Re; Help on schematic

I would like to reply to some of the posts made after my request.I'll apologise in advance because this may turn out to be a lengthy post. First off I understood this to be a discussion group on the 'practical' issues relating to electronics, I didn't take it to be a forum on the ETHICS of making 'a' or using 'b'. I was obviously wrong and stand corrected.

So because you intend to actually use it, you figure the illegality is > irrelevant? That is, the laws would only apply if you weren't going to use > it? > > That seems like rather twisted logic, especially from someone whose job is > to prevent other people from doing things that are illegal but necessary to > their way of life

I have looked at this post and my original for some time now and fail to see where the poster got his idea, either he read a different post or his use of English is different to mine. I do not consider the illegality irrelevant and made no distinction,as far as I can see, between ownership and usage, both being illegal here. The usage I envisaged was in exceptional circumstances; only when I felt my life was at risk. The second part by inference condones the illegal activities of others as necessary to their way of life, does the poster feel the same about people who steal cars (his maybe) or beats up old ladies for their pension etc etc. Does he not accept that people who enforce the laws of the land should in extreme circumstances be able to defend themselves? I would be prepared to justify my actions in court rather than have to try and contact my wife and daughter through the use of a ouija board.

Nothing doing. Look what happened to Tony Martin. You can't expect > anyone to take the responsibility of helping you to maybe 10 years in > jail.

I rather think the circumstances are somewhat different, Tony Martin used a 12g shotgun from close range and shot one of the burgulars in the back. I do not intend to carry a shotgun with me (although I could as I own a couple legally) the idea of a stunner was to ensure that no action would likely have fatal consequences. Yes,as stated, I would expect to end up in court but I doubt a similar sentence would be applied.

Yup this doesn't seem like a good plan. Pretty soon one of his zapped > poachers will realize that he can blackmail our friend into not revealing > the poaching activities. After that, the original poster will come to expect > the blackmail ploy and start to keep track of which poachers not to bother. > Suddenly you can get on his "do not bother" list by supplying an appropriate > fee. Then his superior will find out, discover the amount of money this guy > is making, and demand a kickback for allowing him to stay employed. Classic > descent into government corruption. Before you know it everyone is being > bribed all to way up to the Queen's corgi

While I have no wish to enter into personal attacks, I do wonder if the poster of the above writes fiction for a living? I 'zap' a poacher and soon the government falls! This scenario would hinge on, at the very least, someone who was indulging in an illegal activity and threatening my life with a knife being the sort of person likely to feel able to go to the police if I didn't comply with his blackmail plan. As I said above I would be happy to stand in court and justify my actions, at least I would be able to do so. Second, if I want to accompany the writer on a flight of fancy I could always turf the bastard in the river after 'zapping' him, people do fall in rivers 'by accident'. I wouldn't have to answer to any charge then!

Strikes me the sensible options are: > 1. go unarmed and dont take them on > 2. go legally armed and trained sufficiently to take them on.

Eminently sensible I couldn't agree more, problem is one can't always choose the safe option and going armed in this country is likely to attract far more of a penalty than carrying a stunner of some sort, at least I would guess so.

> Forget the stun gun if the job is too risky get another >> job.

Easy to say, at my age and in a house tied to the job not so easy to carry out.

He said that almost all of the unruly folks > would back down and comply with just the warning arc alone. I guess > most everyone is afraid of being shocked. Much better than using > physical force IMO.

This actually sounds useful, is it possible to make something that looks and sounds like a stun gun without actually being one? Such a thing might give me time to choose not to take them on.

At the very least my post provoked some interesting responses, even if I am no nearer to making or obtaining a non lethal method of protection.

Regards to all

Norman Brooks

Reply to
""norman"
Loading thread data ...

use

is

to

revealing

expect

bother.

appropriate

guy

Classic

If you go through the various electronic newsgroups or do a Google search, you will find many references for the schematic(s) you are seeking.

>
Reply to
Baphomet

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.