# Stun "Guns" Illegal?



## SFC JeffJ (Aug 1, 2006)

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 (Aug 1, 2006)

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 (Aug 1, 2006)

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

Jeff


----------



## HKphooey (Aug 1, 2006)

JeffJ said:
			
		

> 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 (Aug 1, 2006)

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


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Aug 1, 2006)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> 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 (Aug 1, 2006)

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 (Aug 1, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> 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 (Aug 1, 2006)

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 (Aug 1, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> 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 (Aug 1, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> 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 (Aug 1, 2006)

JeffJ said:
			
		

> 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 (Aug 1, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> 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 (Aug 2, 2006)

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 (Aug 2, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> 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 (Aug 2, 2006)

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 (Aug 2, 2006)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> 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 (Aug 2, 2006)

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 (Aug 2, 2006)

HKphooey said:
			
		

> They are a blast at parties!


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


----------



## Cruentus (Aug 2, 2006)

JeffJ said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## pstarr (Aug 3, 2006)

So MP5's should be legal for anyone to obtain and carry?


----------



## Cruentus (Aug 3, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> So MP5's should be legal for anyone to obtain and carry?


 
Yup.


----------



## KenpoTex (Aug 3, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> So MP5's should be legal for anyone to obtain and carry?





			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> Yup.


 
Oh boy...here we go again.   For the record, I'm with Paul on this one.


----------



## pstarr (Aug 3, 2006)

Well, soldiers are also citizens, so....?


----------



## Drac (Aug 3, 2006)

Tazer International had just started marketing a version for citizen use, not as powerful as the LE version but it works just the same..This will put a crimp in their plans


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Aug 3, 2006)

pstarr said:
			
		

> So MP5's should be legal for anyone to obtain and carry?



Yes.

A lot of interpretations of the 2nd admendment say we should all own a basic infantrymans kit.  I'd put an MP5 in with that.  But would rather have the M249 myself.

Jeff


----------



## Grenadier (Aug 3, 2006)

Stun guns are just another way of putting down the bad guy.  Using any "non-lethal" method to accomplish that purpose can have such consequences as well, especially if someone is in rotten health.  

Some people might ask "why didn't they use their nightsticks," or "why didn't they use pepper spray?" or some other alternative method.  The fact remains, that there are always going to be people who might be rather sensitive to a particular method.  As mentioned before, people with heart problems might die from an electrical shock.  People with respiratory problems might really suffer adversely from pepper spray / OC, and so forth.  

I'll simply counter with this: for the number of people who died from an electrical shock due to a Taser, there are going to be at least that many who would have died from respiratory problems had OC / pepper spray been used, or if the suspect would have been clubbed into submission, or even put in a submission hold.  Much like the spherical character who caused that big scene at the McDonald's restaurant (5' 6", 400 lbs), dying from a heart attack when he attacked the police.  

It really doesn't matter what methods are used by the police; some people are simply going to die when even "non-lethal" methods are used.  

In the end, it is NOT the fault of the police for these people dying.  These people had the choice to comply with the law, and not commit the crimes in the first place.  They also had the choice to not fight once the police arrived.  

This all follows the old adage of "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of the cure."  





			
				pstarr said:
			
		

> So MP5's should be legal for anyone to obtain and carry?


 
Based on the track record of those civilians who lawfully own MP5's, I'd say "yes."  People who lawfully own full auto MP5's are not going to be the types to commit crimes, much less using such weapons to commit such crimes.  

There has only been a single incident of anyone using a NFA-legal full auto weapon in a crime, and that sole event was when a rogue police officer went on a spree.   He could have done that with his issued weapons anyways.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Aug 3, 2006)

Grenadier said:
			
		

> Stun guns are just another way of putting down the bad guy.  Using any "non-lethal" method to accomplish that purpose can have such consequences as well, especially if someone is in rotten health.
> 
> Some people might ask "why didn't they use their nightsticks," or "why didn't they use pepper spray?" or some other alternative method.  The fact remains, that there are always going to be people who might be rather sensitive to a particular method.  As mentioned before, people with heart problems might die from an electrical shock.  People with respiratory problems might really suffer adversely from pepper spray / OC, and so forth.
> 
> ...



Great points and well said.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Aug 3, 2006)

I'll also add that you are more likely to find LEO's nowadays with AR type rifles than MP 5's.


----------



## thescottishdude (Aug 4, 2006)

stun guns are illegal in the UK. Law enforcement barely uses them. but then again everything's illegal in the uk.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Aug 4, 2006)

thescottishdude said:
			
		

> stun guns are illegal in the UK. Law enforcement barely uses them. but then again everything's illegal in the uk.


 
even self defense.


----------

