Air Taser vs. Handgun

Status
Not open for further replies.
The civilian versions cycle for a longer period of time than the LE versions. You're supposed to zap the BG and run like a scalded monkey.
Click to expand...

One tiny little problem with this, the strategy recommended by Taser International: have you seen how much the civilian version costs? :what: $800 or more, and you're gonna lay it down and run away? Not in this life, buddy. If you do that you've just given a nice little gift to the BG. If you're only carrying $500 in your wallet, give it to him, it'll be cheaper. Or better yet, premium SD ammo runs about 50 cents a round. Give him a couple of those and you'll be money ahead. :evil:
 
I don't see where tasers fit into a civilian's use of force continuum. They are a specialized weapon that is meant to be backed up with other force options.

Jeff
 
Speaking from a civilian's point of view, the carrying of a Taser edges into the same territory as my carrying handcuffs.

I'm not a police officer. I don't have a partner who will always be there when something is happening. I don't have backup. I can't call dispatch.

Same thing goes when considering military tactics. Such tactics are great when you're dealing with units and have various support units to call upon. They don't work so good solo.

Weapons and tactics that are useful to an individual vary a great deal from the weapons and tactics useful to a two person team or a small unit.
 
The taser might have limits, but could it also have some strengths for civilians?

OK, now I'm just playing with ideas, so I may or may not agree with what I throw out. The air taser might have some limits, but could it have some uses for civilians that a firearm wouldn't? It's less-lethal, so it could be used in situations where a gun wouldn't be appropriate? Let's say you're on a hike and some stranger sees you. He shouts really loud, "I'M GOING TO KILL YOU! YOU SON OF A ***!" Then he charges at you and has a very angry look on his face. As he gets near you shoot him with an air taser. This happened once, but the guy used a 10 mm sidearm instead of an air taser. The angry charging guy was shot when he was 8 feet away, his second one 3 feet away, and third was 6 inches away when the charging guy finally went down. Since the charging guy was unarmed, the guy with the gun got into a lot of trouble. If he would have used an air taser instead, could things have been different because of "reasonable force". I found a few studies that said when a police officer uses either pepper spray or an air taser, there are less likely to be injuries to the suspect than when the officer punches, kicks, or tackles the suspect. So would that situation have turned out differently? Also keeping in mind the air taser usually takes someone down with just one shot (provided you actually hit them somewhere on the body), and even if it was just for 30 seconds, the hiker could have gotten away. I don't know, that's just a thought.

???
 
Doesn't Taser International give you another air taser?

If you use an air taser and have to lay it down on the ground and run away, doesn't Taser International say that they'll give you another one if you send in a copy of the police report?
 
When a police officer uses a taser, he/she has other officers around to immediately subdue the subject when you turn the surrent off, or to use deadly force if the taser fails.

A civilian doesn't normally travel with groups of other trained people to subdue the subject you just tasered or use deadly force in case the taser fails. The effects of the taser doen't last long enough to allow you to escape the (most likely) now very angry aggressor.

The taser is slow to reload for a followup shot should the subject pull the barbs out or one of them not stick in his clothing. At that point you have to have another force option to go to, because the taser is done.

I recommend OC to people who live where firearms aren't permitted. It works and works well against most of the population (but remember, nothing, not even Winchester RA45T from the 5" barrel of a custom 1911 works against everyone, every time) and you can spray and run. It's effects are lasting and it's hard for the bad guy to chase you when he can't see you through the tears.

Tasers are too specialized of a tool for general purpose defensive use. I don't carry one at work because where I work now, I'd most often be alone when I had to employ it. It's inappropriate for my work environment for the same reasons it's inappropriate for a civilian.

Jeff
 
Some one mentioned taser have low intimidation factor and 9mm pistols have high intimidation factor.. Oh really? You've never been goaded into using use your weapons before. That is where tasers can be benificial. Much like a dog you can lite someone up (at least the perception is there) even when they know or assume you cannot use your weapon. I do not like the ones that shoot out the darts. The best one I ever saw had 30 in. antenna's on them and all you had to do was wand them. Though it is not shown much place these antenna's on a calf muscle and fry for about 3 seconds turning every 30 seconds apply your favorite sauce ...... Sorry wrong forum.:evil:
Jim
 
Oh really?
Click to expand...
Yes, really. The statistics say that in the vast majority of self-defense firearm uses, the intimidation factor of a firearm is so high that it is not even necessary to fire the weapon.

And even if that were not true, the possibility of ending up on the ground is obviously far less of a deterrent than the possibility of ending up dead.

Maybe some people can stand there looking into the barrel of a gun and rationally assess the liklihood that the person with a finger on the trigger will actually fire, but the odds of encountering someone like that are MUCH higher in a movie than in real life. ;)
 
We evidently have had far differing experences. I'd rather have a big dog most the time. But then I don't read stats that often.
Jim
 
It's effects are lasting and it's hard for the bad guy to chase you when he can't see you through the tears.
Click to expand...

Nor when he is having difficulty breathing.

Also if you get certain brands they come loaded with a dye. It's easier for the cops to play find the smurf than trying to find someone matching the description you gave.
 
john K you would be surprised at how far a human being will push another. Now with that said I took a look at your profile and it didn't tell me much. My responses and I should have made that clear almost always have an LE twist to them. Believe it or not you are better off most of the time without a weapon than with one. I can't tell you how often I've worried about loosing mine only to have it turned lose on me or the public. Now back to tasers.

I personaly do not like them and the one I have I use to kill bugs with. My point was and is this. A firearm IMHO is not to be used as a deterent. Sure I have pointed my firearm at people before and not shot them. AT the time of drawing though I had FULL intention of shooting them as soon as I could. I have seen rookie mistakes to where a firearm was drawn to be used as a deterent only to have to put it away. That in my opinion is dangerous and that is where less that leathal weapons of all kinds come in. I tell you John unless you see it you wouldn't believe it but a man with a dog is much more feared than a man with a gun in most situations.
Jim
 
a man with a dog is much more feared than a man with a gun in most situations.
Click to expand...

A little off topic, but right on the money. The reason people fear dogs is that know they can't fool the dog or talk him out of biting. Once Fido is turned loose, somebody's gonna get bit.

The same sort of psychology works with Tasers to a certain extent. When they issued Tasers at our county jail, the inmates didn't think the jailers would use 'em. After a couple guys got tased for fighting, word quickly got around and the incidence of fights dropped drastically. The jailers love 'em, the inmates fear 'em, and when those guys go back out on the street, they know what a Taser does. I've had some of these guys focus more on the Taser on my belt than any other piece of equipment. They know it will be used with less provocation than my firearm or my OC.

That said, Jeff is right about a Taser being part of the force continuum available to police, always backed up by lethal force options. Nick, I don't know whether or not Taser Int'l. will replace one of their units used in self defense, but the fact remains that if you leave one on the ground and run away while the BG is "dancin' without music" :D you've given the BG the means to subdue a victim or a police officer :what: in the future. I'm not sure I like that idea too much, ya know?
 
I cringe whenever I hear the words 'intimidation factor.' Maybe I just live in a statistical outlier...but I've known a good many people that don't intimidate too good. One had only a Buck knife and wasn't intimidated by a 20 gauge shotgun. Granted he should have been...probably still be alive today.

To paraphrase Bruce Banner in 'The Hulk,'...."Please don't intimidate me. You wouldn't like me when I'm intimidated."

In my opinion, a weapon should never be drawn without the intention-and justification-of using it. My Fairy Godmother may be watching over me and I don't have to use it. But I should never, ever be counting on the 'intimidation factor.'
 
What would be another choice weapon?

Is there another less-lethal weapon that I could carry, that would actually be effective? I ask that because I know that most of the time when there's an assault, the assailant is unarmed (which would make a gun inappropriate). I also know that pepper spray is not incapacitating, but a distractor, so if someone is charging at you unarmed and shouting that they're going to kill you, you need instant stopping power, but don't want to go to jail for shooting an unarmed person who you don't know for sure will kill you (just send you to the hospital). I was thinking about looking into other less-lethal means since the taser may not be the right choice. Does anyone have any suggestions?
 
I ask that because I know that most of the time when there's an assault, the assailant is unarmed (which would make a gun inappropriate).
Click to expand...

Nick,

First thing you need to do is to overhaul what you 'know.' The assailant being unarmed does not necessarily negate the use of lethal force. It depends on several factors...including the laws of the state where the action takes place.

In Georgia, lethal force can be used to prevent a forcible felony if such force is necessary to do so. A forcible felony is defined in the Georgia Criminal Code as a felony where either force or the threat of force is used. There is no statutory requirement that the actor be armed.

Other factors can also impinge upon the situation. For example, where one has the duty to retreat but has no legs to do so.


You need to go back and study more. The basis of many of your questions is skewed.
 
If you gave me the choice between a tazer and a spoon I'd take the tazer. If you gave me the choice between a tazer and a gun I'd take the gun.

Incidentally, if you gave me the choice between a gun and an Abrams tank, I'd probably take the tank. Maybe my pattern of thinking isn't very useful after all.

Ah, well. Carry on!
 
My responses and I should have made that clear almost always have an LE twist to them. Believe it or not you are better off most of the time without a weapon than with one. I can't tell you how often I've worried about loosing mine only to have it turned lose on me or the public.
Click to expand...
I will concede that there is a huge difference between LE and non-LE weapon selection.

A person challenging a LEO KNOWS he's challenging a person armed with a firearm, and is therefore much less likely to be intimidated by the firearm. If the firearm intimidated them, they wouldn't have challenged the LEO in the first place. This is compounded by the fact that the LEO is probably trying to detain the person which means that the criminal may feel like the flight option is not available. AND, to further complicate the situation, the criminal knows that the LEO has been rigorously trained to use his firearm ONLY as an extreme last resort after all other non-lethal means have been completely exhausted.

On the other hand, a person challenging a non-LEO is almost certainly expecting his victim to be unarmed. In the vast majority of cases, disappointing a criminal in this respect is sufficient to put him to flight. My understanding is that criminals consider non-LEOs to be more dangerous in that they may panic and shoot in a case where an LEO's training would have caused him to hold his fire. Likewise, most non-LEOs are only too happy to let the criminal evacuate the scene leaving the flight option as a viable and frequently used avenue.

I would have to agree that a TASER is far more useful to an LEO than to a non-LEO for the above reasons.
 
tJohn all good points. Let me say this a CCW class DOES`NOT GIVE ENOUGH INFORMATION FOR ANYBODY TO HIT THE STREETS ARMED. Second revalation A 6 MONTH POLICE TRAINING CLASS DOES NOT EITHER. There is no easy answer to this.

Most of my work was in plain clothes. When I was approuched by a bad guy they thought I was a member of the general public. Most of what I know was on the job training. Each incident is unique. What usually helped me was the portrayal of confidence. That threw them more than anything else. I like bright flashlites when working in the dark. The proper use of them is seldom taught stratigicaly and they are a real asset. Another tactic is luring them in closer within arms reach, reacting against them while they are over confident and talking.(All edges in your favor but seldom taught). And learning how to hit them with your hands very, very, hard in the body. They must consider you a sheep right up to the time they are attacked. Some here may know if there are some publications that cover some of this stuff, but it must be learned. As more and more people aquire their license they will look at the public the same as they do police. Take Care and good luck.
Jim
 
You need to go back and study more. The basis of many of your questions is skewed.
Click to expand...

I've studied that the assailant needs to have the ability, opportunity, jeapordy (actual behavior and circumstances that would lead a reasonable and prudent person to believe in intent), and preclusion (which Massad Ayoob says he doesn't focus on, but many other sources say that someone can loose in court if they focus on the first three but don't build their case with the fourth). From my study, the "ability" part often means "has the means" such as a deadly weapon. If the person isn't armed, there needs to be multiple assailants or the assailant need to be twice your size or you need to have the knowledge that they're trained in some fighting skills specifically meant to kill. It can't just mean that the person is attacking you. Defend University says that you may eventually win when using lethal force to prevent what seems like lethal force with someone unarmed, but to avoid the time and money that being charged does to you, develop some effective non-lethal means (although they didn't say use a taser). The use of "force in defense of person" code from the state I'm from, Utah, says that it has to match what they would do to you, unless it's to prevent the commission of certain forcible felonies (then lethal force can be used even if it isn't death or grave bodily injury). So if they wouldn't kill or cause grave bodily harm (gripple), than a gun would be inappropriate, but something non-lethal that's between pepper spray and a gun would be.

From findlaw.com, it says that the use of force in self-defense is appropriate when:
A. The other person is the aggressor, or if you make it clear you've broken off the mutual fight and they still attack
B. A reasonable and prudent person would believe self-defense would be necessary given the same circumstances
C. The force used is reasonable for the situation (so a gun may be appropriate in some situations, but not others, that's why I was curious about an inbetween weapon, even if it isn't an air taser)
 
The problem with guns unless you absolutely need to use one

I was reading about the problem of using a gun on an unarmed person from Defend University, called "Bringing a gun to a fistfight":

http://www.defendu.com/gun_fistfight.htm

I am wondering if an air taser would have been better in the second case study where a gun was used?
 
Taser isn't an end-all

I'm a cop w/an agency in So-Cal who uses the X-26 Taser, the latest and greatest :) The Taser is not an end all. We deploy at the same level as OC in our use of force continuum. There are many variables with it, or any weapon or tool.

Ideally, you want to deploy it with a at least a 1-foot spread in a high muscle area. All this talk of well placed shots or strikes with any tool is great. But at combat speed, with 2 or more ppl acting and reacting, you take what u can get, and a well placed hit with a good spread of the probes in a high-muscle area isn't always practical.

I hit a fat guy in his love handle with it during a fight, and wound up in a foot-pursuit through a hospital parking lot while pressing the trigger. Don't bring a taser to a gun fight. Our policy specifically states the taser is not a substitute for deadly force because NOTHING is 100% effective. We use the plus 1 theory...We use force 1 step higher than the crook
 
Nick, you are doing the right thing researching. Taking anothers life should be a last resort. Let me say this from your writings I believe you are in a dangerous mindset. Dangerous to you. First off an unarmed man need not intend on killing you for you to have fear for your life. That is what it boils down to. You have to look at 12 of your peers and say "I was in fear for my life". Getting into a fight in a bar after an argument you will have trouble proving that. Being confronted walking down the street after warning the other party to stay away is another matter. Many people over think this issue. Let me give you some certainties. You will spend the rest of the night being interviewed by LE. You probably at least have your case brought to the grand jury. You will get sued. This all will happen.

I am no longer in LE but my mindset has not changed. I decided that if I drew my weapon I would have to make a conscous effort to stop the shooting. In otherwords I would not trouble myself with all this should I shouldn't I shoot once I saw I was what was in my opinion a dangerous situation. Yep I almost shot a couple inocent( although pretty stupid) men but I'm still here giving advise. Yep I've been sued. Won them all but sued. These are decisions you should make prior to venturing out into the darkness.
Jim
 
And the scenarios aren't all cut & dried...

...I'm a 51 year-old, 350# out of shape diabetic with one heart attack behind me...A 17 year old kid in decent shape is a deadly threat to me even unarmed...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top