• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Tasers

bb

New member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
149
Location
, ,
On the news this morning taser bill passed the senate, will soon be legal in Mi
 

TheQ

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
3,379
Location
Lansing, Michigan
It passed the house. The package originated in the Senate but was changed by the house. Thus, the Senate needs to concur with the changes (direct up/down floor vote) before the bill becomes "enrolled".
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
A tazer will not do what a gun will do. For one thing, its no good until you get close, really close. You cant use it against more than one person, and you really can't reload and keep going. You can sink a glock, and it will work, not so with a tazer.

I do feel that tazers, as well as any other thing that might be used as a weapon, is protected my the second amendment.
 

WOD

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
224
Location
Onalaska WA
There is also the issue of missing with one of the prongs. A Taser is useless if only one of the prongs finds the target. In a high adrenaline situation, what are the odds that the defender will actually hit the target with both electrodes, and actuate them correctly? In a home environment, the odds go down, for the simple fact that there are more obstructions, like table lamps, high backed furniture etc.. Outside in an open environment, a Taser is a decent non-lethal alternative. In the home, I don't think it would be as useful. Just my take on this.
 

Small_Arms_Collector

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
436
Location
Eastpointe Michigan
My issue it's it seems to limit us to the rather retarded "C2" tazer. The C2 is designed to be politically correct, shorter range by 20 feet (15 foot as opposed to 35 foot range, putting it well within the 21 foot danger zone, tazer does not even sell 15 foot cartriges for the other models except as trainers), and standard cartriges will not fit, not "pistol shaped" more Star Trek The next Generation "Phaser Shaped", in other words completely impractical, and lousy ergonomics, the whole thing is designed to make liberals feel all warm, and fuzzy (and fails). Really it was designed by the elitist douches that run tazer to be a neutered "good enough" for us mere peons design as that's all they feel we need (sort of reminds me of the anti civilian policies of HK, and Colt) (they also do things like serialization, manditory registration, and background checks even though they don't have to), and that's the one the legislature picked. I doubt I would carry a tazer as it's just extra bulk, and of limited use, and could be an issue if I ever had to use the gun because it would allow someone to say "you had a tazer, why did you have to shoot him?" as they Monday morning quarterback my having to shoot, but if I did carry a tazer I would want a non neutered one like an X26.

If the changes the house made were mandating the stupid C2 I want the Senate to shoot it down. allow us tazers, or not, but don't stick us with having to use the neutered C2s.

If Tazer would sell the good stuff to us peons is another story, but I have seen their products at other vendors, and I have no issue violating tazers anti civilian policy, but don't make their policy law.
 

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
I am not interested in carrying one, but i hope it passes so people have the choice. Some people can not come to grips with the possibility of killing another person, even if it is self defense, this would at least give them another option for SD. My state rep sponsored a bill for this several years ago and it never went anywhere, happy it is now. Now they just need to come down in price, those damn things are expensive
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
Let me see....

For self defense my responsibility is to ensure I survive..... whether or not my assailant(s) remain unharmed is not my responsibility...

So...............

Single shot tazer vs multiple shot Glock....

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm....
 
Last edited by a moderator:

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
I'm happy to see this pass. My mom is hesistant to get her CPL because she really doesn't want to carry a gun (I don't know why exactly), but says she'd love to be able to carry a taser. Sure a gun is better but why not give people the option. If you don't want to carry a taser DON'T! To me it may be worth it to carry a gun and a taser.
 

SpringerXDacp

New member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
3,341
Location
Burton, Michigan
I'm happy to see this pass. My mom is hesistant to get her CPL because she really doesn't want to carry a gun (I don't know why exactly), but says she'd love to be able to carry a taser. Sure a gun is better but why not give people the option. If you don't want to carry a taser DON'T! To me it may be worth it to carry a gun and a taser.

This is really a win win for your Mother as the CPL with additional "training" are required. At a later time, she may choose to carry a pistol and she will already have the CPL to do so along with being able to purchase a pistol without the LTP (28.422) requirement.
 

PDinDetroit

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
2,328
Location
SE, Michigan, USA
Let me see....

For self defense my responsibility is to ensure I survive..... whether or not my assailant(s) remain unharmed is not my responsibility...

So...............

Single shot tazer vs multiple shot Glock....

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm....

I do not disagree with the logic here, but there is a place in the "Personal Protection Arsenal" for "Less Lethal Options" such a OC Spray (Fox Labs 5.3 comes to mind).
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
This is a pretty good demonstration of the capabilities of tasers to fumble and fail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG2M7er_txc

I had one, left it behind when I came back here.

I hold them in the same regard as I do pepper spray, and other less lethal devices. They are great as a primary weapon for stopping dangerous yet unarmed assailants, but only in those circumstances where the operator is backed up by at least one person with a gun. As an individual means of defense, they are lacking. For a stand alone weapon, I'd rather have a good knife, personally.

That's not to say that the government has any business prohibiting them, I do want them to become completely de regulated. But still, I don't suggest carrying them in most cases, particularly for those who aren't armed as a requirement for work.
 

cmdr_iceman71

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
409
Location
Detroit, Michigan, USA
I concur with many of you gentlemen. The fact that the user only gets one shot, with dinimished range and then the need for both prongs to hit and penetrate, forget that. Like Michigander wrote: "I'd rather have a good knife personally." Small_Arms_Collector made a good point too about the Monday morning QB of a prosector trying to paint you as a cold-blooded killer because you couldve used a less than leathal option.
 

michaelm_ski

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2012
Messages
99
Location
Clare , MICHIGAN
Taser

You know not everyone is able to carry a gun due to whatever is their hang up but any weapon is better than none at all especially if it is an older woman . If you take the fight to them most likely they will get out of the threat area because they are cowards , If the taser saves one female or elderly person it is good in my book .
 
Last edited:

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
You know not everyone is able to carry a gun due to whatever is their hang up but any weapon is better than none at all especially if it is an older woman . If you take the fight to them most likely they will get out of the threat area because they are cowards , If the taser saves one female or elderly person it is good in my book .

Older women who practice fighting can be as dangerous as anyone. When you're experienced, fast, and have the capability to be utterly viscious, that's what counts. Age and genitals need not mean much in a fight.

Not that I'm trying to pick on you, because in fact for the most part I agree with your philosophy, but it's worth mentioning on that note that it's really fascinating how weapons should be good at reducing gender steriotypes, and meanwhile weapons intensify them almost universally.
 
Top