Stun "Guns" Illegal?

[SFC JeffJ]

Fairly recently, South Bend, IN (the city I live closest too) has made electronic stun guns illegal for any one other than LEO's. Personally, I think this is an infringement on a persons right to defend themselves. What are your thoughts on the matter?

Jeff

 

[HKphooey]

I think one should be fully trained before using a stun gun on someone. Most LEO are rquired to attend training and to take a few shots of their own before being issued one.

The other thing to keep in mind, stun guys are being used by criminals to subdue/knockout their victims. I know there is the same argument for guns. Maybe the stun guns just need some type of permit or training like guns.

All the fun toys are always taken form us! Just like when we were kids!

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Considering that IN is a "shall issue" state when it comes to carry permits, making the stunners illegal seems kind of silly.

Jeff

 

[HKphooey]

Considering that IN is a "shall issue" state when it comes to carry permits, making the stunners illegal seems kind of silly.

Jeff

In that case your right.

 

[KenpoTex]

Yes, I do feel that it's an infringement of people's rights...OTOH, why would you want a stun-gun anyway?

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Yes, I do feel that it's an infringement of people's rights...OTOH, why would you want a stun-gun anyway?

Part of me wonders that as well.

 

[Carol]

Stun guns and tasers are illegal in Mass, even with a License To Carry.

I just may have to carry a Glock instead

 

[SFC JeffJ]

Stun guns and tasers are illegal in Mass, even with a License To Carry.

I just may have to carry a Glock instead

Sounds like a good plan to me.

Jeff

 

[pstarr]

One problem is that if you use a stun gun or taser on someone who has a heart condition, you can induce a heart attack...

 

[SFC JeffJ]

One problem is that if you use a stun gun or taser on someone who has a heart condition, you can induce a heart attack...

Well, if used appropriately in a defensive situation, it would be the attackers own fault then IMO.

Jeff

 

[Carol]

One problem is that if you use a stun gun or taser on someone who has a heart condition, you can induce a heart attack...

A hard strike to the sternum can do the same.

 

[Fluffy]

Fairly recently, South Bend, IN (the city I live closest too) has made electronic stun guns illegal for any one other than LEO's. Personally, I think this is an infringement on a persons right to defend themselves. What are your thoughts on the matter?

Jeff

Well, as long as they don't touch my AR-15 or my 1911 - they can keep those silly stun guns......now if we're talking about a slippery slope scenario here than you have my attention.

 

[OUMoose]

A hard strike to the sternum can do the same.

However, the level of force and/or precision needed for a strike is much higher than pushing a small button and touching someone's arm.

Personally, I think it's silly to say someone can't carry one. That said, though, stunners are an equalizer, and should be treated as such if used in a situation (i'd say their lethality is about the same a stick/rock).

 

[pstarr]

Legally, it gets hairy if you would, for instance, use such a device when you were not being threatened with deadly force (and therefore, no legal right to respond with it), and it killed the other person....!

 

[Adept]

One problem is that if you use a stun gun or taser on someone who has a heart condition, you can induce a heart attack...

But given that the state in question is a 'shall issue' state, the government is effectively saying; "We don't want you to use a stun gun on people. We want you to shoot them instead."

It's legal to carry and use a handgun in self defense, but not a stun-gun? I can't see how that makes sense.

Frankly, the issue doesn't really concern me. Both Airhorns and Pepper spray are considered prohibited illegal weapons here in Australia, because ostensibly they are 'purely offensive in nature'.

 

[pstarr]

No, you still be in deep poopoo if you shot somebody who was not threatening you with deadly force...

The thing is, most people would happily use a stun gun against less-than-lethal attacks. That's really what they're for. BUT if the victim has any kind of a heart condition (including simple high blood pressure) the effects could possibly be fatal.

People are not as likely to use a firearm against a less-than-lethal attack because the handgun is universally recognized as a lethal weapon. The stun gun isn't, and that's why people are more likely to use them when they shouldn't...

 

[HKphooey]

Yes, I do feel that it's an infringement of people's rights...OTOH, why would you want a stun-gun anyway?

They are a blast at parties! :jedi1:

 

[CuongNhuka]

I've seen and heard of people useing them to assault people, and even try (in vain) to use them to break open a cash register. So, I sorta see why. but, I think the vast majority of people that have them a women useing them to avoid being accausted.
And it is possible to use them to kill someone. Around here in good old Nebraska the police have considered to discontinue there use. Why? They accidently killed a suspect when they put the prongs on opposint ends of his spine. They were justified in useing them (he was on the ground but managed to still beat the you know what out of a few cops). There was a bit of public out cry, but in the end they cops came up a list of places they are not allowed to use them. Spine area, heart, kidneys, any area that has any thing that would conduct electricity (i.e. a pool of water).

 

[KenpoTex]

They are a blast at parties!

Oh yeah! That's about all they're good for.

 

[Cruentus]

Fairly recently, South Bend, IN (the city I live closest too) has made electronic stun guns illegal for any one other than LEO's. Personally, I think this is an infringement on a persons right to defend themselves. What are your thoughts on the matter?

Jeff

I agree. I am of the opinion that cops are citizens with a badge and a job to do; a very respectable job, but they are citizens all the same.

Therefore, whatever they are allowed to carry, I feel the private citizen should be allowed to carry as well.