So, the other day I mentioned that the new Taser C2 is making the rounds, and I also mentioned that I have some critiques of the article.
First, the author points out that “Weapons systems need not be [pretty].” While this is true, if there is one thing that contemporary defensive systems must be, and something that a reviewer of industrial design should at least mention, they must be ergonomic. As someone who shot guns as a teenager in the 80’s but who took a long hiatus though my college years, the first thing that I noticed about new handguns when I started shooting again was how comfortable they were in my hand.
In 2002 when I first started shooting again, and when I started writing many of the short narrative essays I’ve posted on this website, I went to The Place to Shoot, an indoor pistol range in Portland, Oregon. The first gun I shot was the Sig p226, a 9mm handgun developed in Europe. The gun was infinitely more comfortable than other guns I had shot in the past. In fact, during the past ten or fifteen years, Europe has made the most innovative and most ergonomic guns on the market. Americans just caught up to the Europeans with the launch last year of the Smith and Wesson M&P pistol series, which to date is the most comfortable gun I’ve shot.
So, while they don’t have to be pretty, and I would say just as much design goes into making the business end of a handgun look fierce as car designers put into the face of a sportscar, they do have to be functional and comfortable for the user (including grip comfort and firearm overall weight).
“Pointability” is another issue that comes up when reviewers write about defensive use of handguns. If an attacker pops out of the bushes and whacks you over the head with a crowbar, you, a defensive handgunner or defensive Taser(er? – is Taserer a word?) has to draw your weapon quickly while seeing stars and effectively point it at your attacker before popping your popcorn. Most attacks (even with guns) happen in less than 10 feet from the victim of the attack, and most defenders have to shoot without being able to take aim, so pointability is a matter of life or death. (More on this later).
So, to review the Taser C2 as compared to a handgun (as the reviewer Mark Lamster does), we should look at a number of categories:
Weight - 7 oz for the new C2 as compared to 21.9 oz (unloaded) for the Smith and Wesson M&P compact in .40S&W caliber. In terms of lugability Taser definitely wins on this one, although if I’ve got to punch my attacker with the weapon should I miss I’d rather have a bit more heft.
Grip ergonomics– C2 invariably un-gunonic. It looks like the new Taser is pointed more like a remote control than a handgun. This might be very good for general defensive purposes in our society where only hippies and Quakers don’t know how to use a remote (and we all know they are just pretending for the purpose of being superior). Whether the grip is generally comfortable is undetermined as I haven’t used one. The Smith & Wesson has three grip inserts so that it is adaptable to small, medium and large hands. I’ve tried the medium and large grips and enjoy both, although right now I prefer the large.
Pointability – for me the Smith and Wesson points comfortably. The Taser C2 would take some getting used to, which might be a problem as each cartridge costs $25 bucks. I could shoot 80 target rounds with a pistol for each practice shot of a Taser C2. The question is, with such little practice, would a civilian (to whom the C2 is marketed) have what it takes to operate the Taser controls in a life or death struggle?
Human factors – industrial designers take into account a huge number of factors in assessing their target market’s willingness to adopt a new product. It’s my guess that they found their primary audience to be women, on the basis that in surveys they likely found that men are more likely to opt for a concealed carry permit and a firearm should they seek a self-defense tool. They probably also found that among women and the men that would opt for a Taser, that the gunlike shape of the early Taser designs is a negative in making a purchase decision about the product and that these buyers would opt for a variant on pepper spray, even though most sprays limit the target area to the face. The tools that this audience might be most likely to use could include cell phones, remotes, ipods and PDAs. This would set the design agenda for the team.
Lamster has an interesting discussion of the ethics of the aesthetics of the weapon at the end of his article, but my feeling is that this is a little misguided. He writes, “There's a rub, though: A friendly design that appeals to buyers may be too sexy to intimidate potential attackers. When it comes to deterrence, it's hard to beat that ugly pistol.”
When it comes to deterrence the fact that we have the legal right to carry defensive weapons is itself the deterrence. The idea is that criminals will assess the risk of potential harm to themselves and compare it to the potential gain from assailing a victim and decide. If the potential victim could be carrying a gun or Taser the stakes are rather higher than if the law doesn’t allow law abiding citizens to protect themselves. Studies, discussed in Samuel Walker's Sense and Nonsense about Crime and Drugs, have shown that criminals are not the most logical bunch. Often they are more likely to overestimate gain and underestimate risk, and many report that they never set out to commit a crime on the day they harmed someone. Deterrence, while it makes sense to law abiding citizens doesn’t have much impact on criminals.
When reading reviews of high-design mountain bikes I have never read a review that left out the mountain to focus solely on the bike. I’ve never read a review of a kayak that ignored white-water rapids. What interests me is that defensive tools are rarely discussed in relation to their environment: the realm of conflict.
Most attacks also happen in a matter of seconds, and they often happen when the victim is least expecting it. The attacker will look for someone who isn’t paying attention so that they can catch the person off guard. Should a victim need to draw a Taser or a gun for defense they will often need to draw and fire in fewer than three seconds. Rich Daniel at FFKG demonstrates the dynamics of an attack in his video Legitimate Training with Airsoft showing that an attacker can move from 20 feet away to beating a victim in three seconds or less.
In that amount of time aesthetic issues are aside. The question is, can the potential victim haul ass away from the attacker, then hit the attacker with the single shot available from a Taser C2?
Lamster also worries about the distance a Taser shot will travel. "That [using a laser sight to get the attention of an attacker] may work for law enforcement officers on shows like Cops, but the average citizen isn't prepared for confrontation. The C2's range extends only 15 feet. That's awfully close quarters. What happens if you miss?"
In confrontations, unless the attacker has a gun, if the attacker is 15 feet away you're going to have a lot of explaining to do as to why you zapped them. Unfortunately for the design world, you don't get to go zapping people because you don't like their shoes. Life and limb is the rule by which defensive actions are judged. If you aren't under threat of imminent harm, leave the tazer, or the gun for that matter, concealed where it belongs. Otherwise you become the offender.
I think it is great that design magazines are taking a look at the design of defensive tools, but I wish they would also look more closely at the dynamics of confrontation as they review the designs created to respond within the realm of physical conflict.