Re; Help on schematic

[@norman(nospam)brooks.fre]

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

 

[Baphomet]

"@norman(nospam)brooks.freeserve.co.uk"
<""norman\"@norman(nospam)brooks.freeserve.co.uk"> wrote in message
news:bt9965$l71$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...

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

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.
>