rampage841512
New member
I'll keep my .45, thanks.
Do you need to carry an actual firearm ?
- Thread starter EastSideRich
- Start date
rwilson452
New member
As a parting shot on this subject I would suggest to anyone that has reservations about using deadly force, Don't carry deadly force. "He who hesitates is lost." I decided a long time ago If I have enough fear to draw the object of my attention has the time from my action to decide to draw until my front sight centers on center mass to communicate to me their peaceful intent or the hammer is going to fall.
This taser shoots little darts that has wires running to them? Interesting. But what do you do if the fellow has a buddy or two? Worse yet, what if they have their own weapons? Most scenes showing police useing a taser in a more controlled manner. Especially effective if the criminal is wearing cuffs already. I'm not sold on the taser as a cure-all.
But you can't shoot some one who looks dangreous or some one cussing saying the're going to kick your ass.
Agree with the first part of the statement but dissagree with the second part.
Ive only shot one person in anger. Was leaving a resturant with my wife and she bumped into a gal comming in. my wife apologized immediately but the gal replied with a string of curses i havent heard since i lived in NY.
We continued out the door and this huge drunk (was with the gal) followed us out and started his own verbal assault, directed at me initially, then telling my wife what he was going to do to her. im sure i dont need to go into details.
we kept backing up on the sidewalk with me telling him to back off or i'd put a hurt on him. it was actually a much more colorful and threatening comment that would be completely censored here!
anyway the guy kept comming and yelling and then reached behind him.
thats when i drew and shot, going for a kill shot left chest. this stopped him for a second but he kept on comming. i thought he had a vest on so i shot him again in the left thigh. he went down and continued to curse me out.
i guess i rushed my first shot and only hit him in the shoulder. he wasnt wearing a vest. missed the femoral artery on the leg shot but fractured his femur.
bystanders and witnesses from inside the resturant gave statements to the cops indicating self defense and the cops found a knife on the ground next to the guy.
i was arrested but on bail the next day and police charges dropped. fought a civil suit and won.
sorry about the long winded response, but the bottom line is this guy would have laughed at a tazer and could most likely take me down hand to hand. what would have happened to my wife?
if youre going to carry something for self defense it better have lethal capability!
jmho
tom
Agree with the first part of the statement but dissagree with the second part.
Ive only shot one person in anger. Was leaving a resturant with my wife and she bumped into a gal comming in. my wife apologized immediately but the gal replied with a string of curses i havent heard since i lived in NY.
We continued out the door and this huge drunk (was with the gal) followed us out and started his own verbal assault, directed at me initially, then telling my wife what he was going to do to her. im sure i dont need to go into details.
we kept backing up on the sidewalk with me telling him to back off or i'd put a hurt on him. it was actually a much more colorful and threatening comment that would be completely censored here!
anyway the guy kept comming and yelling and then reached behind him.
thats when i drew and shot, going for a kill shot left chest. this stopped him for a second but he kept on comming. i thought he had a vest on so i shot him again in the left thigh. he went down and continued to curse me out.
i guess i rushed my first shot and only hit him in the shoulder. he wasnt wearing a vest. missed the femoral artery on the leg shot but fractured his femur.
bystanders and witnesses from inside the resturant gave statements to the cops indicating self defense and the cops found a knife on the ground next to the guy.
i was arrested but on bail the next day and police charges dropped. fought a civil suit and won.
sorry about the long winded response, but the bottom line is this guy would have laughed at a tazer and could most likely take me down hand to hand. what would have happened to my wife?
if youre going to carry something for self defense it better have lethal capability!
jmho
tom
EastSideRich
New member
This post ( by tplumeri) illustrates why I posed this question in the first place. I think most who have responded have completely missed why I asked the question. I still think if one reads my couple of posts it is clear what I'm getting at.
I am not uncomfortable carrying a gun.
I don not have a moral problem defending myself with a firearm.
I do not worry about hurting someone "too bad" if it is necessary.
I don't think it would bother me if I ended someones life, if it was in defense of my own or my family.
I do worry about things like being charged with a crime for defending myself, and the civil suit that would undoubtedly follow.
A few people have mentioned the inefficacy of tasers. I have seen countless video and know one individual (a cop) who has been tased. It seems very effective, I've seen really big guys drop instantly. I've also seen video and heard of people big and small (like the one in tplumeri's post) who get shot and keep coming. I'm not saying tasers always work, I'm sure they sometimes don't, but in principal they should be at least as effective at disabling an individual as a bullet; perhaps even more so, as they work directly on the nervous system. As tasers exist right now, I would not even consider carrying one in place of a firearm. I addressed the problems with tasers for SD in my initial posts. It was posed as if these problems were "fixed".
I guess I made the original post shortly after I came up with the thought. I also should have said "I would consider carrying one (improved taser) instead of a firearm" instead of "I would carry one".
Thank you to the few who have stated concerns or problems with this type of self defense weapon. I also have some of my own - like depending on an electronic device to function flawlessly when needed. In my experience electronics fail more regularly than mechanical systems. If something fails inside a tasers circuitry when you try to use it, you're in trouble. If you pull a revolver's trigger and nothing happens, you just pull the trigger again and it will probably go bang.
I guess this is the type of thoughts I was hoping to get; instead we saw a lot of stuff about having issues with taking a life and "if you're not comfortable with firearms" and some stuff about my needing to be educated about firearms.
I am not uncomfortable carrying a gun.
I don not have a moral problem defending myself with a firearm.
I do not worry about hurting someone "too bad" if it is necessary.
I don't think it would bother me if I ended someones life, if it was in defense of my own or my family.
I do worry about things like being charged with a crime for defending myself, and the civil suit that would undoubtedly follow.
A few people have mentioned the inefficacy of tasers. I have seen countless video and know one individual (a cop) who has been tased. It seems very effective, I've seen really big guys drop instantly. I've also seen video and heard of people big and small (like the one in tplumeri's post) who get shot and keep coming. I'm not saying tasers always work, I'm sure they sometimes don't, but in principal they should be at least as effective at disabling an individual as a bullet; perhaps even more so, as they work directly on the nervous system. As tasers exist right now, I would not even consider carrying one in place of a firearm. I addressed the problems with tasers for SD in my initial posts. It was posed as if these problems were "fixed".
I guess I made the original post shortly after I came up with the thought. I also should have said "I would consider carrying one (improved taser) instead of a firearm" instead of "I would carry one".
Thank you to the few who have stated concerns or problems with this type of self defense weapon. I also have some of my own - like depending on an electronic device to function flawlessly when needed. In my experience electronics fail more regularly than mechanical systems. If something fails inside a tasers circuitry when you try to use it, you're in trouble. If you pull a revolver's trigger and nothing happens, you just pull the trigger again and it will probably go bang.
I guess this is the type of thoughts I was hoping to get; instead we saw a lot of stuff about having issues with taking a life and "if you're not comfortable with firearms" and some stuff about my needing to be educated about firearms.
In the state where I live, a taser is a weapon. It's sales are governed the same as a firearm. We don't have CCW. So I guess if I had to commit a crime to save myself or someone else, I might as well use a real gun. Lethal or not, wouldn't be on my worry list if it was my last resort.
I tend to think a person should only carry if there is a specific threat or if they're in an area where a more generalized threat is a reasonable probability.
That being said, a taser or similar is the same as a firearm in that it is only as good as the operator.
If you know how to use it and are aware of its limitations a taser is a reasonable alternative for several self defense scenarios. It even has a neat intimidation factor.
As mentioned a firearm has many advantages over a taser. Its main disadvantage is that besides intimidation it can only be used as deadly force.
Shooting the bad guy in the leg or knocking the weapon out of his hand with a trick shot isn't an option.
That being said, a taser or similar is the same as a firearm in that it is only as good as the operator.
If you know how to use it and are aware of its limitations a taser is a reasonable alternative for several self defense scenarios. It even has a neat intimidation factor.
As mentioned a firearm has many advantages over a taser. Its main disadvantage is that besides intimidation it can only be used as deadly force.
Shooting the bad guy in the leg or knocking the weapon out of his hand with a trick shot isn't an option.
How do you know if you're going to face a threat until you're facing a threat? If you think you might be a crime victim if you go to a certain place, why would you go to that place at all, let alone armed?
I have a fire extinguisher in the trunk of my car, and in various places throughout my house, likewise, I carry my defensive firearm wherever I am not legally prohibited from doing so.
Sgt.Fathead
Moderator
No Options Here
In my state, New Jersey, there is extremely limited carry for private citizens. The only persons I have ever met that CCW are current or former law enforcement. So for us, there are no firearm or Taser options. My wife carries high capsecin pepper spray, a Wolf 40 pealess whistle and a snap baton, I carry a snap baton, a Gerber paraframe folder and a SureFire E2D Executive Defender flashlight.
If I could, I would and so would my wife. Life is precious and must be defended. With any luck and a vigilant budget, we will be out of this state in four to six years.
In my state, New Jersey, there is extremely limited carry for private citizens. The only persons I have ever met that CCW are current or former law enforcement. So for us, there are no firearm or Taser options. My wife carries high capsecin pepper spray, a Wolf 40 pealess whistle and a snap baton, I carry a snap baton, a Gerber paraframe folder and a SureFire E2D Executive Defender flashlight.
If I could, I would and so would my wife. Life is precious and must be defended. With any luck and a vigilant budget, we will be out of this state in four to six years.
EastSideRich
New member
I haven't peeked at this thread for a while, but I wanted to address one thing. I have seen the idea that "if you feel the need to carry a gun, and you normally don't, you shouldn't go there" mentioned in this thread and many times elsewhere. Some will even say things like this:
posted by divemedic:
I'm sorry, but the implication that I'm looking for trouble is offensive, and the whole idea is in my opinion naive as well. I don't know where any of you live, but in most major cities there will be parts of town where crime rates and severity tend to be higher than others. I live in St Paul, MN. I unfortunately live about half a mile from a housing project (in my neighborhood you can go a few blocks in any direction and have a huge difference in how "nice" the block is - people and houses). Over the last couple of years, since they redid the park two blocks away, a large number of kids and young adults from said project will come to our park to use the basketball courts and loiter on the playground equipment and picnic tables. Some are no problem, some are very obnoxious, and some are absolutely up to no good. I suspect there is some drug dealing, there has been some vandalism and a couple of fights. I have even seen a group of juveniles hanging around, a couple of them carrying baseball bats (I am pretty sure they weren't trying to get a game going) .
I could list a handful of other examples, but I'm starting to ramble: my point is this:
I think to say "If you don't always carry, when you do you are looking for trouble" is ridiculous. Some people who carry do so always, some only do sometimes - it's a personal choice.
Obviously there are places you can go where you have a greater chance of running into someone else who is looking for trouble than you may elsewhere. These places are not always in "The Hood", and I'm not going to avoid every place where I think I have a higher chance of running into a BG. I'm not talking about going to buy crack in north minneapolis - There are places that aren't really bad parts of town, where bad things tend to be happening more and more often. There are other places where I have to go from time to time, where I'd rather not go, because it is in a bad part of town.
I have seen alot of posts (here and elsewhere) saying "If you need a gun, why would you go there?"
I have never needed a gun anyplace I have been. There are places I have been where the chances of my running into a situation where I would have was probably higher than others.
I never go out looking for trouble!! There are just some places where you have a greater, although still small, chance of trouble finding you.
posted by divemedic:
I'm sorry, but the implication that I'm looking for trouble is offensive, and the whole idea is in my opinion naive as well. I don't know where any of you live, but in most major cities there will be parts of town where crime rates and severity tend to be higher than others. I live in St Paul, MN. I unfortunately live about half a mile from a housing project (in my neighborhood you can go a few blocks in any direction and have a huge difference in how "nice" the block is - people and houses). Over the last couple of years, since they redid the park two blocks away, a large number of kids and young adults from said project will come to our park to use the basketball courts and loiter on the playground equipment and picnic tables. Some are no problem, some are very obnoxious, and some are absolutely up to no good. I suspect there is some drug dealing, there has been some vandalism and a couple of fights. I have even seen a group of juveniles hanging around, a couple of them carrying baseball bats (I am pretty sure they weren't trying to get a game going) .
- The gas station by my house tends to have some very shady characters loitering outside on summer nights.
- In the local police blotter, I occasionally see "Robbery by strong-arm" and "robbery with weapon" (I think that's what they call it) within a few blocks of here. I assume this is happening to people walking on the street, because of no mention of breaking and entering.
- My wife works at a hospital in what is affectionately referred to as "Somali Village" due to the number of somali immigrants in that area. There is also a bit of a criminal element in that area.
- From time to time I will go to "uptown" (trendy area just outside of downtown minneapolis) to meet friends for dinner or drinks. - Over the last couple of years this area has started to draw some criminally minded individuals and there has even been a few random murders.
The one that sticks in my mind most is this: a couple of years ago a college kid was back in town, went out to eat with his mom, was robbed at gunpoint after leaving the restaurant, after giving his assailant his money and phone, they shot him in the head in front of his mom.
I could list a handful of other examples, but I'm starting to ramble: my point is this:
I think to say "If you don't always carry, when you do you are looking for trouble" is ridiculous. Some people who carry do so always, some only do sometimes - it's a personal choice.
Obviously there are places you can go where you have a greater chance of running into someone else who is looking for trouble than you may elsewhere. These places are not always in "The Hood", and I'm not going to avoid every place where I think I have a higher chance of running into a BG. I'm not talking about going to buy crack in north minneapolis - There are places that aren't really bad parts of town, where bad things tend to be happening more and more often. There are other places where I have to go from time to time, where I'd rather not go, because it is in a bad part of town.
I have seen alot of posts (here and elsewhere) saying "If you need a gun, why would you go there?"
I have never needed a gun anyplace I have been. There are places I have been where the chances of my running into a situation where I would have was probably higher than others.
I never go out looking for trouble!! There are just some places where you have a greater, although still small, chance of trouble finding you.
Just a couple of points
Tazers (the firing kind), and stun guns (the contact kind) are considered weapons in some jurisdictions. And, while they are generally non-lethal, it is not guaranteed. Some people have suffered heart attacks, brough on by the electrical jolt. Healthy people are supposed to be (basically) uninjured, but there are people who are "healthy" with totally unknown heart conditions. It is not totally risk free.
Also, it doesn't work all the time. I have even hesrd people claim to have built up a tolerance to the shock.
Until someone comes up with the Star Trek Phaser, handguns are our best available tools. Everything else is less effective and less efficient.
And if I could get my hands on a phaser, I have to admit that while the stun setting is very useful, the "kill" setting (where the entire body is disintegrated) has a certain appeal.
Wonder how the forensic teams will deal with that?
Tazers (the firing kind), and stun guns (the contact kind) are considered weapons in some jurisdictions. And, while they are generally non-lethal, it is not guaranteed. Some people have suffered heart attacks, brough on by the electrical jolt. Healthy people are supposed to be (basically) uninjured, but there are people who are "healthy" with totally unknown heart conditions. It is not totally risk free.
Also, it doesn't work all the time. I have even hesrd people claim to have built up a tolerance to the shock.
Until someone comes up with the Star Trek Phaser, handguns are our best available tools. Everything else is less effective and less efficient.
And if I could get my hands on a phaser, I have to admit that while the stun setting is very useful, the "kill" setting (where the entire body is disintegrated) has a certain appeal.
Wonder how the forensic teams will deal with that?well, if you have to ask that then maybe you, as a responsible gun owner, should not carry. the question you pose seems based on a possible disposition that you are unsure of using a firearm as a tool for self-defence. with that possibility of unwillingness to use your sidearm, you may end up with a conflict if you or someone close/near to you has the unfortunate luck of becoming a victim.
maybe you should be asking yourself instead whether or not you would be able to use your sidearm if the need arised. would you shoot an assailant if you had to? what if there is a "badguy/girl" attacking you, or someone you cherish, or your property, or that little old lady across the street? remember, the b/g's are still, ultimately, human beings. do you feel that those people or things or whatever merit your protection and you carrying a sidearm? now, with that in mind....do you need to carry an actual firearm?
i myself do feel that need and will not give up my right to carry a firearm.
It depends...
..on your local law and your comfort level (and only YOU know that). As previous poster implies, you need to think this through for yourself.
Moreover, if you phrased the question as "What would you suggest I carry?", instead of "Do you need to carry...?" you might get less ad hominem remarks.
See, you don't HAVE TO NEED to carry, or own, for that matter. You do because you CAN.
MR2
..on your local law and your comfort level (and only YOU know that). As previous poster implies, you need to think this through for yourself.
Moreover, if you phrased the question as "What would you suggest I carry?", instead of "Do you need to carry...?" you might get less ad hominem remarks.
See, you don't HAVE TO NEED to carry, or own, for that matter. You do because you CAN.
MR2
EastSideRich
New member
One last reply
I feel like I need to reiterate this one last time. I don't think I am going to look at this thread again. I don't know if I did not articulate my question or if people just didn't read it. I have a feeling alot of people just read the subject line and replied to that, Maybe I should have worded the subject line differently. What I meant was does it need to be a firearm or would anyone consider a less than lethal option, if it could be counted on to effectively incapacitate.
I wasn't asking for advice. It was just a thought I had; I was hoping to hear some arguments against carrying a nonlethal defense weapon (assuming the problems with tasers were overcome -SEE ORIGINAL POST).
I have given it some thought on my own, as I haven't really received any input along those lines here, and come up with plenty of arguments against.
I feel like I need to reiterate this one last time. I don't think I am going to look at this thread again. I don't know if I did not articulate my question or if people just didn't read it. I have a feeling alot of people just read the subject line and replied to that, Maybe I should have worded the subject line differently. What I meant was does it need to be a firearm or would anyone consider a less than lethal option, if it could be counted on to effectively incapacitate.
I wasn't asking for advice. It was just a thought I had; I was hoping to hear some arguments against carrying a nonlethal defense weapon (assuming the problems with tasers were overcome -SEE ORIGINAL POST).
I have given it some thought on my own, as I haven't really received any input along those lines here, and come up with plenty of arguments against.
rwilson452
New member
Ok, to address your question directly. Yes, I would carry the mythical phaser with stun selected. I just find that selection not to be available in the foreseeable future. This makes the question mute. The taser just isn't going to get there too many basic design limitations.
orionengnr
New member
As long as the Second Amendment still exists, I still get to make that choice...not the .gov or my mother-in-law. As it should be in a free State.
God Bless Texas.
God Bless Texas.