Tasers

imported post

Anyone carry (OC or CC) a Taser? I mean, non-LEO citizen carry...

Which Taser do you carry? (C2, X26c, M18, etc.)

What's been your experience? What is your assessment of the Taser tool?

Any issues? Any surprises?

Have you used it on a person? (Training, fooling around,or for real.)

Have you incorporated your Taser in your home self-defense plan?

I'm thinking about getting one.

imported post

Unfortunately, not legal for non-leo, Michiganders.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(uy2v2i45e1bw1m55nuzlvcik))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-750-224a

imported post

Hank,

The C-2 is what I have.

I have many problems with it.

1) You have to register, and pay to register to buy it.

2) There is no ability to practice by firing it.

3) It is not comfortable on my belt like a handgun holster.

All in all I think bear spray would be a better choice.

imported post

SFCRetired wrote:

If I am in a situation where I fear for my life, the firearm I carry is, I feel,much more likely to stop the threat than the taser is.

Click to expand...

But what if you're NOT in fear for your life?

What if you encounter a situation where some guy (your size or smaller) or some woman or some kid.....wants to fight but does NOT want to kill you or cause serious physical injury? The gun is pretty useless then. Wouldn't a less-than-lethal tool be good to have then?




SFCRetired wrote:

My question would concern whether, if you carried one and subsequently had to use your firearm, the prosecuting attorney would use the fact that you had one and didn't use it to paint you as a bloodthirsty criminal.

Click to expand...

What would make you think that?

Has it ever happened?

imported post

HankT wrote:

What if you encounter a situation where some guy (your size or smaller) or some woman or some kid.....wants to fight but does NOT want to kill you or cause serious physical injury?

Click to expand...

As a rule, I don't get into fights, although I have been in them. I don't go looking for them, but in the neighborhood I grew up in, they sometimes came to me.

Which fighting technique are you familiar with? Have you ever actually been in a street fight?To the best of my knowledge, there is nostreet fighting disciplinethat does notinvolve the combatants punching, kicking, elbowing, kneeing, headbutting, biting, and using whatever is at their disposal to do damage to the opponent.

Is it one of your postulates that getting punched, kicked, elbowed, kneed, headbutted, or bitten does not and can not causeserious physical injury?

imported post

SFCRetired wrote:

Point #1: At my age and in my physical condition, almost any man or woman younger than me could do damage that could lead to my death. I don't fight. I will talk my way out of it, I will walk away if they will let me, and I won'tstart a confrontation. In those circumstances, an openly carried pistol provides a level of deterrence that I do not believe a taser would.

I am also not convinced of the effectiveness of tasers under all conditions.

Click to expand...

No one has ever said that tasers are the right tools "under all conditions."

You seem convinced of the effectiveness of guns under all conditions, however. I'd suggest that your, uhm, perceived susceptibility tosevere injury or deathby"almost any man or woman younger" than you might have something to do with that conviciton.




SFCRetired wrote:

Point #2: You ain't from Alabama, are you?

No, it has never happened as far as I can determine. But the reality is that if you are carrying both a handgun and a taser and, for whatever reason, you choose the gun over the taser, a politically ambitious district attorney will make the most of it at your trial.

I know the politicians here in this state all too well and I have no reason to believe that politicians elsewhere are any different. If a district attorney with ambitions toward a higher office or facing a tough opponent in the next election can make mileage out of your choice, he/she will.

In the final analysis, I would rather have the known deterrence factor of the openly carried handgun than the unknown factors associated with carrying a taser.

Click to expand...

So, it's never happened. And there isalmost no logical basisfor it happening.

But you make an assumption that it will happen--to you. For political reasons, ambition reasons, election reasons, etcetera, etcetera.

Sorry, I don't see your logic. I think that you might just have a gun-first philosophy.

Good luck with it. Hope it serves you well. But it's quite limiting, y'know.

imported post

buster81 wrote:

HankT wrote:

What if you encounter a situation where some guy (your size or smaller) or some woman or some kid.....wants to fight but does NOT want to kill you or cause serious physical injury?

Click to expand...

As a rule, I don't get into fights, although I have been in them. I don't go looking for them, but in the neighborhood I grew up in, they sometimes came to me.

Which fighting technique are you familiar with? Have you ever actually been in a street fight?To the best of my knowledge, there is nostreet fighting disciplinethat does notinvolve the combatants punching, kicking, elbowing, kneeing, headbutting, biting, and using whatever is at their disposal to do damage to the opponent.

Is it one of your postulates that getting punched, kicked, elbowed, kneed, headbutted, or bitten does not and can not causeserious physical injury?

Click to expand...

No.

imported post

HankT wrote:

buster81 wrote:

HankT wrote:

What if you encounter a situation where some guy (your size or smaller) or some woman or some kid.....wants to fight but does NOT want to kill you or cause serious physical injury?

Click to expand...

As a rule, I don't get into fights, although I have been in them. I don't go looking for them, but in the neighborhood I grew up in, they sometimes came to me.

Which fighting technique are you familiar with? Have you ever actually been in a street fight?To the best of my knowledge, there is nostreet fighting disciplinethat does notinvolve the combatants punching, kicking, elbowing, kneeing, headbutting, biting, and using whatever is at their disposal to do damage to the opponent.

Is it one of your postulates that getting punched, kicked, elbowed, kneed, headbutted, or bitten does not and can not causeserious physical injury?

Click to expand...

No.

Click to expand...

So it's reasonable to be in fear for your life, or in fear that you will receive serious physical injury any time a combatant engages you and take measures accordingly.

You asked "But what if you're NOT in fear for your life?" If you are not in fear for your life or in fear of serious physical injury (which may lead to the loss of your life), then you are not in a fight. Just retreat out of the situationand call the police.

imported post

buster81 wrote:

HankT wrote:

buster81 wrote:

HankT wrote:

What if you encounter a situation where some guy (your size or smaller) or some woman or some kid.....wants to fight but does NOT want to kill you or cause serious physical injury?

Click to expand...

As a rule, I don't get into fights, although I have been in them. I don't go looking for them, but in the neighborhood I grew up in, they sometimes came to me.

Which fighting technique are you familiar with? Have you ever actually been in a street fight?To the best of my knowledge, there is nostreet fighting disciplinethat does notinvolve the combatants punching, kicking, elbowing, kneeing, headbutting, biting, and using whatever is at their disposal to do damage to the opponent.

Is it one of your postulates that getting punched, kicked, elbowed, kneed, headbutted, or bitten does not and can not causeserious physical injury?

Click to expand...

No.

Click to expand...

So it's reasonable to be in fear for your life, or in fear that you will receive serious physical injury any time a combatant engages you and take measures accordingly.
...

Click to expand...

No.

imported post

HankT wrote:

buster81 wrote:

HankT wrote:

buster81 wrote:

HankT wrote:

What if you encounter a situation where some guy (your size or smaller) or some woman or some kid.....wants to fight but does NOT want to kill you or cause serious physical injury?

Click to expand...

As a rule, I don't get into fights, although I have been in them. I don't go looking for them, but in the neighborhood I grew up in, they sometimes came to me.

Which fighting technique are you familiar with? Have you ever actually been in a street fight?To the best of my knowledge, there is nostreet fighting disciplinethat does notinvolve the combatants punching, kicking, elbowing, kneeing, headbutting, biting, and using whatever is at their disposal to do damage to the opponent.

Is it one of your postulates that getting punched, kicked, elbowed, kneed, headbutted, or bitten does not and can not causeserious physical injury?

Click to expand...

No.

Click to expand...

So it's reasonable to be in fear for your life, or in fear that you will receive serious physical injury any time a combatant engages you and take measures accordingly.
...

Click to expand...

No.

Click to expand...

It wasn't a question. I'll make it one for you if you like. Under what circumstances would you not be in fear of serious physical injury and/or fear for your life while taking part in a fight?

imported post

My state is on "O-C only" state, With no permits required, but we are very limited on other means of defense. I guess the state govt. doesn't does want us to damage our criminals too much.

We cannot carry or possess electronic weapons, And we are very limited on the chemical weapons we can legally possess. For instance, we can have a pepper-spray, but there can be no marking dye in it (Stupidity to the 9th degree IMO) And the pepper-spray must be a fairly low concentration of the active ingredient, and the container size is also limited too.

But hey, we can shoot the attacker with a firearmif we fear for our life!!

imported post

Nutczak wrote:

My state is on "O-C only" state, With no permits required, but we are very limited on other means of defense. I guess the state govt. doesn't does want us to damage our criminals too much.

We cannot carry or possess electronic weapons, And we are very limited on the chemical weapons we can legally possess. For instance, we can have a pepper-spray, but there can be no marking dye in it (Stupidity to the 9th degree IMO) And the pepper-spray must be a fairly low concentration of the active ingredient, and the container size is also limited too.

But hey, we can shoot the attacker with a firearmif we fear for our life!!

Click to expand...

Wisconsin laws regarding guns, carry and/or self-defense are a mess. You have my sympathies.

Maybe Wisconsin can issue one of those old Sen. Proxmire Golden Fleece awards to istself....you guys are getting raked.

imported post

Under what circumstances would you not be in fear of serious physical injury and/or fear for your life while taking part in a fight?

Click to expand...

Did you forget about this Hank? Please enlighten us.

imported post

buster81 wrote:

Under what circumstances would you not be in fear of serious physical injury and/or fear for your life while taking part in a fight?

Click to expand...

Did you forget about this Hank? Please enlighten us.

Click to expand...

Good question. There are several circumstances. Here's a general example.

If I somehow was faced with a visiblyunarmed antagonist who started (I wouldn't start one)to fight with me for some reason petty reason (that's important) and who was of the same general size and age as I am (or smaller).

Unless I knew that he was, a) a homicidal maniac,or b) some kind of MMA or martial arts dude who was not of sound mind at the time (e.g., impaired),I wouldn't be too too in fear of serious physical injury or death.

I certainly wouldn't want to pull out a gun in such a case. I wouldn't even want to have one on me in such an event since I'd have to worry about it in several regards.

I'm not, BTW, a particularly good street fighter, IMO. But I've been in a few. It hurts to be hit and, actually, it can hurt to hit someone.But I'd much rather take a punch and, say, get a black eye, or punch somone in the face and break his nose, than pull out a pistola and open up a panorama of decidedly chancy legal, moral and ethical outcomes--when it is simply a physical fight started by a guy (or a woman) who has no deadly weapon. C'mon. Guns are for serious attacks, not mild and routine 2 or 3 punch affairs.

There are several other examples I could cite, this is just the first, and most general and easily convincing one that comes to mind...

What do you think, B81?

imported post

HankT wrote:

SFCRetired wrote:

Point #1: At my age and in my physical condition, almost any man or woman younger than me could do damage that could lead to my death. I don't fight. I will talk my way out of it, I will walk away if they will let me, and I won'tstart a confrontation. In those circumstances, an openly carried pistol provides a level of deterrence that I do not believe a taser would.

I am also not convinced of the effectiveness of tasers under all conditions.

Click to expand...

No one has ever said that tasers are the right tools "under all conditions."

You seem convinced of the effectiveness of guns under all conditions, however. I'd suggest that your, uhm, perceived susceptibility tosevere injury or deathby"almost any man or woman younger" than you might have something to do with that conviciton.




SFCRetired wrote:

Point #2: You ain't from Alabama, are you?

No, it has never happened as far as I can determine. But the reality is that if you are carrying both a handgun and a taser and, for whatever reason, you choose the gun over the taser, a politically ambitious district attorney will make the most of it at your trial.

I know the politicians here in this state all too well and I have no reason to believe that politicians elsewhere are any different. If a district attorney with ambitions toward a higher office or facing a tough opponent in the next election can make mileage out of your choice, he/she will.

In the final analysis, I would rather have the known deterrence factor of the openly carried handgun than the unknown factors associated with carrying a taser.

Click to expand...

So, it's never happened. And there isalmost no logical basisfor it happening.

But you make an assumption that it will happen--to you. For political reasons, ambition reasons, election reasons, etcetera, etcetera.

Sorry, I don't see your logic. I think that you might just have a gun-first philosophy.

Good luck with it. Hope it serves you well. But it's quite limiting, y'know.

Click to expand...

Hank... has your "postulate" been replaced with the new "gun first philosophy"? If so that new "philosophy" suffers from the same misguided arrogant elitist perspective of "knowing what is best for everyone".

You do not seem to understand that in the real world there are people who have different circumstances than you... making your "opinion" of what everyone should do according to what you think is right a horribly elitist viewpoint. For some of us with physical limitations there is no such thing as just getting into a fight. Your dismissing that very real consideration for other people is........ foolish.

Everyone makes decisions based upon their own personal set of circumstances/beliefs. What I decide to do in any area of my life may, or may not, be applicable for someone else and I do not have the right to tell anyone they should do what I think they should..... nor does anyone have the right to tell me what is proper simply because they do not walk in my shoes.

Now... as for Tazers/sprays... to begin with citizens have the right to defend themselves... they do not have a duty to apprehend/arrest any criminals nor are they obliged to "be nice" to a criminal so that is not a consideration when considering those means. Some folks are young, strong, and just generally tough trained bad ass fighters able to deal with situations without needing an extra weapon besides their bodies. But... the vast majority of folks aren't bad asses by any means and some are so unable to physically deal with a fight of any kind an external weapon is the only intelligent choice.

In a perfect cutesy poo kumbiya world just saying "That offends me!" would be enough to stop any and all altercations/differences of opinion. But those of us that live in the real world understand that there are vicious animals that look like humans out there and make decisions accordingly. Many of us understand that a Tazer often doesn't faze a criminal and sprays often get on the victim as much as it does the criminal.... and if those things don't work it will be way too late to utilize the tool that has the most chance of being effective.

I've only been visiting this forum for a relatively short time yet I am impressed with the very high level of pragmatic, logical, and intelligent decisions I've seen posted throughout. And, not only astounded but, dismayed by some of the assumptions presented as "information".

imported post

HankT wrote

Unless I knew that he was, a) a homicidal maniac,or b) some kind of MMA or martial arts dude who was not of sound mind at the time (e.g., impaired),I wouldn't be too too in fear of serious physical injury or death.

Click to expand...

in your own words you just said that an trained fighter is armed with his hands, on another thread that involved a drunk mma fighter you argued "
It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person."

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum60/26933-1.html

go stfu now please

imported post

HankT wrote:

buster81 wrote:

Under what circumstances would you not be in fear of serious physical injury and/or fear for your life while taking part in a fight?

Click to expand...

Did you forget about this Hank? Please enlighten us.

Click to expand...

Good question. There are several circumstances. Here's a general example.

If I somehow was faced with a visiblyunarmed antagonist who started (I wouldn't start one)to fight with me for some reason petty reason (that's important) and who was of the same general size and age as I am (or smaller).

Unless I knew that he was, a) a homicidal maniac,or b) some kind of MMA or martial arts dude who was not of sound mind at the time (e.g., impaired),I wouldn't be too too in fear of serious physical injury or death.

I certainly wouldn't want to pull out a gun in such a case. I wouldn't even want to have one on me in such an event since I'd have to worry about it in several regards.

I'm not, BTW, a particularly good street fighter, IMO. But I've been in a few. It hurts to be hit and, actually, it can hurt to hit someone.But I'd much rather take a punch and, say, get a black eye, or punch somone in the face and break his nose, than pull out a pistola and open up a panorama of decidedly chancy legal, moral and ethical outcomes--when it is simply a physical fight started by a guy (or a woman) who has no deadly weapon. C'mon. Guns are for serious attacks, not mild and routine 2 or 3 punch affairs.

There are several other examples I could cite, this is just the first, and most general and easily convincing one that comes to mind...

What do you think, B81?

Click to expand...

What if your opponent who "was of the same general size and age as I am"were to somehow get an advantage in the altercation and was to incapacitate you. Would you not concern yourself with being killed while lying unconscious?

Are you trying to say that you would use a tazer on this individual you were not scared of in the example above?