TASER facts

[Lisa]

Good article with FAQs on TASERS including what the acronym stands for, different types, benefits and drawbacks.

Full Article

 

[FieldDiscipline]

Interesting. I remember reading about Royal Military Police being issued them in Canada. They had to be shocked with one first, before they were allowed to carry it. Cheers... I'll stick to a baton!

 

[Sukerkin]

I never knew that they were named for Tom Swift . I always thought it was some convoluted scientific acronym and am curiously pleased to learn it's true derivation ... Electric Rifle just sounds so cool :lol:.

 

[KenpoTex]

decent article, thanks.

I still don't think they're appropriate for self-defense, but they're a great tool for LE/security personnel.

 

[Lisa]

Interesting. I remember reading about Royal Military Police being issued them in Canada. They had to be shocked with one first, before they were allowed to carry it. Cheers... I'll stick to a baton!

RCMP - Royal Canadian Mounted Police, not military

 

[Lisa]

I never knew that they were named for Tom Swift . I always thought it was some convoluted scientific acronym and am curiously pleased to learn it's true derivation ... Electric Rifle just sounds so cool :lol:.

I didn't either and thought it pretty cool too.

 

[FieldDiscipline]

RCMP - Royal Canadian Mounted Police, not military

I actually meant the British RMP when in Canada on BATUS. Should have been clearer about that! Thanks though

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I think that they are a perfect tool to aid in self-defense.

Remember, your the vast majority of average people are not (or can not) spend hours learning martial arts. Even when they do, some are not even good. And even if you do learn a martial art, an attacker could still be much better than you. Remember, they attack people for a living. So then what are you left with:

1. Knives
2. Guns
3. Physical Impact Weapons (Baton, Baseball Bat, Staffs, etc.)

Knives and Physical Impact Weapons, again, require a great deal of training to be able to use effectively. With guns, most people underrate the amount of training necessary to use them effectively. Plus, take into account the legal, moral, and psychological issues associated with their use.

A taser has a laser sight, negating the need to align sights like a firearm. They allow a stand-off distance, which means there is no need to be up close with the attacker. And, the taser, when it hits the attacker properly, causes complete incapacitation to them, allowing a potential victim to escape. (The commercially available version of the taser has a 30 second cycle). And it causes no permanent damage to the attacker.

It is a great tool for law enforcement officers, and an even better one for potential victims with little to no effective self-defense training.

 

[punisher73]

I think that they are a perfect tool to aid in self-defense.

Remember, your the vast majority of average people are not (or can not) spend hours learning martial arts. Even when they do, some are not even good. And even if you do learn a martial art, an attacker could still be much better than you. Remember, they attack people for a living. So then what are you left with:

1. Knives
2. Guns
3. Physical Impact Weapons (Baton, Baseball Bat, Staffs, etc.)

Knives and Physical Impact Weapons, again, require a great deal of training to be able to use effectively. With guns, most people underrate the amount of training necessary to use them effectively. Plus, take into account the legal, moral, and psychological issues associated with their use.

A taser has a laser sight, negating the need to align sights like a firearm. They allow a stand-off distance, which means there is no need to be up close with the attacker. And, the taser, when it hits the attacker properly, causes complete incapacitation to them, allowing a potential victim to escape. (The commercially available version of the taser has a 30 second cycle). And it causes no permanent damage to the attacker.

It is a great tool for law enforcement officers, and an even better one for potential victims with little to no effective self-defense training.

Also, I'm not sure if they have them on the civilian model, but they have a built in camera. That way you have it all on tape what the guy did and to submit as evidence for prosecution of the guy.

 

[KenpoTex]

I think that they are a perfect tool to aid in self-defense.

I disagree...

Knives and Physical Impact Weapons, again, require a great deal of training to be able to use effectively. ....Plus, take into account the legal, moral, and psychological issues associated with their use.

I've never really agreed with the idea that knives require a great deal of training...the pointy end goes in the other guy, repeat as necessary. As I see it, the biggest factor in being able to use a knife or any other weapon is being able to deploy it quickly and efficiently, something that just requires some forethought and practice. Yes, training is always preferred, but it's not as complicated as many instructors would have people believe.

I do agree that there is a philosophical "place" that must be reached to be able to inflict serious damage at a moment's notice. However, I don't see that using a weapon is any different than empty hand tactics like eye-gouges or throat attacks. I think many people are more comfortable with empty-hand techniques because they haven't fully "thought through" the issues (that eye and throat attacks fall into the realm of deadly force also). This is a mindset issue, unfortunately, mindset is not emphasized enough in most MA schools.

A taser has a laser sight, negating the need to align sights like a firearm. They allow a stand-off distance, which means there is no need to be up close with the attacker. And, the taser, when it hits the attacker properly, causes complete incapacitation to them, allowing a potential victim to escape. (The commercially available version of the taser has a 30 second cycle). And it causes no permanent damage to the attacker.

The downside to Tasers however is that you only have one or two shots. This pretty much means that you have to make a good hit on the first try and you can only deal with one person (what if there are multiples?). Other drawbacks are that they are about the same price as a real firearm (which can easily be equipped with a laser if that's your thing), and the reloads are expensive (more $ than a box of ammo for any of the popular pistol calibers) which makes frequent practice very costly.

even better one for potential victims with little to no effective self-defense training[/b].

with little to no training, do you expect someone to have the mindset necessary to cooly make the "one good shot" upon which the Taser's effectiveness relies?

I just think there are better alternatives.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I've never really agreed with the idea that knives require a great deal of training...the pointy end goes in the other guy, repeat as necessary. As I see it, the biggest factor in being able to use a knife or any other weapon is being able to deploy it quickly and efficiently, something that just requires some forethought and practice. Yes, training is always preferred, but it's not as complicated as many instructors would have people believe.

I do agree that there is a philosophical "place" that must be reached to be able to inflict serious damage at a moment's notice. However, I don't see that using a weapon is any different than empty hand tactics like eye-gouges or throat attacks. I think many people are more comfortable with empty-hand techniques because they haven't fully "thought through" the issues (that eye and throat attacks fall into the realm of deadly force also). This is a mindset issue, unfortunately, mindset is not emphasized enough in most MA schools.

I agree with what you say here. But having that in mind, that even MA schools do not teach proper mindset for a potentially deadly force encounter, how do you expect the average person to be ready for it. You can't. And this goes beyond the mere teaching of techniques. It goes to the willingness to take a life. I don't believe that even 25% of the population is ready to do that. And even of those that are, how many of them are ready and able to deal with the psychological consequences of such an act.

The downside to Tasers however is that you only have one or two shots. This pretty much means that you have to make a good hit on the first try and you can only deal with one person (what if there are multiples?). Other drawbacks are that they are about the same price as a real firearm (which can easily be equipped with a laser if that's your thing), and the reloads are expensive (more $ than a box of ammo for any of the popular pistol calibers) which makes frequent practice very costly.

with little to no training, do you expect someone to have the mindset necessary to cooly make the "one good shot" upon which the Taser's effectiveness relies?

I just think there are better alternatives.

Several issues are raised here.

1. Although a taser may cost as much as a firearm, if you don't hit with it, it is just as ineffective as missing with a taser. Also, even after an attacker is struck by one, or even several bullets, it may not stop the attack.

Don't get me wrong, I am an advocate of every law abiding citizen carrying a firearm on their person, at the minimum, whenever they step foot outside their door. But this comes with the caveat that they train regularly, and be willing and able to kill someone. Other then that, leave it alone.

A taser has the effect of immediately incapacitating the attacker. And one does not need to make the perfect hit with it. Even peripheral hits, unlike with a firearm, will take an attacker down, and allow the victim to escape.

2. Remember also, most states do not allow citizens to carry firearms. Therefore to them, the idea of carrying a firearm is a moot point.

3. Some states do not allow you to carry knives either. Again, their use becomes a moot point. I do not know of a state where carrying a taser is illegal.

4. I will agree, proper training is necessary for any weapon/self-defense technique. But, when it comes to the overall training/mindset/legal/psychological issues involved, a taser rides pretty high up there on my list of the most useful self-defense aid out there.

Just out of curiosity, what are the better alternatives?

 

[FieldDiscipline]

Also, even after an attacker is struck by one, or even several bullets, it may not stop the attack.

I take your point, but you would have to be one angry man to keep going after someone had emptied a HK USP magazine into you. Short of carrying a Browning 50 down the shops its about as good as your gonna get. As discussed in the Taser Self-Defence thread going on, a Taser isnt guaranteed to put you down either...

I'm interested also as to what kenpotex has in mind as better alternatives, not that I disagree as I am not a huge followr of the Taser, I can just see downsides with all methods.

 

[Tez3]

I actually meant the British RMP when in Canada on BATUS. Should have been clearer about that! Thanks though

I'm all for them being shocked, as many times as possible lol! they aren't real police having only military NCOs powers so I don't think it would be a good idea to issue them with anything more than a whistle.
Things like this have to be in responsible hands!

 

[FieldDiscipline]

I'm all for them being shocked, as many times as possible lol! they aren't real police having only military NCOs powers so I don't think it would be a good idea to issue them with anything more than a whistle.
Things like this have to be in responsible hands!

Not a fan of the monkeys then? Sorry to hear that, we all love them :wink1:
I quite agree with the first sentence above. Just for training you understand.

So all NCO's have the same powers of arrest as them then? RMP LCpls can arrest all non commisioned ranks, even senior ones though cant they?

 

[Tez3]

Not a fan of the monkeys then? Sorry to hear that, we all love them :wink1:
I quite agree with the first sentence above. Just for training you understand.

So all NCO's have the same powers of arrest as them then? RMP LCpls can arrest all non commisioned ranks, even senior ones though cant they?

RMPs can only arrest for military 'crimes', the same as any NCO. In fact arrest is probably not the right word, they can warn for orders. The only powers of arrest they have for civilians is the same as anyone has, citizens arrest and thats only for certain crimes.they aren't noted for their co operation either especially when it comes to army bullying allegations. They are supposed to be able to 'arrest' any rank but in practice they usually use the same ranked RMP, rarely though do officers get arrested, they usually find a 'mental illness' and bung them off to hospital!
The idea of giving them tasers is actually quite alarming as they are notably heavy handed at the best of times.

 

[FieldDiscipline]

they are notably heavy handed at the best of times.

I know!

 

[KenpoTex]

1. Although a taser may cost as much as a firearm, if you don't hit with it, it is just as ineffective as missing with a taser. Also, even after an attacker is struck by one, or even several bullets, it may not stop the attack.

True

Don't get me wrong, I am an advocate of every law abiding citizen carrying a firearm on their person, at the minimum, whenever they step foot outside their door. But this comes with the caveat that they train regularly, and be willing and able to kill someone. Other then that, leave it alone.

I agree, however, my "hang up" with the whole taser idea is that it is basically a "pistol like" device with very limited range...if you can't hit with a pistol, how are you going to hit with a taser? I think the level of training is just as high. In fact, because you only have one shot, it might even be more critical to be well-trained when using a taser.

A taser has the effect of immediately incapacitating the attacker. And one does not need to make the perfect hit with it. Even peripheral hits, unlike with a firearm, will take an attacker down, and allow the victim to escape.

when I said "good hit," I meant making a hit that allows both probes to impact the target.

2. Remember also, most states do not allow citizens to carry firearms. Therefore to them, the idea of carrying a firearm is a moot point.

I believe we're now up to 40 states that have "shall issue" laws regarding concealed carry. Only two states (Illinois and Wisconsin) do not allow concealed carry, and the other eight are "May issue" states (some make getting a permit much harder than others). In other words, most law-abiding adults can carry a firearm if they choose to do so. My permit is recognized in, I think, 32 other states.

3. Some states do not allow you to carry knives either. Again, their use becomes a moot point. I do not know of a state where carrying a taser is illegal.

which states do not allow any knife carry at all? I know laws vary as to length and type, but I don't know of any that absolutely do not allow it. Which states (other than IL and WI) allow a taser that do not allow firearms and/or knives?

4. I will agree, proper training is necessary for any weapon/self-defense technique. But, when it comes to the overall training/mindset/legal/psychological issues involved, a taser rides pretty high up there on my list of the most useful self-defense aid out there.

Just out of curiosity, what are the better alternatives?

I believe that firearms, knives, and OC are better alternatives.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I agree, however, my "hang up" with the whole taser idea is that it is basically a "pistol like" device with very limited range...if you can't hit with a pistol, how are you going to hit with a taser? I think the level of training is just as high. In fact, because you only have one shot, it might even be more critical to be well-trained when using a taser.

I understand what you are saying here. But with issues such as sight alignment, recoil, the need for a willingness to kill someone, and the legal and moral ramifications, I think that for the average person, a taser may be a beter option for most people, rather then a firearm.

when I said "good hit," I meant making a hit that allows both probes to impact the target.

I understand that. But also remember, if you dont hit with both prongs, you can still use the drive stun on the attacker. And, if you have at least one prong in them, then hitting them with the drive stun is just like hitting with both prongs.

I believe we're now up to 40 states that have "shall issue" laws regarding concealed carry. Only two states (Illinois and Wisconsin) do not allow concealed carry, and the other eight are "May issue" states (some make getting a permit much harder than others). In other words, most law-abiding adults can carry a firearm if they choose to do so. My permit is recognized in, I think, 32 other states.

Unfortunately, your information is incorrect. California does not allow concealed carry. Sure, you have a remote possibility that a chief executive of a law enforcement officer to give you permission, but it rarely, if ever happens (only if you are Edward James Olmos). For practical purposes, a lot of states that have may-issue laws dont issue a lot of permits, to include New York, Conneticut, and Maryland. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#Permit_issue_policies).

Only 36 states have shall-issue permits. And some states that allow the carrying of firearms only allow open carry.

Also, not all states recognize permits from other states. Therefore just because you can carry in one state doesnt mean you can carry in others.

Just saying that there are some issues with the carrying of firearms.

which states do not allow any knife carry at all? I know laws vary as to length and type, but I don't know of any that absolutely do not allow it. Which states (other than IL and WI) allow a taser that do not allow firearms and/or knives?

I am not familiar with all the laws regarding knife carry, but I remember when I was living in Ohio, my ex-mother-in-law (who is a cop there) told me that I could not carry a folding knife, that it was illegal.

I believe that firearms, knives, and OC are better alternatives.

I have already explained why I dont think that a firearm or knife is necessarily a better option for the average person.

As far as OC is concerned, I am interested why you think its better then a taser. You have to be more accurate with OC then with a taser. Although it is cheaper and one could theoretically train with it more, I dont think that makes it any better, considering that the average person probably wont train. I know police officers who have trouble hitting suspects with pepper spray, and they are required to train with it. They have even sprayed each other, temporarily disabling their own assistance.

Also, OC, even with a perfect hit, is not a fight stopper. This I know from personal experience.

 

[KenpoTex]

Unfortunately, your information is incorrect. California does not allow concealed carry. Sure, you have a remote possibility that a chief executive of a law enforcement officer to give you permission, but it rarely, if ever happens (only if you are Edward James Olmos). For practical purposes, a lot of states that have may-issue laws dont issue a lot of permits, to include New York, Conneticut, and Maryland. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#Permit_issue_policies).

Only 36 states have shall-issue permits. And some states that allow the carrying of firearms only allow open carry.

Also, not all states recognize permits from other states. Therefore just because you can carry in one state doesnt mean you can carry in others.

Just saying that there are some issues with the carrying of firearms.

I realize that in several states (California, NY, etc.), "may issue" often means "not unless you're a big celebrity or a politician." I didn't go into detail simply because I merely posted the info. to refute your statement that "most states do not allow citizens to carry firearms." While there are a myriad of issues from state to state, citizens of most states can carry firearms if they choose to go through the licensing process.

I am not familiar with all the laws regarding knife carry, but I remember when I was living in Ohio, my ex-mother-in-law (who is a cop there) told me that I could not carry a folding knife, that it was illegal.

So, because of that comment, you make the leap to "some states don't allow knife carry?" Ohio's weapons statutes can be found here. I don't see anything there that absolutely bans knives, it only appears to limit the circumstances under which you can carry a concealed knife.

As far as OC is concerned, I am interested why you think its better then a taser. You have to be more accurate with OC then with a taser.

How do you have to be more accurate, you have an "area fire" tool with multiple shots? Yes, your target area is smaller but you've got a much more "forgiving" delivery system.

Although it is cheaper and one could theoretically train with it more, I dont think that makes it any better, considering that the average person probably wont train. I know police officers who have trouble hitting suspects with pepper spray, and they are required to train with it. They have even sprayed each other, temporarily disabling their own assistance.

Once again, I fail to see how an "average person" who probably won't train is going to be better off with a Taser that does require some measure of precision as opposed to OC which anyone who has ever used a water-gun or a can of cooking spray will easily understand.

Also, OC, even with a perfect hit, is not a fight stopper. This I know from personal experience.

Very true, I'm not a huge proponent of OC myself (and yes, I've been sprayed) but if we're talking about the "average person who probably won' train," I think OC is a more intuitive tool.


I think we're just going to have to "agree to disagree."

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I realize that in several states (California, NY, etc.), "may issue" often means "not unless you're a big celebrity or a politician." I didn't go into detail simply because I merely posted the info. to refute your statement that "most states do not allow citizens to carry firearms." While there are a myriad of issues from state to state, citizens of most states can carry firearms if they choose to go through the licensing process.



So, because of that comment, you make the leap to "some states don't allow knife carry?" Ohio's weapons statutes can be found here. I don't see anything there that absolutely bans knives, it only appears to limit the circumstances under which you can carry a concealed knife.



How do you have to be more accurate, you have an "area fire" tool with multiple shots? Yes, your target area is smaller but you've got a much more "forgiving" delivery system.

Once again, I fail to see how an "average person" who probably won't train is going to be better off with a Taser that does require some measure of precision as opposed to OC which anyone who has ever used a water-gun or a can of cooking spray will easily understand.

Very true, I'm not a huge proponent of OC myself (and yes, I've been sprayed) but if we're talking about the "average person who probably won' train," I think OC is a more intuitive tool.


I think we're just going to have to "agree to disagree."

I agree that we are going to have to disagree. But still, a good, cordial discussion.