help with this poll - tasers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Whatever it takes to ensure personal security :D
On my way to that link ;)

PS...currently at 51% yes, 49% no w/ 465 responses
 
I can't find the poll on there. Where is it?

Oh, NM. Found it. Voted Yes.
 
Last edited:
Why shouldn't civilians be able to have use of non-lethal self defense?
I doubt I would recommend it in most cases though.
 
of course civilians should be able to own them. but i don't know of a practical use for them, since civilians aren't supposed to be going around subduing people who they think are in need of it.

My reason for not owning one is the only situation that i would use one would also be the same situation i would use a gun. and i certainly don't want the person im using force on getting back up a few minutes later.
 
Have you ever noticed that most people define anything that zaps as a Taser? It's not a Taser unless it's a Taser, nothing else comes close to the advantage the real thing offers. Oh, and there's no good reason civilians can't carry one, just as there's no good reason they can't carry firearms, but good logical reasoning doesn't cut it in congress.

Greg
 
MechAg94 said;

Why shouldn't civilians be able to have use of non-lethal self defense?
Click to expand...

Tasers are not non-lethal...they are less lethal and anyone who contemplates carrying one should be aware of that.

Jeff
 
I think there is a huge difference between Citizens being alowed to own a taser, and in how prudent it us for Citizens to be using them.
Tasers are good tools for cops. Most of the time, there is a half dozen other cops with drawn guns to back up the Taser guy, if the device fails to subdue.
Citizens don't have that luxury. If its a rightous situation, and you need to use force, then a Taser is a poor substitute for a firearm. I would not bet my life on a 'less than lethal' device stopping my attacker.
As so often is the case, what is good for a cop, is bad ju ju for a Citizen.
 
civilians?

do you mean not military?

or not part of our militarized police force?

Last I checked police were civilians.

Our government gets its power from the governed. If the governed don't have it then the government can't have it.
 
Mannlicher said:

Citizens don't have that luxury. If its a rightous situation, and you need to use force, then a Taser is a poor substitute for a firearm. I would not bet my life on a 'less than lethal' device stopping my attacker.
Click to expand...

In Minnesota, the standard for the use of deadly force by a civilian is a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

Great bodily harm as defined in Minnesota
means bodily injury which creates a high probability of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily harm.
Click to expand...

Deadly force is not authorized when the threat is substantial bodily harm.
"Substantial bodily harm" means bodily injury which involves a temporary but substantial disfigurement, or which causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or which causes a fracture of any bodily member to a service animal or a pet or companion animal.
Click to expand...
Or bodily harm.
Bodily harm means physical pain or injury, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.
Click to expand...

http://ros.leg.mn/bin/getpub.php?pubtype=STAT_CHAP_SEC&year=2006&section=609.02&


Regarding Tasers and similary products,
A person may possess and use an electronic incapacitation device in the exercise of reasonable force in defense of the person or the person's property only if the electronic incapacitation device is labeled with or accompanied by clearly written nstructions as to its use and the dangers involved in its use.
Click to expand...

http://ros.leg.mn/bin/getpub.php?pubtype=STAT_CHAP_SEC&year=2006&section=624.731&keyword_type=exact&

Therefore, in Minnesota, the use of a Taser may be appropriate in situations where you need to defend your person or propery but a reasonable person would not be in fear of death or great bodily harm.

DJ
 
Absolutely nobody pays any attention to on-line polls.
Click to expand...

That isn't strictly true. When they say what the antis want them to say, they can keep making the claim, "Most Americans support reasonable gun control, or my pet gun bill..." When we stomp those polls down, we help to keep them from being used against us.

Also, there's always the cahnce that Joe Fencesitter will hear the "Most Americans support..." lie, and then remember, "Hey, I saw a couple of those polls. If this guy is lying to me about them, what else is he lying about?"

Since the polls are going to be around regardless, we might as well try to keep them from supporting Fascism and tyranny.
 
I don't have an opinion either way as I see lots of pros and cons, without a necessity tilting in one direction or the other.

However I do think they are way overpriced. For something less complex than your cell phone and a $100 bb gun you are asked to pay several hundred dollars. I mean come on. It builds up a charge to a specified amount and unleashes it along with launching a couple air powered barbs, utilizing stored nitrogen. Less complex than an air gun that has to make multiple shots with 1 reservoir, because it has individual reservoirs to reload with. So it does not need to withstand pressure, store air, or utilize many electronic components and is made with plastic that costs very little to mass produce. What exactly is the price tag based on? Oh right because they know government employees will buy them with tax dollars anyways because they are a neat helpful gadget they will want, and they are a weapon. I mean if you can charge several hundred for a real gun ( that has to withstand high pressures and be built to certain tolerances) why not a taser?
 
ci·vil·ian /sɪˈvɪlyən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[si-vil-yuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.
2. Informal. anyone regarded by members of a profession, interest group, society, etc., as not belonging; nonprofessional; outsider: We need a producer to run the movie studio, not some civilian from the business world.
3. a person versed in or studying Roman or civil law.
–adjective
4. of, pertaining to, formed by, or administered by civilians.
[Origin: 1350–1400; ME: student of civil law < OF civilien (adj.); see civil, -ian]



cit·i·zen /ˈsɪtəzən, -sən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sit-uh-zuhn, -suhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection (distinguished from alien).
2. an inhabitant of a city or town, esp. one entitled to its privileges or franchises.
3. an inhabitant, or denizen: The deer is a citizen of our woods.
4. a civilian, as distinguished from a soldier, police officer, etc.
[Origin: 1275–1325; ME citisein < AF citesein, OF citeain, equiv. to cite city + -ain -an; AF s perh. by assoc. with deinzain denizen]
 
Jeff White said
Tasers are not non-lethal...they are less lethal and anyone who contemplates carrying one should be aware of that.
Click to expand...

That's not what the rep in the video says...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top