Wow! I did not anticipate the number of responses. I would like to respond to all of them as they each made very good points. However I will lump them together instead of replying to each separately, if that is all right? I am not sure of the usual custom here in regards to replies.
I will quote your name when responding to your arguments.
Grizzly223 and AH.74,
Quote:
Posted by Grizzly223,
If what you say about Tasers were true than I would not need a gun but we do not have a phaser set to stun yet. What you write is out of ignorance because you have never been on the pointy end of the stick as it were.
|
Quote:
Posted by AH.74,
If you've never experienced a situation where all that is standing between you and an attacker who is intent on causing you harm or worse is a tool, be it a gun, baseball bat, hammer, or whatever else, I hope you never have to.
|
I understand that I am only "some guy on the internet." Maybe my colleague who is a member here can vouche for me. Anyway, I am an economist, amongst other hats that I wear and I work for several humanitarian organizations. So I have been in a few "hairy" situations. In regards to the U.S., I will freely admit to never being mugged, attacked or having my home burglarized. However, abroad, I have been robbed, at gunpoint and machete point, beaten, shot at and held against my will.
In most of these situations I don't believe a gun or even a taser in my hands would have done me or my group any good (I am NOT saying there is never a situation where guns can do good). On the flipside, good guys with guns probably saved my life at least once and definitely rescued us from molestation. In the spirit complete honesty, I've been protected by U.N. forces, various police/military and even private security while abroad. And I was very glad they were armed.
The difference in here versus there, is that these were unstable countries and the criminals (so to speak) were either military or paramilitary organizations. Because of the proliferation of guns here in the U.S., a person almost does have to be armed with a gun to go toe to toe with criminals. However, we have a stable government that could change that. If guns could be rendered prohibitively hard to obtain or use, then they would go the way of hand grenades and machine guns, their use in crime would be a statistical anomaly. And there are some very viable ways we could make that happen.
Quote:
Posted by Grizzly223,
I carry a Taser and a firearm every day as I am a Deputy Sheriff. I can tell you from personal experience that A Taser does not work all the time no matter what you may have heard. If what you say about Tasers were true than I would not need a gun but we do not have a phaser set to stun yet.
|
Thank you for your public service
A gun, also does not work all the time so I hear.
Quote:
|
if you think that Tasing one of them will stop an attack you are wrong most of the time plus you will just make the rest of them angrier. However if you draw and point a gun at them all the bravado just goes away most of the time.
|
I admit that a taser is not ideal against a group of antagonists. However this same group is really no easier to subdue with a handgun. And a gunshot wound has been known to just "make people angrier" as well.
I will concede that guns trump the "intimidation factor." I remember that some of our Food Aid convoy escorts would load empty magazines(?) into their mounted machine guns and swivel them around to scare off problem groups. I will consider that point as it is a good one.