Do you need to carry an actual firearm ?

[Musketeer]

I have yet to see a taser go through a car door.

When the juice from the taser stops so does its disabling capability.

How many people can you actively engage with a taser, even a ten shot one and what are the odds the first will be standing up by the time the last is engaged?

A group of 10 thugs are more likely to be dissuaded by a 5 shot revolver than a 10 shot taser.

Will the FBI be trading in their handguns? If not why should I?

Plenty of people have NOT been stopped by tasers (Rodney King for example). Nobody has failed to be stopped by punching a hole through their CNS.

Electrocution makes muscles tighten, not good when they have their finger on a trigger.

 

[Redneckrepairs]

LOL rest assured that my snark was not directed at you personally . Rather an understanding , or mis understanding as the case may be of the original post coupled with a knee jerk reaction ( sometimes i honestly type before i think and cant help my self ) . In my defense i did come back and attempt a serious post explaining my attitude ( thus the snark ) as well as a couple of problems with tazers as a sole means of defense, not all the problems by any means but a couple .

I do have to say that as far as i know this is the first time i have had the same post quoted to illistrate both the good and bad of a thread lol .

 

[EastSideRich]

good argument against

Report: At Least Five People Shot at Omaha Mall
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=271052

 

[jfrey123]

I don't like the taser for a few reasons. Mainly being it's possible ineffectiveness. There are numerous cases documented where tasers are ineffective against both determined and drugged individuals. Even if the things stick, there have been cases where the perp simply pulled the barbs out. I know that bullets have their own share of failures, with BG's surviving full mags of .45ACP. But I feel better knowing if I'm in a situation where a need to stop somebody, I'm not going to be out gunned.

Rule number one of a gunfight has always been bring a gun. Why should you be stuck with a non-lethal device when your attacker is very likely carrying one?

My family has been remarkable as far as supporting me in this type of scenario. The only off comment I got was my grandfather, who thought I was carrying without a permit and felt he needed to warn me that carrying is a felony. Made sure he knew I wasn't carrying until the permit came, and never heard another negative word about it. I would hate to have to justify myself to a family member, because it can be such a controversial issue with either party refusing to back down.

 

[TheCaretaker]

One post touched on it before, but I think it is worth bring up again.

Many if not most CCW does not cover Tasers. Even fewer have Concealed Carry Reciprocity that would allow tasers. Soo, much would have to be done before it is even really an option on the table.

Now, a more realistic option if you have an issue with carrying a firearm would be to load it with rubber rounds. I personally don't like the idea of flinging rubber at someone that can throw lead back, but to each their own.

I guess another option would be to load the first one or two with rubber rounds, knowing you have a couple non-lethal before you start punching holes.

 

[hogdogs]

Well I will never rely on something with batteries or electronic circuitry to boost 9-11 volts to 50,000 or what ever to be a SD "device". Secondly each shot into an additional BG is reducing the voltage in half... But that little snag aside... I need a MUCH more dependable device for SD... Heck I would pull my Buck 110 before I would even expect the tazer to go off as planned.
Brent

 

[tplumeri]

I would carry anything lethal. dont want them getting back up.
a compact bazooka would be preferable to a tazer. but for now ill stick with my semi autos.
tazer wont stop a zombie.

 

[Caeser23]

hell yes you do, even christmas shopping.

 

[CrazyIvan007]

In light of today's events, it adds a strong argument to the Pro-Carry side.

Imagine this...if you were in Omaha in a store behind the gunmen and you heard him pop the first couple shots off and you look over to see him. With a CCW, and gun on you, it would be a simple solution to dispatch him from behind, saving an unknown amount of lives and injury to innocents.

It is our responsibility to protect our neighbors, of all them, from evil. A gun in the hands of a person with goodwill can save lives.

 

[tplumeri]

I agree with what youre saying but i dont think its a "simple solution".

 

[CrazyIvan007]

I didn't mean it the way you took it, I don't think. I meant it would be an easy action, as far as the process of doing it. Of course it would be tough taking a life, no matter what situation. But, it would be simple, in the fact that you are there, prepared and able to do something about it.

 

[Caeser23]

either way you gonna think about it for a long time, which would you make you feel worse? killing a nut or doing nothing while you hear the screams of the innocent?

"Evil will only thrives when good men sit back and do nothing"
Theodore Roosevelt.

 

[divemedic]

A few misconceptions:

I think I would carry the new improved taser, maybe a small BUG if I was going somewhere I felt uncomfortable enough.

If a place makes you feel so uncomfortable that you want to carry a firearm when you usually don't, you have to ask yourself why you are going there. Carrying a firearm isn't an excuse to go looking for trouble.

I carry where I go in the event trouble comes looking for me.

The best way to survive a gunfight is not to be in one, so if you think the odds are high that a gunfight is coming, don't go there.

Cops do a lot of stuff I dont have to do, and get into a lot of situations that I dont. And just for the record, cops use tasers a hell of a lot more than their guns, it must be pretty effective in making one stop whatever it is they are doing.

True, and that includes facing people down and arresting them. When an unarmed person fails to go down with a Tazer, usually the worst that can happen is that the person gets away. Also, remember that when they use a Tazer on an armed individual, it is never against one with a firearm, and even when it is against a knife wielder, they have other officers present with firearms in case the Tazer doesn't work.

 

[CrazyIvan007]

either way you gonna think about it for a long time, which would you make you feel worse? killing a nut or doing nothing while you hear the screams of the innocent?

If I saw this happening and I could see what he was doing, I would not hesitate to act, regardless of how I may feel about it later.

 

[TheBigCaliber]

If all BG's were carrying Hi-Points maybe. But until then I will stick with my Glock 21. Don't want to be in a gun fight with out a gun.

Better to get caught with it than without it.

 

[FirstFreedom]

It's a great question, because there's certainly no need to do more damage than is necessary to stop the attack, but the problems have been pointed out...the ORDER of importance for the concerns I'd have are:

1. Not penetrating heavy winter clothing and/or leather garments
2. Missing and not having a follow up shot chance.
3. Some bruiser pulling the barbs out
4. Multiple assailants and again, only one shot
5. Guys hyped up on drugs who are not affected by the shock (ALL people are affected by a CNS hit, regardless of mental state).
6. Limited Range (least important of my concerns, since self-defense are nearly always at extremely close range.

 

[gmhippie]

If I'm not mistaken, and I might be...
If you use a tazer or stun gun on someone you are responsable for them for the duration of incapacitation, you stun, they fall and hit head, you get screwed.
Shooting someone who deserves to be shot implies they are going to be injured!

 

[JasonJ]

if there were a weapon.. which could incapacitate an attacker.. without being obviously non-lethal.. something like the "Zat guns" from Stargate.. I'd carry it instead.

God knows the last thing anyone wants/needs is to end a human life.. thats always a tragedy for all the human race... but if it must be so.. it must be so.

i believe there is an interpretation of the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" that says in the original Hebrew it was "Thou shalt not commit murder".. which is different.

if we could avoid lethality, we should. But if lives and wellbeing are in danger.. bets are off.. hope you dont die.. but if it happens and it saves lives.. so be it.

 

[dchi]

How many times in your life has some one tried to kill you? Now how many times in your life you ran into some A-hole or drunk ready to fight or just someone who looked like trouble? A gun is the better choice for question one. But you can't shoot some one who looks dangreous or some one cussing saying the're going to kick your ass. A taser or pepper spray would be ideal. Both work very well but not 100%. Tasers have some reliablity issues and have a shelf life from the factory. BTW it has a back up system can be used as a contact stun gun if the barbs come out. Pepper spray works about 80-85% of the time but it takes about 5 seconds to take full effect. If I was everyday Joe and worked and live in middle class america I would opt for non leathal. If I worked at a convient store or high crime area, I'd choose a gun. Non leathal gagits are a bad idea if your attacker is armed with a gun. This is from personal experience.

 

[jimcorbin]

Florence KY

This past weekend a 17 yr old was high and out of control. He approached the officers with a knife and they tazed him. It had no effect and he continued to approach and an officer fired one round and the guy was down. He survived. the end result is: Tazer 0 .40 cal 1