terms to find 'proper' article name: They seem both superfluous and fundamentally incorrect. If we applied the logic used in those comments, then the following would also apply: using the example mentioned in the beginning of my comment ('Xerox Machine' even when it is not Xerox branded), we can google 'photocopier' and find 6,800,000 results, vs. the term 'Xerox' at 78,100,000 results, and even the more specific 'Xerox Machine' at 10,300,000 results. So should we rename Photocopier to 'Xerox Machine'? Obviously no, we should not. Xerographic office photocopying was introduced by Xerox, and Xerox became so successful that, in North America, photocopying came to be popularly known as ["xeroxing."] Alhough the word "Xerox" has appeared in some dictionaries as a synonym for photocopying, Xerox Corporation typically requests that such entries be modified, and that people not use the term "Xerox" in this way. This has even spread to other languages, such as the polish hybrid for photocopy, kserokopia ("xerocopy"),

In conclusion, the above arguments about google search number of results, and whether 'anybody actually even uses the term' are not logically sound. Electroshock weapon is the best title for this article, over similar/comparable alternatives that are commonly used by law enforcement and media that may be considered as alternative titles for this article. They are "almost correct", but Electroshock weapon is the correct term for this article's name.

TiredTendencies (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Are those amps right?[edit]

I'm looking at a table in Cogdell's "Foundations of Electrical Engineering" (table - Physiological effects of electricity).

0.06 A(60mA) is stated as the lethal amperage your article, which seems to match the table (~80mA minimum for Ventricular fibrillation - possibly lethal). But paralysis or pain doesn't start until ~12 mA (by my table), which is 4 times the amperage you say a taser has. You would feel 3mA, but it would tingle, not hurt.

Also, has some stuff that could be added to the controversy section. The gist is that police (and prison guards, etc) are using tasers in cases when they would otherwise use softer methods. The counter argument is that tasers fill a niche in the "resonable force" spectrum, or that tasers are safer than other "soft" weapons (like batons).

I believe the explaining factor is voltage. Although stun guns have low current, they have a very high voltage. Physiologically speaking, i think the taser works by 'passing' a huge potential difference (voltage) through the body in order to overcome resistance, trigger action potential, and reach all parts of the body, along with the resultant effects on muscular activity. A current of 2 mA is also sufficient to trigger action potential and cause an uncontrollable muscle spasm. Physiological effects are determined by a combination of voltage, amperage, and time; actual lethality is largely determined by amperage. High voltage and low amperage will not kill someone quickly but will have instantaneous effects on the body; low voltage and high amperage (coupled with an extended period of time) will be lethal but takes time to kill. An example of the latter would be an electric chair, which has a voltage value of approx 2000 V but a current of around 10 A. Compare this to a stun gun, which has an average voltage of around 250,000 V but a current of only .003 A. The same principle of high voltage, low amperage allows us to touch an operating Van de Graaf generator without any serious harm. SReynhout 09:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

By [Anonymous] Just sent a {POV} tag on the ineffectiveness section of the article. The source (src 22) of the article fails to provide any evidence of it's claim, and is clearly outdated since it says that concealed carry of firearms is illegal in most states when the opposite is true. Also it seems biased since the test that they talked about used a weak stun gun of less than 150,000 Volts when stun guns with over a million are available on the market. In addition they criticized stun guns for having a low AMP yet that is the point of a stun gun so it doesn't cause death (at least it shouldn't in most cases). It seems that the source listed as 22 is just trying to market their self defense classes (that is what it appears to be). SReynhout is correct, source 22 is problematic.


"In most of the 73 cases": exactly how many? --Cat out 13:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


Do any of the sources and links describe the history and chronology of the use of these weapons? --Espoo 06:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wheres the distinction here between tasers that act as cattle prods(and tasers) which administer mild electical shocks to cause pain and stun guns that shock to disrupt the nervous system? -- 11:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


Can an ordinaty stun gun actually stun anyone through.. let's say jeans or just about any everyday clothes ?

Yes.. do a quick search on youtube for videos where law enforcement deploys this weapon.--DrRisk13 17:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


  • The CGI image is nice and all, but is it really that hard to find an actual photograph? --Golbez 22:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. It looks really silly. Algorythmic 22:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • How the image looks shouldn't be of concern. The baton is a digital copy of the real deal. It doesn't matter if the image is a CGI. --Defender 911 00:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • A reasonable CGI image is better than no image, if a good real copyright-free close-up image of an electric shock baton in use cannot be found. Anthony Appleyard 05:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Jesus Christ! No image is better than some ridiculous-looking CGI image. At the very least use a better looking CGI image from a video game or such, like a Combine soldier, maybe. tildetildetildetilde —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not extraordinarily opposed to the current computer-generated image, although I can understand other editors' potential uneasiness with it. Perhaps the illustrator could post a link to the model from which it was drawn, so that other editors could satisfy their concerns about verisimilitude. Ford MF 21:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The headlining picture of this article is pretty pathetic, any chance of replacing it with a better one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Not my fault. All the good images of electric shock prods that I found on the web are copyrighted, and I have no access to a real electric shock prod, so I cannot photograph one. Anthony Appleyard 05:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm soon gonna buy one, would be no problem to get a picture of it for wikipedia, just need an advice on how i submit that picture correctly (license stuff and such...)-- 03:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If you take (= make) the photograph, then you have full rights to it. In "upload an image" there is a licence option "self-made". Take a photo of it making an electric arc between its electrodes, if it can. And a photo of any holster that comes with it. Anthony Appleyard 04:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism and the UCLA library incident[edit]

  • This article should likely be locked for a preemptive vandalism due to the UCLA incident in the library. 06:53, 17 November 2006 User:TiredTendencies
  • Er, no. It'll be locked if persistant vandalism becomes a problem. Exploding Boy 07:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Pre-emptive strikes, and racial profiling? How perfect that the two coincide with todays current events. Pre-emptive strikes in Iraq, police racial profiling and torturing a Middle-Easterner in a Library, you sir should pre-empt yourself. Haramzadi 22:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Homemade 330V stun guns[edit]

The unsourced claim that homemade 330V stun guns could be fatal in the presence of arrhythmia or other existing conditions is questionable considering that typical production stun guns start at 50KV and no similar claims associated with them are included in the article. If the claim is about stun guns in general, it should be moved up to Deaths and injury associated with stun-gun use. If there is a source, e.g. an article written about the homemade stun guns, that makes this specific claim, it should be cited. Otherwise, the claim should be removed per Wikipedia:Citing sources. Flatscan 02:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The electricity running through your house is only 110 volts (230 in Europe, I think). So 330V could certainly kill the hell out of you. I believe the important part is how much amperage you're getting, but someone with more of a background in electricity could probably tell you more. 50,000 volts can stun you while 110 volts can fry you, or vice versa, it just depends on the amperage. I can easily imagine a home made stun-gun being built wrong and killing someone. I think the lesson here is "kids, don't try this at home". --TheCynic 20:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Point taken, I hadn't considered that distinction thoroughly. It is plausible that a lethal stun gun could be constructed from a very large capacitor charged by a high-voltage DC source. However, the flash units in the "disposable cameras" used are much the same as non-disposable cameras: battery to provide source power at low voltage, circuitry to boost the voltage, capacitor (limited physical size) to store the energy for quick release, and strobe to create the light. Cameras powered by 2 3V CR123A used to be common before rechargeables took over, and there is at least one commercial stun gun powered by the same combination. I would expect the instantaneous power between the homemade device and the commercial stun gun to be comparable. Interestingly enough, I couldn't find a source verifying that the Maine incident occurred. Flatscan 02:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
There are many factors involved in determining the level of danger involved in an electric shock. If you are talking about a source which has a low internal resistance and a continuous supply (like a battery or an AC wall socket), then anything over 24V is generally considered possibly dangerous, although a person under most circumstances would probably not have any harmful or painful effects from anything less than about 80V DC or 50V AC. It depends on how sweaty they are and whether the electrodes penetrate the skin or clothing, etc. Also, very high voltages tend to cause dielectric breakdown, so that you actually get more current than Ohm's law (using the resistance as measured at low-voltage) suggests. In the case of a capacitive source charged to a few hundred volts, the current will be VERY high initially, and will decay exponentially. The total energy delivered and the waveshape (current vs. time), as well as the path through the body, will determine the physiological effects. Flash capacitors are often 100uF or more, which would store about 5 Joules of energy at 300V. Typical cardiac defibrillator energy is 200 Joules per shock - but bear in mind that that is designed to guarantee total contraction of both ventricles of the heart. So, it is unlikely but definitely possible for someone to be killed by a 100uF capacitor charged to 300V. It would surely hurt a lot, and the peak current could easily be a half an amp (500mA), considering a human body resistance of about 1000 ohms (this is low in general, but possibly not for sweaty skin at 300V). Typical low voltage human body hand to hand resistance is about 100k ohms, depending upon how hard one grasps the electrical contacts. A person with a lot of sweat could easily be less than 10k ohms at low voltage, and a lot lower with dielectric breakdown at higher voltages. 05:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

UCLA Taser Incident[edit]

Adding new topic to discuss my edits as suggested by Anthony_Appleyard.

  • Anthony_Appleyard - could you cite this statement you added: "thus arousing suspicion that he might be not a student but an intruder looking for chances to steal." I can't find any statement to that effect in the UCLA Taser incident article. Flatscan 02:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • There was an incident at a university where I used to work, when a hardened criminal young man came in pretending to be a student, and some security men had to restrain him with a hard fight. There likely have been many other such inciedents across the world. Ask a few universities' security departments. Anthony Appleyard 07:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your response. I was hoping for something directly regarding Tabatabainejad or the UCLA library's policy. As I recall, articles that describe the policy say something like "to protect the safety of the students" without being more specific about from whom (e.g. "an intruder looking for chances to steal"). I appreciate your anecdotal evidence, but the phrase in question currently falls under WP:NOR or WP:V. Flatscan 04:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It is not an anecdote, it is direct information from an official printed notice from the security men involved. Anthony Appleyard 06:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I wrote and meant "anecdotal evidence," meaning undocumented or uncited information. I have made an entry at Talk:UCLA Taser incident regarding your edit of that article. Flatscan 02:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • My main concerns are that this section imperfectly duplicates information available at UCLA Taser incident. Since this is in the section about controversies involving electroshock devices, expanded exposition is fine, but it should be consistent with the other article. Flatscan 02:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't notable enough to be in this article. Just include a link in the See also section. — Omegatron 02:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There is already a link to UCLA Taser incident in the See also. In addition, I think the external link to the Daily Bruin article should be removed due to potential POV issues that are balanced when read in the other article. Flatscan 01:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Incapacitation, re: Drive Stun[edit]

The drive stun mode supposedly causes a great deal of pain. I don't think it's OR to say that a great deal of pain can be incapicitating. TheDeadlyShoe 00:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that that claim should be added uncited, considering POV issues that have come up in discussion of the UCLA Taser incident. In the context of Electroshock guns, "incapacitation" tends to be grouped with "disruption of motor function" and "paralyzation", when the subject cannot control his/her muscles. Describing "drive stun" as "incapacitating" without qualification may mislead the reader into believing that "drive stun" effectively disrupts motor function - which it does not. For a related discussion, please see the relevant section of Talk:UCLA Taser incident. Flatscan 05:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Normally, I think WP:IAR lets you add something to an article without necessarily needing a citation, but in this case, we have a citation stating that Drive Stun does not incapacitate. In my opinion, that has upped the ante, and any claims to the contrary should offer up their own citations for support. The reason the LVPD states that the TASER does not incapacitate is not meant to be propaganda, but rather, a warning to their own officers: don't use drive-stun mode on someone and think it's going to remove their ability to fight you. They may stop wanting to fight you (that's the plan), but they have not been physically incapacitated. Kind of like getting knocked off your feet -- you might lay there for a little longer than is necessary, not because you've sustained a real physical injury, but just because you're afraid to move, thinking you might be injured. I can certainly see a case for stating that someone who has been zapped might not want to move for a period of time, but physically, there's nothing stopping them, according to the sources we've seen so far.--TheCynic 20:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

New civilian Taser model demonstrated at CES[edit]

CNBC had a segment on the new model during its On the Money show. Like earlier models, it operates at 50KV, has both projectile and "drive stun" modes, and sprays ID micro-tags when fired. It is shaped more like a TV remote than a handgun. Its MSRP is $299 and it will be available in a variety of colors. Flatscan 02:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oregon Father Accused of Using Stun Gun on Infant Son[edit]

ALBANY, Ore. — An Albany father has been arrested on suspicion of using a stun gun on his 18-month-old son.,2933,250519,00.html Crocoite 20:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Just for the record, I don't think it's appropriate for the Controversies section in the current article. It could become relevant if there's a push to restrict their legality in response to this incident. Flatscan 03:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Revising the lead[edit]

I am rewriting the lead to more evenly cover the different types of weapons (projectile versus contact). I think it's confusing to have stun guns mixed in with the projectile weapons. Flatscan 02:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Risky to a minority": deletion of 7 Feb 2007[edit]

  • Re this deletion:-
It is possible that tasers, or any other high voltage device could cause cardiac arrhythmic disorders in a susceptible minority of people, possibly leading to heart attack or death in minutes by ventricular fibrillation (which leads to cardiac arrest and if not treated immediately to sudden death). People susceptible to this outcome are very often unaware of their susceptibility and are not rarely young, healthy and strong.
In current electroshock weapon models, the current is relatively low (2.1 mA to 3.6 mA) which is based in part on the electrical supply, (for example M-26 Taser models use eight AA batteries). Electrical current above 10 mA is considered to be potentially lethal to humans.

This sounds like a serious medical risk. Can we discuss this deletion please? Anthony Appleyard 07:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the topic here. I disagree with your moving the 2 paragraphs in question, but I will not revert until there has been some discussion. The second paragraph should be returned to its original location. I think that the first paragraph should be deleted if no citations can be found. My thoughts on the first paragraph:

  • Originally added on 8 Jan 2007 by (diff). Soon after, I {{fact}} tagged it with the edit summary add {{fact}} to new material; wording and placement is somewhat POV.
  • I've read that there are 3 suggested chronic causes of increased susceptibility to electric shock: pacemakers, heart disorders, and nervous system disorders. If I remember correctly (the Lancet article from 2001 is no longer available in full online), a study on pigs demonstrated that ventricular fibrillation could be more readily induced on a heart with a pacemaker. I have read no specific evidence of a relationship for either of the 2 types of disorders. I don't know much about the disorders, but what I've read suggests that they are hereditary and/or have clear symptoms. Therefore, anyone with the 3 causes would be aware of their possible increased susceptibility - the last sentence should be deleted.
No, they wouldn't necessarily be aware. They might be uneducated, or underage, or mentally incapable; they might not even know that their parents have the condition if it is hereditary and hasn't clearly shown up in their parents yet. greenrd 13:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. Would you support revising the sentence? People susceptible to this outcome are very often sometimes healthy and unaware of their susceptibility and are not rarely young, healthy and strong. Making judgments on the relative likelihood ("very often", "not rarely") is OR and can be POV. Of course, I would prefer a citation if one can be found. Flatscan 18:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I support your proposed revision. greenrd 20:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding the nervous system disorders, someone described a family condition where electric shock triggers seizures. Does anyone know what this condition is called? This is definitely relevant if we can find details.
I've read that those suffering from neuralgia may have increased sensitivity to electric shock. Reading the Wikipedia article, it seems plausible that pain sensation may be increased, but it seems unlikely that the likelihood of seizures or cardiac stimulation would be affected. Flatscan 00:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Flatscan 03:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[5] maybe this article can point to some research, i don't know how to find those reasearch papers... :Leuk he 14:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, I finally looked at it. One of the comments includes a list of scientific papers, including one (Nanthakumar, et al.) that I found previously. I'd like to note that the blog post and its comments have POV issues. Flatscan 04:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Principles of Operation Need More Explanation[edit]

The principles of Operation state that ” electroshock weapon technology uses a temporary high-voltage low-current electrical discharge to override the body's superficial muscle-triggering mechanisms”. This seems to imply that voltage and current are independent variables.

Yet Ohm’s Law makes current and voltage dependent variables (I (current) = V (voltage) / R (resistance). Once R and V are established, the current is what it is.

Wikipedia’s article on electric shock states that the human body has resistance of 10,000 ohms (dry) and 1,000 ohms (wet).

If we combine this information with the typical currents and voltages in the article, the information doesn’t make sense. The article says that ”current electroshock weapon models” produce current of 2.1 to 3.6 mA (let’s say 3 on average), and “the most common” put out 200 to 300 kV. But to push 3 mA through a dry body, we need only 3mA x 10 kOhm = 30 Volts. If you apply 300kV to a dry body, you get 30 amps and the person being subdued presumably becomes a crispy critter.

A possible explanation might be that electroshock weapons only achieve voltages like 200-300 kV across open circuits, and that when applied, they act like a capacitive discharge or a circuit with a large output impedance, in which case the voltage drops more or less instantaneously, like air going out of a balloon. However, given the wide range of resistance of the human body, it is difficult even then to see how the amperage might be predicted. Also, if the voltage drops off, then why is the effect on the subject so dependent on the time that the weapon is applied?

I wonder if someone might shed some light on this aspect of the article, and possibly update the article to clarify how these devices work. Ranger147147 17:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you're on the right track with your last paragraph -- as far as I've read in this Wikipedia article and elsewhere, electroshock weapons use capacitors to store charge at high potential. The electroshock weapons pulse at a rate of several times per second. I'm not sure if this is the precise calculation, but a plausible calculation would be (charge stored in capacitor) x (pulses per second).
A possible complication is the mixing of information regarding Tasers (electrodes pierce the skin) and stun guns (electrodes pressed to skin surface). Flatscan 03:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:Sarahfriedman[edit]

This is a list of my concerns, including some minor ones. I'm interested in comments from other editors who have working on this page in the past.

  • The diff [6] contains some editing that doesn't seem to be supported by the added references. The pre-existing ref [7] is no longer accessible (IIRC, I noticed that it had been removed a few weeks or more ago), so a review of it could not have been the source of the changes. Updating 73 to 243 is misleading as the more detailed accounting (8/7, 18/16) applies to the 73 only.
  • I feel that reorganization which moves Controversies to the second section has a POV effect. I do agree that Principles of operation should go first, although it needs a paragraph expanding on the difference between projectile and contact weapons.
  • Clear POV source: I have concerns about some of the other sources added, but they are not individually unacceptable.
  • Many changes in 1 edit make it more difficult to isolate and evaluate changes.
  • Ref style inconsistent with existing is easy to fix, but shouldn't be necessary.

Flatscan 02:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. I'll try to work on the other issues. Flatscan 20:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


A stun gun is, in a way, a defibrillator. One of the main causes of death, speaking from a medical standpoint, would be something called the "R-on-T phenomenon." Basically, if the heart is electrically stimulated before it's chemically ready (during the T wave--the relative refractory period), the heart can be thrown into a deadly arrhythmia. This will only occur in ideal circumstances since the impedance of the thoracic cavity is fairly large.

For anyone looking for citations regarding how lethal stun guns and other electroshock weapons are, I'd suggesting finding a decent article on the R-on-T phenomenon.

--Kevin Morenski 15:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This guy has no idea what he is talking about. Stun Guns and Taser's work in the Milliamp range and produce less than 1.7 joules of energy. An electronic defibrulator starts at 150 joules and go as high as 400. That means Stun Guns and Taser's at a minimum are 1/100th the power of these "Heart Starting Devices". Also, pacemakers are designed to withstand the punch of these defibrulators therefore they are not affected by stun guns or Taser's. Get you facts straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:22, December 1, 2007 (UTC)

Whether the facts match or do not match is not the main interest here. The main issue is that the corporation is claiming that the Taser is non-lethal, which is simply not true. Amnesty International recently issued a report where it says that since 2001, 500 people died because of Tasers. (talk) 08:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Length of controversy section[edit]

The Controversy section is, in my opinion, excessively long for the article. I suggest that it is split and placed in a new article titled, say, "Electroshock Weapon Controversy", and a brief paragraph is all that is left, along with a link, in this article. Any comments? --Lan56 08:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the controversy section is not "excessively" long at all. I came to the wikipedia page because I wanted to see if it cited the report from Amnesty International. (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible irrelevant information in 'Principles of Operation' paragraph.[edit]

Principles of operation

  • Electroshock weapon technology uses a temporary high-voltage low-current electrical discharge to override the body's muscle-triggering mechanisms. The recipient feels great pain, and can be momentarily paralyzed while an electric current is being applied. It is reported that applying electroshock devices to more sensitive parts of the body (such as the testicles and nipples) is more painful. The relatively low electric current must be pushed by high voltage to overcome the electrical resistance of the human body. The resulting 'shock' is caused by muscles twitching uncontrollably, appearing as muscle spasms. However, because the amount of current is relatively low, there is considered to be a 'margin' of safety by a number of medical experts. Experts generally agree that this margin is highly dependent on the overall health of the person subjected to the shock. Usually, the higher the voltage, the more effective it is. It may take several seconds to subdue a subject with 100 kV, but only about a second with 1 MV (1,000 kV).

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 03:19, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

I support deleting that sentence. Even if a source is found, it should be moved elsewhere, as targeting those sensitive areas does not fall under recommended usage. It was originally added during a series of edits by Ixfd64. Flatscan 19:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Accidental Deaths[edit]

Have there been any accidental deaths? How Many etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

There was one at Vancouver Airport recently (on youtube). I don't have details but I think it deserves a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Article exists: Robert Dziekański Taser incident‎. Information on deaths should generally go in the Electroshock weapon controversy article. Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In Canada there have been SO MANY 'ACCIDENTAL' DEATHS BY TASER (almost 20 since 2003) that CBC has an interactive map on the subject. Just today was ANOTHER ONE in Nova Scotia. Has anyone traced the origin of that crazy made-up term 'Excited Delirium'? Did that come straight from the Taser Inc. legal department (I'm just asking)? It is a legal maxim that you take your victims as you find them. If someone is slightly susceptible to being shocked, it is still wrongful death (maybe manslaughter). It is ALL OVER THE NEWS in Canada. The CBC News website is very slow, maybe a DOS attack from someone (just a guess, no idea who). And Taser Inc is busy launching lawsuits and legal maneuvers against anyone asking hard questions. At the same time they're fighting 39 lawsuits themselves. What a mess. (talk) 05:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There's an article on excited delirium with links to some interesting sources. bobanny (talk) 05:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Amnesty International recently issued this report (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Fully comprehensive and independent reference[edit]

The British government ordered a complete review of all aspects of TASER technology that was entirely independent of any manufacturers or interested parties. This encompassed the science of the technology,history of use, operational parameters, compatibility with medical and aircraft tehnology and the most comprehensive independent medical data ever produced on the subject. The three resulting publications answer virtually every question raised in this editing talk and as such I feel they should be included as external references in the article. Many of the external references already included are far more biased, less knowledgable and, in some cases, reference the source material I am proposing.

The links to the reports are as follows: "PSDB Evaluation of Taser Devices"; "PSDB Further Evaluation of Taser Devices"; "Supplement to HOSDB Evaluations of Taser Devices" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Medical Case Report on a Taser injury[edit]

There is a recent article in the Annals of Emergency Medicine which describes a police offcer who suffered spine fractures during a taser demonstration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Taser Resistant Sweatshirt[edit]

  • A while ago I read about a sweatshirt that is resistant or nullifies the effects of a taser through I'm guessing grounding. I can't find anything on the net about this now. Any leads would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Probably just thick enough that the electrodes can't penetrate it. Prodego talk 02:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Likely the shirt is electrically insulating and too tough for the electrodes to make holes in it to come through. Anthony Appleyard 04:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Taser: Reduces Lethal Force in Phoenix[edit]

"The Phoenix Police Department reported that officer shootings had dropped as a result from the use of TASER technology as an alternative to deadly force. Uses of a TASER device in this department increased from 71 in the year 2002 to 164 in the year 2003. Additionally, the number of officer-involved shootings decreased by 7 during this time period."

There are many problems with this statement:

  • It doesn't appear to be cited.
  • The argument is that the decrease of 7 is significant: We don't know how many officer-involved shootings there were over all, or previous years records, to even begin to work out if this is a significant result.
  • Obviously such research would be 'original research' so shouldn't be in the article, hence maybe this whole paragraph should be removed.
  • Or alternatively, it could be argued that tasers are being used in cases where guns wouldn't have been. Ie if tasers were used in 93 more cases, then there should be 93 fewer shootings, but there were only 7 fewer. (still primary research though)

Hence I vote to remove or cite properly this paragraph. Lionfish0 10:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This old version has a ref to [8], which is now dead. This is a possible starting point to finding a working ref. Flatscan 04:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Depiction in fiction[edit]

In their most general incarnation, these devices are sometimes depicted as tools of oppression in works of fiction, especially in dystopic visions of the future. Examples include: The Road Not Taken (Stargate_SG-1).

Maybe someone can flesh this list out a bit and add it to the article. --Lionelbrits 19:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 12:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Defenses ?[edit]

  • I suggest adding a section: What are the best defenses, if any, against being tasered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • How about comply with the cops when they give you an order and don't do anything illegal? Scott 110 01:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You are clearly a troll, what kind of answer is that? don't feed this "Scott" please. --Lo'oris (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. Some pigs give bogus/illegal "orders". Then hurt you in your own house when you didn't do anything...they are the ones that need a Tasering....I'm taking Karate, Myself68.231.189.108 (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Scott's advise is not all that bad and while not to your liking I have to e. You migh reconsider who is the troll here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not all that Good, either. Pretty Lame..I'm sure the asker was either just curious or about, say, in a protest situation where people are exercising their right of free speech and pigs try to round Everybody up. There Must be an intelligent answer to this--muscle de-relaxants; some yoga or deep breathing exercise; some way to physically/mentally/spiritually be more resistant. I've heard being wiped on crack or Meth makes one much harder to put down on a Taser; so there Must be a more positive way of doing it. (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC).
  • It's not an advice, it's just a random attack. Since you're defending him, either you're too stupid to understand, or you're a troll too, so it's pretty pointless to explain you why. And you are anonymous, so it's even more pointless. Just STFU next time,k? ;) --Lo'oris (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The best defense against being Tasered is to wear a lame' jacket (containing metal fibers) the same as worn by power line workers. This short circuits the barbs, so that no electric shock is delivered to the wearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

electroshock weapon meant to kill?[edit]

  • This page seems to talk about nothing but weapons meant to stun people as a defensive weapon. Isn't there an offensive or military electroshock weapon meant to shock or barbeque a person to death or turn them to ash? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No. The available energy density from practical electrical power sources is very inferior to the energy density available from conventional propellants. Consequently electrically powered weapons are considered only when they have special properties that outweigh their otherwise severe disadvantages. There are only three cases I am aware of where this is (potentially) the case: a) direct, controllable stimulation of the nervous system to produce muscular spasms or pain, using power levels much lower than those required to do damage (i.e., what this page is about); b) directed energy weapons for engagement of hyper-speed targets, where the speed-of-light propagation of the energy beam greatly improves the odds of scoring a hit (BUT the energy density problem is such that none have been fielded yet and the only ones close to being fielded are chemically powered, not electrical); and c) lethal voltage electric fences (because they are static fixtures, so the power supply problem is greatly lessened.) Even lethal voltage electric fences do not generate anything like enough power to "barbeque a person to death or turn them to ash." They cause respiratory arrest by, once again, interfering with the nervous system. -- Securiger (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • User: may have meant an electroshock weapon powerful enough to reliably deliver a lethal electric shock if applied to the right place on the target. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The electric chair is usually lethal. It could be weaponized by making it portable, I suppose. Modern Lithium Polymer batteries can provide a few KW for a few seconds in a package weighing a pound or so - plenty of power for an electric chair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Article scope: Prototypes[edit]

I think we should consider removing the Electroshock weapon#Prototype designs section. Their designs and functions are quite different from the handheld, portable commercial products. Electrified water cannon is an abandoned prototype, possibly not notable. Electrolaser delivers electric charge, but seems to be better classified as a directed-energy weapon. Flatscan (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the section could do with some cleanup, particularly as it contains a lot of speculation, and nowhere notes that research stalled several years ago. However I would be loathe to see removal of a link to the electrified water cannon article. This concept is still widely cited on many antiestablishment web sites as being an actual weapon, generally with ludicrously exaggerated properties. As Jaycor's page is now available only via archive sites, our article is now the main available source of balanced information about this myth. -- Securiger (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Image of stun baton[edit]

  • About the image Image:Stunbaton .jpg. Some want to delete it. But it is the only free (non-copyright) image of an electric shock baton that I have. If I had access to a real electric baton, I could upload a photograph of it; but I have not got access to one. As regards "crappy": well, it looks CGI-ish. Please discuss.
    • It would help if you got youtself a Wikipedia username: the two times that you deleted this image, the page history showed a different IP address (IPA) number. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
    • No, that was me. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • The existing image is somewhat crap. Cartoony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Current in amps sent through the body[edit]

  • Maybe it would be a good idea to discuss what really matters namely how much AMPERE they send through the body. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Most stun guns are useless because they produce too little current, around 1-5 mA. It would be a good idea to discuss which stuns guns that produce a serious current and actually works such as the Nova or Omega brands(or so I've read on the groups LOL). (talk) 11:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
But that is only true for continuous current. All practical electroshock weapons used a pulsed current, which deliver multiple amperes, but only for a few milliseconds, with a long gap before the next pulse; it is only the average that is ~1 mA. The effectiveness of such pulses is usually described by the total energy delivered per pulse, measured in joules. However, Taser International claims that even that is not really a good measure, and that effectiveness depends on precise pulse timing and pulse shaping, which tune which biological system is activated by the energy, and so affect the ability to paralyse muscles with minimal power and minimal pain. -- Securiger (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this should be put in the main article to deflect the multiple attacks on Ohm's law (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Legality in State[edit]

Someone who knows should add a section in what states it's legal for private citizens to own a stun gun or carry concealed (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)eric

New article for XREP[edit]

I've found a large amount of detailed and encyclopedic information about TASER's XREP shotgun electroshock system.

Could I create new article for that and link forward to it under the XREP#Wireless_long-range_electric_shock_weapon heading, using "Main article: TASER XREP"?

I think it would be great since this is an important innovation in an otherwise quite stagnant field. I would be elaborating on the technical functioning of the device, yet keeping it easy enough for people with little or no understanding of electronics. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds interesting. What kind of sources do you have beyond Taser documentation? I suggest starting it as a user subpage, e.g. User:Tomjenkins52/XREP. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Some websites that explain its operation and features in detail. Don't want to quote links, though I will certainly be heavily rewriting it, especially since it must be easy to understand by anybody, not just electronic engineers! (As my source is quite technical)
And can I be WP:BOLD and create a new article?! I've done many new articles as you can see on my userpage, and nobody's ever objected, so wouldn't it be harmless even if I add it straight into the main namespace? Thanks. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
My main concern is that a separate article may not have sufficient WP:Notability to stand on its own. I've seen XREP on Heroes, but I haven't read any articles that indicate that they're in widespread use. If you're confident, go ahead in article space – user space was just a suggestion. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions and understanding. I really believe that new articles can (and should!) be created by anybody who is interested in documenting something previously considered unimportant. Who knows, someday it might become an important issue and then Wikipedia would have nothing much to add to the subject! Cheers! I'll begin as soon as I get some time. Thanks again. -- Tomjenkins52 (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Electro Laser"[edit]

I found a small article that supports the claim of the Electro Laser.


Other known or rumored variants include the electrolaser, which uses blooming of a laser beam to create a conductive channel of ionized air (plasma) to carry the electric shock. [citation needed]

Here's your link

Do whatever you want with this information, but I don't think it belongs on this article without heavy citations and other verifications.'''Aryeonos''' (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Man with electric shock baton image[edit]

  • This article's link to image File:Stunbaton_.jpg has been deleted twice recently, disputing its quality. OK, so it's a CGI. Real images of electric shock batons on the web are good but copyright. If any of you has access to a real electric shock baton, then pose with it for a photo and upload that photo. Here in England I have no way of getting hold of a real electric shock baton, so I must resort to CGI. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
It is better to have no image than a user-generated image of this type; this only makes the article look amateurish and unreliable, whereas the lack of an image, while not ideal, is pretty typical of the most prestigious sources. I am not the IP who deleted it originally, and only looked at the history due to your "edit war" comment. As a contributor, I appreciate the effort you undertook to create the image, but, as a reader, felt that it detracted from the article. I wonder if you can take a moment to step outside your shoes - this doesn't come naturally for creators - and try to understand why people are having this reaction. (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is the product of the work of amateurs and experts/professionals working together. And there is no deadline. No doubt it will eventually be replaced with a better image. I wonder if any of the many people who have complained about this image have made a serious effort to find a suitable replacement?--greenrd (talk) 12:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
When the New York Times and other prestigious sources want a photograph to a accompany an article, but don't yet have one, they run a computer-generated image instead. Similarly, academic journals. Wikipedia is only following these established best practices.
"I wonder if any of the many people who have complained about this image have made a serious effort to find a suitable replacement?"
When Wikipedia is unreliable, it's other people's fault for not fixing it. (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have missed my point. Wikipedia is amateurish by definition. There is nothing unreliable about an accurate CGI depiction - are you claiming it's inaccurate?--greenrd (talk) 09:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Similarly in Britain when a newspaper or television news wants a courtroom scene in an important trial: photography is not allowed there during trials, so an "artist's reconstruction" must be used. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so even if the image is acceptable (personally I came here to see if there was any discussion of it because on seeing it I did a double take), is it necessary? From what I can tell, most electroshock weapons aren't even shaped like that, so is it even showing how a significant subset of them are shown? And, is this really necessary - how most objects with handles are held is generally pretty clear from the shape and angle of the handle. The article has quite a few images already, so I don't think it's vital documentation, personally. I'm not going to touch it myself seeing as there was this debate over it, but I'm making this comment for anyone bold enough to do it (or if one of the previous commenters respond). LeftNoise? 19:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge the entry for "Electroshock weapon" with the entry for "Taser"?[edit]

I would be opposed to such a merger on the grounds that "Electroshock weapon" - or some of the other terms discussed below for these weapons - are general terms, whereas "Taser", while widely used, is a commercial brand name, relating to the products of a firm called Taser International based in Arizona. The marketing department of Taser would of course be delighted if their brand was to become the general name for this product, but Wikipedia should not be assisting that process. There is a range of weapons out there, manufactured by a number of different companies, and Wikipedia should stick to the general term used by international organisations. (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


Rewrite a section of the article as follows:

Commercially-available varieties[edit]

Stun gun[edit]

A handheld stun gun which discharges high-voltages to penetrate clothing, followed by low-voltages to cause Neuro Muscular Incapacitation
A concealable weapon shaped and sized like a lipstick tube

Unlike the name suggests, a stun gun is a melee weapon, administring a shock via direct contact with the weapon itself.

Short-range electroshock weapon[edit]

A multi-purpose handheld weapon that fires two stun probes (for high-voltage shocks), rubber, pepper, and paint-ball bullets. Without the probes it works as a stun gun

A Taser is an electroshock weapon that can stun a targeted subject from a distance by firing electrodes on the end of long thin wires.

The article at present focuses too much on short range electroshock weapons (tasers), the stun gun is looked over too much

Claimed vs. Actual Output Voltages[edit]

Ads for stun guns have gotten far out of hand lately. In fact, their voltage claims are often outright lies tens or hundreds of times what is even possible. There is no way the vast majority of them can develop the voltage that they claim, for the simple reason that air breaks down and acts like a short circuit at the maximum rate of about 30000 volts per cm (75000 volts per inch) in dry air. Most stun guns have two pairs of electrodes: an outer pair which are meant to contact the assailant, or at least get as close as possible to him if clothing is in the way; and an inner pair which are closer together, and where the sparks fly when the unit is operated in the open air. Each outer electrode is connected to the nearer inner electrode (often they are actually two ends of a single piece of metal). Thus, the maximum voltage that can be developed depends on how close together the INNER pair of electrodes are. For most stun guns this distance is in the range of 1-3 cm (3/8 inch to 1 1/4 inches), which means that the electrodes can NEVER have more than about 90000 volts potential between them, unless unreasonable methods of cheating are used (such as disassembly and modification of the unit and/or adding substantial electrical insulation between the electrodes, such as by operating the unit while it’s immersed in high-dielectric oil).

The largest gap I have seen between inner electrodes in any consumer stun gun online is on the now-discontinued model called the Stun Master 750000, which has inner electrodes that look to be about 5 cm (2 inches) apart. Even this powerful model’s name is a great exaggeration, because if my estimate of its electrode spacing is anywhere near accurate, it can develop no more than about 150000 volts before discharging a spark.

There are models available now, having advertised outputs of 6.8 million volts and more. Think about this: one million volts can discharge a spark up to a distance of about 33 cm (13 inches). 6.8 million volts would send a spark across a gap of over 2.2 meters (7 feet)! If these units really generate such high voltages, why aren’t the people holding them being stunned across the mere few centimeters between the electrodes and the grip area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! In fact, I was just about to add a section about this topic but you've already done that for me. As of 2013, I've even seen stun guns marketed with claims of 15 MILLION volts. Sadly, I don't think we can do anything about this. Most people don't understand electricity and have no clue whatsoever.
But, I'd like to see a small section in the wiki article mentioning this issue. At least one sentence. -- (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
The trouble there is referencing - if you can find a study/published article explaining the above then it wouldn't be hard to throw together a small sentence to do it with (along with examples of exaggerated numbers), but the trouble is finding a source in the first place. LeftNoise? 19:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is how to compare different stun guns: 1) Devise a standard load consisting of a spark gap (simulating the clothing) in series with a resistor. I would suggest about a 1kV spark gap and a 10 kilohms resistor. 2) Measure the peak and average current in the resistor. 3) Quote the current as a percentage of the lethal dose in pigs (which has been well studied). So a "75 Rated Stun Gun" would give 75% of the LD50 current in the porcine model, and would be non-lethal weapon much of the time. A "200 Rated Stun Gun" would be a lethal weapon most of the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Electroshock weapon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

an addition[edit]

Stun gun technology:

According to makers of stun guns, a charge of one quarter of a second will cause the assailant to feel intense pain and muscle contractions, startling most humans intensely. A charge of 1 to 2 seconds will often cause the assailant to become dazed and drop to the ground. A charge of over 3 seconds will usually completely disorient and drop an attacker for at least several minutes and as long as fifteen minutes.

Many think of electricity as a harmful force to human bodies. If you stick your finger in an electrical outlet, the current can maim or even kill you. But in smaller doses, electricity is harmless. In fact, it is one of the most essential elements in your body. You need electricity to do just about anything.

When you want to perform a task by hand, your brain sends electricity down a nerve cell, toward the muscles in your arm. The electrical signal tells the nerve cell to release a neurotransmitter, a communication chemical, to the muscle cells. This tells the muscles to contract or expand in just the right way to accomplish your task. Sensitive nerve cells in your hand send an electrical message to the brain, telling you what something feels like. When you eat or drink, your mouth sends signals to your brain to tell you how it tastes.

In this way, the different parts of your body use electricity to communicate with one another. This is like a telephone system or the internet. Specific patterns of electricity are transmitted over lines to deliver messages.

The basic idea of a stun gun is to disrupt this communication system. Stun guns generate a high voltage, low amperage electrical charge. This means that the charge has a lot of pressure behind it but not that much intensity. When you press the stun gun against an attacker and hold the trigger, the charge passes into their body. Since it has a fairly high voltage, the charge will pass through heavy clothing and skin. But at around 3 milliampers, the charge is not powerful enough to damage the attacker's body unless it is applied for extended periods of time.

It does pump a lot of confusing information into the attacker's nervous system. This causes some things to happen:

The charge combines with the electrical signals from the attacker's brain. This is like running an outside current into a phone line. The original signal is mixed in with any noise, making it very difficult to understand any messages. When these lines of communication shut down, the attacker has a very hard time making the muscles move, and may become confused and off balance. Then becomes partially paralyzed, for a temporary amount of time.

Current can be generated with "pulse frequency" that mimics the body's own electrical signals. In this case, the current tells the attacker's muscles to do a great deal of work in a very short time. But the signal doesn't direct the work toward any particular movement. It doesn't do anything but deplete the attacker's energy reserves, leaving too weak to move.

This is all there is to incapacitating a person with a stun gun. Simply apply electricity to a person's muscles and nerves. Since there are muscles and nerves all over the body, it doesn't matter all that much where you hit an attacker.

(Source: Tom Harris, site producer for — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:7C02:3700:D472:F69D:25BD:5 (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

a notice[edit]

also stun guns are suitable for self defence of disabled persons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:7C02:3700:D472:F69D:25BD:5 (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Stun guns are not allowed to be shipped into the following states: MA, NJ, PA, WI, IL, DC, HI, MI, NY, RI, CT, MD, IA. Source: — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrGoodfriend (talkcontribs) 12:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Electroshock weapon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Electroshock weapon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Electroshock weapon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)