Stungun.com

2006-01-14T04:21:00.000-08:00

Law Enforcement May Pick Up the Slack of Responsibility for Stun Gun Safety

New, self-imposed stun gun use guidelines for the Salt Lake City Police Department signaled a possible trend. The combination of bad press, pressure from activist groups, and lack of leadership from stun gun industry players such as Taser International, Inc. has left a vacuum. To fill the void, law enforcement departments may end up taking more responsibility, themselves, for their officers’ use of new forms of less-lethal technology.

Someone who actually uses or develops stun gun technology needs not only to teach responsible stun gun use, but to communicate an interest in exercising safety. That someone is turning out to be law enforcement, the way things are going. We may be witnessing, with Salt Lake City’s actions, momentum for such a movement.

On Jan. 4 The Salt Lake Tribune reported changes to the city police department’s self-imposed rules for officers’ use of the largest stun gun manufacturer’s weapon. The article went on to report dissatisfaction with the extent of this move. According to the article, the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International had asked the city to draft a policy allowing stun gun use “only in lieu of deadly force.”

Salt Lake City’s mayor reportedly rejected these activist groups’ requests in favor of a policy that allows police stun gun use when a “dangerous or violent subject aggressively resists or attempts to flee.” His decision was a departure from earlier guidelines that allowed use when a subject was violent in merely a verbal sense.

Stun gun use guidelines like those they’ve implemented in Salt Lake City this week represent a compromise. While some groups may see anything but the strictest of guidelines as a cause for alarm, what this industry needs on all sides is an ear for compromise. More important, officials anywhere in positions to inspire change must exercise their power for the common good.

We all need to recognize that stun guns can be dangerous. Yet they are also, properly designed, a promising alternative to firearms.

Plenty of groups, including those pushing for better-defined stun gun policy, realize the nuances of stun gun safety. Often, articles that follow developments in the stun gun industry fail to report on the opinions these diverse groups share, instead focusing on provocative statements. The result is a juggernaut of an argument that fuels a stun gun debate but not a solution.

Stinger Systems, Inc., a Tampa, Fla.–based firm, reportedly makes stun guns that may be safer than the largest manufacturer’s. Articles late last year indicated that Stinger even cut a deal to provide stun guns to the sheriff’s department in Arizona’s Maricopa County, close to the industry leader’s headquarters. Other stun gun players, such as Youngsville, NC–based Law Enforcement Associates Corp. (LEA), also have vied for attention.

A number of companies in this market space seem to communicate strong interest in safety, an issue that continues to dog the largest player. One way to alter the course of the stun gun debate would be for the media to refrain from reporting disparagingly on the competition that is indeed out there.

2006-01-14T04:14:00.000-08:00

Favorable Developments in the Less-Lethal Weapons Market Cap off a Year Otherwise Rife with Difficult Challenges for Stun Gun Technology

Developments late in 2005 provided a notable counterpoint to the year's bad news. They helped to rehabilitate the leading maker’s image and will probably prove critical to the industry’s survival. At the same time, I encourage the competition that continues to challenge the market leader.

Last year cast stun gun technology in an unfavorable light. Much criticism and litigation has been a reaction to the conduct of one manufacturer that many consider irresponsible. This has been detrimental to the future of all stun gun technology, not just the largest maker’s.

The latest, good news about the largest maker bodes well for the entire industry, but it’s never good for an entire industry’s future to be beholden to one company’s reputation.

On Dec. 21, MSNBC.com reported that court in Texas had dropped a wrongful death suit against Taser International Inc. According to the article, this suit was the eighth of its kind to be dropped this year, which began with Taser’s weapon in a major Hollywood movie before the stock embarked on a rollercoaster ride and questionable deaths began to concern critics and monopolize news about stun gun technology.

In Novermber, reports suggested that NASDAQ was to consider a delisting of the stun gun maker after delays in receiving a quarterly report. But a Dec. 23 article from The Motley Fool indicated that the situation had been resolved. The same article also reported that Arizona’s Attorney General’s office had concluded an inquiry into the company.

It was a dramatic one-two punch of good luck for a company that has been against the ropes for a while. We’ll see if the firm’s good fortune lasts. Last year ended on a high note for less-lethal technology, too, and the past week’s news could simply be a peak on the rollercoaster ride we’ve seen all this year. It remains to be seen whether we’re witnessing a turning point, once and for all, for the largest manufacturer of stun guns.

The year also saw competitors such as Stinger Systems, Inc. and Law Enforcement Associates Corp. (LEA) grabbing some spotlight. Right in the largest manufacturer’s own backyard, Stinger, a Tampa, Fla.–based firm, reportedly cut a deal to provide stun guns to the sheriff’s department in Arizona’s Maricopa County. And earlier in the year, LEA’s own president deliberately subjected himself to a shock from his company’s stun gun to prove the safety of the manufacturer’s weapon.

A Stinger press release in late 2005 announced the appointment of a new chief financial officer at the firm. Triangle Business Journal reported on Dec. 23 that Youngsville, NC–based LEA is currently courting a potential stun gun partner.

We still have one major player in the stun gun market, and with that company’s well-publicized vindication this past week, we have a stun gun market that still has a future. But more competition—which critics seemingly discourage and marginalize sarcastically—will help this market’s investors avoid sitting on the edges of their seats every time bad things happen to the industry’s 800-pound gorilla.

2006-01-14T04:06:00.000-08:00

Opportunity for Rehabilitation of Less-Lethal Technology’s Reputation Exists Even as Problems Mount for the Industry

Reports in early December of last year said a rival less-lethal weapon maker was in talks to become the stun gun manufacturer of choice for Arizona’s Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. This is right in the industry's largest manufacturer's backyard. Reports about a possible stock delisting for Taser International Inc. cast the development in an interesting light.

The Arizona Republic and reported that Joe Arpaio, sheriff of Arizona’s Maricopa County, reportedly began to test stun guns from another manufacturer, Stinger Systems Inc., a company that touts safety as one of its product’s defining features. Writers at Web sites such as The Motley Fool weighed in on the situation.

Also according to wire service reports that ran on “ABC News,” CNN, the New York Post, and elsewhere, Taser International Inc. had received a letter from the NASDAQ Stock Market. Articles claimed that the stun gun manufacturer’s stock may have been subject to delisting because of the company’s delays in filing a quarterly report; and that the Scottsdale, Ariz.–based company planned to attend a hearing on the issue. Since, the company's stock listing has been relisted.

You have to wonder how often this sort of thing happens as a matter of course. Were the publicized plans to appeal merely savvy public relations in response to bad news, or was the company really in a bind? The question is critical, and the answer would reveal a lot about the the stun gun industry's circumstances.

A number of industry pundits have questioned whether other stun gun manufacturers have the clout on other stock markets to truly compete. If the NASDAQ delisting comes to pass, many people may end up going back to the drawing board.

Many of the same wire stories that reported the possible NASDAQ delisting also repeated an oft-cited Amnesty International statement that 129 deaths are related to stun guns. Human rights groups such as Amnesty, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference have all either issued statements or taken action in response to safety concerns over stun gun use.

On Nov. 28, The Miami Herald reported that a 35-year-old woman in Fort Myers, Fla., died shortly after showing no visible effects from the direct shot of a stun gun. The same day, CourtTV reported that a former Maricopa County deputy, Samuel Powers, has filed a liability case against Taser International. He alleges that a shock from the company’s weapon in July of 2002 ended his 15-year career there.

Circumstances in the stun gun industry right now are ripe for a major market shake-up. The market really needs a stirring—and a positive one. More competition will keep this market honest, and well-publicized honesty is the only thing that will regain the public’s and investors’ trust when it comes to less-lethal technology. That public trust has been severely damaged by many months’ worth of concerns over safety and profitability.

2005-11-11T14:24:00.000-08:00

Industry Leaders Can Rehabilitate Less-Lethal Technology’s Image by Offering and Aggressively Promoting Safer Stun Guns

Bad press and the attention of human rights groups threaten future buyers’ confidence in stun gun technology and may have precipitated a recent plunge in industry profits. I urge leaders of this market to reign in what seems like inscrutable investor activities and take major steps to rehabilitate stun guns’ image while the window for positive impact remains open.

The bad rap on stun guns is partially deserved. More important, the perception is the reality. Major companies in this market space have acted in ways that many see as inconsiderate, irresponsible, and legally questionable. Whether these people are correct in their assessments becomes a minor point once a perception sets in.

Reuters reported on Oct. 26 that a major stun gun manufacturer had experienced a 95 percent dip in profit during the third quarter. Just two days earlier, MarketWatch and others reported that this same manufacturer’s stocks rose on news of the company’s latest offering, a camera to record users’ activities on its existing weapon. This safety-minded feature received renewed coverage almost two weeks later via an Associated Press story.

On Nov. 6, The Indianapolis Star ran an article adding context to law enforcement cutbacks on orders of stun guns. Meanwhile, Stinger Systems of Florida introduced to the market a stun gun to rival the established leader’s weapon.

To salvage sales, this industry must issue sweeping messages. Someone needs to take concerted actions that are grand and reassuring in scope. And the media need to cover what’s said whether the message comes from new or established players.

Stock prices and profits have been all over the place. Shareholders and other business stakeholders in the stun gun market space are flying by the seats of their pants and jockeying for the big score. Add new players to the fray, and developments will either mellow or become more frenetic.

Human rights organizations are beginning to claim victories in their efforts to enforce safe stun gun use. An Oct. 26 Amnesty International press release noted that a recent court case looking at stun guns, Indiana’s Monroe County Jail, and the death of James Borden coincided with the largest manufacturer’s decision to change its warning labels and the growing movement in law enforcement to curtail use of the weapons.

Pointing to the questionable safety of current stun gun offerings, organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International have fanned the flames of the stun gun debate. An embattled industry has responded with carefully orchestrated media blitzes touting new features to create the perception that manufacturers are devoted to safety.

With sales suffering such a large hit as of late, the success of efforts, thus far, to quell law enforcement’s and the public’s concerns remains unclear. But one this is certain: The maelstrom leaves casual observers blindsided.

2005-10-30T06:11:00.000-08:00

Self-imposed recommendations for police use of stun guns are not the same as industry leadership and assistance

After a well-known advocacy group added its weight to the stun gun debate in October, officials met before the month was out and drafted stun gun use recommendations. But recommendations fall short of what those who use these weapons need: new safety regulations with teeth and leadership from stun gun manufacturers.

In the beginning, use of electroshock technology in the form of stun guns was a response to a market that wanted reliable, less-lethal weapons. Since then, the stun gun industry’s zeal to continue making a profit has led many to question whether safety—the whole reason for less-lethal technology—remains as the industry’s primary goal. Count me among those with questions.

On Oct. 7, The Associated Press and others ran articles on an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) report. The ACLU expressed concern about the safety hazards unregulated stun gun use may pose. Of the law enforcement agencies that the ACLU surveyed, only four were found to regulate the number of times an officer is allowed to use a stun gun on a suspect during one incident.

Less-lethal technology is not the same as non-lethal technology. We can always expect a handful of people to die from stun guns, and anyone who calls for perfection is grandstanding. But organizations make a good point when they call for official rules to govern these weapons’ use and decrease deaths to a bare minimum. Any technology with ‘lethal’ in its name, no matter how characterized, demands the attention of regulators.

According to reports, Department of Justice officials and more than four dozen police agencies attended a conference of the Police Executive Research Forum last week and discussed stun gun policy. An Associated Press article later reported that, on Oct. 19, the attendees announced 50 recommendations for proper use of stun guns from the industry’s largest manufacturer.

Stun gun safety deserves more than lip service from manufacturers. But lip service is all we seem to hear from some of the major producers. This is why law enforcement organizations end up making grand overtures, like last week’s, to protect the reputation of police departments—but they shouldn’t have to. The industry should take the lead.

Some stun gun manufacturers essentially use peer-pressure. They promise safety. Police departments see peers using the weapons and, at least partially in the interest of appearing responsible, buy and use the weapons themselves. But we rarely hear a peep from these companies when questionable incidents then occur. Producers of these weapons seem to leave police departments holding the bag.

This industry needs to deliver on safety, not just on orders for stun guns. If they don’t, legislators facing mounting public and media pressure will eventually draft regulations of their own. Nobody wants that.

2005-10-30T06:02:00.000-08:00

More competition in the stun gun marketplace may improve the accuracy of debate over these weapons’ safety

As one stun gun company weathers questions about possible connections to accidental deaths, a rising player has announced production of a rival weapon that features safety-minded technology. Any stun gun company that can gain the public’s trust will eventually rule this market space, and more competition may improve the accuracy of debate over stun guns’ safety.

Use of stun guns in place of firearms can save lives. But proper engineering and training are keys to the promise of safety, the very market force that precipitated the invention of this technology in the first place. When it comes to the issue of safety, some stun gun companies seem to be doing a better job than are others.

On Oct. 10, Stinger Systems, Inc., a Tampa, Fla.–based company, announced volume production of its own stun gun. As quoted in Stinger’s press release, Robert Gruder, CEO, claimed his company’s weapon “allows an officer to maintain control during the entire arrest process by having a manual trigger,” a feature that apparently sets Stinger’s weapon apart from other stun gun manufacturers’ products. Also according to Stinger’s release, “a nationwide network of trainers is already in place.”

I think a well-designed weapon wins only half the battle. A robust, safety-minded training program for officials who use stun guns is the missing link. It remains to be seen how Stinger’s network of trainers will fare in imparting the respect that use of these weapons demands. Stun guns are ‘less-lethal’ weapons, not ‘non-lethal.’ The risk of death is always present, albeit greatly minimized in comparison to a firearm’s.

Highly publicized events this past year have thrown the safety of a leading manufacturer’s stun guns into question. A number of states bar the weapons: Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.

On Oct. 11, The Associated Press ran widely reported news that the online auctioneer eBay Inc. “will block the sale and shipment of stun guns and other illegal weapons to New York residents.” According to the news, out-of-state “eBay sellers are believed to have sold” a number of TASER products to New York State–based buyers. The New York attorney general led an investigation last year.

Recently, a television news broadcast reported that police in Nashville, Tenn., had used a stun gun to subdue a man trying to slit his own wrists. TASER International, Inc. issued a news release about the Nashville event on Oct. 13.

It is telling when a large, established corporation that enjoys daily media coverage across the country resorts to publicizing reported news about the kind of technology it manufactures. Presumably, the hope may be to promote further coverage of a positive event to offset a barrage of negative news coverage about the company’s products. But the obvious question is why would any well-known company do this? To some, the move can look like desperation.

It’s understandable why human rights organization such as Amnesty International would question the use of stun guns. At every turn, some companies in this market space seem to argue against further safety precautions for these weapons.

Large forces seem to be at play.

News reports fuel the perception that stun gun safety is a polarizing issue. Many stories seem to portray two diametrically opposed camps: those that endorse unbridled stun gun use and those that would call for complete abandonment of the technology. The reality is more complex. Dissolution of a monopoly in the industry might change dynamics considerably.

2005-10-03T07:55:00.000-07:00

The stun gun market needs accountability and competition

Less-lethal technology needs to be a part of law enforcement’s future. But the high-profile attention certain stun gun manufacturers attract through what some see as questionable business practices unfairly threatens the further adoption of all less-lethal technology.

A broadening government investigation threatens a major stun gun manufacturer, whose weapons’ safety is attracting increasing debate among law enforcement officials and the general public. Other manufacturers should embrace the stun gun market’s current state of flux as an opportunity to increase their market shares before the window of opportunity closes. Companies such as Stinger Systems and Law Enforcement Associates Corp. have received attention for their stun gun–related products this past year.

On Sept. 28, BusinessWeek reported that a current Securities & Exchange Commission investigation into TASER International, Inc. has become formal and widened. According to the article, SEC authorities are looking into “possible stock manipulation by outside parties.” The story also touches on a dip in law enforcement agencies’ orders.

By continuing along its current path, the stun gun industry may inflict irreversible damage upon itself and severely handicap any manufacturer’s credibility in the marketplace. To wrest control of this recently robust market, others in the stun gun industry who face fewer problems and manufacturer possibly safer stun guns must launch aggressive campaigns in short order.

Recent stories in the Charlotte Observer and The Arizona Republic report on coroner and medical examiner findings that have tied electroshock from a large manufacturer’s stun guns to the deaths of at least two people.

The controversy surrounding one large company is becoming the unofficial face of the entire stun gun industry, and this is a shame. Stun gun technology, done right, can be safe. The rest of the industry needs to communicate, on a massive scale, their commitment to responsible stun gun technology.

According to the Arizona attorney general, as quoted in a Sept. 28 article in The Arizona Republic, TASER International, Inc. is making changes to its marketing practices.

Any effort to be safer with stun guns is welcome, but it may be a case of "too little, too late" for some. It’s no wonder human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and others have been so critical of the stun gun industry.

2005-09-21T06:54:00.000-07:00

Update

My last post, titled "Misuse of Stun Guns Continues and Throws Their Safety into Question," contained an error regarding the operation of a product by one of the manufacturers mentioned. According to a TASER International, Inc. spokesperson who contacted StunGun.com:

“When the TASER™ electronic control device is fired, it can be turned off at any time, even during the automatic five-second cycle, by turning the safety to the ‘off’ position. The purpose of the automatic timing is to preclude inadvertent early shut off, but the operator has full control and can turn the device off at any time.”

I welcome the notification. Even so, uninterrupted five-second (or even longer) stun durations have led to a considerable debate on safety. Reports, proven or unproven, of injury and even death have followed stuns of long, continuous durations or of excessive repetition. Manufacturers’ attention to safety in this regard is paramount.

Well-known human rights groups and others continue in their relentless demands for further testing of less-lethal technology. Their calls remain for explanations of product features and of manufacturers’ attention to safety.

2005-09-19T11:14:00.000-07:00

Misuse of stun guns continues and throws their safety into question

News reports and litigious developments have called into question the safety of a major stun gun manufacturer’s product, and human rights groups continue to ask tough questions. Less-lethal technology is good, and we should all strive to employ it in place of firearms whenever possible. We also need to make sure the less-lethal weapons live up to their name. Safer alternatives from other companies may exist, and their use along with stricter guidelines for law enforcement’s use of the weapons may go a long way to dispel fears.

Public statements from Amnesty International seem to support the idea of less-lethal weapon technology as a sensible alternative to lethal force. The well-known human rights organization has also repeatedly called for better usage guidelines and pointed, specifically, to the dubious safety of Taser International’s stun gun.

Other stun gun manufacturers claim that key design feature differences make their weapons safer than Taser’s. For example, police who fire a Taser must wait through a timed five-second cycle before they can shut off the stun. Stinger Systems, a rival manufacturer, markets a stun gun with a manual trigger. According to the company’s CEO, Robert Gruder, this gives police an important level of control over their use of the weapon, allowing them to stop the “stun” before the electrical shock might otherwise kill someone.

On Sept. 8, The Associated Press reported on a rift between Taser and a human rights group whose leader has referred to the Taser as a “murder weapon.” The Southern Christian Leadership Conference plans a march in November to protest last year’s incident involving Frederick Williams, a man who received repeated shocks from a Taser shortly before dying. Critics point out that Taser continues to rely on safety experiments that test the company’s weapon solely on perfectly healthy subjects.

Litigation looms as well for Arizona-based Taser. A Sept. 13 Associated Press story reported that Lee Games, a senior citizen from Gresham, Ore., who suffers from hypertension, is suing the manufacturer over safety and the city over excessive use of force. On Sept. 18, The Herald reported that a lawyer well known in South Carolina has come to the aid of a 76-year-old woman, Margaret Kimbrell, who police shot with a stun gun last year during an incident at the assisted living complex where she lives.

When the stun gun industry provides technology of questionable safety and law enforcement makes up the rules as they go, we swing the door wide-open for litigation and controversy. In a way, the stun gun industry and law enforcement are getting exactly what they deserve with the latest headaches. As sales continue, opposition will grow steadily louder until someone with authority responds in a way that acknowledges critics’ legitimate concerns.

The prospect of reconciliation for all sides in the stun gun debate exists. The industry must take the lead. A humble, coordinated effort to reach out to and embrace all constituencies could lead to the accord everyone is looking for.

2005-09-11T10:27:00.000-07:00

Law enforcement's attitude may drive development of safer stun gun technology and usage guidelines

Underreported developments in the industry suggest that a demand is brewing for safer stun guns. This is the natural evolution of a market that owes itself to the quest for a weapon less lethal than a firearm.

It’s already happening. The stun gun’s target markets are reaching out for a weapon that they perceive lives up to the ‘less-lethal’ label. But entrenched stockholder interest may mean we won’t see these developments in the news for a while.

A press release in late August announced the Correctional Emergency Response Team (CERT) Tactical Network’s anticipated approval of Tampa, Fla.–based Stinger Systems, Inc.’s stun gun. The release quoted members of CERT comparing Stinger’s weapon favorably to the Taser, the market-leading weapon by Tucson, Ariz.–based Taser International.

Endorsement by CERT of Stinger’s weapon is significant. The organization’s obvious interest in responsible guidelines for the use of stun guns that are apparently safer than the market leader’s is heartening. It suggests that the law enforcement community’s response to the promise of stun guns will follow advice I have been advocating for quite some time: responsible use of the weapons.

While CERT, a law enforcement–minded organization, has endorsed a stun gun by one of Taser’s rivals, reports indicated that police officers from five states are in the process of suing Taser for injuries. According to The Associated Press, the lawsuits allege that Taser encouraged “officers to get shocked during training” and hide “information on injuries to about a dozen other injured officers."

Stun gun manufacturers must be careful. The market is ready for a ‘less-lethal’ weapon that lives up to the notion, but the potential for backlash is palpable. To get anywhere in this market, a stun gun company must ride the wave of safety. Stonewalling, strong-arming, smoke, and mirrors will all backfire.

2005-08-10T08:11:00.000-07:00

Safety continues as a dominating issue in the stun gun market

Stun gun manufacturers have been attracting media attention that runs the gamut. Earnings information, questions about safety, and the like have filled pages.

One such company, according to press releases, plans to make new product available soon and has reiterated its resolve not to sell stun guns to civilians who lack the “proper training and safeguards.” This may be a response to market conditions.

A company in this industry may want to reassure stakeholders that it’s extra responsible about safety. The media have become, in this sense, a major stakeholder in the stun gun market space. While I think it’s perfectly fine—even desirable—for civilians to have stun guns at will, media reports may be fostering a climate that will make the possibility an uphill battle.

Siciliano thinks the issue of safety is clearly influencing the stun gun market. In a July 29 column for The Motley Fool, Tim Beyers also explored this and other ideas.

Beyers reported evidence suggesting that investors in the market are still investing in stock such as Taser’s despite swirling, negative reports about safety and possible litigation. His column ran a couple days after press releases from Stinger Systems crossed the wires on July 25 and July 26. Stinger’s releases announced the company’s intentions to make product available to law enforcement but only to civilians who have received proper training and safeguards.

People may not yet see a connection between safety and the prognosis for any given stun gun manufacturer, but I predict that a perception, at least, of the correlation will develop in people’s minds. This, in my opinion, makes safety a factor in the marketing of stun guns. It may be only a matter of time before the build-up of negative publicity takes its toll on these manufacturers. The repercussions will depend on how effectively they market the safety of their weapons.

It is too bad stun gun manufacturers must deal with these issues. Many readers of news do not understand that a stun gun is not a foolproof weapon; it’s simply ‘less lethal.’ A person stands a greatly reduced chance of dying from a stun gun shock than from a firearm’s bullet.

It is in the argument addressing what ‘less lethal’ means that stun gun manufacturers have failed, I think, to educate the public properly. Anxious to rush product to market, they may have encouraged stakeholders to embrace unrealistic expectations about stun guns being some sort of panacea, weapons that are 100 percent safe.

The cleanup will be a challenge for these manufacturers, but the payoff will be worth their efforts. Whoever figures out how to reconcile public opinion with the promise of ‘less-lethal’ weaponry may stand the chance of ruling this market.

2005-07-22T07:29:00.000-07:00

Market share for stun gun manufacturers will grow to hinge upon weapons’ safety

Taser International cannot remain the only player in stun gun technology forever. The more competition, the better the result will be for civilians and law enforcement.

Among companies other than Taser to publicize their stun gun technology this past year, Stinger Systems and Law Enforcement Associates Corporation (LEA), two smaller manufacturers, have been the most notable. One of these smaller firms now trades on the American Stock Exchange.

A LEA press release dated July 11 announced that the “American Stock Exchange has approved [LEA’s] application for the listing of its common stock.” On the heels of the American Stock Exchange itself making a related statement about LEA on July 15, a column by Seth Jayson the same day at The Motley Fool chronicled the writer’s opinions regarding LEA and other companies that seemingly aspire to Taser’s market position.

Some in the media may have their misgivings about the smaller stun gun manufacturers’ legitimacy or viability, but Taser is not invincible. The world’s largest stun gun technology maker’s hegemony in the marketplace is bound to weaken sooner or later. Whether LEA or Stinger—or even some other company nobody is writing about yet—lays claim to solid territory is not a question of if, but when.

A driving determinant for winners and losers in the market for stun gun manufacturing will be the safety of these weapons. The safety of stun guns is all we hear from the non-business press, and I predict the company that creates the safest stun gun will command the largest market share over time.

Stories in the media are driving the market, and all these companies have strong hunches about where this market is headed. It is my hunch they anticipate that weapon safety will evolve into a major factor affecting stock value. And this is only logical, as stun gun technology’s genesis was the quest to invent a weapon safer than the traditional firearm.

We have seen all three of these companies—Stinger, LEA, and Taser—make overt statements about the safety of their stun guns. There is money to be made in stun gun technology, and whoever figures out how to reconcile public opinion with the promise of less-than-lethal weaponry is poised to make lots of money indeed.

2005-07-15T07:28:00.000-07:00

Stun gun manufacturers have ammunition to silence their critics

The world’s largest stun gun manufacturer has sustained intense criticism for months, yet an autopsy has shown that a 30-year-old man’s high-profile death after sustaining a stun gun shot was attributable to the cocaine in his system at the time. The autopsy's results equal more ammunition to silence the critics. As with any technology, stun guns deserve the utmost care in their use. But the criticism against stun gun manufacturers is shrill and out of proportion with stun gun technology’s risks.

On July 8, The Orlando Sentinel and others reported that the death of a 30-year-old man earlier this year in DeLand, Fla., stemmed from “acute cocaine intoxication.” Shortly before his death, the man had withstood a number of stun gun shocks, drawing widespread news coverage and criticism of stun gun manufacturers.

We’ve seen these kinds of findings before. In fact, the vast majority of deaths from stun gun shocks involve people who have large quantities of cocaine in their systems. To continue to portray stun guns as the culprits is to ignore the mounting evidence to the contrary. It is a disingenuous approach designed to attract media coverage. The strategy wouldn’t be so rampant if it didn’t work.

These are not 100 percent safe weapons. Few people have ever claimed so. But, for law enforcement and self-defense, stun guns represent a quantum leap past firearm technology’s capabilities. It’s an evolution in social consciousness. Opponents ought to consider this. Yet I see no evidence that they do.

Rolling out an affordable civilian model of its weapon, as reported in the July 3 Sun-Sentinel and elsewhere, Taser is also launching a campaign to educate the public [free registration required to access link] on stun gun technology, according to an article in the July 3 edition of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Taser is making a good move by going straight to the masses. This is necessary crisis communication. They’ll never be heard otherwise. Anti–stun gun messages flood the media. The masses need to know the truth. They also need stun guns for self-defense.

The Sun-Sentinel article points out that no regulations govern Taser’s civilian model.
It’s important, as with any weaponry, to keep tabs on stun guns. But let’s be reasonable and remember that stun gun technology means saved lives.

2005-07-11T14:58:00.000-07:00

The battle over stun guns will set the stage for general acceptance

Reaction to stun gun use continues to build.

A legal battle in Solano County, Calif., provides insight into how law enforcement’s use of the weapons may play out elsewhere. Taser International’s research on the effects of stun guns on animals has attracted the attention of a high-profile advocacy group.

How these and other battles resolve will be critical to the public’s future comfort level with the weapon. Stun gun use is approaching a cross roads. Powerful forces from all reaches of the philosophical spectrum are vying to set the course of this useful, humane weapon’s future.

According to a June 22 article in the Vallejo Times Herald [link unavailable], a Solano County Grand Jury called for police to come up with improved rules to self-govern the use of stun guns.

I agree with the Solano County Grand Jury. I always agree when someone decides law enforcement should be careful with its use of new weapons. Many want to see stun guns become a normal part of law enforcement’s less-than-lethal arsenal under reasonable guidelines. I count myself among these people. I have always said the stun gun is also an excellent alternative to pepper spray for civilians seeking weapons for self-defense.

But other groups in the national discourse seem to embrace a knee-jerk reaction and dismiss all stun gun use as nefarious. Their messages can affect public opinion in fundamental ways to obstruct reason. Some groups seem to adhere to dogma and pie-in-the-sky ideologies that prevent any acceptance of stun gun use whatsoever. This kind of attitude unnecessarily maligns what is essentially a vast improvement over firearms both for law enforcement and civilians seeking a to defend themselves in cases of attack.

In a press release the same day that the Vallejo Times Herald article was published, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) called on the U.S. Department of Agriculture to look into Taser International’s research on animals.

Organizations such as PETA, for instance, and others have agendas. Agendas, no matter their worth, benefit from publicity. Taser is in the news. PETA will get publicity for an extremist pro-animal cause by riding the news Taser itself generates. So will others.

If PETA and other activist organizations actually tried to generate their own news, they wouldn’t even be in the news all that much. They would be placed only in other activist publications. According to a June 22 “Stock Trading Alert” by eLocity, Arizona-based Taser has recently received orders, “including one from an unnamed law enforcement agency,” for one of its stun gun devices to the tune of $1 million.

Taser is also going after, as reported by The Motley Fool and others, USA Today’s parent for allegedly publishing inaccurate statements about how many amperes the stun gun company’s weapon generates. Some say Taser’s suit is retaliation against what the company considers to be unfair stun gun coverage. I agree, but it has become cool to denigrate stun gun technology. To opine against stun gun use is the latest activist’s rallying call du jour.

The stun gun story is about more than public policy. It’s about even more than politics. The stun gun debate is about money. There is money to be made in stun gun technology, and whoever figures out how to reconcile public opinion with the promise of less-than-lethal weaponry is poised to make lots of money indeed.

2005-06-29T08:19:00.000-07:00

Civilian ownership of stun guns warrants fewer safety measures than those for firearms

Concern over civilians' access to stun guns has prompted lawmakers in at least one state to require the kind of background checks long the domain of firearm sales. I agree with commonsense safety measures but also encourage legislators to differentiate between stuns and bullets.

Lawmakers' constituents learn from the news about the worst examples of stun gun misuse. Even though these infractions, mostly law enforcement's, are exceptions to the rule, people get scared and then overreact to the thought of civilians also having access to stun guns.

On June 4, the Chicago Tribune (link unavailable) reported on a new law in Illinois that requires any civilian stun gun buyer to undergo a background check and wait 24 hours before obtaining the newly purchased weapon. Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich signed the law before a media audience and, according to the article, also "claimed victory" over the National Rifle Association by closing a loophole that had been allowing people to avoid the hassles of background checks when buying firearms at private gun shows.

While a background check for a stun gun purchase is reasonable, the slope is a slippery one for Illinois, and I encourage the state's governor and legislators not to place inordinate restrictions on civilian stun gun use. These are useful weapons, after all, for self defense.

Politicians must refrain from grandstanding. Stun guns are not firearms, and it is dishonest politics to conflate these two very different kinds of weapon types to pander for votes and support. The fuss over stun gun safety, I suspect, is partially a byproduct of all the media attention on Taser.

This year has beset Arizona-based Taser International, the world's largest stun gun manufacturer, with unfavorable publicity related to a rollercoaster stock ride and questions about proprietary research into the safety of stun guns.

It's important to remember that stun guns have been available to civilians for a long time. I've trained people on how to use them. This is a useful weapon for self defense, and people who demonize it are misguided.

2005-05-25T17:49:00.000-07:00

An increase in third-party scientific attention will vindicate stun gun technology

We are getting to the red meat in the raging debate over stun gun technology.

At an upcoming yearly conference for bioelectromagnetics, two scientific societies will examine stun gun technology. Some human rights organizations say the deaths of about 100 people may be attributable to stun gun shocks. I have always questioned these groups' motives and look forward to reviewing the growing body of scientific evidence that, I predict, will vindicate stun guns once and for all.

A May 20 press release issued by Aegis Industries, Inc.—a stun technology manufacturer—announced the upcoming Bioelectromagnetics 2005 Conference. During this June 19 meeting in Dublin, Ireland, The Bioelectromagnetics Society and The European BioElectromagnetics Association, according to the release, plan to look at stun technology's effects on cell tissue and organs.

I predict that scientists' findings, over time, will vindicate stun gun technology. It is possible that stun guns have killed a handful of people, but this is not the point. Stun guns are 'less-then-lethal' weaponry. They have never been 100 percent safe—and, by the way, have never been used by law enforcement for such a mistaken reason.

Earlier this year, the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies issued a report asserting the safety of stun guns if "used appropriately." The report also called for the kind of scientific inquiry that will take place at the bioelectromagnetics conference.

A person has an excellent, nearly certain chance of living after sustaining a stun gun shock. Such is not the case with a bullet, which is designed to and can easily kill a person. It's about time for scientists to add credence to what all already know.

2005-05-15T09:21:00.000-07:00

Self-imposed stun gun use guidelines should help police regain credibility and trust

Through self-imposed guidelines, some police departments are beginning to regulate their use of stun guns. As I've argued before, law enforcement's decision to make changes will go a long way to restore credibility and trust even as more human rights groups publicly decry these weapons.

People want to think their elected officials and those who enforce the laws have feelings. Some of that trust has been lost in the translation as law enforcement has begun to use stun guns more and more. A public act of concern about stun gun use by the people who use them will do wonders for the weapon's public relations woes. Public announcements of concern from police who use stun guns should help to reverse the tide.

On May 10, Alan Gathright of the San Francisco Chronicle reported on a regional human rights organization's demand that San Jose, Calif. Police halt stun gun use immediately. The Coalition for Justice and Accountability cited concerns that other groups have over the past months.

We have heard the human rights organizations' concerns time and time again. While nobody is ever 100 percent wrong, these people come pretty close to it when they talk about stun guns.

Yes, stun guns come with risks. No weapon is 100 percent safe, but this has never been the point. If police opt to use stun guns more often than they use their firearms, the net gain should be much safer circumstances for the public. This will be especially true if we develop strict guidelines for usage, as some police departments and associations of law enforcement professionals already have.

The Kansas City Star's Christine Vendel reported on May 10 that Kansas City police have "adopted a policy [that] clarifies situations in which officers can use" stun guns. The May 8 editorial page of Florida Today, in a piece calling for more restrictions on stun gun use, cited Brevard County, Fl. police chiefs who have also recommended new guidelines for stun gun use.

Industry and law enforcement are moving in the right direction on stun gun use. Soon, the extremists' exaggerations will be evident. We must reign in the hyperbole and think clearly about stun guns, which are here to stay.

2005-05-15T09:02:00.000-07:00

Law enforcement must adopt and publicize guidelines for stun gun use

Reports continue to pile about law enforcement's possible misuse of stun guns. Even though the degree of public and media outcry over stun guns may be unwarranted, it is time for law enforcement to develop guidelines for these weapons' use.

A unified stance must communicate responsibility. It wouldn't hurt for law enforcement to publicize these guidelines, once developed. Right now, police across the country are getting an earful about how bad stun guns are. A few bad apples have given law enforcement a bad name in the stun gun debate. It's time to fix this image problem.

Some reports of alleged stun gun misuse have been egregious.

Atlanta, Ga.'s WXIA-TV News 11 ran a story on an incident that occurred at a prison in the state's Gwinnett County. A videotape of the incident showed guards stunning an inmate five times. The man later died.

The news we see about stun guns typically skews toward the negative. Incidents such as the death at Gwinnett County's jail will always command widespread media coverage. Such a story is tragic, and the circumstances demand investigation. Yet many people are not being killed, and it is precisely because police officers now have the choice of drawing stun guns instead of firearms.

Media opinion pages continue to react to the perceived problems of stun gun safety. On May 3, the St. Petersburg Times published an editorial questioning the wisdom behind stun gun sales to civilians, a market that the world's largest stun gun manufacturer, Arizona-based Taser International, is pursuing.

There is a growing backlash to stun guns. While the question of whether civilians should be able to use stun guns is another matter—and I believe they should—law enforcement can do much to rehabilitate its own image in this area. I urge law enforcement agencies to develop and then aggressively publicize well-thought-out guidelines to govern stun gun use.

2005-04-29T06:56:00.000-07:00

The use of stun guns is progressive and healthy

As I've blogged about recently, news reports suggest that at least one legitimate competitor, Stinger Systems of North Carolina, has entered the stun gun market. This indicates that stun guns are becoming a permanent fixture in law enforcement’s arsenal -- a development I welcome as a healthy response to the realities of human behavior.

A number of human rights groups seem to be fighting stun guns every step of the way. While it is healthy in a free society to subject new practices to the microscope, people need to understand that the use of stun guns is healthy as well, an improvement in the relationship between ordinary citizens and law enforcement.

The reality is, some humans are violent, and police frequently face the tough decision of when to resort to deadly force. With a stun gun, law enforcement now has a tool to safely diffuse situations that, in the past, may have resulted in certain death.

A bullet is designed to kill. A stun is designed to incapacitate someone temporarily. Police officers must not abuse stun guns or resort to using the weapons too quickly in any given situation, but these are challenges that proper training can solve, just as it has with the use of pepper spray.

On April 25, The Associated Press again reported on the rise of Stinger Systems, a North Carolina-based company that has shipped samples of its stun guns to more than 1,000 interested law enforcement agencies.

This market is only going to expand and become more competitive. It means stun guns are here to stay.

On April 23, John Moore of The Morning News reported on research from the Department of Justice suggesting that stun guns have made law enforcement safer for police and civilians.

Stun guns are safe and preferable to traditional firearms. The focus of debate must shift from a discussion of halting their use to one of managing their use.

In its press releases, Stinger continually claims to manufacture a stun gun that is safer than the counterpart from Taser, the world's largest manufacturer of stun guns.

The two companies, as the Associated Press report suggests, are at odds over the sale of stun guns to civilians. Stinger’s CEO, Bob Gruder, is on record as questioning Taser’s wisdom in marketing the weapons to the general public. Stinger’s weapon is also different than Taser’s, utilizing a small amount of gunpowder vs. nitrogen, which Taser’s uses.

Gruder is off the mark. All we need to do is to restrict and regulate civilians’ use of stun guns, just like we do with traditional firearms.

A stun gun is safe for civilians who receive proper training. It is, in fact, the perfect weapon for young women who seek an alternative to mace or pepper spray to protect themselves against stalkers and sexual predators.

2005-04-29T06:28:00.000-07:00

New Competition In The Stun Gun Market May Quell Fears About This Weapon’s Safety

News reports suggest that competition in the stun gun market has entered a new phase. I welcome the development and think it will help to quell growing antagonism toward stun guns. The perception that a safer weapon is now available from a manufacturer that people may see as more responsible could spare stun guns more bad press.

According to an Associated Press report [free registration may be required to view article] on April 17, Stinger Systems, a North Carolina-based company, has shipped 1,000 samples of its stun guns to police, prisons, and members of the military this month.

In its press releases, Stinger continually claims to manufacture a stun gun that is safer than its counterpart from Taser, the world’s largest manufacturer of stun guns.

On April 12, Jack Sherzer of The Patriot-News reported that the Pennsylvania State Police plan to receive 40 stun guns from both Taser International and Stinger for a 60-day trial.

Criticisms calling into question the safety of stun guns have mostly been overreactions. People experience uncertainty when law enforcement employs new weapons technology. Taser has weathered the brunt of this phenomenon -- unfairly, I might add. But it is difficult to turn back the clock.

A new player on the stun gun scene may mitigate the frustrations of many. And it looks like Stinger may have recognized such an opportunity.

Padraic Cassidy of MarketWatch reported in early April that Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Taser cited bad publicity for lagging sales.

Taser has had many problems. The negative attention focused on Taser’s stun gun, specifically, has been largely unfair, but the damage is done. A fresh name in this market space will go a long way to quell fears, irrational as they are, about stun guns.

2005-04-14T14:29:00.000-07:00

Bizarre and controversial news reports of stun gun use are typical

As the controversy surrounding stun guns continues to smolder, the focus on law enforcement’s misuse of stun guns is intensifying in the form of bizarre or controversial news reports. This is typical. Stun gun use is a hot issue. The technology in its current form is alarming to many people even though stun guns save lives. Adverse reactions from the public will grow with the spread of this technology until law enforcement’s governing agencies develop responsible guidelines and publicize these.

News reports surrounding law enforcement’s alleged misuse of stun guns have run the gamut. Many stories have been bizarre, controversial, or both:

-As reported by Henry Pierson Curtis of the Sun-Sentinel on April 6, a woman wrote a letter to the Orlando Sentinel editor last month calling Orange County Sheriff Kevin Beary “fat.” Beary had willingly and publicly subjected himself to a stun gun shot to prove the weapon’s safety. The woman’s letter was in response to his actions.

-NewsTarget.com reported on April 8 that a man in Florida arrested for alleged drug use and soon thereafter hospitalized refused to give a urine sample. According to the report, a police officer used a stun gun to shoot the man, who was handcuffed and secured with leather straps to a bed at the time.

-Angela Rozas of the Chicago Tribune reported on March 15 that an altercation in Berwyn, Ill., between a 17-year-old student and a police officer, both on a high school’s grounds, led the police officer to shoot the boy with a stun gun. According to the article, the boy first shoved the police officer. Police charged the boy with aggravated assault. An ABC 7 Chicago report quotes the boy’s family’s attorney questioning why police are using stun guns at schools.

-In a lengthy April 3 article about stun gun safety, Newsday's John Riley reported on a March 4 high school stun gun incident that took place in Roseville, Minn. A police officer used a stun gun to shoot a 15-year-old girl who the article reports had become “unruly.”

-ABC News and others reported an early March incident at a Chuck E. Cheese in Aurora, Colo. Police employed a stun gun to subdue a man who, accused of not paying for use of the salad bar, allegedly shoved an officer.

Something obviously went awry in many of these incidents. And it is understandable for people to raise their eyebrows. Yet, when journalists craft eye-grabbing headlines such as "Man Hit with Stun Gun at Salad Bar" or "Man Shot With Stun Gun for Refusing Urine Sample," we have a problem with exaggeration.

Placement of blame on the instrument, the stun gun, and on law enforcement, in general, is a mistake. Those who berate police for using stun guns might do well to tone down their rhetoric. Decision-makers have trouble even entertaining legitimate solutions when useful ideas rarely even rise above the din of hyperbole emanating from stun guns’ foes.

StunGun.com’s President Sees Officials’ Recent Call for Specific Guidelines Governing Law Enforcement’s Use of Stun Guns Responsible

2005-04-05T18:26:00.000-07:00

StunGun.com’s President Sees Officials’ Recent Call for Specific Guidelines Governing Law Enforcement’s Use of Stun Guns as a Responsible Response to Irresponsible Criticism

BOSTON, Massachusetts – April 5, 2005 – StunGun.com) A human rights organization released information last week saying 102 people since June 2001 have died after receiving a shock from a stun gun. Meanwhile, on Sunday, April 3, a major law enforcement association called for new guidelines in the use of stun guns. According to a nationally recognized security expert, these two developments are not news.

“These latest developments in the debate over stun gun use,” said Robert Siciliano, president of StunGun.com, “illustrate the predictable impetuosity of stun guns’ opponents and the even-handed approach everyone knows police organizations always take as they learn how to use new weapons.” An expert in personal security and identity theft, Siciliano is author of “The Safety Minute: 01.” He has been featured on CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, and CNBC.

The Associated Press’ Beth DeFalco, whose article ran in The Arizona Republic, The Boston Globe, and elsewhere on April 4, included Amnesty International’s latest claim. Her story also reported that the International Association of Chiefs of Police wants “police agencies to place stun guns on a use-of-force chart” to assist officers in determining whether a given situation merits a less-than-lethal weapon’s use.

In columns on March 13 and April 3, Jim Kouri, CPP, vice president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, has drawn on Siciliano's expertise regarding law enforcement's use of stun guns. On March 8, KDKA Radio in Pittsburgh interviewed Siciliano about the safety of stun guns and StunGun.com's pertinence to the industry.

“As I’ve mentioned before,” said Siciliano, “on the national level, a very small risk, if any, of death by stun has sparked an unmerited controversy over stun guns’ relationship to everyday citizens.”

“When first used by police, the pepper spray can ran into interference similar to what the stun gun is encountering today,” Siciliano continued. “A handful of questionable deaths arguably attributable to pepper spray exposure attracted inflated and undue scrutiny from groups of all kinds.”

“Police departments eventually drafted official and specific guidelines for the use of pepper spray, a tool that has since gained widespread acceptance,” Siciliano added.

“The issue of stun gun use will enjoy a similar level of attention,” Siciliano concluded. “As this week’s developments show, those who police the police are already hard at work. There should never have been any doubt about law enforcement’s worthy intentions.”

In its March 25 edition, the Charlotte Business Journal quoted Siciliano on business developments in the stun gun industry. The Feb. 11 edition of The New York Post mentioned StunGun.com in its business pages.

Arizona-based Taser International is the largest manufacturer of stun guns. Another stun gun manufacturer is North Carolina–based Law Enforcement Associates Corporation. Stinger Systems, a second North Carolina stun gun firm, has commenced production of its own stun gun, according to a March 21 company press release.

As reported in depth by the Charlotte Business Journal, Stinger Systems has nixed plans to relocate to Springfield, Mass., home of the venerable firearms manufacturer Smith and Wesson. Former Smith and Wesson executives who were to assume leadership roles at Stinger have since left the North Carolina firm, which Robert Gruder continues to head.

###

Siciliano is available to speak with the media about stun gun technology and what it means for civilians as well as law enforcement. Featured on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, CNBC, "ABC News with Sam Donaldson," "The Montel Williams Show," "Maury Povich," "Sally Jesse Raphael" and "The Howard Stern Show," Siciliano has earned critical praise nationwide for his workshops and seminars.

Certified as an instructor of safety and security by dozens of state governing boards, he teaches people how to avoid and escape assaults. Numerous industry associations have certified his programs to provide their members with security training. He has been quoted in reports by Reuters and United Press International and in Realty Times, The New York Post, The New York Times, CSO Magazine, The Washington Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Christian Science Monitor, Woman's Day, Good Housekeeping, Mademoiselle, and elsewhere.

Siciliano can be reached at 1-800 STUNGUN (788-6486). The URL www.stungun.com leads to his Web site. His blog is located at www.1800stungun.blogspot.com.

Siciliano's contact information follows:

Robert L. Siciliano
Personal Security Expert
phone: 1(800) STUNGUN (788-6486)
fax: (877) 2-FAX-NOW (232-9669)
Robert@StunGun.com

The media are encouraged to get in touch with Siciliano directly. They may also contact:

STETrevisions, strategic communications
Brent W. Skinner, President
cell: (617) 875-4859
fax: (866) 663-6557
BrentSkinner@STETrevisions.com

StunGun.com’s President Criticizes U.S. Department Of Homeland Security Bureaus’ Decisions Not To Sanction Stun Gun Use

2005-03-28T13:44:00.000-08:00

StunGun.com’s President Criticizes U.S. Department Of Homeland Security Bureaus’ Decisions Not To Sanction Stun Gun Use

(BOSTON, Massachusetts - StunGun.com - March 25, 2005) As stun guns have gained acceptance at police departments in the U.S. and elsewhere, the use of these weapons has encountered resistance from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) two largest law enforcement divisions. The policy decision at DHS not to allow about 20,000 of its agents use stun guns concerns a nationally recognized security expert.

“This is a shame,” said Robert Siciliano, president of StunGun.com. An expert in personal security and identity theft, Siciliano is author of “The Safety Minute: 01.” He has been featured on CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, and CNBC. “A stun gun should be a perfectly reasonable alternative to a traditional firearm, especially for DHS.”

On March 24, The Associated Press reported the approval of Taser's stun gun for use by British law enforcement. Meanwhile, USA Today’s Kevin Johnson last week reported that the bureaus of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), two law enforcement branches of DHS, over the past two years, disallowed the use of stun guns by their agents. Johnson reports bureau spokespeople attributing the bans to questions regarding the safety of stun guns.

“A stun gun will not shoot a hole in an airplane flying at 15,000 feet,” Siciliano said. “A traditional firearm will. Stun guns are the perfect alternative to traditional firearms. Even the British government’s gun-less police departments now believe so. America however loves their guns. We have more guns than people. Thousands upon thousands of people die every year from firearms. The DHS would rather shoot to kill than shoot to stun.”

The Feb. 11 edition of The New York Post mentioned in its business pages the marketing value of the domain name "StunGun.com." KDKA Radio in Pittsburgh interviewed Siciliano on March 8 about the safety of stun guns and StunGun.com's pertinence to the industry. In a March 13 column, Jim Kouri, CPP, vice president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, drew on Siciliano's commentary about law enforcement's use of stun guns.

Various public interest groups have voiced concerns over stun gun use. Claims by Amnesty International and others have been at the forefront of a national debate over the weapons.

“A bullet has an excellent chance of killing the person whose body it enters,” said Siciliano. “On the national level, a very small risk, if any, of death by stun has sparked an unmerited controversy over stun guns’ relationship to everyday citizens. Now we’re hesitant to use stun guns against people who enter the country illegally and may very well be terrorists. This is by far the single most hypocritical, politically correct action taken in the war on terrorism”

“The irrationality needs to stop,” Siciliano added. “For far too long, we have entertained specious hyperbole from those who imagine that a stun gun is highly lethal. It is not. To this day it is still unclear whether a handful of people have actually died after being shocked by stun guns, less-than-lethal weapons that law enforcement officers and others have used against countless people over many years.”

Arizona-based Taser International is the largest manufacturer of stun guns. Another stun gun manufacturer is North Carolina–based Law Enforcement Associates Corporation. Stinger Systems, a second North Carolina stun gun firm, has commenced production of its own stun gun, according to a March 21 company press release. As reported by the Boston Business Journal, Stinger Systems has nixed plans to relocate to Springfield, Mass., home of the venerable firearms manufacturer Smith and Wesson. According to another Stinger Systems press release this week, former Smith and Wesson executives who had joined Stinger earlier this year are now leaving the company, and Stinger System's co-founder, Robert Gruder, will continue in his role as CEO.

###

Siciliano is available to speak with the media about stun gun technology and what it means for civilians as well as law enforcement. Featured on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, CNBC, "ABC News with Sam Donaldson," "The Montel Williams Show," "Maury Povich," "Sally Jesse Raphael" and "The Howard Stern Show," Siciliano has earned critical praise nationwide for his workshops and seminars.Certified as an instructor of safety and security by dozens of state governing boards, he teaches people how to avoid and escape assaults. Numerous industry associations have certified his programs to provide their members with security training. He has been quoted in Reuters, RealtyTimes.com, Woman's Day, Good Housekeeping, Mademoiselle, The New York Post, The New York Times, The Washington Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Christian Science Monitor, and elsewhere.Siciliano can be reached at 1-800 STUNGUN (788-6486). The URL www.stungun.com leads to his Web site. His blog is located at www.1800stungun.blogspot.com.Siciliano's contact information follows:Robert L. SicilianoPersonal Security Expertphone: 1(800) STUNGUN (788-6486)fax: (877)2-FAX-NOW (232-9669)Robert@StunGun.comThe media are encouraged to get in touch with Siciliano directly. They may also contact:STETrevisions, strategic communicationsBrent W. Skinner, Presidentcell: (617)875-4859fax: (866)663-6557BrentSkinner@STETrevisions.com

StunGun.com’s President Sees Mounting Evidence That Many Deaths Blamed On Stun Guns Actually Trace To Drug Use

2005-03-23T11:52:00.000-08:00

StunGun.com’s President Sees Mounting Evidence That Many Deaths Blamed On Stun Guns Actually Trace To Drug Use

(BOSTON, Massachusetts - StunGun.com - March 23, 2005) Autopsies as well as unofficial reports of victims’ behavior suggest that many people who have died following stun gun shocks lost their lives because cocaine or other drugs were in their bodies at the time of the stuns. Findings such as these, according to a nationally recognized security expert, build the case for the overall safety of stun gun technology and help to refute the accusations of various public watchdog groups.

"Stun technology has been around for a long time," said Robert Siciliano, president of StunGun.com. An expert in personal security and identity theft, Siciliano is author of "The Safety Minute: 01." He has been featured on CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, and CNBC. "Only in recent years has the stun technology industry introduced stun guns that actually shoot stuns in a way that loosely mimics firearms shooting bullets. This can scare people.”

The Feb. 11 edition of The New York Post mentioned in its business pages the marketing value of the domain name "StunGun.com." KDKA Radio in Pittsburgh interviewed Siciliano on March 8 about the safety of stun guns and StunGun.com's pertinence to the industry. In a March 13 column, Jim Kouri, CPP, vice president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, drew on Siciliano's commentary about law enforcement's use of stun guns.

According to recent news reports, autopsies and other reports suggest that drug use has caused many of the deaths originally thought to stem from the effect of a stun gun shock:

--On March 8, The Associated Press reported on a 30-year-old burglary suspect in Deland, Fla., who died on the way to the hospital after withstanding three stun gun shots following a struggle with police, who said the man told them he had been using cocaine earlier in the day.

--The Associated Press reported on March 15 a medical examiner’s conclusion that a 32-year-old Auburndale, Fla. man shot with a stun gun by police later died from “excited delirium,” a condition that sudden withdrawal from the prescription drug Xanax causes. The story notes many deaths following stun gun shots actually trace to drug use on the part of the vicitms.

--On March 16, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported an autopsy conclusion that a 35-year-old man shot with a stun gun in Columbia, Ill., on Dec. 16, 2004, “actually died of a cocaine overdose.”

“We are beginning to see that many of the deaths supposedly attributable to ‘less-than-lethal’ technology have actually been the result of cocaine and other illegal drug use,” said Siciliano.

“As police departments increase their employment of stun guns,” Siciliano added, “the use of the weapons conjures images of capital punishment and crude electric chairs. Hype over deaths has only perpetuated this fear even though stun guns are meant to drastically reduce needless deaths courtesy of law enforcement.”
“Stun guns have drawn impetuous, negative reactions from public watchdog groups,” Siciliano continued. “They see the weapons as dangerous. No weapon is completely safe, but stun gun technology is ‘less-than-lethal,’ which means the recipient of the stun has an extremely high chance of surviving unscathed. The notion of guns shooting stuns seems barbaric to some people, but the end result is something far more humane than what a bullet can cause."
Arizona-based Taser International is the largest manufacturer of stun guns. Another stun gun manufacturer is North Carolina–based Law Enforcement Associates Corporation

Stinger Systems, a second North Carolina stun gun firm, has commenced production of its own stun gun, according to a March 21 company press release. As reported by the Boston Business Journal, Stinger Systems has nixed plans to relocate to Springfield, Mass., home of the venerable firearms manufacturer Smith and Wesson. According to another Stinger Systems press release this week, former Smith and Wesson executives who had joined Stinger earlier this year are now leaving the company, and Stinger System's co-founder, Robert Gruder, will continue in his role CEO.

###

Siciliano is available to speak with the media about stun gun technology and what it means for civilians as well as law enforcement. Featured on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, CNBC, "ABC News with Sam Donaldson," "The Montel Williams Show," "Maury Povich," "Sally Jesse Raphael" and "The Howard Stern Show," Siciliano has earned critical praise nationwide for his workshops and seminars.Certified as an instructor of safety and security by dozens of state governing boards, he teaches people how to avoid and escape assaults. Numerous industry associations have certified his programs to provide their members with security training. He has been quoted in Reuters, RealtyTimes.com, Woman's Day, Good Housekeeping, Mademoiselle, The New York Post, The New York Times, The Washington Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Christian Science Monitor, and elsewhere.Siciliano can be reached at 1-800 STUNGUN (788-6486). The URL www.stungun.com leads to his Web site. His blog is located at www.1800stungun.blogspot.com.Siciliano's contact information follows:Robert L. SicilianoPersonal Security Expertphone: 1(800) STUNGUN (788-6486)fax: (877)2-FAX-NOW (232-9669)Robert@StunGun.comThe media are encouraged to get in touch with Siciliano directly. They may also contact:STETrevisions, strategic communicationsBrent W. Skinner, Presidentcell: (617)875-4859fax: (866)663-6557BrentSkinner@STETrevisions.com

Robert Siciliano, security expert and president of StunGun.com, urges the U.S. legal system to avoid future violence by implementing effective securit

2005-03-17T13:27:00.000-08:00

Robert Siciliano, security expert and president of StunGun.com, urges the U.S. legal system to avoid future violence by implementing effective security measures

(BOSTON, Massachusetts – March 17, 2005 – StunGun.com) Recent violence and threats of it in courtrooms and against a federal judge and her family members have prompted a national discussion about security in the courthouse. Debate has focused on the safety of courtrooms and shielding judges and their families from violence without jeopardizing or compromising the public trial by jury, a cornerstone tenet of the U.S. Constitution.

“We are witness to what may be a growing trend of violence against the judiciary system,” said Robert Siciliano, a personal security expert and president of StunGun.com. “And yet, the drift toward pandemonium and chaos in the courtroom is avoidable.”

On March 14, The Christian Science Monitor’s Patrik Jonsson quoted Siciliano in a report on courtroom violence. An expert in personal security and identity theft, Siciliano, author of “The Safety Minute: 01,” has been featured on CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, and CNBC.

The Associated Press has reported another incident of courtroom violence. At a New Orleans, Louisiana courthouse on March 17, a suspect allegedly beat a deputy and prosecutor. This latest example follows last month’s killings of the husband and mother of a Chicago judge, Joan Humphrey Lefkow, who had received death threats herself. A week ago in an Atlanta, Georgia courtroom, a former college football linebacker, Brian Nichols, allegedly shot and killed Judge Rowland Barnes along with a court reporter and sheriff’s deputy.

“Authorities can implement simple yet powerful practices and draw commonsense guidelines to avert future violence in the courthouse,” said Siciliano.

Siciliano believes officials should train courtroom personnel to use reasonable methods in diffusing escalating situations before circumstances overheat. Everyone should participate in ongoing safety and security strategy development. Staff should be part of the solution and have the tools they need to identify hazards and gain control during crises.

Some have voiced concerns that hyper vigilance in the courtroom could go too far, threatening the U.S. legal system’s transparency, a trait critical to the republic, and separating judges from society.

“Judges are important public servants,” said Siciliano. “We must protect them with everything we have. Their relationship to society may indeed change, and I understand concerns about preserving the accessibility of the legal system to protect our Constitutional freedoms. But we also need to do whatever it takes to preserve the authority of the bench itself.”

Alternative law enforcement weapons technology such as stun guns may hold one of the keys to courtroom safety. “Stun guns are the perfect foil to violence in the courtroom, a place filled with innocent bystanders and legal officials,” said Siciliano.

The Feb. 11 edition of The New York Post’s business pages reported on Siciliano’s company, StunGun.com. On March 8, KDKA Radio in Pittsburgh, Penn., interviewed Mr. Siciliano about the safety of stun guns. In a March 13 column, Jim Kouri, CPP, vice president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, drew on Siciliano’s commentary about law enforcement’s use of stun guns.

“Many of the people who work in our courts day in and day out are untrained in self-defense or how to react to dangerous situations,” said Siciliano. “A courthouse can be a crowded place. Police are typically hesitant to use their firearms in crowded environments. A stun gun in the hands of a properly trained law enforcement officer may have thwarted Nichols last week.”

***

Siciliano is available to speak with the media about the recent spate of violence in courtrooms and against judges. Featured on CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, CNBC, "ABC News with Sam Donaldson," "The Montel Williams Show," "Maury Povich," "Sally Jesse Raphael" and "The Howard Stern Show," Siciliano has earned critical praise nationwide for his workshops and seminars.

Certified as an instructor of safety and security by dozens of state governing boards, he teaches people how to avoid and escape assaults. Numerous industry associations have certified his programs to provide their members with security training. He has been quoted in Reuters, RealtyTimes.com, Woman's Day, Good Housekeeping, Mademoiselle, The New York Post, The New York Times, The Washington Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Christian Science Monitor, and elsewhere.

Siciliano can be reached at 1-800 STUNGUN (788-6486). The URL www.stungun.com leads to his Web site. Visit his blog at www.1800stungun.blogspot.com.

Siciliano's contact information follows:

Robert L. Siciliano
Personal Security Expert
phone: 1-800 STUNGUN (788-6486)
fax: 877-2-FAX-NOW (232-9669)
Robert@StunGun.com

The media are encouraged to get in touch with Siciliano directly. They may also contact:

STETrevisions, strategic communications
Brent W. Skinner, President
cell: 617-875-4859
fax: 866-663-6557
BrentSkinner@STETrevisions.com

Robert Siciliano, security expert and president of StunGun.com, encourages stun gun manufacturers marketing the weapons to civilians

2005-03-16T16:14:00.000-08:00

Robert Siciliano, security expert and president of StunGun.com, encourages stun gun manufacturers marketing the weapons to civilians

(BOSTON, Massachusetts – March 16, 2005 – STUNGUN.COM) The marketing of stun guns to civilians is increasing. While human rights organizations and law enforcement officials are in disagreement over police departments’ use of stun guns, many on both sides have voiced concerns about stun gun ownership for the general public.

On March 5, St. Petersburg Times writer Shannon Colavecchio-Van Sickler reported unofficial evidence that Taser International’s civilian stun gun model is selling well. Three “Citizen TASER Devices,” as the company calls them, are available. The newest and most expensive is the Taser X26C, which, according to newspaper reports, balances a less powerful stun with a longer range.

“The civilian market for stun guns is promising,” said Robert Siciliano, president of StunGun.com. “These devices are finally gaining acceptance. Stun guns have long been confused with ‘electrocution,’ which is somewhat barbaric. Consumers, like law enforcement, now see that living among predators—and lawyers—requires a ‘less-than-litigious’ means of self defense.”

An expert in personal security and identity theft, Siciliano is author of “The Safety Minute: 01.” He has been featured on CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, and CNBC.

“Those who harbor misgivings about purchasing firearms,” Siciliano said, “may be less hesitant to buy stun guns for protection. Others, given to risky behavior, may choose stun guns over firearms, which could lead to fewer deaths. It’s easier on the conscience to stun than to kill.”

The Feb. 11 edition of The New York Post mentioned in its business pages the marketing value of the domain name “StunGun.com.” On March 8, KDKA Radio in Pittsburgh, Penn., interviewed Mr. Siciliano about the safety of stun guns and StunGun.com’s pertinence to the industry. In a March 13 column, Jim Kouri, CPP, vice president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, drew on Siciliano’s commentary about law enforcement’s use of stun guns.

The St Petersburg Times article also reported concern among law enforcement officials over the sale of stun guns to civilians. “It’s going to happen no matter what,” said Siciliano. “Civilians will buy more and more stun guns. Just as assault rifles were once intended to be instruments only of the military, their sales have carried over to the general public, albeit with much controversy.”

Last month ABC News interviewed an Amnesty International spokesperson who voiced the human rights organization’s concerns over stun gun sales to civilians. As reported, Taser’s president, Tom Smith has disputed Amnesty’s claims regarding stun gun deaths allegedly attributable to law enforcement’s use of the weapons.

“I implore those on both sides of the issue to look at stun gun technology as a viable alternative to firearms for the masses,” Siciliano said, “Despite the controversy, stun guns as protection for everyday civilians will become the norm. Even for liberal organizations such as Amnesty International, this should be preferable to rampant firearm ownership.”

At least two other stun gun manufacturers have received noticeable press coverage. One is North Carolina–based Law Enforcement Associates Corporation, whose president, Paul Feldman, has videotaped himself being shot by his company’s stun gun. The other, Stinger Systems, recently moved from North Carolina to Springfield, Massachusetts, home of Smith & Wesson, the venerable firearms manufacturer. According to a Feb. 3 Stinger Systems press release, Roy Cuny, a former Smith & Wesson executive who joined Stinger recently as president, was in line to succeed Stinger System’s co-founder, Robert Gruder, to become CEO of the company on March 15.

***

Siciliano is available to speak with the media about stun gun technology and what it means for civilians as well as law enforcement. Featured on CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, CNBC, "ABC News with Sam Donaldson," "The Montel Williams Show," "Maury Povich," "Sally Jesse Raphael" and "The Howard Stern Show," Siciliano has earned critical praise nationwide for his workshops and seminars.

Certified as an instructor of safety and security by dozens of state governing boards, he teaches people how to avoid and escape assaults. Numerous industry associations have certified his programs to provide their members with security training. He has been quoted in Reuters, RealtyTimes.com, Woman's Day, Good Housekeeping, Mademoiselle, The New York Post, The New York Times, The Washington Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Christian Science Monitor, and elsewhere.

Siciliano can be reached at 1-800 STUNGUN (788-6486). The URL www.stungun.com leads to his Web site. Visit his blog at www.1800stungun.blogspot.com.

Siciliano's contact information follows:

Robert L. Siciliano
Personal Security Expert
phone: 1-800 STUNGUN (788-6486)
fax: 877-2-FAX-NOW (232-9669)
Robert@StunGun.com

The media are encouraged to get in touch with Siciliano directly. They may also contact:

STETrevisions, strategic communications
Brent W. Skinner, President
cell: 617-875-4859
fax: 866-663-6557
BrentSkinner@STETrevisions.com

Robert Siciliano, president of StunGun.com, welcomes studies on pigs to help dispel fears that stun guns are highly lethal weapons

2005-03-08T16:12:00.000-08:00

(BOSTON, Massachusetts – March 8, 2005 – STUNGUN.COM) Organizations such as Amnesty International have alleged that more than 94 deaths in the United States and Canada can be blamed on stun guns. The American Civil Liberties Union has called for law enforcement to curtail the weapons’ use. These claims, high-profile deaths, and additional controversy have prompted a University of Wisconsin–Madison researcher to conduct studies on pigs to help to dispel fears that stun guns are highly dangerous.

“Organizations such as Amnesty International are happy to get their names in the newspaper and are using stun guns to do it,” says Robert Siciliano, president of StunGun.com. “The justification driving these groups to demonize stun guns is questionable at best. I applaud this upcoming study on pigs. It should put the accusations and allegations to rest.”

An expert in personal security and identity theft, Siciliano is author of “The Safety Minute: 01.” He has been featured on CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, and CNBC. The Feb. 11 edition of The New York Post mentioned StunGun.com in its business pages. On March 8, KDKA Radio in Pittsburgh, Penn., interviewed Mr. Siciliano about the safety of stun guns and StunGun.com’s pertinence to the industry.

As the Associated Press reported in late February, Wisconsin–Madison researchers are testing a hypothesis that drugs such as the cocaine found in many victims have caused these people’s deaths from stuns. The U.S. Department of Justice is funding the study with a two-year grant of $500,000.

In a letter dated that week, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) urged Wisconsin-Madison Chancellor John D. Wiley to cancel the experiments. PETA claimed that findings would do little to further the understanding of stun guns’ effects on humans.

“I would ask PETA and groups like it how they hope to quell fears about stun guns,” Siciliano said. “It is frustrating for stun gun manufacturers. First, Amnesty International condemns stun gun use. Then, when scientists renew efforts to determine stun guns’ safety, PETA strolls in issuing more condemnations. This is an undeserved Catch-22 for the stun gun industry.”

Last week, the San Francisco Chronicle’s Alan Gathright reported claims made by the lawyer of a 21-year-old Vellejo, Calif. man who withstood multiple stun gun shocks. The attorney alleges that stun guns’ largest manufacturer, Taser International Inc., is “knowingly marketing a dangerously defective weapon as safe and ‘non-lethal.’”

“Nothing is perfect,” says Siciliano. “I’ve mentioned this before. The term ‘less than lethal’ is critical. It means someone has a better chance of living than dying. It happens to be a much, much better chance.”

Last month, two high-profile incidents in Chicago, Ill., led some to take their criticism of stun guns a step further. In one case, a 14-year-old boy went into cardiac arrest after withstanding a stun gun shot. In the other incident, a 54-year-old schizophrenic man died after police shot him with a stun gun. Groups are now calling for a moratorium on law enforcement’s use of stun guns. Yet The Arizona Republic’s Robert Anglen and others have reported that Rick Smith, CEO of Taser, and additional executives there have continually insisted that the company’s weapons are safe, pointing to numerous studies across academia and law enforcement to back up the claim.

“It is time to put these two incidents and all future stun gun deaths to bed,” said Siciliano. “Both cases involved assailants who were resisting arrest and needed to be restrained. Again, ‘less than lethal’ means you have a better chance of living than dying. It is not a guarantee, and groups criticizing stun gun use have an obligation not to lead the public into thinking otherwise.”

Two other stun gun manufacturers have promised to challenge the Arizona-based Taser’s corner on the stun gun market: North Carolina–based Law Enforcement Associates Corporation and Stinger Systems, which recently relocated to Springfield, Massachusetts, home to centuries-old firearm manufacturer Smith & Wesson.

***

Siciliano is available to speak with the media about the importance of promoting law enforcement’s use of stun guns. Featured on CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, CNBC, "ABC News with Sam Donaldson," "The Montel Williams Show," "Maury Povich," "Sally Jesse Raphael" and "The Howard Stern Show," Siciliano has conducted workshops and seminars nationwide that have earned critical praise.

Certified as an instructor of safety and security by dozens of state governing boards, he teaches people nationwide how to avoid and escape assaults. Numerous industry associations have certified his programs to provide their members with security training. He has been quoted in Reuters, RealtyTimes.com, Woman's Day, Good Housekeeping, Mademoiselle, The New York Post, The New York Times, The Washington Times, and elsewhere.

Siciliano can be reached at 1-800 STUNGUN (788-6486). The URL www.stungun.com leads to his Web site. Siciliano's contact information follows:

Robert L. Siciliano
Personal Security Expert
phone: 1-800 STUNGUN (788-6486)
fax: 877-2-FAX-NOW (232-9669)
Robert@StunGun.com

The media are encouraged to get in touch with Siciliano directly. They may also contact:

STETrevisions, strategic communications
Brent W. Skinner, President
cell: 617-875-4859
fax: 866-663-6557
BrentSkinner@STETrevisions.com

Police departments should continue, unabated, in their use and acquisition of stun guns, according to Robert Siciliano, president of STUNGUN.COM

2005-03-01T06:43:00.000-08:00

Police departments should continue, unabated, in their use and acquisition of stun guns, according to Robert Siciliano, president of STUNGUN.COM

(BOSTON, Massachusetts – March 1, 2005 – STUNGUN.COM) The debate over the use of stun guns continues. Manufacturers such as Arizona-based Taser International Inc. maintain that their stun guns are safe. Some law enforcement agencies are halting orders while most proceed with plans to arm police forces with stun guns. Certain groups oppose the use of such guns. Advocates for the technology are going to great lengths to prove the safety of less-than-lethal weapons.

“Stun guns save hundreds of police officers’ lives every year, not to mention the lives of countless criminals.” says Robert Siciliano, president of StunGun.com. “Law enforcement officers who might have otherwise pumped lead into assailants before the advent and proliferation of less-than-lethal weapons now mercifully stun criminals.”

An expert in personal security and identity theft, Siciliano is author of “The Safety Minute: 01.” He has been featured on CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, and CNBC.

The Associated Press and others have reported that a handful of law enforcement agencies such as the Chicago Police Department and the Boston Police Department have delayed stun gun use or further distribution of the weapons. Decisions have been in response to controversy involving high-profile deaths surrounding stun guns.

Yet most police departments plan to continue using stun guns, and proponents of stun guns have been subjecting themselves to stuns to further the cause. These emissaries for the use of stun guns are showing just how “less than lethal” the technology can be.

“It is time to put all this controversy surrounding possible stun gun deaths to bed,” says Siciliano. “The term ‘less than lethal’ means someone has a better chance of living than dying. It happens to be a much, much better chance. According to official reports, about 4.2 people have died per year for the past 25 years as a possible result of stun gun use. By comparison, more than a hundred police officers die each year, and countless criminals have died over the same 25 years after being shot by police.”

Last week, Christine Wallgren, correspondent for The Boston Globe, reported on Raynham, Massachusetts’ decision, in response to voters’ support, to add a number of stun guns to the town’s police force arsenal. In a staged demonstration designed to gain citizens’ support, Louis Pacheco, the deputy police chief there, placed himself within shooting range of a stun gun–equipped officer. Pacheco quickly recovered after receiving a 50,000-volt stun from the weapon.

Pacheco’s stun is becoming common practice to promote these guns. In January, Paul Feldman, president of the North Carolina–based stun gun manufacturer Law Enforcement Associates, Inc., released a video that shows him withstanding a shot from his employer’s device.

Another North Carolina manufacturer of stun guns, Stinger Systems, recently moved its headquarters to Springfield, Massachusetts. In a move possibly indicating that conventional firearm manufacturers see long-term promise in stun gun technology, Stinger has also hired a number of former executives from Smith & Wesson, the centuries-old Springfield-based firearms manufacturer.

“Stun gun technology is a prime example of progress and an evolution of consciousness,” says Siciliano. “We no longer use firearms to shoot violent, knife-wielding criminals to death. We grant criminals the benefit of the doubt even as they threaten our lives. When bad guys lunge at us with machetes, we give them five-second stuns, lawyers, and fair trials.”

***

Siciliano is available to speak with the media about the importance of promoting law enforcement’s use of stun guns. He has earned critical praise for his workshops and seminars, which show people throughout the country how to avoid and escape assaults. He is certified as an instructor of safety and security by dozens of state governing boards. Numerous industry associations have certified his programs to provide their members with solid security training.

He has appeared on CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, CNBC, "ABC News with Sam Donaldson," "The Montel Williams Show," "Maury Povich," "Sally Jesse Raphael" and "The Howard Stern Show." He has been quoted in Reuters, RealtyTimes.com, Woman's Day, Good Housekeeping, Mademoiselle, The New York Post, The New York Times, The Washington Times, and elsewhere.

Taser International and Stinger Systems Could Battle Over Ownership of “1-800-STUNGUN” and “StunGun.com.”

2005-01-18T16:57:00.000-08:00

Taser International and Stinger Systems Could Battle Over Ownership of “1-800-STUNGUN” and “StunGun.com,” according to Robert Siciliano of StreetSafeSecurity.com

(BOSTON -- January 18, 2005 -- StunGun.com) The stun gun wars have turned into an all-out brawl. With a stun gun enjoying a cameo in “Meet the Fockers” and the market’s leading manufacturer, Taser International, embattled, the weapons are all over the news and popular culture. While the war is far from over, to the victor of the latest battles will go a prize: ownership of “1-800-STUNGUN” and “Stungun.com,” both currently the property of Self Defense Products, Inc., a small company in New England, and now for sale on eBay with bids starting at $250,000.

“StunGun.com” and “1-800-STUNGUN” are valuable to those on the front lines of this multimillion dollar industry’s stun gun war. Law Enforcement Associates, Inc. and Stinger Systems claim to have developed technology superior to and safer than Taser’s. While its competitors advance, Taser has responded to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) inquiry, a roller coaster ride in stock value, and a number of lawsuits.

In another embarrassment for Taser, Bernard Kerik, a member of its board at the time and former police commissioner for New York City, withdrew himself, in disgrace, from the running to head the Department of Homeland Security. Kerik then reportedly left his post as CEO at Giuliani–Kerik LLC, affiliate of Rudolph Giuliani’s consulting firm, Giuliani Partners LLC. As reported by the New York Post, Kerik remained on Taser’s board of directors as of Jan. 1, 2005. Bloomberg reported that Kerik cashed $5.47 million in November 2004 by exercising “options on 102,166 shares of Taser stock.”

A ‘Lost Opportunity Cost’ Looms

“It’s not what it costs to buy, but what it costs not to buy. The dollars lost, over time, by not owning the most recognizable domain term could be substantial. That’s ‘lost opportunity cost,’” says Robert Siciliano, author of “The Safety Minute: 01” and expert on personal security and identity theft. Mr. Siciliano is a speaker who has been featured on CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, and in The New York Times.

The sum of $250,000 for a domain name and 800-number has precedents. Recognizable domain names have sold for similar amounts, or much more: “Autos.com” ($2.2 million), “Phone.com” ($1.2 million), and “Capital.com” ($750,000).

“The term ‘stun gun’ is alongside the word ‘Taser’ in every single article about these devices,” says Siciliano. “The fact is, Taser, the weapon, is a brand, but it is and will always be a stun gun to the masses. With all the press, it would be smart to use 'stungun' as the company name, much like ‘1-800-FLOWERS’ or the successful ‘House.com.’ Whoever owns ‘Stungun.com’ and ‘1800 STUNGUN’ will have a distinct advantage.”

A Question of Terminology

Many have avoided labeling their products “stun guns.” The word “gun” connotes a firearm. News stories nevertheless call these weapons “stun guns,” and popular lexicon holds fast to the terminology. The most familiar name for a non-lethal weapon, the term “stun gun” is a commodity.

In a move that suggests its weapon could be seen as a gun, Stinger recently hired former Smith & Wesson CEO Roy Cuny as president. “If Taser, who doesn’t use the term ‘stun gun’ on its Web site, buys the toll-free number and domain name,” says Siciliano, “the company will only be doing so to keep the items away from Stinger or Law Enforcement Associates.”

A Pioneering Giant Fights a War on Two Fronts

Taser is competing on at least two fronts. Stinger has announced technology to rival Taser’s. Taser has responded by filing a lawsuit, accusing Stinger of false statements. Stinger has retaliated. In a press release, Paul Gruder, CEO of Stinger, said: “I would be happy to publicly demonstrate our weapon against the Taser at anytime.” Meanwhile, Paul Feldman, president of Law Enforcement Associates, has released video that shows him withstanding a shot from his employer’s device, which, in another video, outperforms the Taser.

Much is at stake. Taser earned more than $4.4 million in 2003, according to an annual report posted at its Web site. The company had returned $350,000 on every $5,000 invested in its stock over the course of April 2003 to April 2004, a meteoric rise. Yet, on Jan. 7, USA Today reported that Taser’s share value had slipped 10 percent since the start of the year. The fall continued through much of that week. Taser executives, in fact, had reportedly sold $91.5 million in stock in late 2004, and Associated Press reported large sell-offs of stock by family owners of Taser.

CBS MarketWatch then reported that Taser’s stock rose 20 percent on Jan. 12, “rebounding partly from a massive recent sell off and boosted by a Miami–Dade County grand jury's endorsement of its stun guns.” Taser’s stock again rose the next day, but the company continues to face litigation on many fronts.

Stinger, meanwhile, announced that it secured $17.5 million from institutional private investors and saw its stock value increase by $4.30 on the Pink Sheets, as reported on LocalTechWire.com. Shares in Law Enforcement Associates recently increased by more than 34 percent, as reported by CBS MarketWatch.

Organizations Decry Alleged Stun Gun Deaths

Safety was once non-lethal weapons’ clarion call, prompting the U.S. Transportation Security Administration, as reported by Bloomberg, to approve Korean Air Lines’ request to use Tasers on its flights. On Jan. 7, however, Associated Press and others reported that the SEC had “launched an inquiry into claims that Taser has made about safety studies for its stun guns.” A number of law enforcement agencies have launched their own investigations and postponed purchases. Amnesty International alleges that more than 70 deaths over the past three years can be blamed on stun guns, and the American Civil Liberties Union calls for law enforcement to curtail its use of stun guns.

***

Self Defense Products, Inc.
800 438 6223

The media may contact Mr. Siciliano, whose contact information follows:

Robert L. Siciliano (robert@safetyminute.com)
Personal Security Expert
phone: 888-SICILIANO (742-4542)
fax: 877-2-FAX-NOW (232-9669)

The media may also get in touch with:

Brent W. Skinner, President
STETrevisions, strategic communications
cell: 617-875-4859
fax: 1-866-663-6557
BrentSkinner@STETrevisions.com

Safe Harbor Disclosure:

Self Defense Products, Inc., StreetSafeSecurity.com, Robert Siciliano, and Brent Skinner received no direct or indirect compensation from any of the other companies listed in this release. The inclusion of any company in this listing is based on research conducted by members, administrators, and affiliates of Self Defense Products, Inc., StreetSafeSecurity.com, Robert Siciliano, and Brent Skinner and is provided to the public as a free service. Our officers and employees have no positions or stocks mentioned or profiled in this release. Inclusion of a particular company in this release is provided as is. Self Defense Products, Inc., StreetSafeSecurity.com, Robert Siciliano, and Brent Skinner provide no guarantees whatsoever of performance of said company operationally or on the stock market(s) on which it trades. Suitability of an investment is at the sole discretion of the consumer of this information, and Self Defense Products, Inc., StreetSafeSecurity.com, Robert Siciliano, and Brent Skinner disclaim any and all liability related to the use of this information, including but not limited to monetary loss.