Taser Guns don't hurt people, people hurt people

[theworm[$]]

Company Wants To Offer Taser Guns To Public

http://www.nbc6.net/news/4764845/detail.html

It releases 50,000 volts in one shot -- enough to knock a person off their feet. The Taser gun is legal in 43 states, including Florida, and requires no background check.

While police officers are trained to use the weapon, training is not a requirement for the public.

They are already legal - just a new marketing push is starting today.

There is already debate about if and when police should be allowed to use tasers.

Tasers are not lethal (to healthy people anyway - could be for people with health conditions)

So - I can predict the usual gun control arguement here, but tasers aren't guns (in the traditional sense) so how do we feel about this? Should the public have access to tasers? Should liscensing and/or training be required? Is a taser a likely defense tool (considering you need to be close to your assailant to use it)? Can they be locked to protect children? Is it responsible to market tasers, and if so - how?

You can already guess that I think this is a bad idea, but I'm curious to hear the discussion here.

[Redlass]

This is going to sound silly--but I saw it used in the Batman Begins movie. It took me a few times to figure out what it was. I wondered whether that sort of exposure might get people thinking about it who hadn't thought about it before--especially when it looked so easy to use.

My concern is that with it being non-lethal, people are going to think it is OK to use as a practical joke.

I certainly would rather people carry a taser than a gun if they feel they must carry something as protection.

[amykhar]

What Bridgette said. I have no objection to people having them for protection IF they are proven to be a safe form of protection. If all they do is tick a violent person off more and don't disable him long enough for the victim to get to safety, then I believe tasers could do more harm than good.

[theworm[$]]

I worry about the "bad guys" using the tasers to stun their victims into submission.

[phoenixx]

theworm said

I worry about the "bad guys" using the tasers to stun their victims into submission.

Well, in that case I'd rather be tasered than shot.... but that's not taking in to account I'd rather not have either happen....

Do I think it's a good idea? Actually, yes, I'm okay with it. I'd love to have the police training made available to the public for a low charge or for free, because they have ramifications for people with pace makers and other electronic health devices (not to mention a plain old heart condition or epilepsy) that people should be aware of prior to purchase and use.

As to having to get close to your assailant - in cases of mugging or rape, for example, your assailant is already close enough to use this - I think it would be very effective.

[lynnzop[$]]

I think any of those things are possible. I think about the "weapons" that are used in our dojo, in the right hands they can be wonderful training tools or used in self defence. In the wrong hands, they are dangerous weapons. But every single one is legal (although I've been told that if you have a set of nunchuks in your gear bag in the back seat and you are stopped, they will be confiscated.)

I'm very pro-gun control, and I'd fit anything that gives someone "superhuman powers" (like a taser) into the "need for control at some level" category. While a nunchuk is a dangerous weapon, so is a simple stick that can be picked up in the yard. A taser is at a whole 'nuther level.

[realtraveller]

I wonder if the voltage couldn't be scaled back a bit. That is, still hurt an attacker without risking killing.

Off topic somewhat but it went through my head: Isn't it amazing the stuff that were just imagination in Star Trek are now available? These tasers are so much like the "phasers" {wasn't that the word?} from the old series. "Set phasers to stun" "aye, aye, Captain Kirk".

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

I owned a taser for a while but never had to use it. Didn't know it was illegal to own in NYS though and it was confiscated from me when I went on a family court appointment.

[eris esoteric]

Taaaaaser....

[Helen_B[$]]

I think spending the money on CDT training would be a better bet--that's a weapon that no enemy can turn on you.

[erik_kosberg]

When electricity is outlawed, only outlaws will have electricity.

[emeleel]

CDT?

[phoenixx]

http://www.cdt-training.com/

[Stokes Pennwalt]

Redlass said

My concern is that with it being non-lethal, people are going to think it is OK to use as a practical joke.

This is actually the exact reason why I tell anybody who wants to carry pepper spray or a stun gun as a self-defense implement to suck it up and learn how to handle a real weapon. Things like tasers, stun guns, or whatever, are marketed as "nonlethal" weapons that, while not possessing the capacity to kill or even seriously injure, are somehow still supposedly able to stop a 300 pound meth addict from skullraping you for your wallet. There are no serious consequences usually associated with their use, be it accidental or not (how many times do we hear "why didn't they just use the taser?") People will buy them and carry them, making no great effort to train in their use or learn the technical aspects of their operation or general self-defense skills, yet still (incorrectly) believing they are one iota safer than they were before.

A firearm on the other hand demands the highest degree of training, discipline and respect to handle properly. As such, anybody who is properly trained to carry one won't handle it carelessly or draw it with bad intentions unless the situation is truly serious enough to warrant ending another's life to safely resolve it. Depending on where you live, carry laws may also limit the people with CCFL's to shooters who are very serious about their personal safety, train accordingly and are willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money and dignity on the licensing process.

Anyway, tasers aren't all they're cracked up to be in the media and by the people who sell them. Better hope your target is under 25 feet away, standing reasonably still and not wearing thick clothing or able to knock the darts away before they seat. Otherwise you're screwed. One shot and that's it. Even if you do get a jolt in, there's no guarantee that it's going to work. Just think of an episode of COPS when they've tased a perpetrator - the guy's already surrounded and the tasing officer is never drawing the taser as a last-ditch effort to defend himself. They're only used to subdue and pacify unruly perps so they can be handled easier. Then check out what happens when the lone officer or two are confronted with a truly threatening perp who can do them serious harm: pistols are drawn and deadly force is imminent.

When it comes to my personal safety I prefer a sure thing. If my safety is in danger I will exercise every avenue available to end the situation as quickly as possible and as much in my favor as possible. Newtonian physics dictates to us that if an attacker's chest absorbs 400 foot-pounds of ballistic energy, perhaps in multiples of two or three, they will be robbed of their upright status and their continued prosecution of assault will be less than a sure thing.

[erik_kosberg]

As such, anybody who is properly trained to carry one won't handle it carelessly or draw it with bad intentions unless the situation is truly serious enough to warrant ending another's life to safely resolve it.

Usually. But we had a case here just a few weeks ago of a guy (who had a duly-issued concealed carry permit and had served in the military where I assume he’d had weapons training) pumping two rounds into a bartender who’d cut him off.

[frazzledspice]

I suppose that the real fear of the pro-gun crowd if tasers were legalized is that many of the excuses they use to justify conceal-carry and deadly weapons would be obliterated if people could protect themselves with non-lethal alternatives, temporarily disabling a potential assailant until he could be apprehended by the police.

But why not the non-lethal alternative?

If the non-lethal alternative were available and a gun owner, who had options of using non-lethal alternatives for self-protection, freely chose to kill his potential assailant or robber, it would be much easier to prosecute him for murder or at the very least to launch a successful civil suit against him.

And make no mistake about it, it is murder if you can stop a potential criminal by non-lethal means, rendering him helpless until the police come, and you freely choose to end his life permanently. Do you want that on your conscience?

[Helen_B[$]]

Generally it is legal to meet force with an equal level of force. If you go thru the "What do you want?", "I don't want any trouble!", and "BACK OFF!" routine, and someone keeps on coming with obvious intent to harm, you are justified in dealing with that person appropriately.

I don't see tasers as any kind of real alternative in this kind of situation, just a way for people to have something dangerous lying around, which costs money and is possibly completely useless, except in lulling the owner into a false sense of security. I also don't fancy being sprayed with my own pepper spray. I would rather count on my big ring of car keys as a weapon. I always know where those are, and I keep them in my hand on the way to the car.

Not being there in the first place is the best nonlethal alternative, and yeah, that's not always possible. It is important for everyone to take a really good selfdefense class, and CDT is one of the best, allowing you to put someone on the floor in such pain they don't dare move, all without doing permanent damage. I have not taken CDT yet, and I need to, since I know just enough about selfdefense to frighten myself. I could probably thrown a handful of change in someone's face and run, or flick my keys in their eyes and run. I know a few trigger points. I might remember enough to break out of a bear hug.

I would never carry a gun because I know how easy it would be for someone to disarm me. I have done gun disarms at the dojo, and I'm not good at it. I'm too slow, and my wrists are weak. But someone else who is quick and strong could disarm me, no problem. And a knife would be faster than my gun. A knife is faster than most COPS guns. So for me, there would be no point in having a gun in the first place. If I did own one, and was expert at using it, I believe I would shoot to protect myself or loved ones. In a situation where a person was intending harm, I would feel justified. I'm an overweight, greying grandmother. How fierce would I look in a court of law?

[Stokes Pennwalt]

erik_kosberg said

Usually. But we had a case here just a few weeks ago of a guy (who had a duly-issued concealed carry permit and had served in the military where I assume he’d had weapons training) pumping two rounds into a bartender who’d cut him off.

Yes I broke the cardinal rule of making blanket statements. Stories like that make me wince. When I was out in Minneapolis early this month I lol'd at all the CHECK YER IRON AT THE DOOR, BOYS signs at every establishment. I talked to a cop and he said you guys are shall-issue now. As in, if you apply for a CCFL they'll hand it to you unless they have some huge reason not to. So now all these private establishments have put up signs specifying that no guns can be carried inside. That's awesome.

frazzledspice said

I suppose that the real fear of the pro-gun crowd if tasers were legalized is that many of the excuses they use to justify conceal-carry and deadly weapons would be obliterated if people could protect themselves with non-lethal alternatives, temporarily disabling a potential assailant until he could be apprehended by the police.

But why not the non-lethal alternative?

First of all, tasers are legal, so this theory is false.

Secondly, the same right-to-self-defense arguments can be made for tasers that can be made for firearms or a rolling pin. By your logic I could say "Since guns are available for self-defense, we don't need tasers or pepper spray". This is of course ridiculous, as we are free to pick and choose whatever means we desire to secure our own personal safety. Beyond that, there's simply no reason to outlaw them.

So why a firearm over a taser? Because, like I said, that's what I choose. Even though that's all the reason I need, you can re-read the third paragraph in my post above for something I think you'll find more compelling. Tasers just aren't the magical Star Trek stun devices most people think they are. Law enforcement officers don't use them for self-defense, and they are extensively trained in that discipline. You won't see a police officer favor his taser over his pistol when his life is in danger. Why do you think this is?

If the non-lethal alternative were available and a gun owner, who had options of using non-lethal alternatives for self-protection, freely chose to kill his potential assailant or robber, it would be much easier to prosecute him for murder or at the very least to launch a successful civil suit against him.

Are you saying that we should spend our law enforcement resources incriminating and prosecuting people who chose the most effective means of ensuring their own safety from an assailant the police weren't around to apprehend?

Also, "non-lethal alternatives" are rarely viable options. See above.

And make no mistake about it, it is murder if you can stop a potential criminal by non-lethal means, rendering him helpless until the police come, and you freely choose to end his life permanently. Do you want that on your conscience?

So somebody breaks into my house, puts my life in danger and I've got to resort to some halfassed gimmick and hope that it works just so I don't hurt the predator too badly? Screw that. When an assailant directly threatens my right to life, he voluntarily forfeits his. They're either running away or getting shot. Not out of anger, but out of the will to survive. Murder requires malice aforethought. Self-defense isn't murder.

In case I sound insane, here's the Arkansas law pertaining to deadly force authorization:

5-2-607. Use of deadly physical force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if he reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1) Committing or about to commit a felony involving force or violence;

(2) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force; or

(3) Imminently endangering his or her life or imminently about to victimize the person as described in § 9-15-103(a)(2), from the continuation of a pattern of domestic abuse. For the purposes of this section "domestic abuse" shall be that described in § 9-15-103(a).

(b) A person may not use deadly physical force in self-defense if he knows that he can avoid the necessity of using that force with complete safety:

(1) By retreating, except that a person is not required to retreat if he is in his dwelling and was not the original aggressor, or if he is a law enforcement officer or a person assisting at the direction of a law enforcement officer; or

(2) By surrendering possession of property to a person claiming a lawful right thereto.

I like the provision for any sort of domestic violence.

As you can see, it jives pretty well with what I said above. Such laws are universal for every state in the US. This isn't some crazy fringe way of thinking. These are the fundamental liberties our nation was forged around, codified in our laws and ingrained in our culture. Simply put, denying me my right to self-defense is un-American.

[Helen_B[$]]

Exactly.

[erik_kosberg]

you guys are shall-issue now

Yes and no. When the law was changed a year or so ago, the folks in the legislature attached it to a totally unrelated bill. Standard operating procedure in the U.S. congress, but not in the Minnesota legislature. Tons of lawsuits filed (for example, can churches ban guns in their buildings but not in their parking lots?), a special session that was supposed to clarify the situation but got hung up on a partial government shutdown, city police and county sheriffs not following exactly the same procedures, yadda yadda yadda. A real mess.