Reasons for getting a handgun over getting a taser?


PDA






Mark-Smith
September 7, 2011, 08:24 PM
A friend recently had her house broken into :what:, and she initially wanted to get her CCW license, but recently said she wanted to get a taser instead (guessing likely due to the cost of handguns and all the rigmarole that goes into getting a CCW license and such).

What are a few good arguments for a handgun over a taser? This is Texas, so it's a very gun and CCW friendly state.

If you enjoyed reading about "Reasons for getting a handgun over getting a taser?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jim K
September 7, 2011, 08:45 PM
One obvious one is that many states that allow concealed carry of a handgun (often with a permit) totally ban carrying of Tasers. Another is that IIRC, the only civilian-legal Taser is the kind you have to actually press against the body of the attacker; the kind that shoot barbed darts were declared an AOW by BATFE, I believe.

The advantages of a handgun are obvious. The disadvantage, from the gentler folks, is that a handgun will kill a person (duh!) where a Taser is generally considered a non-lethal weapon. (Actually several people die each year after being "tazed" - whether from the Taser itself or from its effect on an already existing weakness is the subject of much debate.)

The handgun allows effective defense at longer range - even 10 feet is too far for a hand-held Taser. And its effect is more serious, disabling or killing.

There is a school of thought, especially among women, that says, "I don't want to hurt the person, I just want to stop the attack." Unfortunately, there is no weapon today that is guaranteed to comply with both requirements. Even "non lethal" weapons can cause serious and lasting injury or death. A Taser will stop an attacker, but at the cost of allowing him/her to come within arm's length. At that distance, both a Taser and a handgun can easily be turned against the victim by the attacker.

Another advantage of a handgun is its psychological value; many times an attack has been stopped simply because the intended victim displayed a gun. I know of no case where display of a Taser (or other non-lethal weapon) has had a similar result.

Jim

Loosedhorse
September 7, 2011, 08:54 PM
What he said. MA is one of those states that will license (some) folks for CCW, but no one except LE can have electric stun devices.

There is also deterence to consider. If you HAVE to draw your gun, you MAY find that its presence suddenly causes the attacker(s) to run away, because they don't wan't to die.

What's the comparable deterence value of being perhaps stunned, versus being killed?

Especially if there are five attackers? Or if they have guns?

Bottom line: how many cops carry only a Taser, and no gun?

bigbomar4
September 7, 2011, 08:57 PM
Iv been hit with a civilian tazer and yes it hurt and it stopped me but I was able to stay on my feet. A few seconds after I, for the most part was just fine. Just imagine some drugged up junky he probably wouldnt even feel it.

I wasnt even in any kinda life or death situation to get the adrenaline going we were just a bunch of stupid college age kids playin with a tazer.

Old krow
September 7, 2011, 09:02 PM
What are a few good arguments for a handgun over a taser?

Multiple assailants and armed assailants.

In the case of a home break-in, even if they do enter the home armed, the kitchen is usually close by.

Purgatory
September 7, 2011, 09:03 PM
Especially if there are five attackers?


I think this is one of the most important considerations.

Even if there are only TWO attackers, you're in dire straits if you only have a stun gun or taser.

And, more and more, these days most attacks involve more than one assailant. Especially with the ever-growing gang problem.

smalls
September 7, 2011, 09:15 PM
It's illegal to carry a taser in most states, and even if you can carry the kind that "shoot" you've got one shot. What happens if you miss? You're SOL. they have a limited range, as well. I saw a video of a 6' 4 270 pound guy get tased, and he acted like a mosquito bit him. It just made him angry.
They do have their place, but I believe it's more LE minded. I don't think they have much use for the SD minded crowd. If a weapon is needed, a handgun is better suited.

David E
September 7, 2011, 09:22 PM
she initially wanted to get her CCW license, but recently said she wanted to get a taser instead (guessing likely due to the cost of handguns and all the rigmarole that goes into getting a CCW license and such).

Don't guess why, find out why.

It might be that she doesn't want to kill someone. If that's the case, encourage her to get the Taser along with pepper spray.

Arming people that don't have the resolve to "shoot to kill" is never a good idea.

(yeah, I know, "shoot to stop/center-mass,etc,etc,etc," but the bottom line is they could easily die because you shot them)

Strykervet
September 7, 2011, 09:27 PM
Jim nailed it but I'll add this:

Does she want to go hand to hand, or does she want to end the confrontation immediately?

A handgun will end it pretty fast --either through brandishing or through shooting. A stun gun? You got to get up close and use it right. The batteries have to be hot. If they have heavy clothes, it ain't gonna work anyway. To complicate it more, I've played around with one and I've had worse shocks from phone lines and structural wiring.

I'd rather have a knife. Or a baseball bat. Those are better hand to hand weapons, the taser is a police tool. If she doesn't think the knife or bat sound too appealing, then the taser certainly shouldn't.

She also doesn't need a CCW to have a firearm in the house. That is for public. Get a pistol, something reliable and simple. A used Glock would probably suffice and be the same price or less than a real taser. I use and carry one myself. Almost any decent revolver would be great also. Just keep it simple, and take her shooting so she can practice.

For people without previous firearms experience, it is best to have someone knowledgeable to hold their hand in the beginning. Since she can't spend time in the wading pool (like I did as a kid with my .22 and my shotgun) a simple striker fired pistol or a revolver and some range time will do the best. I think, that is my advice anyway.

Mark-Smith
September 7, 2011, 09:46 PM
Yeah, the 'you have to be within arm's reach of the badguy' and 'only good for one badguy at a time' strike me as the two best arguments for having a handgun over a taser.

Another concern she had apparently was 'it's harder to have a tragic accident with a taser'. Which is true, I suppose. Then again, it only takes a small amount of training to make a handgun a safe tool to carry around.

Bobson
September 7, 2011, 09:47 PM
If we're talking strictly home defense, as many seem to be doing, I think we're discussing two poor choices. A defense-style shotgun is the best choice.

If she's going to be carrying it, there are already several reasons why a handgun is better than a taser.

One drawback that may not have been considered is that if/when she uses a pistol to defend herself, and she kills an attacker, she will be put on trial for homicide. It's a simple fact of life. I'm not saying she'll go to prison - just that she'll be tried. Make sure she knows that, and is prepared to handle the stress of that situation, whether the use was justified or not. If she isn't prepared to deal with that, I'd strongly suggest the taser and the limitations that will go along with it.

Then again, it only takes a small amount of training to make a handgun a safe tool to carry around.
And I strongly disagree with that. A small amount of training creates a sense of proficiency that may or may not exist - more than likely, the latter.

Eb1
September 7, 2011, 09:55 PM
20 gauge pump with #3 Buckshot. 20 pellets of shot that penetrate as deep as nine 00 Buckshot from a 12 gauge.

Don't tase me, bro!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE

End of story.

tipoc
September 7, 2011, 10:00 PM
Then again, it only takes a small amount of training to make a handgun a safe tool to carry around.

I think this statement requires some thinking on. I'm not so sure that it is true.

Anyways...

What is this person's actual objection to a gun? Did she say?

tipoc

ZeSpectre
September 7, 2011, 10:26 PM
Personal experiences with Tasers and some thoughts about them.

Tasers have some strong pro points.

-"less lethal" and therefore more likely to actually be deployed by folks who would freeze if faced with actually shooting someone.

-No real risk of overpenetration.

-Generally cleaner (though if you tase someone in just the wrong(right?) way you are going to be cleaning up urine and possibly feces and vomit).

-Quiet, no hearing risks.

-Far less "social stigma" than self defense with a firearm.

However there are some serious limitations that must also be considered.

-Bulky/heavy clothing can defeat tasers (a serious consideration as we approach colder weather)

-Most civilian model tasers (that I'm aware of) are "single shot" devices. If there is more than one criminal things can get ugly fast.

-A lot of civilian models are CONTACT devices. The last thing you want to do if you have a choice is to get CLOSE with a criminal!

-Some people simply will not quit. You can tase and tase and tase until the battery runs out and they'll still keep getting back up and trying to come after you. Personally I would hate to go up against that type with just a taser.


Ultimately though it really comes down to what a person will actually use, what fits their mindset. Some people (my wife is one) really can't shoot someone. Police files are full of people who died with a gun in their hand but were unable to pull the trigger and harm another...some of them were even trained police officers!

Some people wouldn't ever train, or keep the training up. Again in that case a firearm is not really the best choice. This was the case with my wife and even though some of the alternatives are less capable than a firearm, for her they are a better choice because she would/could actually use them in a crunch.

Mark-Smith
September 7, 2011, 10:56 PM
And I strongly disagree with that. A small amount of training creates a sense of proficiency that may or may not exist - more than likely, the latter.

I'm a very risk-adverse person. So when I purchased my first handgun, after reading posts on THR for a year or so previous to that, I was fairly worried I'd screw something up and shoot myself.

As it turns out, it takes very little work to avoid shooting yourself if:

A.) You keep the gun pointed in the safest direction available.
B.) You don't touch the trigger till you're ready to shoot something, or let an object get in the way of the trigger.
C.) You load the gun with bullets and
D.) Keep it in a holster designed for that gun

That's all you need. In any self-defense situation where you'll do well in court afterward, there is precious little aiming required to hit a minute of bad guy at 10 ft or less. Point the end that goes bang at the bad guy and pull the trigger.

Compared to any other type of highly skilled labor / hobby / pursuit, this is an incredibly minimal amount of training to succeed.

Now if you're the sort that doesn't have much in the way of common sense, perhaps more training or not having a firearm is the better solution.

But THR, in general, tends to way over-estimate what it takes to succeed in a situation where you're not guaranteed to be dead from the beginning.

Carl N. Brown
September 7, 2011, 11:10 PM
What's the point of tasing in a burglar/home invasion situation? Tasing wears off. I am not qualified to handcuff a tasered home invader while he may be recovering. Or would I tase an attacker to have a few seconds to evacuate the premises before the BG recovers? I would give a burglar/home invader the option of him leaving or him putting me in fear of life or limb and him suffering the consequences. Besides, the only weapon covered on a Tennessee handgun carry permit is a handgun (or a rifle with loaded magazine no round in the chamber in a vehicle).

Rexster
September 8, 2011, 12:25 AM
A Taser is to be used, ideally, with another defender present who can go hands-on to secure the offender, or use deadly force, as the situation progresses. (This is part of the X-26 training program, for LEOs.) Once the current stops, the offender is able to resume his actions!

A Taser is LESS-lethal, not non-lethal. A private citizen who uses a Taser had better be prepared to deal with the liability issues, if an offender dies, in a situation which did not clearly merit deadly force. Large agencies have the protocols and resources for this, which includes legal counsel. How about a private citizen?

Tasers are effective about half the time, in my experience using them against live people. Tasing somebody is like grabbing a tiger by the tail!

Tasers require frequent testing and maintenance. They are complex! I am mandated to test-fire my issued Taser, without the dart cartridge in place, at the beginning of every shift. It is NOT usual for me to get an error message, instead of a successful firing, which means I have to remove the battery, count 30 seconds, replace the battery, and then see
if the error message has gone away.

These are just some random thoughts. I may have more to say later.

Bobson
September 8, 2011, 12:45 AM
As it turns out, it takes very little work to avoid shooting yourself if:

A.) You keep the gun pointed in the safest direction available.
B.) You don't touch the trigger till you're ready to shoot something, or let an object get in the way of the trigger.
C.) You load the gun with bullets and
D.) Keep it in a holster designed for that gun
There's a lot more to making a gun a safe tool than learning not to shoot yourself with your own firearm.

But THR, in general, tends to way over-estimate what it takes to succeed in a situation where you're not guaranteed to be dead from the beginning.
That's because THR is full of realists who would rather consider the worst-case situation than the best-case. That way, you're always as well-prepared as you can be. If you want to continue to train at the minimum standard, feel free. But don't call yourself proficient.

TreeDoc
September 8, 2011, 12:56 AM
Get a good security system, good dead bolts, outside lighting, Make your home a fortress. Get a dog, a big one. Install a "rape cage" for the bedroom (solid bar door that locks outside of your bedroom). If you don't have a sense of self preservation to buy a firearm, put as many barriers as you can between you and the possible threat. I have some of these things at my home, but also have a 870 12 guage for someone who is really determined.

Owen Sparks
September 8, 2011, 01:38 AM
A handgun is not the best choice fir home defense, especially for a non-shooter.
Get her a reliable 20GA shotgun.

Mark-Smith
September 8, 2011, 01:39 AM
There's a lot more to making a gun a safe tool than learning not to shoot yourself with your own firearm.

If we modify that to say 'to not shoot yourself or anything you don't intend on shooting', what else is there?

That's because THR is full of realists who would rather consider the worst-case situation than the best-case. That way, you're always as well-prepared as you can be. If you want to continue to train at the minimum standard, feel free. But don't call yourself proficient.

Who cares what you call yourself? I call myself alive. The rest matters little.

When it comes to rifles, I'm a certified NRA instructor and more than 'proficient'. But that really doesn't get me anything in a self-defense situation, mind you. Unless the bad guy is about a foot wide and 100 yards out or needs help understand what effect breathing control has on accuracy ;)

There's a delicate line to tread when representing guns to the people who have little exposure to them. You can't tread over unrealistic horror story after unrealistic horror story, or ones where the hero holds off an attacking mob.

Just tell 'em that any situation where your life or property is in immediate danger, having a gun helps you defend both to a greater degree than you could otherwise. Especially if the person in question is female. Guns are truly the great equalizer. You don't have to go into the military to learn how to effectively defend yourself. Nor do you have to take hundreds of hours of classes and drills. Not that they don't help - they certainly do - but 'point in direction of badguy and pull trigger' covers 95% of real world scenarios.

There's nothing wrong with working hard for the possibility of encountering something out of the remaining 5%, but it's bad to make it out like it's the norm, or that it's reasonable to expect it.

Twiki357
September 8, 2011, 02:48 AM
It sounds like her concern is a home intruder. If she is hesitent about a gun, for what ever reason, rather than a tazer (Or peper spray) I would suggest a can of wasp spray. It's not limited to the single use of a tazer and has longer range and duration than peper spray for multiply intruders. I'm partial to my 12 guage, but it's not for everyone.

Lawdawg45
September 8, 2011, 03:38 AM
"What are a few good arguments for a handgun over a taser?"

When my son (a police officer) was attacked 2 years ago, before shooting and killing the suspect he first Tased the attacker by department policy, and the suspect looked at my son and pulled the probes out with zero effect. There are actually YouTube videos instructing these thugs how to defeat a Taser strike by dropping and rolling on the ground, and I would never depend on Taser in a home invasion scenario.

LD45

sixgunner455
September 8, 2011, 03:42 AM
There is a lot to consider in this kind of situation.

Money. At first blush, it might seem that the weapon should be a shotgun if money is a concern. They can be had for very little when compared to other types of good weapons, are common, powerful, and versatile. However, I posit that if she has only enough money available to get one defensive tool, it should be a handgun, not a shotgun or tazer. If she needs a gun, a tazer doesn't qualify. If she needs to carry a gun at some point, the shotgun is out. Even if she thinks she'll only have it at home, there may easily and feasibly come a time when it is important that she be armed outside the home. It's very practical for her one weapon to be a handgun in that kind of instance. If she bought a shotgun, then she doesn't have that flexibility.

Mobility/maneuverability. A pistol can lie under a pillow, or under a book, and be run by one hand. If she has kids at home, especially little ones, it is much easier to navigate a house with a terrified child with a handgun rather than a long gun. Some will say, "Oh, that's a terrible idea, she should never do that, what if she had to shoot?! The kid will be deaf." Deaf beats dead, and it is very feasible that a small child will need to be corralled and herded to a safe area in an emergency. Answering the door with a handgun behind your leg is much more discreet than with a Benelli or Remington or Mossberg pump.

Proficiency. At bad-breath to bedroom range, how much proficiency is really needed? We can write of anecdotes all night talking both sides of this, but the upshot of it is, most of the time, we need to hit minute of bad guy at 15 feet or less. There was a WWII soldier who was assigned a mission behind enemy lines on very short notice. He had never fired a handgun, but a handgun was the only firearm he could practically take for this infiltration mission. He was given 2hrs of instruction, familiarization, and firing experience with his handgun. He successfully completed his mission, and during his exfil, was forced to shoot his way out of a bad spot. That was the second time he had ever fired the weapon. He killed two German soldiers, made it home, and died in bed many years later, an old, old man.

What is more needed than a professional level of facility and proficiency with the weapon is the attitude and willingness to use it to survive. If she has that, whether it is motivated by a healthy dose of fear, protectiveness towards her children, or whatever, then get her into a good handgun, teach her to use it (or pay someone else to), and she will be fine. If she doesn't, then ... something she is willing to consider using or doing is better than nothing, I suppose.

PabloJ
September 8, 2011, 07:46 AM
A friend recently had her house broken into :what:, and she initially wanted to get her CCW license, but recently said she wanted to get a taser instead (guessing likely due to the cost of handguns and all the rigmarole that goes into getting a CCW license and such).

What are a few good arguments for a handgun over a taser? This is Texas, so it's a very gun and CCW friendly state.
What are the chances there will be just one of them breaking in when homeowner is already in the house? I have two barrel set Winchester Model 12 3". It has been retired to HD duty with 26" IC barrel. I figure if I hit largest one in chest with load of #1 buck the rest will run away.

Madcap_Magician
September 8, 2011, 11:32 AM
One obvious one is that many states that allow concealed carry of a handgun (often with a permit) totally ban carrying of Tasers. Another is that IIRC, the only civilian-legal Taser is the kind you have to actually press against the body of the attacker; the kind that shoot barbed darts were declared an AOW by BATFE, I believe.


This is not accurate. Civilian model TASERs have a 15-foot range as opposed to the 26-foot range of their LE models, but both are capable of firing and drive-stunning.

MachIVshooter
September 8, 2011, 12:25 PM
One drawback that may not have been considered is that if/when she uses a pistol to defend herself, and she kills an attacker, she will be put on trial for homicide. It's a simple fact of life.

That simply isn't true.

She will be investigated, and it may be investigated as a homicide initially. But there is a lot of ground between "person of interest" or "suspect" and "defendant".

-Most states have some sort of "castle doctrine"; If she kills an attacker inside her home, it is very unlikely she will ever see the inside of a courtroom over the matter.

-If she shoots someone in public, it's just going to depend on the evidence or witnesses supporting that it was a self-defense shooting. Her being female gives her an initial advantage here (shouldn't, but does)

All that said, legal consequences are a distant secondary concern to survival.

As for the OP, taser vs. handgun-

Tasers can be highly effective, but under much more limited circumstances. They are best used by trained professionals, and are generally employed to subdue people who DO NOT present a deadly threat; LEO's who are faced with deadly threats still resort to deadly force most of the time.

Even dart & wire tasers have a very limited effective range, and both barbs have to find their mark. Easy to miss and heavy clothing renders them completely ineffective.

Even the best ranged taser only gives two shots; A subcompact handgun offers at least 5.

Ranged tasers are not cheap, costing upwards of $500 for good ones.

Tasers don't affect everyone, even with a good hit.

Tasers only temporarily incapacitate.

Multiple threats put the taser at an obvious disadvantage.

Obviously, the handgun isn't a talisman that will protect her effectively 100%, even if she does score hits. But it is decidedly more effective as a personal SD weapon.

sixgunner455
September 8, 2011, 01:51 PM
Killing someone is a homicide. If it's justifiable, i.e. self-defense, then there is usually no trial. There is usually an investigation, and perhaps even a grand jury is assembled to determine whether or not there should be a prosecution, but if it is determined to be justified, then no, there won't be a trial.

brickeyee
September 8, 2011, 02:54 PM
There is usually an investigation, and perhaps even a grand jury is assembled to determine whether or not there should be a prosecution, but if it is determined to be justified, then no, there won't be a trial.

Or a DA up for election next fall who wants to 'set an example' and then a trial goes forward.

A grand jury is rarely the only method of obtaining an indictment.

jimherb
September 8, 2011, 03:55 PM
The Probation Dept wanted us to try out tasers. We found that they could not penetrate the thick layers of clothing folks tend to wear during Chicago winters.

Pepper spray is a better alternative--can handle more than one assailant.

Firearm is best--unless you think the assailaint's life is worth more than yours.
Jim

Rexster
September 8, 2011, 03:56 PM
Do keep in mind that drive-stunning a bad guy is a VERY physically demanding action to perform, and is a pain-compliance technique, which does not involve the central nervous system, as is supposed to occur when the darts strike. If one dart strikes, no current will be conducted through the bad guy, unless the defender can manage to tough the bad guy with the device, which will complete the circuit, but the defender has to first CATCH the bad guy before he can rip the one dart free.

Another thing: Tasers are ideally used to target the large muscle groups in the back. The smaller muscle groups on the front of the body are not as effective targets. A lone defender, whether LEO or private citizen, is therefore not as well-served by a Taser. This is why most successful employments of Tasers by LEOs are by back-up officers, not the one facing the bad guy. Moreover, bad guys will not usually just stand there and let themselves be darted. In the private citizen context, this means a Taser is better for defending a third party, than self-defense.

Dr.Rob
September 8, 2011, 04:08 PM
I can't understand anyone wanting a taser (that has to remain in contact with a bad guy-- by wires or by actual contact) as a better defensive option over a handgun.

Us average joes and jills aren't arresting people and her primary concern was self defense IN her home? In Texas?

Both require training, one allows you to break contact and retreat.

ForumSurfer
September 8, 2011, 04:41 PM
My ex-girlfriend argued a similar argument when she testified against someone and was notified that the gentleman was being released form prison 10 years later.

My points that made her lean towards a firearm:

1. Tazers sometimes don't work. Sometimes the constellations align just right and the guy will rip the prongs out and keep coming.
2. What happens when you MISS? You only have one shot.
3. What happens when his partner walks in the door and finds his buddy incapacitated and tazed. You only have (had) one shot.
4. Civilians can't own tazers, so why are we discussing this? We can only have pepper sprays of varying effectiveness and some novelty like stun guns that require you to be in close proximity. The point of stopping an attacker is to get AWAY...not closer.

My current girlfriend has (had) a decent body contact tazing device. Her grandfather bought it for her. We were having a dinner table discussion about it one night and I brought up how those devices are worthless. Too big to carry anywhere but in your pocketbook where a fst draw is impossible, batteries could go dead, requires you to get close (you should be doing the opposite!?!) or whatever. What settled the discussion? I let my 12 year old zap me as I wrestled him to the ground and took it from him. No adrenaline rush, no drugs...just an average guy (5'10" 170 lbs) and the zapper couldn't stop me.

Everyone now agrees that they are useless in an attack. Tasers? Great if you are a cop and you can have one...but you still have a sidearm for when that taser isn't enough.

I guess I should have youtubed it so you can show her the video.

Cop Bob
September 8, 2011, 07:54 PM
Actually, citizens can own tazers in Texas, they just can't carry them... Cheaper than Dirt has a good selection of them in their showroom...

Con's
You can miss.. both leads have to strike and stick in the target..
They are expensive,, $450 and up, for the single shot models.. two shot models, hang on to your pocket book...
The cartridges are also very expensive... can't afford to practice with them..
They have to be charged and maintained..
I have seen suspects pull the leads out... and while they were weak, they were pissed! And when properly motivated, hard as heck to stop, amazing how fast they can recover!
They will work through heavy clothing, however their efficiency is diminished, greatly.. But the little blue sparks look cool in the rain...
little wires to get tangles up in and trip over... kidding, but there are wires...
Lacks the ability to engage multiple assailants, no follow up shots.. no second chance..

Poor Choice against an ARMED attacker... but not a real good option.. it's the age old "Continuum of Force" thing.. they use a fist, you use a tazer or a club, they use a club or a knife, you use a gun.... Un-written rule.. Never meet aggression with equal force.. if you are in a fare fight, your tactics suck, and you are most likely going to loose...

Pro's of a Taser,
Ah.. if you live through it.. it probably won't go to a Grand Jury.. unless he hits his head on your coffee table or nightstand as he falls, and suffers an open head wound and bleeds out why "doing the tuna" on your floor.
I'll have to think about the pro side some more,, I'll have to get back to you on that....


Someone mentioned Pepper Spray... OK for piece of mind, however only about 60% effective on hopped up, excited or "Motivated" suspects... however it is a proven fact, that they work 100% of the time on Policemen and bystanders... And the stuff gets EVERYWHERE... very, very irritating to the eyes and lungs,, in a closed in area, you most likely will be impaired yourself, and most likely slinging "Snot Ropes" for a while.. not fun... Hose down a suspect with pepper spray or other OC,, your not putting him in MY car...!! BTDT.. Got the Tee Shirt...

Pistols, Shotguns (I too like the 20ga option) at least one of sufficient caliber and bullet weight does not have a problem with heavy clothing.
Legal to own, AND Carry...
Ammunition, cheaper and plentiful.. and trips to the range can be fun
Don't have to keep a pistol on a charger... bullets don't use batteries...
They just work better, and EVERYBODY understands the universal language of a Shotgun Slide being racked.. it IS the loudest thing you can do in a dark room. Or a slide on a pistol coming home, or the hammer on a revolver cocking, (but I DO NOT CONDONE Single action use of a double action pistol) .. nobody mistakes it.. Or Yelling, I have a GUN, works better than I'm gonna shock you!!

Every stand off Tazer I have seen is equipped with a Laser... your/her pistol should as well.. it also does a lot of explaining for you.. I personally LOVE laser sights, the use of a laser has ended more potentially lethal encounters, with out a word being spoken.. it will cause the smoke to rise off of tennis shoe heals pretty quickly... And if it doesn't well, that's what the bullets are for..
And
Your in TEXAS, there is not a DA in this State that would charge and try a Woman, who defended herself and her home by shooting a burglar in her own home, and have a Preachers chance in hell of getting re-elected, and they know that... Public here wouldn't stand for it... Something about Women and Honor, the Code of the West and all that stuff... It would be political suicide...

Just me rambling on at the end of a long day...
Bob

Skribs
September 8, 2011, 11:06 PM
Just to point out the problem with tasers, I got a cheap contact one at Cabellas, rated at 10k volts. I know they go up over a million, but I just thought "this will be fun". My friend and I use it on each other all the time, and even a full second burst is barely more than a tickle. I'm sure if I held it on someone for several seconds it might do something.

Jim K
September 8, 2011, 11:41 PM
"One drawback that may not have been considered is that if/when she uses a pistol to defend herself, and she kills an attacker, she will be put on trial for homicide."

In context, the implication is that if she uses a shotgun, there will be no risk of a trial. That is simply not true even in states that have rigid pistol laws.

Nothing is predictable when DA's want to get re-elected, and police are sometimes corrupt, but it is rare for an innocent homeowner to be prosecuted, let alone indicted and tried for killing an intruder, regardless of the weapon used. Even the use of an unregistered handgun (where registration is required) will result in a charge of violating the registration law, not in a charge of murder. Often the shooter is not even arrested.

Self defense killing outside the home is another matter. The shooter will almost always be arrested, and held at least while the prosecutor decides whether to press charges. The ramifications are too complex to discuss here, but anyone carrying a gun should be aware of the legal risks; a CCW is not a "license to kill".

Jim

Bobson
September 9, 2011, 01:44 AM
One drawback that may not have been considered is that if/when she uses a pistol to defend herself, and she kills an attacker, she will be put on trial for homicide.That simply isn't true.

-Most states have some sort of "castle doctrine"; If she kills an attacker inside her home, it is very unlikely she will ever see the inside of a courtroom over the matter.
AZ has a castle doctrine, and AZ has some of the nation's most lenient gun laws. That being said, as a criminal justice and law student, I know for a fact that if you kill someone in this state, in your home or somewhere else, you're going to trial. Period.

Another student in my class was convicted of 2nd degree murder when he shot and killed a burglar inside his home. It happens, whether it should or not.

Refusing to give the truth to someone considering his or her first defensive gun is a cruel and enormous injustice.

ForumSurfer
September 9, 2011, 08:34 AM
Someone mentioned Pepper Spray... OK for piece of mind, however only about 60% effective on hopped up, excited or "Motivated" suspects... however it is a proven fact, that they work 100% of the time on Policemen and bystanders... And the stuff gets EVERYWHERE...

Another point I've tried to make to my girlfriend. The stuff is going to get the sprayer and the sprayee. I haven't let her mace me yet to get that point across, but I'm thinking that I should.

tipoc
September 9, 2011, 12:36 PM
Mark-Smith,

What was her objection to a gun?

You said that in response to the home of a friend of her's being broken into, not her house but a friends, she wanted to get her CCW. Now this implies she already has a gun but maybe not. She does not need a CCW to have a gun in her home for home defense purposes. She does need a CCW if she legally wants to carry a gun around for self defense purposes though. But that after some consideration she decided to carry a stun gun instead or a Taser for the house. So again, what exactly was her objection to the gun?

Now you are a certified NRA instructor in long guns but not in hand guns. But you are familiar with hand guns no doubt. You have spoken to her about all this. You may or may not have met people who are nervous around guns. Guns worry them. They are afraid of shooting the wrong person. Worried what will happen if they drop the gun. Worried that they will shoot themselves, etc. For such folks learning to handle a gun properly is not easy. It takes longer for them to feel confidant with a gun in their hand.

Not just for these folks mentioned above but for anyone who wants to carry a handgun range time is needed. Sure it's true that anyone can point and shoot a gun and maybe hit someone at ten feet (this is especially true if you are the attacker). But the element of wanting to hit someone and a good deal of luck may also be involved. Time spent practicing with the gun minimizes the element of luck. It helps the person gain confidence in that gun in their hands. So I think that to tell someone that it is quick and easy to learn how to handle a gun well enough to defend yourself from an attacker can be a bit misleading. Nope it does not involve thousands of hours and multiple visits to Thunder Ranch but it also ain't like screwing in a light bulb either.

tipoc

turkdc
September 9, 2011, 03:09 PM
They just work better, and EVERYBODY understands the universal language of a Shotgun Slide being racked.. it IS the loudest thing you can do in a dark room.

Actually, I can think of something louder than the sound of the shotgun being racked... Pulling the trigger...

Vern Humphrey
September 9, 2011, 03:49 PM
What are a few good arguments for a handgun over a taser?
Did you ever hear anybody say, "Sure as taserin'?"

Tasers don't always work -- there are cases of people continuing to attack after being tasered.

David E
September 9, 2011, 06:49 PM
People don't always stop after being shot, either.

Eb1
September 9, 2011, 07:10 PM
No, they don't, but the hole that a shotgun or bullet makes doesn't stop working after you let of the trigger.

Elm Creek Smith
September 9, 2011, 08:06 PM
Rodney King went down when he was tasered. Then he pulled out the prongs and got up to juggle cops. Just sayin'.

ECS

Mark-Smith
September 9, 2011, 10:59 PM
Guns worry them. They are afraid of shooting the wrong person. Worried what will happen if they drop the gun. Worried that they will shoot themselves, etc. For such folks learning to handle a gun properly is not easy. It takes longer for them to feel confidant with a gun in their hand.

Not just for these folks mentioned above but for anyone who wants to carry a handgun range time is needed. Sure it's true that anyone can point and shoot a gun and maybe hit someone at ten feet (this is especially true if you are the attacker). But the element of wanting to hit someone and a good deal of luck may also be involved. Time spent practicing with the gun minimizes the element of luck. It helps the person gain confidence in that gun in their hands. So I think that to tell someone that it is quick and easy to learn how to handle a gun well enough to defend yourself from an attacker can be a bit misleading. Nope it does not involve thousands of hours and multiple visits to Thunder Ranch but it also ain't like screwing in a light bulb either.

I'm not actually certain what she wants. She's my wife's co-worker, so all of this is actually second hand. At first it sounded like she wanted to have a gun to carry in case she came home to find her house broken into. Apparently she's only fired a handgun once or twice, and a shotgun, but hasn't had great experiences with either.

She told my wife that she was thinking about using beanbag rounds in a shotgun, but you might as well use buckshot, as beanbags are only less-lethal. She also worried about shooting someone and getting blood on her floor. :banghead: The wife told her that blood on the floor making a mess should be the least of her concerns!

You are very correct in saying that nervous people make mistakes, and I often take that for granted having grown up with a reasonable acquaintance with firearms.

When it comes to home defense, there isn't a lot of mechanical skill needed to point it in the right direction, but you're right, for some people, there might need to be a fair amount of drilling or familiarization before they find themselves not making stupid mistakes under stress.

I honestly don't know of a good way of helping people work on that, because a range is just shooting at paper targets that don't move. Once they get used to the noise, not much stress.

Unless they're the sort that view aggressive simulated house clearing with paintball guns as a fun weekend activity (and those types are rare!)

Bobson
September 10, 2011, 11:17 AM
...but you're right, for some people, there might need to be a fair amount of drilling or familiarization before they find themselves not making stupid mistakes under stress.
A lot of things you've said here and there have thrown off my idiot alarm, but this remark has put up every red flag I've got. I don't know if you're fresh out of mom's house, have been sheltered all your life, or if you've just got absolutely no common sense, but I strongly urge you to not talk about guns with anyone less knowledgeable than yourself.

Everyone makes "stupid mistakes" under stress, especially when trying to handle a gun or any other tool. That's the whole point of training. That's why cops and guys in combat jobs in the military aren't just given a gun and thrown into the fight. That's why interviews in fields where you're required to be armed consist of big panels of people interviewing you all by yourself. They know everyone makes stupid mistakes in stressful or uncomfortable situations, and they want to see how you'll react when you make one; not if you make one.

I don't know what your background consists of; or whether you carry a gun day in/day out, or if you just fire your guns a couple of times a year. What I do know is that you have way too arrogant and casual an attitude to be talking to anyone about the pros and cons of carrying a book of matches, much less any type of lethal weapon. I have no idea why people are even offering advice here. This entire thread should be closed before any more damage is done.

Cop Bob
September 10, 2011, 12:24 PM
Actually, I can think of something louder than the sound of the shotgun being racked... Pulling the trigger...


I meant BEFORE you did that...

I haven't let her mace me yet to get that point across, but I'm thinking that I should.

I really would NOT recommend that.. And I DO have the T-Shirt !!

Rodney King went down when he was tasered. Then he pulled out the prongs and got up to juggle cops. Just sayin'..

The Rodney King Incident, and the resulting LA Riots had and profound effect on LE nationwide... We all had to look at it pretty hard, my memory was blank on the time line so... a bit of research yielded.....The RK incident occurred on March 3,1991, that predates Tasers in my department by 5 or 6 years. The 1st Tasers purchased by LE that used a dart system were the 'Air Taser 3400" developed and released in 1994, the current generation of tazers in LE use were released in 1999. Prior to that, only thing that was available were hand held contact use versions. Nope, ole Rodney just took and old fashion beating.. (which was WRONG by the way..just sayin) But I have personally seen people pull the leads out and be just more than a little hard to handle...

tipoc
September 10, 2011, 01:10 PM
Just on the Rodney King bit...

A Taser, supplied by the manufacturer Tasertron to the LAPD, was used on King. It's "failure" was blamed on a faulty propellant charge. However, according to the wiki entry on this...

Sergeant Koon then ordered the officers to "stand clear." King was standing and was not responding to Koon's commands. Koon then fired a Taser into King's back. King groaned; momentarily fell to his knees; then stood back up and turned towards Koon. Koon fired the Taser again, knocking King to the ground.[13] Powell's arrest report states that the Taser "temporarily halt[ed] [Defendant King's] attack," and Solano stated that the Taser appeared to affect King at first because "the suspect shook and yelled for almost five seconds".[16]

The 4 officers then beat King for a number of minutes while he begged them to stop and tried to crawl away and protect his head. Over a dozen other officers from various agencies stood around and watched while this happened without intervening.

tipoc

moonpie
September 10, 2011, 01:38 PM
I'm a very risk-adverse person. So when I purchased my first handgun, after reading posts on THR for a year or so previous to that, I was fairly worried I'd screw something up and shoot myself.

As it turns out, it takes very little work to avoid shooting yourself if:

A.) You keep the gun pointed in the safest direction available.
B.) You don't touch the trigger till you're ready to shoot something, or let an object get in the way of the trigger.
C.) You load the gun with bullets and
D.) Keep it in a holster designed for that gun

That's all you need. In any self-defense situation where you'll do well in court afterward, there is precious little aiming required to hit a minute of bad guy at 10 ft or less. Point the end that goes bang at the bad guy and pull the trigger.

Compared to any other type of highly skilled labor / hobby / pursuit, this is an incredibly minimal amount of training to succeed.

Now if you're the sort that doesn't have much in the way of common sense, perhaps more training or not having a firearm is the better solution.

But THR, in general, tends to way over-estimate what it takes to succeed in a situation where you're not guaranteed to be dead from the beginning.first let me say that i have never been in any non recreational situation that required or was resolved by the use of firearms. i have however had a high stress , life threatening event involving a door. specifically the back door of my mobile home closest to my bedroom. i had used this door and others like it many times over the years and knew instinctively how they operated. i am not a professional but i have installed and repaired doors and their hardware on several occasions. i know how to open a door. nothing to it, just turn the knob and PRESTO you have a hole in the wall. right? well Easter week 1996 my black lab Colt woke me up to say that our trailer was on fire and she wanted to get out NOW. well my school fire drill training kicked in and i got low under the smoke where the good air was and made my way to the back door, the same door i had practiced with thousands of times, and reached for the knob and could not find it. turns out i was feeling around on the right side of the door and the knob was on the left. i was lucky that night , i lost everything i owned but the only damage i sustained was the hair that burned off my head and some nasty blisters on my hand from a hot door. do you want to know why i "tend to way over-estimate" ? it's because guns are a lot more complicated and dangerous than doors.

Bobson
September 10, 2011, 01:48 PM
Moonpie pretty much nailed it. This isn't a rare or uncommon example of a person handling stress poorly due to a lack of knowledge or experience. Stress does this to everybody. Saying that "some people will need training to deal with the stress of a situation" is totally ridiculous. Go get yourself in a situation where someone is actively trying to kill you, and let's hear how your calm reaction works out. See how long it takes you to replace bullets in an empty magazine. See how long it takes you to remedy a stovepipe while dodging bullets, with sweaty, shaking hands.

This isn't a law (here in AZ, at least), but I adamantly believe that if you haven't gone through a strict training class, you shouldn't be carrying a handgun. If you don't train, odds are, you'll do more harm than good. And when I saw train, I mean take (and pass) a tactical shooting course, and a refresher on a regular basis. Obviously lots of people will disagree, but that's how I feel.

Oxide
September 10, 2011, 02:19 PM
Couple thoughts.

1. You have to decide whether or not you want to be the victim or you want the other guy to be the victim. Everything is about surviving the attack these days, nothing is about prevailing. This lady needs explained to her that, unless she feels the need to WIN, she is ALREADY a victim in her mind.

2. Wasp spray, when used premeditatively, is a chemical weapon and is illegal. If you have cans of wasp spray by the bedside, and you aren't allergic to wasps or something, then that's pretty obvious what you are doing with it.

3. Killing someone in self defense is the easiest thing to recover from when the choices are brutal rape and mutilation, or death. Two reasons: 1. There's no physical harm to recover from, and 2: once you get past the guilt, you realized that a scumbag came after you, and you WON, and you kept yourself, and his future victims, safe.

4. Use the best tool for the job. Tasers, pepper spray, wasp spray; they're all much worse tools for the job than a good gun and someone trained to use it. You either make the commitment to defend yourself against attack, or you don't.

Mark-Smith
September 10, 2011, 02:22 PM
A lot of things you've said here and there have thrown off my idiot alarm, but this remark has put up every red flag I've got. I don't know if you're fresh out of mom's house, have been sheltered all your life, or if you've just got absolutely no common sense, but I strongly urge you to not talk about guns with anyone less knowledgeable than yourself.

Everyone makes "stupid mistakes" under stress, especially when trying to handle a gun or any other tool. That's the whole point of training. That's why cops and guys in combat jobs in the military aren't just given a gun and thrown into the fight. That's why interviews in fields where you're required to be armed consist of big panels of people interviewing you all by yourself. They know everyone makes stupid mistakes in stressful or uncomfortable situations, and they want to see how you'll react when you make one; not if you make one.

I don't know what your background consists of; or whether you carry a gun day in/day out, or if you just fire your guns a couple of times a year. What I do know is that you have way too arrogant and casual an attitude to be talking to anyone about the pros and cons of carrying a book of matches, much less any type of lethal weapon. I have no idea why people are even offering advice here. This entire thread should be closed before any more damage is done.

Hi there Mr. Authority on all things firearm related. You may wish to alter your tone slightly.

When I say "A fair amount of drilling to not make stupid mistakes" I mean 'Not shoot yourself under stress' and 'Not create a situation where your firearm becomes completely inoperable'. I don't mean fumbling rounds, or forgetting whether the safety is on or off, I mean somehow getting the gun to where the muzzle is pointed at yourself while you troubleshoot it.

Fumbling with getting it loaded, forgetting there isn't a round in the chamber, forgetting if the safety is off or on - those are just mistakes. Killing yourself or someone who isn't a bad guy is a stupid mistake (if it was reasonably avoidable), as is doing something to your weapon while in a stressful situation where it cannot be cleared or made operable short of having a gunsmith work on it.

When I say 'a fair amount of drilling', I don't mean 'practicing at the range three weekends a month and firing 200-500 rounds a month'. That should be a completely reasonable amount for anyone. I mean more than that. Like anything else, how many hours you log doing something and how productive those hours were has a lot to do with the success or failure of any pursuit. If you've logged a few thousand hours with firearms growing up vs someone who hasn't logged a single hour with one, the approach reasonable training for both will differ quite a bit.

I'm not certain if this is obvious, but those who are not in the military or police tend not to have large amounts of training for handling stressful situations. So you're not going to be able to apply that yardstick to the average civilian. Nor are they likely to get that level of training. Let's drop that line of argument where it stands.

Surprise surprise, most civilians are not the gung-ho THR types or former / current military / police members. They still have a right to survival and to defend their lives against others. They have limits as to what they'll do as far as practicing and drilling, and you have to work within that. You can't just say 'thirteen weeks of boot camp or you're a loser that shouldn't have a firearm'.

Nor can you expect the average Joe or Jane to drill endlessly, doing house clearing drills, active shooter, what have you. I'm not saying one should tolerate mediocrity, just that the real world is a bit different from the world you seem to envision.

Perhaps you hold different views than mine. If you think mine are so dangerous that the thread needs to be closed, I worry that the next thing you'll be stating is that only certain people should have guns, or that some books should be burned in a fire.

I can peacefully debate with others, and hopefully learn from them - can you do the same?

Steve C
September 10, 2011, 02:51 PM
The OP's friend like many people is reacting to an event (home break in) and her desire to obtain some means of self defense is to satisfy her current feelings of helplessness and the emotions generated from the event. It doesn't matter if she gets a gun or a taser because the issue isn't about a real threat to her person and self defense, it is about her psychological need to regain the feeling of some control and power in her life and the feeling that either a Taser or a firearm will provide of having some means to maintain that control.

A firearm is a more effective method of dealing with an attack but the reality is as the event fades the likelihood that a firearm or Taser will be carried for defense outside the home will diminish. The likelihood of her ever actually needing either is relatively small unless there are additional risk factors like a high crime neighborhood, association with criminal elements, bad relationships, etc.

Most logical response to a break in would be to increase the home security, get a dog along with her choice of self defense method. Get some information on threat assessment and self defense either through a class or reading. A weapon regardless of capability does you no good if you are not alert to an intrusion or threat. The best personal security is awareness and avoidance.

Bobson
September 10, 2011, 03:08 PM
Perhaps you hold different views than mine. If you think mine are so dangerous that the thread needs to be closed, I worry that the next thing you'll be stating is that only certain people should have guns, or that some books should be burned in a fire.
That's the most ridiculous comparison I've ever heard. And I have no problem debating with people and learning from them. But you're right, only certain people should own guns. Only a fool would disagree without thinking it through.

Take care, hope your friend doesn't kill herself or someone else because of the poor advice, lack of truth, and disregard for education given to her by you.

Mark-Smith
September 10, 2011, 03:14 PM
That's the most ridiculous comparison I've ever heard. I have no problem debating with people and learning from them. My problem is debating an issue with someone who thinks everyone should own a gun, and nobody should have the truth regarding the weight of that decision to own one.

Take care, hope your friend doesn't kill herself or someone else because of the poor advice, lack of truth, and disregard for education given to her by you.

I don't think everyone should own a gun - that's up to the individual. Everyone should have the right to a gun.

If you hold that everyone has the right to a firearm, you can't place yourself in a position of authority as to who shouldn't have one. The only exception I can imagine is restrictions on violent criminals.

I actually haven't said a word to anyone yet, so no need to worry about the quality of advice ;)

That's why I come to THR - to see what those around me who happen to be familiar with firearms think.

I am curious though - let's start off at the beginning - what advice is poor, what is a lie and what is a disregard for education?

Bobson
September 10, 2011, 03:31 PM
I don't even think everyone should have the right to own a gun. Guns are great. Not all people are. Some are just plain bad. Others are irresponsible. Others aren't sane. Others are immature.

There are a huge number of people who should never have the right to own a gun, many of which I didn't even mention. I don't want to get into it though. Take care, and good luck.

Mark-Smith
September 10, 2011, 03:34 PM
I don't even think everyone should have the right to own a gun. Guns are great. Not all people are. Some are just plain bad. Others are irresponsible. Others aren't sane. Others are immature.

There are a huge number of people who should never have the right to own a gun. I don't want to get into it though. Take care, and good luck.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree then. I do appreciate the desire to give good advice.

tipoc
September 10, 2011, 03:59 PM
Mark-Smith,

In post number 46 you go over some more of her thinking. From what you say she is pretty adverse to the idea of using deadly force, at least in the form of a firearm. Over time she may change her mind or not. I've known a number of people like this over the years. You can maybe talk some of them into something but if their mind is against it the concept won't hold.

I encourage them to take a self defense course or courses geared to defense against violent attack. There are many such courses available. She does not need to set out to be a Kung Fu master or any thing along that line just a few classes to get her mind opened some and learn a few techniques she can practice with others. This is often a gateway to more study and training for some. Very useful for men and women, the latter particularly in building confidence.

Tasers, hand held stun guns, bear spray, a baseball bat, etc. can all be useful tools and are relied on by many who can't come to the use of deadly force. Some don't realize how deadly a baseball bat can be actually. They will come to some things in their own time or not.

You may want to draw her attention to this site...

www.corneredcat.com

tipoc

Mark-Smith
September 10, 2011, 04:12 PM
Mark-Smith,

In post number 46 you go over some more of her thinking. From what you say she is pretty adverse to the idea of using deadly force, at least in the form of a firearm. Over time she may change her mind or not. I've known a number of people like this over the years. You can maybe talk some of them into something but if their mind is against it the concept won't hold.

I encourage them to take a self defense course or courses geared to defense against violent attack. There are many such courses available. She does not need to set out to be a Kung Fu master or any thing along that line just a few classes to get her mind opened some and learn a few techniques she can practice with others. This is often a gateway to more study and training for some. Very useful for men and women, the latter particularly in building confidence.

Tasers, hand held stun guns, bear spray, a baseball bat, etc. can all be useful tools and are relied on by many who can't come to the use of deadly force. Some don't realize how deadly a baseball bat can be actually. They will come to some things in their own time or not.

You may want to draw her attention to this site...

www.corneredcat.com

tipoc

Appreciate the reply tipoc,

I must admit I'm a bit stymied as to what to say to someone who really wants to fend off a burglar, or be prepared to, but can't stand the thought of violence. Bit outside of my standard sphere of acquaintance, you might say.

The corneredcat website seems to be a really good resource, appreciate the link greatly.

I feel badly about someone looking for help in defending themselves that doesn't quite know what to do, but honestly, I'm not sure what I can say to help anything. If they're leery of guns and worry more about getting a floor messy with blood than surviving an encounter with an intruder, I must admit I'm at a loss as to what to say.

I worry that preaching about X will just turn the person off to X. On the other hand, they're a good acquaintance and if they need help, I don't want to say nothing you know?

Panzercat
September 10, 2011, 10:31 PM
Iv been hit with a civilian tazer and yes it hurt and it stopped me but I was able to stay on my feet. A few seconds after I, for the most part was just fine. Just imagine some drugged up junky he probably wouldnt even feel it.

I wasnt even in any kinda life or death situation to get the adrenaline going we were just a bunch of stupid college age kids playin with a tazer.
Good stunguns don't work on pain. They work on the rapid dump of muscle energy through electrically induced twitching, effectively paralyzing the attacker. It's the short bursts/low voltage/half charged batteries that are ineffective pain inducers.

Playing devils advocate, consider a stun baton (http://www.google.com/search?q=stun+baton&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Zka&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=hxxsTp2qMseksQKp0JjPBA&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CDkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=615). Normally the entire length of the baton is charged, not only giving you some measure of stand off range, but making it harder to disarm you by a simple hand grab. Anybody grabbing any length of the baton gets zapped.

All that said, a hand gun is the preferred deterrent since it lets the badguy know there is only one outcome to their continued aggression; moral dilemmas aside.

StrutStopper
September 10, 2011, 11:17 PM
Tasers are totally illegal in this state. So are stun guns. Handguns are not. Getting a CCW permit is another story, still working on it.

Ducman69
September 11, 2011, 02:42 AM
The "best" taser that I'm aware of is the Taser X3, however, I'm not even sure if its for sale to civilians yet, its quite bulky, and you're still limited to three shots which a thick jacket can defeat with next to no intimidation power.

So until much "less lethal" no longer means much "less effective", I'll continue to choose the most effective tools at my disposal.

I do know individuals that for moral reasons would rather die themselves than kill another, and for them tasers are the next best thing IMO followed by pepper spray.

If you enjoyed reading about "Reasons for getting a handgun over getting a taser?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!