Company develops shocking shotgun shell
- Thread starter Gabby Hayes
- Start date
- Status
only1asterisk
member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 2,412
I bet it sells well, most “less lethals” do. I'll think I’ll stick with the “more likely lethal”.
David
David
It raises more questions, than provides answers.
If the intent is to extend range, why to 300 feet?
If the officer is 300 feet away, how can he or she even see and hear what is truly happening (not suspected) to be happening?
Will the extended range lead to increased misuse due to uninformed, or speculative decision-making?
What happens at closers ranges? Over-kill?
What happens to people who have internal (spinal electronic implants)? Fry their brain and spine? Hello! That already occurs with the present one, now we make it "bigger and better"? Instead of fry them, nuke them?
Is this more a military weapon? In that case, I'm all for it, but it seems to far too much "military hardware and tactic" is finding its way into "civilian police" use. The last I checked, we were not a Military Police State, although we surely get closer each year.
I propose we test them, and I'll volunteer. Line up 100 law-enforcement (or whomever plans to use this) and I as a research professor will randomly "tag" each person 30 times with the original, then I randomly "re-tag" them each of them with the new and improved model. I'll code and enter the data into Minitab or SPSS and run a paired-data, t-test at a confidence level of .001 to determine if the latter is statistically significantly more effective than the prior, or vice-versa. Volunteers?
In all seriousness, I truly believe that the device brings up (or should bring up) more questions, than offer up solutions. I believe that the company simply wants $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$! What do they care that someone dies? They can (and they have already) written it off as drug-use, health issues, etc., everything except chronic hang-nail. Give them time. But the fact is, save for the device having been used on the person, those dead would be alive. I say let's look for other "less harmful" ways, like wait them out, water cannon, more potent sprays, and when needed, shot them and end it.
Just my 2 cents,
Doc2005
If the intent is to extend range, why to 300 feet?
If the officer is 300 feet away, how can he or she even see and hear what is truly happening (not suspected) to be happening?
Will the extended range lead to increased misuse due to uninformed, or speculative decision-making?
What happens at closers ranges? Over-kill?
What happens to people who have internal (spinal electronic implants)? Fry their brain and spine? Hello! That already occurs with the present one, now we make it "bigger and better"? Instead of fry them, nuke them?
Is this more a military weapon? In that case, I'm all for it, but it seems to far too much "military hardware and tactic" is finding its way into "civilian police" use. The last I checked, we were not a Military Police State, although we surely get closer each year.
I propose we test them, and I'll volunteer. Line up 100 law-enforcement (or whomever plans to use this) and I as a research professor will randomly "tag" each person 30 times with the original, then I randomly "re-tag" them each of them with the new and improved model. I'll code and enter the data into Minitab or SPSS and run a paired-data, t-test at a confidence level of .001 to determine if the latter is statistically significantly more effective than the prior, or vice-versa. Volunteers?
In all seriousness, I truly believe that the device brings up (or should bring up) more questions, than offer up solutions. I believe that the company simply wants $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$! What do they care that someone dies? They can (and they have already) written it off as drug-use, health issues, etc., everything except chronic hang-nail. Give them time. But the fact is, save for the device having been used on the person, those dead would be alive. I say let's look for other "less harmful" ways, like wait them out, water cannon, more potent sprays, and when needed, shot them and end it.
Just my 2 cents,
Doc2005
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
Doesn't seem to have impressed the market very much either... but then, the electric shotgun shell won't be on the market 'till 2007.
lpl/nc (fair use, research only)
=========================================
http://biz.yahoo.com/bizj/060222/1231604.html?.v=1
bizjournals.com
Taser's 4Q, full-year profits plummet
Wednesday February 22, 5:36 pm ET
Taser International Inc. Wednesday posted greatly reduced revenue and profits for the fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2005, a year that saw safety questions and controversy continue to plague the stun gun manufacturer.
For the fourth quarter, Scottsdale-based Taser reported revenue of $12.6 million, down from $19.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2004.
Net income for the quarter was $92,697, or break even per share, down from net income of $4.7 million, or 7 cents per share, a year earlier.
For the full year, Taser recorded revenue of $47.7 million, down from the $67.6 million the company reported in 2004.
Net income for the year was $1 million, or 2 cents per share, down from $18.9 million, or 30 cents per share.
According to Yahoo Finance, the average forecast of Wall Street analysts was for a quarterly profit of a penny per share, and 3 cents per share for the full year.
Taser executives pointed out that a Securities and Exchange Commission examination of the company's accounting and of its safety claims ended with a recommendation of no enforcement action, and that three wrongful death lawsuits were dismissed, and a jury found in Taser's favor in another.
"The challenges of 2005 have only made us stronger as a company," said Rick Smith, Taser's chief executive. "We faced these challenges, improved our core business operations, furthered our industry-leading research and development programs and remained profitable."
Smith said the company expects additional revenue from new products such as its Taser Cam, due out in the second quarter of this year, and its wireless eXtended Range Electronic Projectile (a wireless electronic stun device housed in a shotgun shell), which is expected to enter production in 2007.
The stock market failed to match executives' bright outlook, and Taser shares dropped 20 cents, or nearly 2 percent, to $10.20 in Wednesday's trading.
Taser International (NASDAQ: TASR - News) produces stun guns for law enforcement, military and personal defense markets.
For more: www.taser.com.
Published February 22, 2006 by The Business Journal
lpl/nc (fair use, research only)
=========================================
http://biz.yahoo.com/bizj/060222/1231604.html?.v=1
bizjournals.com
Taser's 4Q, full-year profits plummet
Wednesday February 22, 5:36 pm ET
Taser International Inc. Wednesday posted greatly reduced revenue and profits for the fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2005, a year that saw safety questions and controversy continue to plague the stun gun manufacturer.
For the fourth quarter, Scottsdale-based Taser reported revenue of $12.6 million, down from $19.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2004.
Net income for the quarter was $92,697, or break even per share, down from net income of $4.7 million, or 7 cents per share, a year earlier.
For the full year, Taser recorded revenue of $47.7 million, down from the $67.6 million the company reported in 2004.
Net income for the year was $1 million, or 2 cents per share, down from $18.9 million, or 30 cents per share.
According to Yahoo Finance, the average forecast of Wall Street analysts was for a quarterly profit of a penny per share, and 3 cents per share for the full year.
Taser executives pointed out that a Securities and Exchange Commission examination of the company's accounting and of its safety claims ended with a recommendation of no enforcement action, and that three wrongful death lawsuits were dismissed, and a jury found in Taser's favor in another.
"The challenges of 2005 have only made us stronger as a company," said Rick Smith, Taser's chief executive. "We faced these challenges, improved our core business operations, furthered our industry-leading research and development programs and remained profitable."
Smith said the company expects additional revenue from new products such as its Taser Cam, due out in the second quarter of this year, and its wireless eXtended Range Electronic Projectile (a wireless electronic stun device housed in a shotgun shell), which is expected to enter production in 2007.
The stock market failed to match executives' bright outlook, and Taser shares dropped 20 cents, or nearly 2 percent, to $10.20 in Wednesday's trading.
Taser International (NASDAQ: TASR - News) produces stun guns for law enforcement, military and personal defense markets.
For more: www.taser.com.
Published February 22, 2006 by The Business Journal
Im really a little worried about this new influx of less than lethal weaponry. Its a great thing in principle, but I worry that there is a slippery slope here that leads to a nasty place for all those involved.
On one hand the criteria for less than lethal is very different from lethal weapons, which means that they could be applied to an increasingly broad set of circumstances, almost a shoot first and ask questions ask situation. This is bad for the "people".
On the other could come an increasing belief that lethal force is not justified at all when there are so many other options, forcing law enforcement to rely on less reliable means of defense than they would have otherwise depended on.
It is actually quite possible that *both* situations could imerge simultaneously, ruining the party for everyone. Well, everyone but the badguys at least.
On one hand the criteria for less than lethal is very different from lethal weapons, which means that they could be applied to an increasingly broad set of circumstances, almost a shoot first and ask questions ask situation. This is bad for the "people".
On the other could come an increasing belief that lethal force is not justified at all when there are so many other options, forcing law enforcement to rely on less reliable means of defense than they would have otherwise depended on.
It is actually quite possible that *both* situations could imerge simultaneously, ruining the party for everyone. Well, everyone but the badguys at least.
- Status