Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Posted: 10/8/2007 8:47:20 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/8/2007 8:49:44 PM EST by Beltfedleadhead]
I was just reading a gun rag, and saw a full-page ad for the new Taser line of color-coordinated non-threatening, less-than-lethal, remote control-looking personal defense devices.

In fact, on Taser's web site, it's referred to as a "self-defense electronic control device". Not a mention of being a weapon. Not a mention of the mindset that will be required when you will be faced with an attacker intent on robbing/raping/killing you.

Here are the features:

-Small non-gun design
-Lightweight and easy to carry
-Lithium Power Magazine is good for over 50 uses
-Available in four designer colors
-15 ft. (4.5 m) range


Here is the image from the ad:




Then we have the new, wireless 12ga shotgun Taser round. It's a self-contained mini-taser in a shotgun round. I know it's been making the rounds here, but it's another example of the technology that is being developed to provide an alternative to lethal force.



My question is, will the technology become so effective and compact that lawmakers will try to use it as an excuse to usher in civilian firearms ban legislation? After all, what kind of bloodthirsty animal would rather KILL another human when he could safely incapacitate him? Sound silly? That's the tactic they'll use. The already considerable negative stigma around firearms will increase tenfold. They'll be regarded as archaic tools of torture and death from a less enlightened time, their owners violent savages who not only were comfortable in taking lives, but delighted in it.

Just a thought.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 8:49:03 PM EST
It is possible.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 8:49:35 PM EST
TASER has a stackable area denial weapon too. Can be fired remote or by motion sensors.

Picture a claymore like devise that shoots taser probes instead of ball bearings.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 8:51:37 PM EST
They ban less lethal's faster than they ban guns...
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 8:52:25 PM EST
Tasers are already banned in Hawaii so I guess Ill have to keep my guns.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 8:53:45 PM EST
Doubtful because taser is too easy to defeat simply by changng the kind of clothes you wear.

If I wear my duster for example I am virtually taser proof.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 8:54:02 PM EST
No. First LTL weapons are not protected by the 2nd amendment, or at least I don't see it. Second the libs dislike LTL weapons more than they dislike guns. Can't figure that last out, but it's probably because they have them used against themselves so often. Nothing a dirty hippie hates more than being tased! Don't tase me Bro! Gawd I still love that, it just never gets old!
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 8:56:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Doubtful because taser is too easy to defeat simply by changng the kind of clothes you wear.

If I wear my duster for example I am virtually taser proof.


Well, I am referring to the near future, when LTL weapons become so effective and compact that they become an attractive option to people who don't like the idea of carrying a deadly weapon.

I just see that as dovetailing into gun-ban legislation.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 8:56:17 PM EST
"...the right to keep and bear less than lethal arms shall not be infringed"

"from my twitching, nearly dead yet warm hands"

sounds dumb.

I'll vote "no".

Link Posted: 10/8/2007 8:57:11 PM EST
tasers do not have the detterance factor of a firearm



When a badguy is weighing the pros and cons of attempting to rape/rob/murder someone, its not going to serve as much of a deterrence when if he loses, he gets tased, you lose, you die.

Tasers are great. I am just saying that if all the good guys were only armed with less than lethal, the risk versus reward equation for the fucktards is screwed even more.


Anyway, they can shove it up their ass. No one is taking my families firearms.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 8:57:15 PM EST
Personally, I'd rather have a reliable stun weapon than a gun for self-defense - sure would be a lot less legal hassles.

I'm not sure about the concern for guns, though - as self defense is not exactly looked on now as a good reason to own guns, by those who don't like them.

Also, the real rabid anti-self defense people are every bit as much against you and I owning OC or Tasers.

Link Posted: 10/8/2007 9:02:45 PM EST

Originally Posted By 3rdpig:
Second the libs dislike LTL weapons more than they dislike guns. Can't figure that last out, but it's probably because they have them used against themselves so often.


I know why.

If you shoot a scumbag his suirving family members can sue you for wrongfull death. If he survicves his liar, i mean lawyer, can but his broken down body infront of the jury to use against you. But if you Taser him you take that away from him.

Defense attornies hate the TASER because it gives the police a way to safely take their violent clients into custody withoput injuring themselves ofr the thug. Then the liar for the defense cant use his clients injuries as a play for sympathy in front of a jury of people too stupid to get out of jury duty.

I've seen defense attorny's physically recoil in horror from simply seeing an taser on my duty belt. then start spouting off about how horrible they are.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 9:06:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By EternalVigilance:
tasers do not have the detterance factor of a firearm


IMO they have a greater deterrent value. Career criminals know exactly when deadly force is justified and will tread right up to that line, knowing you cant legally shoot them. But with the Taser it can be used way before lethal force is justified. The deterrent factor of the Taser does work better on repeat customers than first timer though.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 9:07:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By 3rdpig:
Second the libs dislike LTL weapons more than they dislike guns. Can't figure that last out, but it's probably because they have them used against themselves so often.


I know why.

If you shoot a scumbag his suirving family members can sue you for wrongfull death. If he survicves his liar, i mean lawyer, can but his broken down body infront of the jury to use against you. But if you Taser him you take that away from him.

Defense attornies hate the TASER because it gives the police a way to safely take their violent clients into custody withoput injuring themselves ofr the thug. Then the liar for the defense cant use his clients injuries as a play for sympathy in front of a jury of people too stupid to get out of jury duty.

I've seen defense attorny's physically recoil in horror from simply seeing an taser on my duty belt. then start spouting off about how horrible they are.


I think the biggest part of it is you aren't limited to using only in extreme circumstances. The idea of immediate punishment fro non-compliance does not sit well with hippie types.

They can sit there and taunt or ignore a guy with a gun, knowing he won't use it unless deadly force becomes necessary (of course, they occasionally screw up when they try to apply that logic in thrid world countries).
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 9:09:53 PM EST
I could see those little "designer" tasers being useful in states like CA and NY where they strictly control, or outright prohibit, CCW.

Of course, those places with the mindset to control/ban CCW will also probably do the same to these, so that might not help a whole lot.
Link Posted: 10/8/2007 9:17:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By AJE:
I could see those little "designer" tasers being useful in states like CA and NY where they strictly control, or outright prohibit, CCW.

Of course, those places with the mindset to control/ban CCW will also probably do the same to these, so that might not help a whole lot.


You can buy them in Cali. They are damn expensive though.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 5:02:39 AM EST
Even Capt Kirk had the options of stun or kill.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 5:13:25 AM EST
I never could understand why, in Michigan, tasers are illegal for civilian purchase but we are a shall issue state for CPL.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:03:53 AM EST
bump for dayshift
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:05:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2007 6:09:43 AM EST by Johninaustin]

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Doubtful because taser is too easy to defeat simply by changng the kind of clothes you wear.

If I wear my duster for example I am virtually taser proof.


Umm, no you are not.

Tasers are a GREAT deterrence. Every dirtbag knows just how far they can go before getting shot, but they also know that taser is a LOT more acceptable.

I've had folks screech to a halt and prone themselves out just by yelling "Taser, Taser, Taser!!

(We must give a warning before deployment)
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:12:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By Johninaustin:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Doubtful because taser is too easy to defeat simply by changng the kind of clothes you wear.

If I wear my duster for example I am virtually taser proof.


Umm, no you are not.

Tasers are a GREAT deterrence. Every dirtbag knows just how far they can go before getting shot, but they also know that taser is a LOT more acceptable.

I've had folks screech to a halt and prone themselves out just by yelling "Taser, Taser, Taser!!

(We must give a warning before deployment)


Lets get a betting pool going JIA tases ArmdLbrl and someone videotapes it and we see if the "duster" is able to stop the probes
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:12:58 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2007 6:16:13 AM EST by Bob1984]
Many LTL's are banned or so difficult to get as to be unobtainable by civilians in MD. They are generally treated like any other weapon. There's no way for a civilian to get a CCW in MD and it may be illegal to carry a Taser on your person without one.

Hell, I've been harassed before for carrying a Swiss Army Knife in a tool pouch on my belt, and that's hardly a weapon.

I know that in MD, you have to have a CCW to carry any weapon on your person unless you are on your own property or engaged in a legal, bona-fide sporting activity. Carrying any weapon in the passenger area of a car is a big no-no.

All of this would make actually carrying a Taser or other LTL legally impractical for me, even if it were possible for me to own one.

I think that anti-gunners are going to try and ban any and all weapons, including LTL's. Incrementalism is the name of the game. I fully expect restrictions on LTL's, knives and other non-firearms to be on the way sometime in the next few years.

It's not gun control the anti's are looking for, it's an outright ban on anything that can be used as a weapon.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:20:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By AJE:
I could see those little "designer" tasers being useful in states like CA and NY where they strictly control, or outright prohibit, CCW.

Of course, those places with the mindset to control/ban CCW will also probably do the same to these, so that might not help a whole lot.


interestingly, tasers and stun devices are illegal in NY state, yet those of us in most upstate counties can get CCW with a little work.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:22:06 AM EST
Not likely, all the places that have tight gun control laws also ban LTL devices, pepper spray, mace, ASP batons, tasers, stun guns, you name it.
The idea of a citizen defending themselves in any manner gets their collective panties in a bunch.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:23:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By 3rdpig:
No. First LTL weapons are not protected by the 2nd amendment, or at least I don't see it. Second the libs dislike LTL weapons more than they dislike guns. Can't figure that last out, but it's probably because they have them used against themselves so often. Nothing a dirty hippie hates more than being tased! Don't tase me Bro! Gawd I still love that, it just never gets old!


I'm getting some people together to try and have it put on our currency.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:42:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bob1984:
Many LTL's are banned or so difficult to get as to be unobtainable by civilians in MD. They are generally treated like any other weapon. There's no way for a civilian to get a CCW in MD and it may be illegal to carry a Taser on your person without one.

Hell, I've been harassed before for carrying a Swiss Army Knife in a tool pouch on my belt, and that's hardly a weapon.

I know that in MD, you have to have a CCW to carry any weapon on your person unless you are on your own property or engaged in a legal, bona-fide sporting activity. Carrying any weapon in the passenger area of a car is a big no-no.

All of this would make actually carrying a Taser or other LTL legally impractical for me, even if it were possible for me to own one.

I think that anti-gunners are going to try and ban any and all weapons, including LTL's. Incrementalism is the name of the game. I fully expect restrictions on LTL's, knives and other non-firearms to be on the way sometime in the next few years.

It's not gun control the anti's are looking for, it's an outright ban on anything that can be used as a weapon.


Ding Ding Ding!
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 6:52:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By 3rdpig:
No. First LTL weapons are not protected by the 2nd amendment, or at least I don't see it.


That's an interesting question. Based on Miller, I would say you are correct as a LTL is not the kind of weapon associated with the militia. However, I would argue that the 2nd Amendment should be read in conjunction with the underlying philosophical purposes of the right (as we do the other amendments), one of which is self-defense I would require any restriction on the mean of self-defense to pass strict scrutiny, so that the state cannot deprive a citizen of a reasonable means of self-defense without a compelling reason for doing so.
Link Posted: 10/9/2007 8:01:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By EternalVigilance:
tasers do not have the detterance factor of a firearm



When a badguy is weighing the pros and cons of attempting to rape/rob/murder someone, its not going to serve as much of a deterrence when if he loses, he gets tased, you lose, you die.




My experience was just the opposite. Many thugs didn't bat an eye at my sidearm but were far more complaint when they saw a taser. Maybe that's because they thought we were much more likely to use the taser on them if they got out of hand.

For a woman defending herself against an attacker, I'd rather she have a gun than a taser. It's easy to miss with a taser, and a taser requires a reload before she can get a second shot off. There's just too much that can go wrong with a taser.
Top Top