Why Stun Guns Are Bad

The research also mentions that a high percentage of the suspects were categories as violent suspect and emotionally disturbed. Stun-guns allowed police officers to peacefully arrest 85% of suspects without further incident. Without the stun-gun police officer would mostly have to wrestle around with the suspect until he was in custody. Having to subdue a violent suspect by wrestling him down could lead to injury on both side. This method could lead to the problem escalading even further. Stun-guns are effective and can prevent a violent suspect from getting shot. The stun-gun is by far the best alternative to previous methods of less lethal force. Some of the previous methods of less lethal force include pepper spray, tear gas, stink bombs, laser dazzlers, and bright lights. Many of these methods when compared to the stun-gun are less effective and actually create more problems. For example, pepper spray …show more content…
Stun-guns have saved more lives than they have killed. Jared Strote’s research shows that stun-guns could have played a role only in 27% of 37 deaths (P.1, 2006). The stun-guns were not directly the cause of death, but they could have possibly contributed to the cause of death. Stun-guns give officers a less lethal option of force to use when the use of a firearm could have been applicable. Public’s safety is increased by stun-guns. When police officers get into a gun fight with a suspect it can result in injury of a civilian because bullets start to fly everywhere. Police officers can at times resolve issues by the use of a stun-gun before they escalade into a gun fight. There are no long lasting effects that result from a stun-gun. The stun-gun only temporarily immobilizes the suspect, but after a few minutes they will regain full mobility of their body. There have been a few cases were the use of a stun-gun might have been excessive use of force, but overall stun-guns are effective and save