Got a new one for ya

kx592 · January 20, 2011, 03:09 PM

Now I know this will seem like a stretch for admins here but bare with me, here it goes..

With the new technology of these tazer products that can drop people in their tracks from 30ft. away and are available for most people in most states. That includes people with bad backgrounds(the bad guys). So with these bad guys possibly walking the streets with tazers, if something were to happen, they could drop you on the spot. I see this becoming a problem once those people realize they can afford these devices. Now the situation.

Something breaks out and people with ccw's being good Samaritans, would like to defend another good Samaritan or them self, as they should. Push comes to shove and it escalates to a firearm being drawn by one of the bad guys. You draw yours fearing for the worst and before you no it, your layed out by a tazer and temporarily incapacitated. Now the bad guy can quickly grab what he came for and also grab the gun that you dropped since you could not move.

Am I insane?

I see this as a great way for bad guys to get police officers weapons and break for it. However its just as easy if they can get someone to draw a CCW and they score a easy handgun.

How, if at all, could someone react to this? I really dont see any plausible answer except know your surroundings like your life depends on it. Seems far fetched now but I could see these tazers (not simply a stun gun) becoming more of a problem than solution( except for LEO's). What do you guys think?

.22lr · January 20, 2011, 04:06 PM

How would this be any different if you were just shot by a gun?

What is it about a Taser that is so special that you would fear it more than getting shot?

Why would a criminal choose a weapon that fires one shot at a limited range (15' for the *civilian* version) that costs as much as many pistols, has batteries that can die, and is excuciatatingly slow to reload?

OH! it has the added bonus to criminals of requiring activation!

Also, the Taser has an impressive history of failure to stop.

Tasers are not magic, nor are they as well suited to serious self defense as a reliable handgun in a common (9mm, .40S&W .45Auto) cartridge.

Why would the threat of a Taser be greater or cause more concern than any other ranged weapon? Heck, why should it worry anyone more than a chemical spray?

The threat is overblown.

VR

~Matt

Terry A · January 20, 2011, 04:25 PM

+1 on what Matt said. No, make that a +2!

Very well said.

Anything the taser can do, a firearm can do better.

BlueTrain · January 20, 2011, 04:36 PM

Yes, including making a lot more noise.

Dwight55 · January 20, 2011, 10:59 PM

I would think the point would be valid if the bg came upon the taser either by hook or crook.

I cannot see him/her spending long green cash for one unless they plan on ambushing one lone person in a place where they can do it and have no worries about someone else coming along.

Again, though, situational awareness should keep us free from this problem.

May God bless,
Dwight

Single Six · January 20, 2011, 11:46 PM

My agency issues tasers..we have yet to see a failure to stop when they've been used. The key word there being "yet". No weapon can give guaranteed success 100% of the time. It seems to me that the majority of self-defense situations can be resolved without going to guns. A taser or pepper spray will suffice for most such events. While I will agree that a gun beats a taser, don't overlook the fact that it may help you if you end up going to trial over a deadly force incident. If it can be shown that you tried non-deadly force [taser, pepper spray, or even retreat if possible] before resorting to your firearm, that would likely help counter any attempts made by prosecuting attorneys to paint you as a cold blooded killer.

kozak6 · January 20, 2011, 11:57 PM

The only real reason a criminal would use a tazer is if they wanted quiet.

That's about it.

They are at least as expensive as a real gun and the cartridges are VERY expensive. It might be cheaper just to get a gun off the street. They also doesn't project a macho image like a real would, however important or unimportant that may be.

If anything, pepper spray is a greater threat. It's at least an order of magnitude cheaper, and can be legitimately purchased over the counter with cash, and still offers temporary incapacitation.

If there were a sudden rash of drive by tazerings in your area, you could probably just wear a leather jacket or a couple extra sweaters and be ok.

January 20, 2011, 03:09 PM	#1
kx592 Senior Member Join Date: August 9, 2009 Posts: 645	Got a new one for ya Now I know this will seem like a stretch for admins here but bare with me, here it goes.. With the new technology of these tazer products that can drop people in their tracks from 30ft. away and are available for most people in most states. That includes people with bad backgrounds(the bad guys). So with these bad guys possibly walking the streets with tazers, if something were to happen, they could drop you on the spot. I see this becoming a problem once those people realize they can afford these devices. Now the situation. Something breaks out and people with ccw's being good Samaritans, would like to defend another good Samaritan or them self, as they should. Push comes to shove and it escalates to a firearm being drawn by one of the bad guys. You draw yours fearing for the worst and before you no it, your layed out by a tazer and temporarily incapacitated. Now the bad guy can quickly grab what he came for and also grab the gun that you dropped since you could not move. Am I insane? I see this as a great way for bad guys to get police officers weapons and break for it. However its just as easy if they can get someone to draw a CCW and they score a easy handgun. How, if at all, could someone react to this? I really dont see any plausible answer except know your surroundings like your life depends on it. Seems far fetched now but I could see these tazers (not simply a stun gun) becoming more of a problem than solution( except for LEO's). What do you guys think?

January 20, 2011, 04:06 PM	#2
.22lr Senior Member Join Date: July 14, 2007 Posts: 245	How would this be any different if you were just shot by a gun? What is it about a Taser that is so special that you would fear it more than getting shot? Why would a criminal choose a weapon that fires one shot at a limited range (15' for the civilian version) that costs as much as many pistols, has batteries that can die, and is excuciatatingly slow to reload? OH! it has the added bonus to criminals of requiring activation! Also, the Taser has an impressive history of failure to stop. Tasers are not magic, nor are they as well suited to serious self defense as a reliable handgun in a common (9mm, .40S&W .45Auto) cartridge. Why would the threat of a Taser be greater or cause more concern than any other ranged weapon? Heck, why should it worry anyone more than a chemical spray? The threat is overblown. VR ~Matt Last edited by .22lr; January 20, 2011 at 05:38 PM. Reason: Sloppy proof reading the first time arround

January 20, 2011, 04:25 PM	#3
Terry A Senior Member Join Date: December 27, 2008 Location: Washington, Pa Posts: 764	+1 on what Matt said. No, make that a +2! Very well said. Anything the taser can do, a firearm can do better. __________________ 2 Thes 3:16 "Now may the Lord of peace Himself continually grant you peace in every circumstance. The Lord be with you all! "

January 20, 2011, 04:36 PM	#4
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	Yes, including making a lot more noise. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

January 20, 2011, 10:59 PM	#5
Dwight55 Senior Member Join Date: June 18, 2004 Location: Central Ohio Posts: 2,568	I would think the point would be valid if the bg came upon the taser either by hook or crook. I cannot see him/her spending long green cash for one unless they plan on ambushing one lone person in a place where they can do it and have no worries about someone else coming along. Again, though, situational awareness should keep us free from this problem. May God bless, Dwight __________________ www.dwightsgunleather.com If you can breathe, . . . thank God! If you can read, . . . thank a teacher! If you are reading this in English, . . . thank a Veteran!

January 20, 2011, 11:46 PM	#6
Single Six Senior Member Join Date: January 31, 2010 Location: N.C. Posts: 1,522	My agency issues tasers..we have yet to see a failure to stop when they've been used. The key word there being "yet". No weapon can give guaranteed success 100% of the time. It seems to me that the majority of self-defense situations can be resolved without going to guns. A taser or pepper spray will suffice for most such events. While I will agree that a gun beats a taser, don't overlook the fact that it may help you if you end up going to trial over a deadly force incident. If it can be shown that you tried non-deadly force [taser, pepper spray, or even retreat if possible] before resorting to your firearm, that would likely help counter any attempts made by prosecuting attorneys to paint you as a cold blooded killer.

January 20, 2011, 11:57 PM	#7
kozak6 Senior Member Join Date: June 16, 2005 Location: AZ Posts: 3,113	The only real reason a criminal would use a tazer is if they wanted quiet. That's about it. They are at least as expensive as a real gun and the cartridges are VERY expensive. It might be cheaper just to get a gun off the street. They also doesn't project a macho image like a real would, however important or unimportant that may be. If anything, pepper spray is a greater threat. It's at least an order of magnitude cheaper, and can be legitimately purchased over the counter with cash, and still offers temporary incapacitation. If there were a sudden rash of drive by tazerings in your area, you could probably just wear a leather jacket or a couple extra sweaters and be ok.