The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

View Poll Results: Would you consider a TAZER over a gun?
Sure, the cops use them enuff to prove them viable. 6 8.70%
NO WAY, Too many variables and negatives to make it worth my risks. 56 81.16%
I do not know enuff about them yet to decide. 7 10.14%
Voters: 69. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 24, 2009, 06:33 PM   #1
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
Tazer over Firearms?

Quote:
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
hogdogs is offline  
Old June 24, 2009, 07:06 PM   #2
bigghoss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2006
Location: Pueblo, Colorado
Posts: 2,659
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.
__________________
I don't collect guns, I accumulate them.
bigghoss is offline  
Old June 24, 2009, 07:15 PM   #3
KLRANGL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2008
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 958
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.
__________________
And it's Killer Angel... as in the book
KLRANGL is offline  
Old June 24, 2009, 07:27 PM   #4
sakeneko
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 23, 2009
Location: Nevada
Posts: 644
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.
sakeneko is offline  
Old June 24, 2009, 07:32 PM   #5
chemgirlie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 3, 2009
Location: WI
Posts: 331
I would carry one where firearms aren't allowed or in addition to a firearm, but not instead of.
chemgirlie is offline  
Old June 24, 2009, 07:36 PM   #6
comn-cents
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2008
Location: Pac.N.W.
Posts: 1,804
I don't like the thought of being connected to the BG.
__________________
Be Smarter Than A Bore-Snake!
comn-cents is offline  
Old June 24, 2009, 07:43 PM   #7
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
I don't remember...

... 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.
MLeake is offline  
Old June 24, 2009, 07:50 PM   #8
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,983
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
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old June 24, 2009, 08:12 PM   #9
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
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.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old June 24, 2009, 08:31 PM   #10
pacerdude
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 586
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 )
pacerdude is offline  
Old June 24, 2009, 08:46 PM   #11
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
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.
csmsss is offline  
Old June 24, 2009, 09:25 PM   #12
KLRANGL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2008
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 958
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.
__________________
And it's Killer Angel... as in the book
KLRANGL is offline  
Old June 24, 2009, 09:53 PM   #13
sakeneko
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 23, 2009
Location: Nevada
Posts: 644
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.
sakeneko is offline  
Old June 24, 2009, 10:58 PM   #14
Kyo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Posts: 897
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
Kyo is offline  
Old June 24, 2009, 11:01 PM   #15
Shawn Thompson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 23, 2009
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 101
It would seem that depending on a tazer alone would put you at a serious disadvantage in any scenario with multiple VCA's.
__________________
Qui non proficit deficit
Shawn Thompson is offline  
Old June 24, 2009, 11:04 PM   #16
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
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.


I would use one as an adjunct in the interim

WildocisbetterAlaska TM
Wildalaska is offline  
Old June 24, 2009, 11:47 PM   #17
bdturner
Member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2009
Posts: 48
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.
bdturner is offline  
Old June 24, 2009, 11:52 PM   #18
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
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
hogdogs is offline  
Old June 25, 2009, 12:11 AM   #19
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,983
Quote:
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
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old June 25, 2009, 12:16 AM   #20
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
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
Wildalaska is offline  
Old June 25, 2009, 12:21 AM   #21
pax
Staff
 
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: Washington state
Posts: 6,983
Quote:
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
__________________
Kathy Jackson
My personal website: Cornered Cat
pax is offline  
Old June 25, 2009, 12:32 AM   #22
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
I think I can safely speak for everyone here when I say, "Ken, please keep your pants on."
You speak for SWMBO too

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
Wildalaska is offline  
Old June 25, 2009, 01:03 AM   #23
Mossberg590
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2009
Posts: 5
About The Taser VS a Weapon

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"

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!

(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
Mossberg590 is offline  
Old June 25, 2009, 06:01 AM   #24
stargazer65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 761
Quote:
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), 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.
__________________
"I assert that nothing ever comes to pass without a cause." Jonathan Edwards
stargazer65 is offline  
Old June 25, 2009, 06:58 AM   #25
easyG
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2004
Location: Right here!
Posts: 972
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.
easyG is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14960 seconds with 9 queries