PDA

View Full Version : Tazer over Firearms?


hogdogs
June 24, 2009, 06:33 PM
stargazer,

Actually, he asks a good question ... for another thread.

(That's a hint, y'all.)

Quote:
... if truly reliable distance stunners were around, would the moral person use them instead of the potentially lethal rounds we use?
pax
Okay, PAX, I will bite!
How many would consider a full genuine TAZER a viable means of SD/HD? I ain't talking no flea market stun gun but a real pro tazer or at least the wire feed unit sold for civvie use.
I personally would not as it is unable to engage multiple targets and is not a sure thing if someone is wearing a fluffy coat or leather gear which are both realistic clothing issues I use in choosing defensive weapons.
Brent

bigghoss
June 24, 2009, 07:06 PM
instead of a gun?: no

in addition to?: maybe but it's a lot to carry in addition to what I already have. especially concealed. so it probably will not happen.

not to mention a gun is more intimidating than a tazer.

KLRANGL
June 24, 2009, 07:15 PM
To me, a tazer just seems to be a way of taking the moral "high ground." I never subscribed to the every life is precious story so I don't feel the need to go with something with a questionable track record. If lethal force is justified, use lethal force. If it isn't, there are plenty of other things I'd chose over a tazer, including but not limited to, lights, OC spray, knives, fists, and (the most important) my brain.

sakeneko
June 24, 2009, 07:27 PM
d) None of the above. A taser is a tool, somewhere between fists and a gun in the lethality scale, which might be appropriate in some but not all cases.

Personally, I wouldn't be interested. I've got an aversion to them because of 30 years of human rights work under my belt and know too many cases of tasers (and cattle prods) being used in horrific ways. :/ The earlier models of Taser were pain control devices instead of incapacitation devices; they used lower voltages than today's units and had a completely different effect.

I'll shoot someone if I must, as an absolute last resort, to save my life or someone else's life. I won't torture.

chemgirlie
June 24, 2009, 07:32 PM
I would carry one where firearms aren't allowed or in addition to a firearm, but not instead of.

comn-cents
June 24, 2009, 07:36 PM
I don't like the thought of being connected to the BG.

MLeake
June 24, 2009, 07:43 PM
... the last time I saw a fight where one of the combatant's buddies didn't pile in.

On a similar note, I'd estimate that at least 1/3 of the armed robbery articles I've read in the past several years have involved at least 2 BG's.

I'd consider a Taser as desirable a primary as a single shot or double shot derringer. IE, not very.

OTOH, Pepper spray comes in relatively compact containers, and would make a viable alternative/secondary weapon to a primary handgun, where spray is legal.

pax
June 24, 2009, 07:50 PM
IMO, the technology is not yet there to replace the firearm as a defensive tool for civilians. Although Taser's products are reliable -- they are well made, and they do what they are designed to do and perform to their design specs -- the limitations imposed by the present state of tech development are still significant.

The wires are a limitation, the probe spread question is a limitation, single-shot is a limitation (and drive stun does not help much in a civilian context), the prohibitive cost of practice is a limitation, and battery duration remains a limitation although great strides have been made there. Looking at the state of this technology now, it's already useful as an adjunct where firearms aren't available, and it's reasonable to expect continual improvement from this point.

The jolt of a Taser C2 (the "civilian" model) is painful, but it is not a pain compliance device. It achieves its results by "jamming the signal" from the brain down the nerves to the muscles, when the probes land on the subject and are the proper distance apart. And when the probes hit as they should, it really, really, really works. Unbelievably so.

Assuming your 'shooting' is accurate (get the laser aimed device, not the one without a laser!), the technical difficulty becomes a question of distance. As the dual probes leave the device, they begin to spread, reaching an approximate 2-foot maximum spread at the end of the wire (15 feet for the C2 model). Obviously, the further away you are when you activate the unit, the greater the spread, and the greater the possibility of one probe missing the subject entirely. The closer you are, the closer the spread, and the greater the possibility that the probes will land too close to each other to achieve full lockup on the subject.

If the probes land too close together on the subject, the Taser becomes a simple pain compliance tool, and no lockup is achieved because the signals aren't really jammed. If only one probe makes contact, no jolt happens at all although the current is running. In either of these two cases, you can tranfer to "drive stun," using the unit itself to complete a solid contact. The difficulty is that -- assuming you are able to get the unit solidly against the assailant's body in the first place, and aren't thrown clear and beaten to a pulp when you first try to make contact -- you are now stuck there, holding the unit against the assailant at close quarters. The very instant you let go, the assailant is fully capable of doing whatever he was doing when you started, only now he is very very enraged and you are still within arm's reach of him. If you choose not to let go, that battery is going to give out sometime. Now what are you going to do when it finally peters out? (The battery won't die after thirty seconds, but you will have to re-activate the unit to keep it going - better be quick! - and eventually the battery will wear down.)

The jolt from the C2 lasts thirty seconds compared to the LE model's five seconds. Thirty seconds is a long time for the person riding the wire, but for the person running away, maybe notsomuch - esp since the assailant will be fully functional the moment the current shuts off, and since the retreating defender is now unarmed. Not to mention those wires, which can be broken as the assailant falls, or if he is able to thrash around because full lockup wasn't achieved for whatever reason -- meaning thirty seconds is a maximum, not a minimum, and how far did you get before he was able to rise and continue his assault against you?

Used in law enforcement applications in typical LE encounters, they're a godsend. They can also be quite useful to a defense-minded ordinary citizen, even with the limitations mentioned above. But the technology still isn't there to completely replace the firearm as a defensive tool.

If it were? I'd agree that a moral person would not choose to use lethal force if a lesser level of force would accomplish the same goals. Once the technology finally arrives, a phaser set to "stun" is what the good people will use. ;)

pax

Brian Pfleuger
June 24, 2009, 08:12 PM
Current technology, no, not a chance.


The theory posited in the other thread about a tazer type device which could be fired like a gun and was as effective and reliable? Absolutely, I would suggest that the reasonable, responsible, moral, law-abiding citizen would have the DUTY to use a tool that can effectively save their own life without taking the lives of others.

The caveat being that it would have to function essentially identical to a standard firearm, except that it would incapacitate instead of kill.

pacerdude
June 24, 2009, 08:31 PM
No way, you only have one shot with a tazer and if you miss, then you're screwed. I would choose any pistol over a tazer anyday of the week. (of course im biased, because i am convinced a tazer would hurt my pacemaker :D)

csmsss
June 24, 2009, 08:46 PM
Unreliable, unpredictable and too difficult to use without a backup firearm. There is just no compelling reason to use them unless one feels compelled to endanger his life unnecessarily in order to be kind to his/her adversary. I feel no such compulsion.

KLRANGL
June 24, 2009, 09:25 PM
Of course law abiding moral people would prefer a non lethal tool to a lethal tool, but the unfortunate fact is that the non lethal tool is, and most likely always will be, not as reliable as the lethal tool. The moral point then becomes almost moot, as it doesn't make sense to put yourself at greater risk just because you think it morally superior to not take an aggressor's life. Non lethal tools are very important, but I would never let them replace my lethal tool. The day the non lethal tool is a more effective man stopper than a lethal tool is the day I switch, but I don't really ever see that happening.

sakeneko
June 24, 2009, 09:53 PM
I pretty much agree, Pax. Morally *if* a taser will stop the bad guy, it's preferable to killing him. Tasers are also not Star Trek phasers on stun devices -- not yet, and maybe not ever. But would be nice to have something like that as an alternative to a gun when you're trying to stop someone from harming or killing you or another innocent person.

My personal reaction to tasers is overwhelmingly negative because of bad associations with the way that some of the earlier models were used, usually in other countries, as torture devices. I was almost electrocuted as a child, by a jolt that "froze the connection" as you put it. I know what the general feeling is like. I won't touch a cattle prod even around cattle either, for the same reasons. It's irrational, but feelings aren't rational.

Kyo
June 24, 2009, 10:58 PM
as a backup. never as a main. unless you are someone who can't be responsible with a gun such as not following the rules

Shawn Thompson
June 24, 2009, 11:01 PM
It would seem that depending on a tazer alone would put you at a serious disadvantage in any scenario with multiple VCA's.

Wildalaska
June 24, 2009, 11:04 PM
If it were? I'd agree that a moral person would not choose to use lethal force if a lesser level of force would accomplish the same goals. Once the technology finally arrives, a phaser set to "stun" is what the good people will use.

:D

I would use one as an adjunct in the interim

WildocisbetterAlaska TM

bdturner
June 24, 2009, 11:47 PM
If I were in a location where taking a firearm would be illegal. Even with a CCW permit there are many places in NC that firearms are not allowed. I would take along a taser. A taser is very very light weight and compact. I carry one at work everyday and know that they work well. Besides firing probes you can also do a drive stun. Just snap off the cartridge on the end and it works just like a stun gun. I have used a spark display to break up inmates that were fighting. There is something about seeing the sizzle and spark to make them want to give up.

hogdogs
June 24, 2009, 11:52 PM
would the mere sight of Ken/WA in a spandex thong of any color singing any song while dancing circles around any fellow human justify lighting him up with a Tazer? And if so, how many trigger jolts does he deserve?
And would John Wayne quotes be better than Randy Savage or Hulk Hogan while you light him up?
Brent

pax
June 25, 2009, 12:11 AM
I would use one as an adjunct in the interim

WildocisbetterAlaska

Agreed - a Taser makes a nice option to have on hand, even if you're not willing to bet your life on it alone. Re your sig, OC is only better if you're not severely asthmatic. If you are, a Taser is better.

Different strokes for different folks! ;)

pax

Wildalaska
June 25, 2009, 12:16 AM
Different strokes for different folks!

Different strokes for different folks! Right on!!!!!!


Sometimes I'm right and I can be wrong
My own beliefs are in my song
The Taser, the OC, the pistol and then
Makes no difference what group I'm in!
I, I, I, I, am everyday people, yeah yeah!

There is an gun one who can't accept the OC one
For living with a Taser one trying to be a baton one
And different strokes for different folks
And so on and so on and scooby dooby doo-bee.....

Oops sorry, I'll pull off my Afro Wig and striped bell bottoms now

WildusausausaeatitspainAlaska TM

pax
June 25, 2009, 12:21 AM
Oops sorry, I'll pull off my Afro Wig and striped bell bottoms now

I think I can safely speak for everyone here when I say, "Ken, please keep your pants on."

;)

pax

Wildalaska
June 25, 2009, 12:32 AM
I think I can safely speak for everyone here when I say, "Ken, please keep your pants on."

You speak for SWMBO too:D

WildspurnedbymyownspousebutheyTHEUSBEATSPAINAlaska TM

To make it gun related, didnt Sly get busted once with a concealed weapon, or am I just confusing a multiplicity of weirdly dressed musicians

Mossberg590
June 25, 2009, 01:03 AM
stargazer,

Actually, he asks a good question ... for another thread.


Many years ago in my youth I took on 3 guys at the top of a stair case,

The firsts one went down before he even knew what the hell happen, I stuck a 500,000 Volt Stun Gun In His throat & Addam's Apple & Zapped him for about 2 senconds "Right In His Throat & Adams Adams,

It litterly drop him like a 100 pound sake of potatos down the full flight of stairs ass over tea ketcal

When I finnised with the other 2 & got them back out of the house, They had to pick ther fellow co-hort up & carry him out the door,

"Because He Was "Seriously Still Twiching"

I have many none leathal weapons that I keep in my truck is some thing should happen when I am on the road!

But seiuosly Guy, If he is "approaching you "with a ANY Form Of A Weapon, & It very clear verbally or other wize that aims to hurt or kill you & your loved ones!

The last thing that you should be reaching for! Is a Taser!

You & Your Family & Loved Ones "Are In Danger" :eek:

In this type case, the only thing that you should be grabbing for

"IS YOUR GUN"! & Then Just Double Tap His Ass!

& You Send Him Straight To HELL! :D

(That's a hint, y'all.)

Quote:
... if truly reliable distance stunners were around, would the moral person use them instead of the potentially lethal rounds we use?
pax

Okay, PAX, I will bite!
How many would consider a full genuine TAZER a viable means of SD/HD? I ain't talking no flea market stun gun but a real pro tazer or at least the wire feed unit sold for civvie use.
I personally would not as it is unable to engage multiple targets and is not a sure thing if someone is wearing a fluffy coat or leather gear which are both realistic clothing issues I use in choosing defensive weapons.
Brent

stargazer65
June 25, 2009, 06:01 AM
stargazer,

Actually, he asks a good question ... for another thread.

(That's a hint, y'all.)

Quote:
... if truly reliable distance stunners were around, would the moral person use them instead of the potentially lethal rounds we use?
pax

OK, sorry Pax and Glenn, I didn't notice that Glenn was talking about actual real world tazers. I just logged on after a three hour absence from that thread (where some pretty serious and heavy discussions were taking place); and a quick perusal of the latest posts talked about filliboobing(sounds embarrassing:o), phasers on stun, and something about aliens. I thought I was in the new off topic forum at first.;)

Nope, no tazer for me, don't trust it. I'm not a big guy, can't deal with an enraged thug. I'll stick to a good blaster at my side. Preferably in 12 gauge. At least until my Klingon Disruptor gets here.

easyG
June 25, 2009, 06:58 AM
A tazer could never replace my handgun.

But it would be a useful tool to have on hand should lethal force not be warranted.
I'm getting too old to try and bust knuckles with the young bucks.

Re4mer
June 25, 2009, 07:27 AM
Tazers, especially those sold to civilians right now are not very good. I would certainly not stake my life on one.

DougO83
June 25, 2009, 07:55 AM
^not very good? Could you please explain? I checked out the C2 at the store the other day and it seems like simply a more compact version of the LE model.

RE:OP-Probably not. At a previous job, I saw the value of the Taser, BUT I was supported by at least one additional officer. In the civvie world, the Tasers are not especially helpful. Sure, if you are attacked by one BG, you can pop them and you have basically 30 seconds to get out of dodge.

Just as I do at work, it is a supplement to a sidearm. Same with OC, which I have seen be less than 50% effective. It isn't that great...

pax
June 25, 2009, 09:01 AM
I checked out the C2 at the store the other day and it seems like ismply a more ocmpact version of the LE model.

For the first five seconds, the C2 (civilian model) and the LE Taser models both give exactly the same jolt to the subject. After five seconds, the LE model shuts off, while the C2 keeps going (with a different pattern designed to stretch battery life) for a total of thirty seconds. In that sense, the C2 is better than the LE models -- especially since it is designed to cope with the necessary tactics a civilian would be using.

As for "not very good," that's in the eye of the beholder. I have one and carry it. While the technology is not yet there to truly replace the firearm in defensive use, it's still a Darn Good Tool.

pax

bababooey32
June 25, 2009, 09:42 AM
I would not use a tazer (even if all the imperfections were worked out) because it simply could not engage multiple targets.

I would definitely not want a taser IN ADDITION to a gun, as it presents an alternative in the continuum of force where I am now responsible for being able to dicern which weapon to use in a given situation. If i choose the wrong one, I may be liable. I am not trained in force continuum, so I'd prefer not to have that responsibility.

If a BG enters my home unarmed, which weapon do I use? Texas law says I can shoot him, but if I have a tazer to choose from and he is unarmed, now I have to justify (if only to myself) why I chose the gun and not the taazer.

No Thanks.

Guns for me.

KingEdward
June 25, 2009, 09:53 AM
I've wondered about this but stopped wondering a couple of weeks back.

On COPS, on a routine stop, things escalated and the male driver would not exit the car. Guy was about 5' 8 and 170lbs or so.

After the third warning and his refusal to move, in went the tazer wires and they lit him up.

It seemed to just turn him on and then make him angry. He didn't get out.

4 guys dragged him out and they were still tazing him and he was still resisting. He was standing the whole time and you could hear the volts being sent.

When things finally settled down, it did not appear that he was on anything nor were there any drugs found.

I have no interest in the taser.

Also, I would hope to keep some distance with a firearm that may not be possible with a tazer.

hogdogs
June 25, 2009, 09:59 AM
I waited until we had a good discussion going to throw this into the mix...
The case of the 2 Okaloosa county deputies who were murdered at the gun range... It was immediately after getting lit up by a tazer that the killer went for the gun and killed the 2 officers.
Brent

pax
June 25, 2009, 09:59 AM
I saw on TV once where a guy got shot with a firearm and didn't go down, so I'm not going to carry a gun anymore.

;)

pax

KingEdward
June 25, 2009, 10:20 AM
then let us know which tazers you opt for once the guns are
gone.

Brian Pfleuger
June 25, 2009, 10:32 AM
I saw on TV once where a guy got shot with a firearm and didn't go down, so I'm not going to carry a gun anymore.


No kidding. I know of an incident wherein a police officer emptied a 357 revolver into a perp and he didn't die. So, obviously, a 357mag in not enough for defensive purposes.

That same police officer was killed, in the same incident, with a single 22LR bullet. So, obviously, a 22LR is a far better defensive weapon that a 357mag.
:rolleyes:;):eek:

stargazer65
June 25, 2009, 11:24 AM
That same police officer was killed, in the same incident, with a single 22LR bullet. So, obviously, a 22LR is a far better defensive weapon that a 357mag.

Statistics show cigarettes are far deadlier. Just toss cartons of unfiltered camels:barf: at the BG.

pax
June 25, 2009, 11:36 AM
Sorry, didn't mean to cause thread veer.

My point was that NO defensive tool, including our beloved firearms, is 100% guaranteed to work 100% of the time.

Tasers have a truly awesome track record in the LE world as being a great deal more reliable than the average less-lethal option.

pax

Vanya
June 25, 2009, 11:41 AM
Used in law enforcement applications in typical LE encounters, they're a godsend. They can also be quite useful to a defense-minded ordinary citizen, even with the limitations mentioned above. But the technology still isn't there to completely replace the firearm as a defensive tool.
Yes... I might want one as an adjunct, but not as a replacement, I don't think -- that "too many variables and negatives" thing... but for now I'll stick with OC as an alternative, and try to stay upwind. :p

If it were? I'd agree that a moral person would not choose to use lethal force if a lesser level of force would accomplish the same goals. Once the technology finally arrives, a phaser set to "stun" is what the good people will use.
Yes, indeedy, although I wonder what the odds are of there ever being phasers with zero negative aftereffects: they'll end up being called less-lethal, not non-lethal, just like all that other stuff.

And wearing striped pants will always defeat a phaser... just so you know. :D

stargazer65
June 25, 2009, 11:41 AM
In all seriousness though I have a question. It's been said that using less lethal rounds (ie bean bags, rubber bullets) are a bad idea for HD/SD. Why would tazers be a good idea? It seems like the same concept.

armsmaster270
June 25, 2009, 11:56 AM
As said before Taser's are a tool in your tool kit just as is your Pistol, Shotgun, OC spray, Martial Arts and Louiville Slugger. You can't carry them all and for medical reasons you may not be able to use some, but you may carry one as a non lethal addition to your weapon. Multiple BG's taser is a disadvantage, Wind can negate OC Spray and affect you worse than the BG. Its all a big crapshoot you have to do the best you can with what you have and in a lot of situations you may not have the luxury of chosing which weapon to use. From one who has been there.
Stargazer
Bean Bags and rubber bullets are a stand off weapons designed for longer than SD distances

One more catagory for the poll: In the right Situation, yes

Brian Pfleuger
June 25, 2009, 12:00 PM
Why would tazers be a good idea? It seems like the same concept.

For HD you might have a point. Unless there was a way to immobilize the BG until LE arrives.

For SD on the street a tazer is good because it gives you the chance to get away. Something that is not particularly an option at home, or at least not a very good one.

stargazer65
June 25, 2009, 12:06 PM
Where does using a tazer fall in legal spectrum, for example:

If I pepper spray someone just for being a jerk I'd be in trouble.

If I shoot someone with a bean bag just for being a jerk I'd be in far, far, greater trouble. Maybe the same as if I'd used a real bullet.

Where is a tazer in all that?

csmsss
June 25, 2009, 12:12 PM
Tasers have a truly awesome track record in the LE world as being a great deal more reliable than the average less-lethal option.But LEO's don't use tasers for self defense! They use them to induce compliance. If a LEO truly feels his life or others' is in danger, is he going to pull out the taser or the firearm? The firearm, of course.

Re4mer
June 25, 2009, 12:15 PM
^not very good? Could you please explain?

Sure, here is a video and an article. The first is a complete tazer fail where the officer is taken down after tazing the suspect. The second is an article where the police used the tazer and it failed to stop the aggression and they had to shoot the attacker anyway.

http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2009/01/07/police-officer-attacked-after-taser-fails-to-stop-criminal-video-clip/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2216603/posts


I have also personally witnessed several different civilian model tazers fail to drop the person while simply being used for demonstration purposes. I understand these are anecdotes but the OP question was would you take a tazer over a firearm so based on my experience and research into tazers I said no I would rather have a firearm.

Here are some other articles about a police forces with tazer failures on a large scale.

http://www.thestar.com/article/643902

http://www.houstonpress.com/2004-10-28/news/the-shocking-truth/

Here is a great quote from the second article.

"That Taser was working. It just had no effect," explains Precinct 1 Lieutenant Troy Billings. "Even the company that makes them will tell you they only have an 85 percent take-down rate. The other 10 percent-plus, they just have little to no effect."

Microgunner
June 25, 2009, 12:39 PM
We keep a Taser International mod. M18L loaded with 15' cartridge under our counter and frankly, we're longing for the day we get to try it out on some belligerent drunk. But for a real confrontation we're launching lead. FAST, HARD & REPEATEDLY!

armsmaster270
June 25, 2009, 01:20 PM
My son used to love going to gun shows when the salesman was showing a customer how good their Stun gun was, ask to see one then use it on himself for about 4 seconds then give it back saying that was pretty good and walk off. I still don't know how he did it, but he took the full jolt.

Stargazer:
Taser without cause would result in an assault charge and all taser cartridges emit micro tracking dots that will lead right back to you.

pax
June 25, 2009, 01:41 PM
armsmaster ~

I've taken a "full jolt" from a stun gun many many times. It does not even begin to sort of compare to what the Taser does.

pax

Microgunner
June 25, 2009, 02:17 PM
I've taken a "full jolt" from a stun gun many many times. It does not even begin to sort of compare to what the Taser does.


That's for sure and certain. Take the cartridge out of a Taser and the pop & cracking it makes when triggered is 5 times louder than the biggest "stun guns" sound. Stun guns are a joke.

spacemanspiff
June 25, 2009, 04:49 PM
Pax
The research I have done on tazers shows the LE model blast is 30 seconds, and if you pull it twice, it will continue for a total of 90 seconds of taze.
The civilian one I researched was 15 seconds, pull it three times and you get 45 seconds.

My study may be outdated though. What I am sure of is that the LE model is far better than the civilian.

DougO83
June 25, 2009, 06:44 PM
For the first five seconds, the C2 (civilian model) and the LE Taser models both give exactly the same jolt to the subject. After five seconds, the LE model shuts off, while the C2 keeps going (with a different pattern designed to stretch battery life) for a total of thirty seconds. In that sense, the C2 is better than the LE models -- especially since it is designed to cope with the necessary tactics a civilian would be using.


Thats right. The C2 is designed so you can run away. IIRC, they will replace yours if you use it and send them the police report. I am looking for verification.


As for "not very good," that's in the eye of the beholder. I have one and carry it. While the technology is not yet there to truly replace the firearm in defensive use, it's still a Darn Good Tool.

You are correct. I have seen that it has its place on a full batbelt, but does it really have a place in the hands of the average CC holder?

RE: spacemanspiff. I think your data is a little off. As pax stated, the LE model gives a 5 sec blast, the civvie gives a 30-sec blast so that the vistim has a chance to flee attack. This is specifically for the Taser branded units and may be different for others. With that in mind, the C2 certainly takes the cake. Actually, I am going to go play with the C2 tomorrow. I will report back what I find.

pax
June 25, 2009, 08:08 PM
spiff,

Your study is significantly outdated. See http://www.taser.com/company/pressroom/Documents/Citizen%20Sales%20and%20TASER%20C2%20Info%2006%2019%2009.pdf

pax

DougO83
June 26, 2009, 06:31 AM
Single-Shot capacity has been addressed. Meet THE SHOCKWAVE :D