Handgun vs taser.

Now that tasers are legal for citizens to carry in Michigan, can anyone think of a situation carrying a taser would be better than a pistol?

-If you have a lot of friends armed with pistols with you at the time.

-If you are playing a cooperative video game with a friend and want to have a way to punish each other when one fails. (Made much less boring if you are both experts at said game).

When you are the owner of the Taser company.

Only if you were allowed to carry a Taser into places where handguns are banned. But with the new Michigan law, you are prohibited from carrying a Taser in the same places you are prohibited from carrying a firearm.

nope

Boyfriend crawling out of your daughter's window at 2 am ? ;)

None that I can think of...

Instead of? No
Along with? Yes

Instead of? No
Along with? Yes
I can't agree. When under pressure you can grab the wrong one and do something you didn't intend on doing. It happened recently with a trained police officer. He thought he drew his taser but actually drew his service weapon and shot someone...

I can't agree. When under pressure you can grab the wrong one and do something you didn't intend on doing. It happened recently with a trained police officer. He thought he drew his taser but actually drew his service weapon and shot someone...
I''m afraid that I never bought that story at the time that it was published. A trained professional (or even amateur) should have no problem discerning the difference even under extreme circumstances.

Several thoughts: Yes, if I'm going some place where the taser is technically allowed but the sidearm is not.

As a non-LEO citizen going about my daily business? No.

With no duty to enforce laws or apprehend suspects, the only circumstances under which I may draw and use either one are when I have a reasonable belief that I (or those in my care) are facing immediate death, grevious injury, (or a handfull of other very serious felonies).

If that is the case, I'm facing a situation that may only be solvable with a firearm. I may need to take multiple shots, I may need to engage more than one threat, I may need to engage a target that a taser cannot penetrate or effectively hit. If my situation is such that I am likely to be found legally justified for using a taser, that situation would also justify the use of a firearm, and a firearm is more likely to end the threat(s).

Tasers are great for people trained to detain someone, those same people who have backup by their side in case said taser fails. I'm not. If I need a weapon, it is because I'm facing an immediate threat on my life, not because I have a suspect needing to be detained. I don't care to draw a weapon with no follow up shot potential. If I felt comfortable in having only one single shot, I'd be carrying a 308 thompson contender. If you ask me, a good pepper spray makes a far better non-lethal option for us regular folk.

Yes. No one is going to give you hassles if you taser a guy in the back trying to steal you car/hifi of climb through a window.

Forumsurfer is right, they are excellent tools that should be used for detaining someone.

I don't ever plan on detaining anyone, so I have no use for one. They don't work that great, anyway. Ask me how I know.

Maybe places that are posted "No Firearms" would be the only situation I could think of.
If you only have a Taser and there is more than one assailant..You are up the proverbial 'Poop Creek' without a paddle.

Let me preface this by saying I don't personally carry a taser going about my normal business, but these are some thoughts some might not have considered.

On the subject of being tasers being used to detain someone. The civilian model tasers to work a little different than police tasers. The police taser gives the subject a 5 second cycle meant to give the officer time to handcuff them. The civilian model gives a 30 second cycle, meant for the victim to deploy the taser, drop it on the ground, and run away before the attacker regains full mobility. Frm what I understand, they will even replace it for free if you have to use it it in self defense.

Also, consider that not all impending attacks will justify deadly force in the eyes of a court. It may be that you are simply attacked by an unarmed person. Let's take the extreme variables out of the situation such as size difference and number of attackers and just assume you are equally matched to your attacker. As much as we can convince ourselves that the attacker is capable of, and intending to kill us, the justice system will often not agree. A taser will most certainly be considered acceptable in this situation where a firearm may land you in prison.

I realize there are many different way that situation can go but there's nothing wrong with having options. Remember the saying that if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

I'm not suggesting that anyone carry a taser without adequate training, but I don't recommend carrying a firearm without training either. The "trained police officer" comparison is a compelling argument, but also remember that even police officers regularly make dumb mistakes that don't necessarily relate to the difficulty of the task they were trying to perform.

There are many of you who have already made up your minds on the subject and I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. I just wanted to share some thoughts for those who are undecided.

I''m afraid that I never bought that story at the time that it was published. A trained professional (or even amateur) should have no problem discerning the difference even under extreme circumstances.

Don't count on it. I used to work as an armed guard, and while some of us may have "looked" professional, most of us were not. The training we had was laughable, pretty much ran us through the armed guard cert. class, which basically told us what we could and couldn't do legally, gave us a brief lesson on use of force, made us shoot 50 rounds into a target, shook our hand and that was it. many of us carried tasers along with our side arms. One guy got really lucky he missed when he deployed his taser, because it was not justified. Most of them were back stabbing, drama loving, wannabe cops, that would or could never cut it as a real LEO, generally speaking a JOKE. These were all people I wouldn't trust with a rolled up newspaper, much less a taser or firearm. I DEFINITELY could see one of these individuals mistakenly deploying a side arm instead of a taser.
I couldn't stand being around those hacks for very long. I did it for six months and redirected my life.

Instead of? No
Along with? Yes
-----------------------
I can't agree. When under pressure you can grab the wrong one and do something you didn't intend on doing.

Also, if I carried both and ended up having to use my gun (intentionally) in self-defense, I'd be worried that some prosecutor or judge or civil lawyer would try to make the case that I should've/could've used my taser instead of my gun. Same with pepper spray.

That might make me hesitate while trying to decide whether I should use my gun or my taser against an assailant...when seconds count. I'll opt for carrying just the gun.

But I can think of a good reason to carry a taser instead of a gun - if you're a little old lady who hates guns. Or an Amish guy or something. I'm not advocating this point of view, but people DO have the right to hate guns if they want to, yet still protect themselves.

I'm not advocating this point of view, but people DO have the right to hate guns if they want to, yet still protect themselves.
A baseball bat comes to mind! :p

But I can think of a good reason to carry a taser instead of a gun - if you're a little old lady who hates guns. Or an Amish guy or something. I'm not advocating this point of view, but people DO have the right to hate guns if they want to, yet still protect themselves.

That is their problem, and they are welcome to it, and to not bothering me with it.
As for the person who chooses not to use a single tool for fear of it, they usually have an issue with the entire category, so they are going to use less than lethal??? when they have a problem with violence.

Remind me not to hang with them, that's how you die, there will be hesitation, there will be a lack of proper response, even if they have the weapon, most likely thew will CHOOSE not to use it.

The things is, Tasers are not a replacement for deadly force. They're an alternative to hands-on techniques and other weapons like batons, sap gloves, blackjacks, etc. That's the mistake a lot of people make. They see Taser use as an alternative to shooting someone. It's not. It's meant for obtaining control of a person while taking them into custody. They're far better than just hitting someone with a hard object until they hurt so much they stop fighting back. That's the great thing about Tasers in law enforcement. They can be used instead of blunt force trauma when controlling a combative or uncooperative subject. It's far safer than the old blackjack for all involved.

But for civilians, there is no taking into custody. There is no force continuum. Police are obligated to close in with, and get hands on with people knowing that it's not a deadly force situation. Civilians are not. For civilians, you either avoid the situation entirely, escape, or use deadly force. It's a "don't fight at all/use deadly force" toss up. So tools that are designed to be that in-between level of force where you are justified in fighting someone, but not justified in shooting them don't really have a place for the average CCW carrier.

Now, they should absolutely be legal for everyone. In America "because I want to" is all the reason we should need to own one. That's called liberty. But the practical use of a Taser is in situations where fighting and subduing are necessary, but defending your life is not. A common situation for police, very rare for civilians. I'd stick with a gun.


There are also many practical shortcomings to civilian carry of a Taser. Police have duty belts, with other tools, and most importantly: backup. Fire the Taser, the prongs miss, you can either switch to your OC, baton, or even pistol. Or a backup officer can use his Taser. Police have lots of options so that when a Taser fails, it's not their only chance to act. Civilians rarely are so lucky or well equipped. If you are being assaulted and pull your Taser, you're on your own. You miss, or the prongs don't set in, you're probably screwed. And you don't usually have backup there to help you out when you're Taser fails. For civilian force encounters, it's usually a "Nothing is happening............. defend yourself NOW!" situation. You're gonna want your most effective tool ready to go. You probably won't get to look back and think "I wish I would have drawn my pistol instead. Better luck next time".
!"

I kinda look at the TASER like a little .25 ACP pocket pistol. It might kill the person you use it on but most likely it won't. And I believe the "rules of engagement" for TASERs is the same as that for guns. Do you really want to use such an inefficient method of lethal force when you have so many better options?

If you want less lethal then carry pepper spray, otherwise stay with a gun.

Here in Michigan TASERs can only be carried by people with CPLs and they cannot e carried in any of the pistol free zones so that completely negates any benefit of the TASER not being a gun.

Little .25
one of them (well actually 3 walthers .25)
'Liquidated' the polish officer core
and that is though to be the most murders done personally by ONE man

if it is between gun and taser, where rules of engagement are the same, and the same carry laws apply to both, is there really ANY compelling argument for carrying one?

Even a small .25 would be better. Similar effective range, low recoil, and the ability (even if on an off chance) to fully incapacitate an attacker permanently. The last statement cannot be made of the taser.

Force continuum when you may not have to shoot, but you do have to defend yourself.

Where you can't carry a handgun legally.

But I can think of a good reason to carry a taser instead of a gun - if you're a little old lady who hates guns. Or an Amish guy or something. I'm not advocating this point of view, but people DO have the right to hate guns if they want to, yet still protect themselves.

----------------
Remind me not to hang with them, that's how you die, there will be hesitation, there will be a lack of proper response, even if they have the weapon, most likely thew will CHOOSE not to use it.
__________________


Okay, Shadow is not to hang with old ladies or the Amish. Got it.



Anti gun people seem insistent on turning THEIR viewpoint on firearms into the WORLD'S viewpoint on firearms.

I Just don't want to do that same number on people who don't like guns. If they feel safe carrying a taser, let 'em do it. Yes, I think it's sort of a false sense of security, but let 'em do it.

Where you can't carry a handgun legally.

As far as the OP(and anyone else in MI) is concerned that point is moot. TASERs are subject to the handgun free zones here in Michigan.

Little .25
one of them (well actually 3 walthers .25)
'Liquidated' the polish officer core
and that is though to be the most murders done personally by ONE man


One of the more powerful air guns could have handled that gruesome task just as well. A butcher's weapon isn't necessarily a good self defense weapon.

Jim nice job editing
as I don't know any Amish (and actually, it takes MORE guts to be a TRUE pacifist, as in knowingly choose it, fully understanding the consequences than, than fight)

and the little old ladies I hang with are quick to point out that they didn't get that way by being stupid (and most pack BTW)

That said, I tend to avoid the ignorant, I have little patience for them and they tend to do thing I think stupid and unsafe. Sadly most are that way by choice.

I'd say, depends on the taser. I recently bought my wife a Taser brand C-2. She is a nurse and pepper spray chemicals are not allowed in her hospital. The C-2 has decent range and the ability to take out more than one person at the same time. One with the dart, another with contact with the taser head. The taser head works if you miss too. It has a laser aiming tool as well. The needles do not have to actually penetrate the skin, meaning they arc through clothing, a big advantage. After firing into the perp, the procedure is to lay the handle piece down, it will continue to shock the bad guy while the "victim" escapes.

Another advantage of the C-2 is it looks more like a cell phone when carried than a gun. Hers is yellow, and carried in her crossed arms at the ready when going from the parking deck into work.

Many people would hesitate to actually take a life with a firearm, but not jolt them with a taser.

In my agency, the TASER is considered an INTERIM FORCE weapon, less than a gun, but more than bare hands.

It is considered more threatening than pepper spray, which my agency issues and considers the spray as a compliance device. I refuse to carry the spray as it has proven to be ineffective against some individuals and can come back on you. The theory is that pepper spray is less harmful.

I like the TASER as sort of a longer range baton, but you cannot take it into a gun fight and if the threat is serious enough to use it for a NON LEO, then the threat is serious enough to use a handgun which has longer range, more shots and more reliable stopping power.

I would choose a TASER in preference to pepper spray any day, but will not give up my handgun or ASP baton.

Jim

I can't agree. When under pressure you can grab the wrong one and do something you didn't intend on doing. It happened recently with a trained police officer. He thought he drew his taser but actually drew his service weapon and shot someone...
I''m afraid that I never bought that story at the time that it was published. A trained professional (or even amateur) should have no problem discerning the difference even under extreme circumstances.
It's not at all uncommon for people under stress to have extreme tunnel vision -- the cop reached for something at waist level, that had a grip and a trigger. The problem is in the design of the taser -- it's too much like a gun.

I say this haveing worked for many years in the military training business, where understanding and dealing with stress is part of the job. In military simulations, we often have to distort reality to make things look and feel like they do under stress. A good example is the aircraft carrier image used for flight simulators -- it's much narrower and longer than the actual carrier, because that's what the pilots see when they come in for a landing.

I personally think that a TASER has a great civilian application. To start with it, the TASER is NOT considered deadly force. It is useable in a wide variety of situations where a firearm would NOT be justified. Drunk rowdy, road rage, mugging etc. all situations where deadly force is not necessarily justified but where the TASER might be employed with much less legal wrangling.

It is another tool, much like one's empty hand, blunt, edged, and projectile tools.

-Jenrick

^ +100000 to what he said.

Sometimes you might want to choose a non-lethal option until you really need to use your firearm. Not all situations require a gun; I'm all for the use of firearms and don't even own any non-lethal devices but I can see their purpose if you don't want to kill someone and only incapacitate them.



That is their problem, and they are welcome to it, and to not bothering me with it.
As for the person who chooses not to use a single tool for fear of it, they usually have an issue with the entire category, so they are going to use less than lethal??? when they have a problem with violence.

Remind me not to hang with them, that's how you die, there will be hesitation, there will be a lack of proper response, even if they have the weapon, most likely thew will CHOOSE not to use it.

Unfortunately some of these "people" may be your close friends or family. Will you still not hang with them or protect them if the case arises???

For example my younger brother (mid-20's) does not like firearms but he knows I own a few and CC also. Just because they don't like firearms doesn't mean they're on their own. I would still protect him with my firearms if the need arises.

What if the person who dislikes firearms is your mother, gf, or fiance? Sometimes a Taser could be a logical alternative. Just sayin...

Um, that's kinda, well ignorant
as you DON'T NEED TO DETAIN
and shooting the guy with a tazer, hitting upside the head with a baseball bat, or shovel
when you had a clear path to disengage and go, well

ADEE
It is nice to have a force continuum, tazer require training, besides your usual pistol training, you also will require the time to drop it, then draw, all while the BG advances on you.

If deadly force wasn't justified, they why did you shoot the guy with a tazer^^^?

^

Unfortunately some of these "people" may be your close friends or family. Will you still not hang with them or protect them if the case arises???

For example my younger brother (mid-20's) does not like firearms but he knows I own a few and CC also. Just because they don't like firearms doesn't mean they're on their own. I would still protect him with my firearms if the need arises.

What if the person who dislikes firearms is your mother, gf, or fiance? Sometimes a Taser could be a logical alternative. Just sayin...


Would you trust him to defend you with a Tazer?
what are his views on violence used as SD

the first step is MINDSET - is there a WILL, and this I find lacking in 99% of those who 'dislike guns'

ask them, what will you do if you are attacked, the usual response is 'Uhhh....' 'because that will never happen to me'

this mindset is dangerous, and relying on someone with such a mindset is dangerous, I also would be VERY leery of defending them, as they are ask likely or more to hinder your defense of you and yours as to help.

Nope and I don't intend on getting one either. If there is ever a situation where use of force would be justified then my sidearm will suffice. I do not intend on having to explain to some lawyer why I didn't use my Taser instead of my sidearm in a SD situation. I have no intention of being second guessed by some attorney playing armchair quarterback.

What do i tell my 70 year old mother then? She told me she could not shoot someone. We have been talking about taser or pepper spray. I don't know she is afraid of the weapons I have here now, I want her to be able to at least give herself a chance if she is here alone. I moved here to take care of her and I live with her. If i'm home it's a non-issue. Ifigured she could keep a taser on the end table next to her chair. We're both here at night so I'll handle that responsibility. What would y'all do?

Would you trust him to defend you with a Tazer?
what are his views on violence used as SD

the first step is MINDSET - is there a WILL, and this I find lacking in 99% of those who 'dislike guns'

ask them, what will you do if you are attacked, the usual response is 'Uhhh....' 'because that will never happen to me'

this mindset is dangerous, and relying on someone with such a mindset is dangerous, I also would be VERY leery of defending them, as they are ask likely or more to hinder your defense of you and yours as to help.

Obviously I already have firearms so I don't need them to defend me with a Taser :D

Its their personal choice, and we cannot force our beliefs on them. I still would not leave them out to hang and be defenseless, which is the impression i'm getting from you.

Very leery on defending them? Not really. I don't mind and would not hesistate to defend a loved one. A stranger is a different story.

While a taser is a step up from nothing (but only if you don't have any fighting training), I'm not going to ever carry one nor reccomend one. Too many times, they simply fail. The guy doesn't have to be of super human size and hopped up on meth...I've seen a 140-150 lb skinny kid take a taser shot with all the prongs sticking in him...skinny kid wearing just a t-shirt. He proceeded to advance on the officer and beat the snot out of him until other people and a second officer jumped in. Even when used properly and a law enforcement grade unit, some people's mind and body just react differently and they may not work.


Here we have a taser that failed to work on a nearly 50 year old man...who proceed to injure a few officers AFTER being tased. Events like this are definitely not few and far between.

http://www2.nbc17.com/news/2011/dec/29/2/police-identify-man-tased-fayetteville-bus-station-ar-1761639/

NO!!!

Those who will not do for themselves should not expect me to do for them
I will defend me and mine
You, well, you may get a benefit as a side effect of that, but don't expect me to intercede on your behalf, I'll be as best a witness as I can, I will be protecting mine, most likely focused on ADEE.
IF you are not inside my circle, you are outside. My priorities are me and my family. What benefit do I get from putting myself needlessly in harms way, I'm injured, I'm killed and it's not me who suffers, it's MY FAMILY.

If you refuse violence, you are a grown adult, whom has made the decision, it is not for me to go against your wishes, and if your wishes are for others to stick up for you, it also is not on me to fulfill them.

my nephews soccer game. angry dad went nuts and started punching another dad and wouldnt stop. (second hand info. i wasn't there) i'd prefer a tazer in that situation.

you taz the wrong guy
guy you taz presses charges and sues claiming you were acting in concert
guy sues you claiming grievous harm came to him when YOU rendered him unable to defend himself

Cops come and you get treated *less than gently* when you are put down as you are 'holding a gun like device'

Tell me, what is the upside of intervening personally I'd be calling the cop, and making sure my kids are safe.

what is the upside of intervening

Being able to sleep better at night knowing you retained your humanity by maybe helping save a life.

+1 Ragnar

Because a family member of our then-chief held much stock in the Taser corporation, we were one of the first big agencies to adopt to X26. We were, and still are, mandated to wear these gadgets, even though the circumstances under which we are allowed to deploy them has narrowed so as to make them mostly useless.

The first issue is reliability. I am now carrying my third or fourth issued Taser. We test-fire our Tasers daily, by policy, without a dart cartridge in place. (Regular test-firing keeps the capacitor charged.) Every week or two, I get an error message instead of a firing, and must remove the battery, wait 30 seconds, re-insert the battery, wait for the unit to boot up, and then fire it. This is a 10% to 20% failure-to-fire rate. Be ready for Plan B, folks!

My previous Taser would fail-to-fire more often. 80% to 90%! They finally issued me
another.

Then, there is the success rate against bad guys. If both darts do not hit, they will not be incapacitated, though a psychological stop, i.e., surrender, can happen. When the darts both hit, I would estimate the incapacitation rate to be somewhat better than 50-50. Better have a Plan B!

When incapacitation occurs due to current being conducted subsequent to darts hitting, keep in mind that when the current stops, the subject IS able to resume previous activity immediately, if they so choose. Be ready! The Taser does NOT induce unconsciousness, as implied by so many TV and movie plot lines.

I am allowed to carry my issued Taser concealed, off the clock, but I do not. Of course, the silly restrictions on deployment apply to me 24/7, whether it is the PD's Taser or mine, so it is pointless for me to carry one, anyway. After I retire, and am only restricted by law and common sense, will I carry one of the newer, more compact Tasers? Perhaps, some of the time, though I would want to know more about reliability. The X26 is a team weapon; if one fails, another can be tried.

No. I don't mess with varying degrees of force. If deadly force is not justified, I don't use force.

I would just like to know what the opinion would be of people that have used a firearm to kill another human being before. Especially up close and personal like a self defence situations normally are.

I that person had to chance to do it over again. Would have liked the option to use a tazer to neutralise the threat.

Most of those who have done so prefer to not speak of it.

That is exactly my point. Killing another person is bad enough but in a civilian situation even worse.
How many here have seen someone die from a violent death. See the light drain from their eyes?
If someone treatens anyone in my family I have no problem defending them with every thing I have. But if I can get out f there without have to go to the extreme of killing another person then it is good.
If you are carrying firearm for selfdefence you better go through that mental situation of actually taking a life. It is VERY BIG deal. It is not like it is on screen.

What is it you have read in here that makes you think we don't understand this?

Just disregard my comments then. Just trying to add something to forum.

Apologies to everyone.

cheers.

is anyone else getting an "if i can't kill them, i don't wanna play" vibe? maybe it's me.

I that person had to chance to do it over again. Would have liked the option to use a tazer to neutralise the threat.


Probably. Probably they'd also wish they could have found a way to de-escalate the situation with words. Not to have had the deceased attack them. They'd like the option not to have been in that place at all, or not even to have gotten out of bed that day.

They may wish they'd have had a taser with which to try to use force short of lethal force.

On the other hand, if things go badly for them (and they're still alive to contemplate such things), they may wish they had recognized that the situation warranted lethal force more than less-lethal force. They may wish the taser had had the reach their handgun would have. Or the accuracy. Or that they'd used a weapon with which they'd have been able to practice regularly making accurate hits, instead of the taser where realistic practice is expensive and rare. Or that the taser prongs had "stuck" and delivered the expected charge, instead of glancing off and/or being insulated by heavy clothing.

They may wish any number of things.

If the choice is one or the other, choose the tool that will work in the widest range of cases. If the option is to carry both, consider carefully under what circumstances you might reach for the taser instead of the handgun.

it's not a if I can't kill them I don't want to play

its a I don't want to play
no half steps, ADEE, the first step is to AVOID, Disengage, escape, evade,
and then if you still cannot escape the threat, you don't play with half measure, you do what is necessary to stop the threat and survive

If every police department SOP I have read calls for the use of backup armed with lethal force when using a LTL weapon, admitting they are not a sure stop.

So when would you use it?
when your life is in immediate danger?
or to intervene in something that is NO risk to you? (and completely throwing ADEE out the window)
Because in the second you open yourself to HUGE legal and criminal liability, in addition to the personal danger you place yourself.

This is why I don't advocate intervention unless there is no other possibility to prevent a murder or similar. I'm not a cop, and not a hero, my family is more important.

I would just like to know what the opinion would be of people that have used a firearm to kill another human being before. Especially up close and personal like a self defence situations normally are.

I that person had to chance to do it over again. Would have liked the option to use a tazer to neutralise the threat.
I have killed a person when a Taser MIGHT have worked, but he had a deadly weapon in EACH hand, so I would not have chosen to use a Taser instead of my sixgun. Only sergeants had Tasers then, and a sergeant was en route with a Taser, and IF that sergeant had arrived in time, and been able to use the Taser, well, that would have been OK, but I lost no sleep over this.

In another incident, I used an X26 Taser against an unarmed but younger and MUCH stronger
opponent, covered with prison tattoos, who could have broken me in half with his bare hands. Back-up was en route, but not yet in sight, when I decided the moment to fire the Taser was immediate. Had he not fallen, I would have dropped the Taser and done an immediate transition drill to the duty pistol.

Guess which incident DID bother me afterward? Yes, the second one. It bothers me that perhaps I should have engaged that one with gunfire. The metal pipe that he had just dropped was still within his reach, and like I said above, he was very muscular and strong. If that Taser had failed, would I have been able to transition to the pistol in time? OTOH, had I shot him, would I have wished I had Tasered him? Hmm.

I would just like to know what the opinion would be of people that have used a firearm to kill another human being before. Especially up close and personal like a self defence situations normally are.

I that person had to chance to do it over again. Would have liked the option to use a tazer to neutralise the threat.
I have only killed men in combat, not in self-defense, or as a LEO.

I have never met anyone who could tell you "what it feels like to kill another man" and I know hundreds who have done so. Talking about killing to someone who has not had the experience is like trying to explain color to a blind man -- it really can't be done.

So I think your question as you have phrased it is unanswerable.

If someone was confronting me with a pistol I certainly wouldn't want just a Taser.

If someone was confronting me with a Taser - I'd want a pistol.

First I greatly appreciate the people that have been in a real situation before for sharing their experiences. Thanks again. I think that LEO's are in a bit of a different situation than a civilian. The LEO is expected to protect us.

I should have qualified my question better before. But this is what the forum is for discussing import issues. I think that the thread like this means more than this brand against that brand of firearm. But that is just me.

Here is my take on the value of a tazer. You wake up at night and just get that feeling something is wrong. Then you see someone about to climb through the window. I would prefer to have the option of tazing this intruder rather than just going on the full attack.

BUT.

If I am in the situation where there is someone coming at me with a knife of just running at me I will probably go with the firearm.

The tazer gives you the option to save on a lot of paperwork and many restless nights. Will I trade my handgun for a tazer. Never. Have a tazer as an option is a good thing I think though. Just make sure you know how to use it.

You wake up at night and just get that feeling something is wrong. Then you see someone about to climb through the window. I would prefer to have the option of tazing this intruder rather than just going on the full attack.

What do you do when shooting him with the tazer doesn't stop him, he pulls out his gun and keeps coming in?

I would prefer the option of being behind cover with a shotgun in my hand, and informing him as such. If he chooses to keep coming in, at that point "going on the full attack" could be an understatement, depending upon his exact actions.

BUT.

If I am in the situation where there is someone coming at me with a knife of just running at me I will probably go with the firearm.

If your tazer doesn't stop them, how long do you think you'll have to react before that "someone climbing in the window" turns into "someone coming at me with a knife of just running at me"?

If they keep trying to climb in your window after they know you're there and armed, they're not there for a friendly visit.

From the Taser FAQ:

We know of no other handgun size
weapon that will provide better protection than
the TASER® Weapon M18 and M18L, but we make no
promises or guarantees, and you should not
carry a TASER® Weapon as your only means of protection.


The effective range of a TASER® Weapon is 15 feet.
That is because two projectiles are fired
and they must both strike the subject.
As the distance increases, the projectiles
spread out. At 15 feet, the projectiles
are 25 inches apart. At more than 15 feet,
the chances of both projectiles hitting is
not likely. If one projectile misses, nothing
happens.

Your call if you want to let someone intending to use deadly force on you or someone you care about within 15 feet of you and you're only prepared to use something that MIGHT stop them. Good luck!

45_auto I think you miss-understood my post. I am by no means trying to say that a tazer is better than a firearm. I am just saying that I think that having a tazer AS WELL might be a good alternative in certain situations. That is all I am trying to get to. But as everything in life, that is just my opinion.
This is my last post one this.

Don't I will get into any discussions on the forum again soon. :rolleyes:

^ I agree with what you're saying in theory, and maybe if I'd trained to the point where I could effectively fire the taser one handed with my left hand and effectively fire a firearm one handed with my right hand - it might be practical.

But for me, I can fire the pistol or the taser but not both.

It doesn't make big news when a taser fails - IMO we don't get a good feel for how frequently they fail or under what conditions and how they fail.

Officer Jared Reston pulled a taser on a shoplifter, it failed. A moment later he took a .45 ACP to the chin and was in a life or death shoot out with the suspect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArDRg5SkuT0

You know, I never heard anyone say, "Sure as tazin'.";)

Yes, while performing a job or profession that has one maintaining rules or order at a business, facility, or event, as part of a team.
When dealing with unruly members of the public on a regular basis, some of whom become combative when you attempt to correct their poor behavior. A percentage of people have chips on their shoulders, and like to turn on people in perceived positions of authority over relatively mundane things.
This would include bouncers, security guards, mall cops, and similar individuals that deal with trouble, while generally being given less respect than a police officer, and so having to deal with more trouble than your typical police officer. Statistically it is no surprise such jobs are much more dangerous than being a cop. The mall cop people think is a joke for example is a lot more likely to be attacked by the punk with no respect for them than the police officer that the majority of people think twice about attacking.
While all should be done to avoid use of any force, in some cases it may be beneficial to have some members of the team able to stop an attacker with a taser until law enforcement can arrive and take them into custody.

However even in that case firearms should be kept available to respond to other people with firearms. We live in a society with a lot of firearms, so any encounter my require dealing with someone else that possesses a firearm.
As a result a firearm should be available to at least some members of a team even if some only have tasers or are reserved for a more unarmed hands on role.



Problems with tasers include that they are expensive for what they provide. Many cost as much as a firearm, even though they are relatively simple technology that launches barbs on wires and puts a specific current out through them for a short period.
I feel they are priced at police and similar markets spending tax payers' money, and not within the reality of what they actually are providing.
Ammo can be expensive for those with ammo useful just once, and it reduces a desire to train with it.
Lack of training means less likely to be effective or predict where the two separate barbs will go.
Many only provide one shot, though some provide more.
The one shot can fail to have both prongs make contact, and fail to deliver a shock when encountering heavy or baggy clothing, impacting something in a pocket, hitting a zipper or button, the barbs spread apart too far and one misses entirely, or some other random unexpected thing,. They will fail to perform at all a decent percentage of the time, while performing great other times. This means the only shot you got and waited till the last moment to deliver may do nothing at all.
While a gun always puts a piece of lead on target, irregardless of how effective, it will put lead on target. You also have additional shots.

Zoogster brings up perhaps my biggest point of rejection of the idea of tasers as self-defense tools:

The 'physics' of a lawful defensive use-of-force encounter almost always require that no force is exerted until there is no possible alternative. The attacker is about to cause you great injury or death in the next instant. (Otherwise you need to be focused on avoidance, de-escalation, and escape.)

Ergo, you have only that one second (or fraction thereof) to deliver a compelling force to stop the attack and save your life. With a taser, you are relegating that vital task to a device which has 1) many ways to fail, 2) has little or no failsafe or backup capability (as said, MAYBE two strikes, but that's it), and 3) with which you are for all practical purposes not able to practice. (I may fire 10,000 rounds of handgun ammo in a year. I'm unlikely to fire practice shots with a taser even a very small fraction of that number of times.)

So many say it makes a good "first try" -- I'll hit him with the taser and then if that doesn't work, or misses, or misfires, or hits something and deflects, then I'll grab my handgun.

But that's presupposing the benefit of plenty of time to make that happen. I don't believe such opportunities present themselves often, and I also understand that when things get as incredibly tense, scary, tunnel-visioned, and quick as lethal force encounters tend to be, a surprised defender has the odds stacked significantly against him/her that s/he will be able to even do the minimum necessary to:

1) observe the attack coming,
2) orient themselves to the attacker
3) decide to act
4) retrieve their handgun
5) orient it toward the attacker, and
6) fire it accurately.

Into that, we're now going to shoehorn:
3a) Retrieve taser,
3b) orient taser to attacker,
3c) fire at the attacker,
3d) if possible, second strike with taser,
3e) decide to abandon taser

I like the idea of one plan that is simple and has some possibility that I'll perform it adequately under stress. As I really only focus on planning for force responses to do-or-die threats, a one-force-fits-all approach seems wiser.

Along with a firearm, maybe
Instead of a firearm, nope
Murphy's Law applies in self defense also, batteries never run out a a convient time, one shot from a tazer assumes your facing only one bad guy and that he/she wasn't able to block or deflect the prongs of the tazer.
No batteries to fail in my firearm and multiple bullets to adress multiple problems.

What do you do after you've tazed the assailant? Eventually you have to stop juicing him right?

What do you do then? Hope that he hates getting tazed so much that he runs away?

What do you do after you've tazed the assailant? Eventually you have to stop juicing him right?

What do you do then? Hope that he hates getting tazed so much that he runs away?

The non-LEO self-defense version of the taser works differently from the police version. It delivers a 30-second jolt when you fire. Fire, hit assailant, drop the device and run while he's twitching.

The hopeful result is two-pronged: 1) 30 seconds should be enough time to escape the immediate area, and 2) No one is in good shape after a 30-second ride, and -- if you actually hit him and the charge was delivered -- he's not going to just bounce right back up from that.

There's a lot of truth to both concepts. It still isn't enough for me to willingly accept the shortcomings.

Now that tasers are legal for citizens to carry in Michigan, can anyone think of a situation carrying a taser would be better than a pistol?


no...

Even with my extremely limited experience, I'd pick a pepper spray over a taser.

I've worked in some states where they were legal. A lot of co-workers there carried guns (that's when CCW was not yet legal in Michigan). Some carried tasers or knew someone who did. Never heard of anyone successfully defending themselves with one. Heard a lot of stories about people misusing them, doing something stupid. A couple of these ended up in court. I bet you the same people would think twice before playing that way with a loaded gun.

Besides, correct me if I am wrong - I am not very well versed in tasers - but don't you have an option of sending the charge again and again and again until the battery runs out ? I can see someone in SD situation getting all worked up & doing this, willfully or not, and later being sued for deliberately causing unnecessary suffering of the attacker after he was already incapacitated. Or, worse else, having a person die of a heart attack. I don't have any evidence, but I think chances of a jury finding you guilty if you kill an attacker with a taser are much higher than if you shoot them.

...I have never met anyone who could tell you "what it feels like to kill another man" and I know hundreds who have done so. Talking about killing to someone who has not had the experience is like trying to explain color to a blind man -- it really can't be done...




This^^^^^^

Anyone who thinks there won't be legal ramifications for shooting someone with a taser is mistaken. So you deploy and they fall what next ? Wait for police and hope they don't get back up and if they do then what? Or, Drop them and leave so they can get up and attack someone else. Then there is the question of using good judgement in deploying. Are you going to be more likely to use it because it is less than lethal? I see trouble in the making there too. In a situation where you don't need a gun you don't need a taser either. Retreat and move on.

I carry 1 most of the time 2 and sometimes 3 guns with me all the time and I pray I never have to use them on somebody. I would love to have some way to protect myself without killing somebody BUT arn't the tazers we can carry have to touch them to the person? we can't buy the ones that shoot the probes out on wires can we? If so we have to get within arms lingth of whomever is trying to do what ever to us. and if he grabs you you are going to get some of that taze also. Am I wrong? I will keep my guns.

BUT arn't the tazers we can carry have to touch them to the person? we can't buy the ones that shoot the probes out on wires can we? If so we have to get within arms lingth of whomever is trying to do what ever to us. and if he grabs you you are going to get some of that taze also. Am I wrong? I will keep my guns.

No, that would be a "stun gun." Tasers are these: http://www.taser.com/promotion-c

That is what I was thinking. I will just keep my guns. But those poor people in the states where their governments won't let them carry a gun to defend themselfs got to do what they got to do I guess.

The non-LEO self-defense version of the taser works differently from the police version. It delivers a 30-second jolt when you fire. Fire, hit assailant, drop the device and run while he's twitching.

The hopeful result is two-pronged: 1) 30 seconds should be enough time to escape the immediate area, and 2) No one is in good shape after a 30-second ride, and -- if you actually hit him and the charge was delivered -- he's not going to just bounce right back up from that.

I didn't know that a 30 second power-up leaves the average person relatively incapacitated. When I've seen the demonstrations - which I am estimated to be 3 seconds on the YouTube demos I've seen. People get up and are OK.

I am trying to see how this works out in a HD situation with no firearm.

Scenario 1: Guy breaks into my house. I tase him. Drop the taser, run out in the street in my underwear and knock on a nieghbor's door and ask them to call the police - hopefuly all in 30 seconds.

Scenario 2: Guy breaks into my house. I tase him. Drop the taser, run into my bedroom, get dressed, get my phone and car keys, (under 30 seconds) run back to the taser, juice the home invader again to buy myself another 30 seconds, run to the garage get in the car and go...

You add kids in the mix and the taser is not viable.

When I think of using it in combination with some sort of firearm, my first thought is that if the taser fails in some way, I've lost precious time, and possibly the initiative, and I'm vulnerable while I drop the taser and bring my firearm into play.

I'm not sure even Taser Inc. considers this a home defense option. More of an out-on-the-street thing where fleeing is a more viable option and the possibilities for some legitimate need to use force that is less (or "non") lethal are easier for most folks to envision.

As indicated in #75, there is a BIG difference between a Taser and a stun gun. A Taser can be used in a manner similar to a stun gun, but is best used to fire darts into an opponent, so that electrical current is conducted through wires that trail behind the darts. A properly darted human will, ideally, experience actual shut-down of voluntary movement, due to the effect on the nervous system.

There should be some amount of spread between the darts' impact points to ensure the central nervous system gets involved, and the best target for a Taser is the large muscle groups in the back, buttocks, and back of the the legs. This is another reason the Taser is best used as a team weapon; the Taser guy flanks the bad guy while another good guy occupies the bad guy's attention.

A Taser can work from the front. My first real-world Taser use involved darts to his chest and abdomen, and he went down right quickly.

A stun gun is a mere pain compliance device! A hardened fighter who has experienced "conducted energy" just might be able to totally ignore the pain, and not comply.

To add a bit about stun guns, such gadgets must be held against an opponent to inflict any pain, so anyone who plans to use a stun gun for defense must be willing to grapple with his/her opponent.

I do NOT want to grapple with an opponent! I want to create distance! (Of course, as an LEO, I must close the distance and "go hands" to take a person into custody, but that is generally outside the scope of this discussion.)