slightly OT article about tasers and a follow-up article

GRAND RAPIDS — Women who live alone and fathers of female college students share a particular interest when it comes to hand-held protection: the Taser.
More than other groups, they want to legalize the electric-shock weapon for civilians as an alternative to handguns.
State Sen. Arlan Meekhof, R-West Olive, got to know the demographics as he sponsored a 2008 bill to make Tasers legal in Michigan under the concealed weapons law.
Three years later, the effort is back. Tasers have been a tool for Michigan police for several years but are illegal to have outside of law enforcement
see more:
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/03/citizen_taser_could_be_legal_t.html

GRAND RAPIDS -- A bill is in the state Senate to allow Tasers under the state's concealed-carry permit law.
Many readers responded to a Sunday story on the issue, commenting about fears of Tasers being misused or even fired because someone else annoyed or angered a Taser owner.
Backers of the bill say the scenario is unlikely, mostly because Tasers would be regulated under the concealed-carry law.
see more:
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/03/if_tasers_become_legal_in_mich.html

I've heard of some dog owners who wanted them legal so they could "train" their pit-bulls.

I think tasers should be able to legally be carried openly or concealed with no permit necessary. As long as you're not going into places like courts, jails, and places that ban "weapons" you should be allowed to carry a taser. If people can in most other states in the U.S. what is the problem. Are people in those states more responsible than Michigan residents? Also if we do require a "CPL" to carry it we would need to switch to "CCW" it seems to me.

It should be covered under A2, just the same as a firearm, or a sock full of rocks.

the law never made sense to me forbidding taser carry. you can carry a deadly weapon designed to kill but can't carry one that just temporarily stuns someone with no lasting effects. the police style stun guns (costing more than a lot of handguns) is good for one shot but can be repeatedly triggered while the shock electrodes are still in. the CO2 blast that launches the electrodes also emits small traceable numbered dots. too many for the criminal user to possibly pick up.
if you used it instead of firearm to stop an assailant you would either have to flee, allow the assailant to flee or detain/restrain the bad guy. do you keep pulling the trigger with one finger while calling 911 with the other hand?
there would of course be more legal justifications for it's use than a firearm for defense. i'm all for the legalization.

There are lasting effects.

stainless1911 said:

There are lasting effects.

Click to expand...

There are potential deadly or lasting effects - that is why such are commonly referred to as less lethal, rather than the old non-lethal.

Ive heard about psychological issues, the brain doesnt respond well to shock, and it causes both internal and external burning and scarring. Ive seen external scaring personally.

stainless1911 said:

Ive heard about psychological issues, the brain doesnt respond well to shock, and it causes both internal and external burning and scarring. Ive seen external scaring personally.

Click to expand...

Even if there are lasting effects.....at least the criminal gets a likely second chance on life. A bullet to the head or center mass offers a lot less hope of a full recovery.

Sure, thats a given, I just dont like it when these things are portrayed as harmless. Less than lethal ok, but to say that it has no lasting effects, is dishonest, or at the least, uninformed.

Whenever I am discussing this I like to put it in perspective to my audience. The State of Michigan has licensed me to carry a 29.9 inch semi-automatic handgun with as large a clip as I like, with one in the chamber, and with the safety off on my hip. A Taser on the other hand, is to dangerous. Don't get me wrong, that's not what or how I carry, just lends a little interpretation to the minds of the legislature.

Let me see...

A Taser gets one shot at one attacker. More than one attacker means either carry more than one Taser or... also carry a firearm to address multiple attackers.

A Taser is less lethal but can still cause death or lasting health problems in some instances. The same can be said for a firearm.

A Taser's effects can be greatly lessened by heavy clothing or even defeated by protective vests. The same can be said for a firearm.

A Taser's effects can be ignored by some attackers who are either extremely determined or under the influence of drugs. The same can be said for the effects of a firearm.

So, to my mind, the Taser has the glaring disadvantage of only a one shot capability and it's less than lethal effects for the attacker does not offer any superior benefit for the victim to defend their self. Although it could offer the criminal the benefit of suffering lesser consequences for his/her violent criminal attack.

But aside from the obvious limitation of getting only a one shot chance at only one attacker to stop an attack by multiple attackers.... in my opinion the most dangerous thing about Tasers is, since a Taser will be hyped as the more humane method of dealing with a violent criminal (humane for the criminal you see) then there really is no need for common citizens to ............... carry a firearm. And I can imagine a host of "reasonable" (to the anti firearm people) arguments that would cast firearms as evil nasty things in comparison to the much "safer" Taser. And all those "reasonable" arguments would end up pointing out that a Taser meets the definition of an "arm" thereby satisfying the 2nd Amendment right to "bear arms"..............

and in short order the common folks will be limited to only Tasers but the elite will still have firearms capable of multiple shots... that can control the common folk who only have one shot Tasers.

Think of the Taser as the modern day version of peasants with torches and pitchforks storming the castle's cannons......

So... would all that happen with Tasers replacing firearms for the common folk? Or would common sense prevail and folks would have the option of either a Taser or firearm.. or both?

I dunno... just offering the possibility for folks to consider.

Edited to reflect the difference between "less than lethal" and "less lethal" although I don't like either of those since it falls short of offering what the Taser is "less lethal" .... than.

Just to clarify -

A taser is not less than lethal. This implies not lethal, w/o the potential.

It is less lethal.

This phraseology is as a result of searching for a simple term that adequately describes the capacity to harm/be effective and is easier to remember than "less likely to cause major injury or death in most situations while controlling the subject when deployed in accordance with training standards in effect at that time."

i think tasers would be a great thing,im sure there are many people that would be comfortable carrying a taser, while being uncomfortable carrying a firearm.

And every new person that takes means to protect themselves, i feel makes the community a little safer.

northofnowhere said:

The State of Michigan has licensed me to carry a 29.9 inch semi-automatic handgun with as large a clip as I like

Click to expand...

You carry a C96?

Tasers have been a tool for Michigan police for several years but are illegal to have outside of law enforcement

Click to expand...

I'm not saying it should be the other way, but it would make a damn sight more sense in reverse.

I agree, cops have shown that they cannot be trusted with a tazer.

stainless1911 said:

I agree, cops have shown that they cannot be trusted with a tazer.

Click to expand...

Yup. I would put the tasers in the armory with the guns. Need to respond to a situation requiring a taser? You can take 30 seconds to get a warrant by phone. NBD.

marshaul said:

You carry a C96?

Click to expand...

No, Glock 23.

stainless1911 said:

Sure, thats a given, I just dont like it when these things are portrayed as harmless. Less than lethal ok, but to say that it has no lasting effects, is dishonest, or at the least, uninformed.

Click to expand...

Plus they DO NOT work against armed BG's.This is a dangerous fraud!