# Civilian Tasers



## MJS (Jan 13, 2007)

Came across this article in the paper today.  We've discussed the Police use of the Taser before, so I thought we'd discuss the civilian use.




> Taser International's new civilian stun gun looks more like an electric shaver than a weapon designed to level even the most drug-crazed maniac.
> 
> The C2 comes in several colors, including "titanium silver" and "metallic pink." The device will tuck neatly into a coat pocket or purse, and at $300 for the base model, it's relatively cheap.


 
More


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Jan 13, 2007)

I'm all for it.  However, it won't be as effective as a firearm, and I'm betting that most places that don't allow CCW won't allow those either.

Jeff


----------



## searcher (Jan 13, 2007)

I think JeffJ is right.   I don't see local people being allowed to carry those unless they have a CCW permit.


----------



## kcast (Jan 13, 2007)

more trouble for us LEO's, i would shoot someone if they pulled a taser on me!


----------



## tellner (Jan 13, 2007)

That would be funny if it weren't so damned infuriating, kcast. You guys can point Tasers at me and zap the hell out of me with impunity because a Taser isn't dangerous. But it's deadly force if it's pointed the other way. Uh-huh. Right.


----------



## kcast (Jan 13, 2007)

tellner said:


> That would be funny if it weren't so damned infuriating, kcast. You guys can point Tasers at me and zap the hell out of me with impunity because a Taser isn't dangerous. But it's deadly force if it's pointed the other way. Uh-huh. Right.


 
not trying to start an argument, but I was partially joking, but being truthful, why would you be getting tased anyway??


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 14, 2007)

tellner said:


> That would be funny if it weren't so damned infuriating, kcast. You guys can point Tasers at me and zap the hell out of me with impunity because a Taser isn't dangerous. But it's deadly force if it's pointed the other way. Uh-huh. Right.



He may have been joking -- but I'm not.  You point some sort of stun gun at me, and I'm responding with lethal force, because during the several seconds that I'm incapacitated by the stun gun, you get access to my gun and everything else.  

Which leads nicely to one problem I have with civilian-use Tasers and stun devices.  You light the ogre up...  Now what?  Unless they make a radical change for the civilian model, the current versions of the Taser give a 5 second ride, during which the subject is incapacitated and immobilized.  For a police officer -- that's great.  Have someone move in fast and cuff them, or even hit them again if their conduct warrants it.  Remember -- a cop's end goal is to take that guy into custody.  A civilian's end goal is to get the hell out of there...  5 seconds might be enough to get away -- but it might not.  There have been several incidents where animals were hit with Tasers; one video I know made the YouTube rounds.  In one that happened in my area, a dog took the Taser hit.  It was immobilized for 5 seconds, then right back up and charged again, and had to be shot.  The same sort of thing has happened with people, as well.

The other problem I have is a reality check sort of thing; these devices aren't magic bullet solutions that work every time.  If the barbs don't make appropriate contact past clothing, etc. or you just plain miss, or the ogre gets up after the first hit... you need to be ready to go to another force option.  Standard doctrine in law enforcement is to have another force option ready to supplement or replace a less-lethal item like the Taser if it's not successful.  (Yes, that often means a gun.)  But a civilian probably doesn't have someone to play "back up" like that; if they did, they probably wouldn't be being attacked!


----------



## pankration (Jan 14, 2007)

Is it so dangerous for the average citizen that he is forced to carry a weapon? Anything that is used for self-protection can be used for assault. Where I live, the new weapon of choice for criminals is bear spray, usually police issue size. We had to close a whole MALL because a couple of moroons got into it and one sprayed pepper spray in the food court. I had to empty a classroom (I'm a Law and History teacher) again because someone let loose with some spray in the hallway. The point is, what's self-defense today, is an offensive weapon tomorrow. Tasers don't always work, just ask Rodney King.


----------



## MJS (Jan 14, 2007)

Some great replies!! Keep them coming! 

Speaking for myself, I personally think its a bad idea.  There are civilians running around that own guns, and there are many cases of accidents happening with them.  IE: not keeping them secured properly in the house.  JKS brings up some very good points.  The Taser is not a magic solution.  LEOs go thru a training course and re-certs for these devices.  If they're going to be given to civilians, they should also be required to be properly trained.  I saw in the article that background checks are going to be conducted, but nothing on training.  Here is another interesting comment:



> Such weapons are legal to own in Connecticut, but they cannot be carried on the person or in a vehicle, state police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance said. Even when kept in the home, Vance said, a weapon such as the C2 should be secured asa handgun would be.



It'll be interesting to see how many cases come up of MV stops and the police finding a Taser in the car or on someone.  Another thing to take into consideration is what happens when they fall into the hands of the bad guys?  We have people mugging others and using a gun, now they can just run up behind the person, zap them, etc.

It'll be interesting to see how things turn out.

Mike


----------



## Drac (Jan 14, 2007)

kcast said:


> more trouble for us LEO's, i would shoot someone if they pulled a taser on me!


 
I hear ya brother..


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 14, 2007)

Sorry to ask but what's bear spray?


----------



## kcast (Jan 14, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> Sorry to ask but what's bear spray?


 
Basically pepper spray strong enough to take down a bear!  Oleresin Capsicum (O.C) <--thats if I spelled it right


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 14, 2007)

kcast said:


> Basically pepper spray strong enough to take down a bear! Oleresin Capsicum (O.C) <--thats if I spelled it right


 
Cheers! Not much call for that here I'm afraid, we hunted our bears to exctinction! Seriously though not very pleasant I should think when used on humans to say the least, more worrying than a taser though.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 14, 2007)

Civies aren't allowed to carry tazers or stun guns in my state. This is a point of controversy among my LE friends and trainers. Opinions vary on this.

I think that reasonableness due to circumstance is what should vary between civie and LE, not tools of force.

I am of the opinion that for what is true for an officer regarding carry and use of force should be true for the citizen. I ascribe to the "old west" philosophy that the police are citizens with trusted responsibilities that go with the badge, but are citizens just the same. And I believe that it is every citizens responsibility to do what it takes to protect themselves and their own communities, not just the police.

Considering this, I don't think that the police should be allowed to carry a tool of force that the public can't, and vice versa. If the police can carry tazers, then so should private citizens. Reasonableness isn't bound only to those with a badge or to those without. A civie would still have to use reasonableness if he/she used a tazer, or be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

The reasonableness due to circumstance regarding use and carry of a tool is what should vary between officer and civie; but not ownership or carry of the tool. In other words, it would be reasonable for an officer to taze someone, if given fair warning, for not complying to reasonable verbal directives, as this avoids a physical altercation that could be injurious to both parties while making an arrest. In most circumstances, it would not be reasonable for a civie who's job IS NOT to enforce the law and who IS NOT making an arrest to taze someone for not complying with a verbal directive.

So, what varies is what is reasonable for an officer vs. a civie. What should not vary is the tool of force.

That said, using lethal force if under threat of a tazer should be considered reasonable under the right circumstance, for a civie or LE, as incapacitation could lead to severe injury or death. This is pending the totality of the circumstance, however. Obviously, I can't legally shoot an officer who gives fair warning of a pending taze because I am under arrest and I am not complying, where as a cop could shoot a criminal threatening him/her with a tazer, provided that it could be assumed that the intentions were to inflict grave bodily damage or death (by disarming the incapacitated officer and inflicting more damage, for example).

But, that is just what I think. Too bad that I think a lot of people will probably disagree with me on this.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 14, 2007)

Tez3 said:


> Cheers! Not much call for that here I'm afraid, we hunted our bears to exctinction! Seriously though not very pleasant I should think when used on humans to say the least, more worrying than a taser though.


 
Bear Spray is a needed tool for the woods in areas where bears, or even wolves and Coyotes are plentiful. The results are pretty nasty on humans, though. I would definatily rather be tazed then recieve bear spray to the face...


----------



## tellner (Jan 14, 2007)

Wow. Another chance for the fifty cent version of my OC rant...

I suppose OC is better than nothing. It beats screaming for help, but let's take a good hard look at it.

When pepper spray first came out it was like a Star Trek phaser with a stun setting, at least according to the manufacturers. It blinded. It shut down "all but life support breathing". It would stop a charging bear in its tracks. It was a perfect protection against robbers and rapists. The FBI Academy's tests proved that it was 100% effective. In other words, it was just like every other new self defense product.

Then reality started to set in.

First, the agent in charge of the experimental trials at the Academy was convicted of taking an $800,000 bribe to slant the experiment the way the manufacturer wanted. After a couple high-profile cases of cops using it exactly as directed and getting stabbed to death the FTC got involved. MSI Mace was forced to retract _*all*_ claims that it would stop violent attackers.

Then there was a bit of independent research. Once more, we all have to thank the peerless Phil Messina of Modern Warrior. He and his (mostly NYPD police officer) students have done quiet literally thousands of trials. Special cop-only pepper spray. Students who aren't enraged or on drugs. Trained dogs. Untrained dogs. Journalists. Regular people used as control subjects. The results were always absolutely consistent. It doesn't stop a goal-oriented person from carrying out his plan. Period. 

The Berkeley PD department study was in line with this. Officers found that it made the situation worse as often as it helped, and more than half the time the officer got hosed down as well. Now pretty much every police or security guard training course for OC includes spraying the students so they understand you can fight through it. 

ASLET, the American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers, has covered it over the years. Their recommendation was that it worked on "non-compliant non-violent suspects". In other words, Bubba doesn't want to get into the car, but Bubba isn't about to massage your head with a tire iron to underline the point. Hose Bubba down with OC, then cuff and stuff. It also works great for torturing passive protestors who have chained themselves to old growth redwoods.

I've been sprayed with special umpty hundred thousand SHU not-for-sale-to-mere-civilians cop-only OC by accident. Right in the face. I wasn't ready for it. You know what? I got motivated and goal oriented within about a tenth of a second. I decided that I had to extricate myself from the hold I was in, walk across a wrestling gym the size of a small airplane hanger (literally), go out the door, find the drinking fountain and start washing it out of my eyes. If I'd been doing crime that would have been about enough time to rob, rape and kill someone (in no particular order) and be halfway through my second beer. I made a serious unfriend in a local PD who came in to extoll the virtues of OC and his particular course. My standing offer of "I get a wooden knife or lipstick. You get the OC. $5 a cut. $10 a stab. No more than $1000" went begging for reasons at which I can only speculate :wink1:

Another thing to consider is the physiological effect. What does OC do, basically? It causes an allergic response. What is the body's immediate reaction? It dumps adrenaline. Congratulations. If he's still moving, he's really ticked off, and he's stronger, angrier and more impervious to pain. In fact,  tests before and after spraying with OC show a marked increase in grip strength.

In short, there's a place for it. That place is not, no way, no how, not even a little for defense against violent criminals who lead you to fear that you are in danger of sexual assault, death, or serious injury. Maybe if you shove the canister down his throat and empty it it will stop him. Otherwise, no.


----------



## MJS (Jan 14, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Civies aren't allowed to carry tazers or stun guns in my state. This is a point of controversy among my LE friends and trainers. Opinions vary on this.
> 
> I think that reasonableness due to circumstance is what should vary between civie and LE, not tools of force.
> 
> ...


 
Well, I'm not going to disagree on everything you said, as I think that you made some great points.   I'm not against guns or devices that people have to protect themselves, their families, etc.  What I am against is the people who are careless with their actions.  Going back to your wild west paragraph.  Yes, the police are citizens who have that extra capability, duty, etc.  My concern is that I'd like to see proper training.  If a cop has to go thru training, a civi should as well.  Proper use, storage, understanding the weapon...these are all things that need to be taught.

Mike


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 14, 2007)

I think that the issue of OC spray is worth it's own discussion.

That said, I agree with a lot of what tellner said regarding it, but I don't agree fully with the assessment that it is near useless as a tool of less-lethal force or self-defense.

The problem with these tools is that the research used to sell the product is sponsered by companies with a business interest; so they tend to inflate the effectiveness of the tool.

The fact is, OC does restrict breathing and vision. With proper tactics, this could aid in a defenders escape, as it is difficult to chase and subdue someone with reduced visual and respitory functioning. Not to mention this, most criminals aren't completely determined psycho's or particularly athletic. They aren't looking for a sparring partner or a fight, they are looking for an easy victim most of the time. OC makes that task not easy for them.

So I think that it does have it's place for Self-defense if properly used.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 14, 2007)

MJS said:


> Well, I'm not going to disagree on everything you said, as I think that you made some great points.  I'm not against guns or devices that people have to protect themselves, their families, etc. What I am against is the people who are careless with their actions. Going back to your wild west paragraph. Yes, the police are citizens who have that extra capability, duty, etc. My concern is that I'd like to see proper training. If a cop has to go thru training, a civi should as well. Proper use, storage, understanding the weapon...these are all things that need to be taught.
> 
> Mike


 
Yes, but the burden is on the individual to seek proper training. I may not be required to seek proper training to drive a boat under 65 feet, but that doesn't mean that I won't be held to the same standards as everyone else on the water. 

So one should get "training," but I think that it is their responsibility to do so. They are the ones who will have to face the consequences if they don't.


----------



## MJS (Jan 14, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I think that the issue of OC spray is worth it's own discussion.


 
Agreed. I started one here, where the discussion on that can continue.


----------



## MJS (Jan 14, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Yes, but the burden is on the individual to seek proper training. I may not be required to seek proper training to drive a boat under 65 feet, but that doesn't mean that I won't be held to the same standards as everyone else on the water.
> 
> So one should get "training," but I think that it is their responsibility to do so. They are the ones who will have to face the consequences if they don't.


 
Interesting.  Now, I'm not a gun owner, but talking to some co-workers, they're stating that you do need to attend a training class.  In addition, and maybe I'm misreading, but this seems a bit odd.



> Considering this, I don't think that the police should be allowed to carry a tool of force that the public can't, and vice versa. If the police can carry tazers, then so should private citizens. Reasonableness isn't bound only to those with a badge or to those without. A civie would still have to use reasonableness if he/she used a tazer, or be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.


 
So, going on what you said here, a LEO can carry a gun.  A civi should be able to carry what a cop can.  Yet, the LEO needs to be trained and the civi does not??  Doesn't sound too reassuring to know that there is some yahoo with a gun and he doesnt know the first thing about it.


----------



## tellner (Jan 14, 2007)

Cruentes, OC definitely has a place in self defense. That place is probably not in self defense in life-threatening situations such as sexual assault, robbery, kidnapping, murder or similar. There are a lot of unrealistic expectations for the stuff and ignorance about its limitations, which is why I tend to come down a bit too strongly on the other side.

Another issue that's lurking in the background is the unwillingness of people to grasp the nettle of force and violence. Many are looking for a magical totem that will keep them safe without having to deal with the important questions surrounding self defense. They place their faith in the tool because they are not prepared by training or inclination for what will happen if the tool does not keep them safe. It tends to be more of a problem with the less-than-lethal items like OC or electric shockers; one does see the same problems with many gunnies. 

That's why I _generally_ prefer to teach self defense from "the inside out" rather than "tool first, unarmed as backup". Circumstances vary, of course. The woman who has to deal with a violent abusive ex who has already violated the restraining order and says "If I can't have you nobody else will" is a completely different thing. For someone like that its "Grip, draw, present, sight alignment, trigger pull, follow through, keep firing until the slide locks back" because nothing less will do


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 14, 2007)

Cool. Let me explain! 



MJS said:


> Interesting. Now, I'm not a gun owner, but talking to some co-workers, they're stating that you do need to attend a training class. In addition, and maybe I'm misreading, but this seems a bit odd.


 
Restrictions are not on ownership, they are on lawful carry. Anyone can own a gun provided that they don't have a felony that would say otherwise. But classes are not for ownership; they are for carry rights.

Even with that, CPL/CCW course requirements should (and usually does) only be focused on safety and judicious use of force. The license does not, and should not, say that you are a qualified shooter. It is up to the individual to decide how "skilled" they want to be with a firearm, and what additional practice and courses he/she wants to undertake. The license only ensures that the individual has the information and basic gun handling skills in order to safely carry. Even then, there is no garauntee that a CPL/CCW owner will play by the rules and be safe and lawful. But most people will obey the law, and the license ensures that the judicial system can hold all people responsible when they carry.



> So, going on what you said here, a LEO can carry a gun. A civi should be able to carry what a cop can. Yet, the LEO needs to be trained and the civi does not?? Doesn't sound too reassuring to know that there is some yahoo with a gun and he doesnt know the first thing about it.


 
A person who is a LEO does not have to be a LEO to carry a gun. They could take a job selling insurance (or something) and get a CPL/CCW like everyone else for minimal training. 

The additional training that they get is to ensure that they will be skilled at using a firearm on the job. To have that particular job, there are certain minimal standards that they have to meet in terms of fitness, fireams training, driving, and so on. 

So the additional training is standards for a job, not for lawful carry (something they could do without a badge).

Hopefully that makes sense?

Now, as far as tazers go, they are a less lethal tool. I don't think that the state needs to waste time and money to set licensing standards for a less lethal force tool. I think you could hold people to standards of reasonableness without having to license them.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 14, 2007)

tellner said:


> Cruentes, OC definitely has a place in self defense. That place is probably not in self defense in life-threatening situations such as sexual assault, robbery, kidnapping, murder or similar. There are a lot of unrealistic expectations for the stuff and ignorance about its limitations, which is why I tend to come down a bit too strongly on the other side.
> 
> Another issue that's lurking in the background is the unwillingness of people to grasp the nettle of force and violence. Many are looking for a magical totem that will keep them safe without having to deal with the important questions surrounding self defense. They place their faith in the tool because they are not prepared by training or inclination for what will happen if the tool does not keep them safe. It tends to be more of a problem with the less-than-lethal items like OC or electric shockers; one does see the same problems with many gunnies.
> 
> That's why I _generally_ prefer to teach self defense from "the inside out" rather than "tool first, unarmed as backup". Circumstances vary, of course. The woman who has to deal with a violent abusive ex who has already violated the restraining order and says "If I can't have you nobody else will" is a completely different thing. For someone like that its "Grip, draw, present, sight alignment, trigger pull, follow through, keep firing until the slide locks back" because nothing less will do


 
I have to agree with you. I always say, fighting is fighting, whether your armed with a firearm, OC, or nothing at all. Once a fight breaks off, there is no magic totem to get you out of it. All you can do is stack the deck in your favor as much as you can, and do what you can to win.

OC can stack the deck in your favor if properly used.

I agree, firearm is better if lethal force is justified. However, Some people can't carry a firearm to work (for example) but can carry OC. Some people are simply unwilling to carry a firearm, but will carry OC.

For these people, something is probably better then nothing.


----------



## MJS (Jan 14, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Cool. Let me explain!
> 
> 
> 
> Restrictions are not on ownership, they are on lawful carry. Anyone can own a gun provided that they don't have a felony that would say otherwise. But classes are not for ownership; they are for carry rights.


 
Ok, thanks for the clarification.  Like I said, I don't own a gun so I'm not up to date on whats required, etc.



> Even with that, CPL/CCW course requirements should (and usually does) only be focused on safety and judicious use of force. The license does not, and should not, say that you are a qualified shooter. It is up to the individual to decide how "skilled" they want to be with a firearm, and what additional practice and courses he/she wants to undertake. The license only ensures that the individual has the information and basic gun handling skills in order to safely carry. Even then, there is no garauntee that a CPL/CCW owner will play by the rules and be safe and lawful. But most people will obey the law, and the license ensures that the judicial system can hold all people responsible when they carry.


 
True, its possible that the training will go right out the window. Then again, if I'm using this for protection, I'd want to make sure that I was capable to hitting what I'm aiming at, rather than just shooting and hope that I hit something. They don't have to be on the level of a sniper, but....well, you know what I mean, right?





> A person who is a LEO does not have to be a LEO to carry a gun. They could take a job selling insurance (or something) and get a CPL/CCW like everyone else for minimal training.
> 
> The additional training that they get is to ensure that they will be skilled at using a firearm on the job. To have that particular job, there are certain minimal standards that they have to meet in terms of fitness, fireams training, driving, and so on.
> 
> ...


 
I'd would think that having a basic understanding is better than nothing. If someone is going to buy and carry a gun for protection, to me, it only makes sense that they'd go that extra step. 





> Now, as far as tazers go, they are a less lethal tool. I don't think that the state needs to waste time and money to set licensing standards for a less lethal force tool. I think you could hold people to standards of reasonableness without having to license them.


 
May not be a bad idea though. I mean, if AI seems to get involved in every LEO Taser case, I wonder what'll happen if a civi uses it and the person dies.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 14, 2007)

MJS said:


> I'd would think that having a basic understanding is better than nothing. If someone is going to buy and carry a gun for protection, to me, it only makes sense that they'd go that extra step.


 
I totally agree with you. I would hope that people would seek training so that ensure a level of competence that ensures their well being.

Yet, there is a difference between personally believing that people should seek enough training to be considered skilled, and requiring people to be skilled by law. By what standard does one follow when considering skill? You then fall into the same problems and politics that you would run into if we had required by law skill-based licensing for martial arts instructors. It doesn't work in practicality.

So, the best we can do is set the minimal safety standards for carry. One would hope that they would train beyond that! 



> May not be a bad idea though. I mean, if AI seems to get involved in every LEO Taser case, I wonder what'll happen if a civi uses it and the person dies.


 
Well, having read some of their claims, "who cares what they think" comes to mind.


----------



## MJS (Jan 14, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> I totally agree with you. I would hope that people would seek training so that ensure a level of competence that ensures their well being.
> 
> Yet, there is a difference between personally believing that people should seek enough training to be considered skilled, and requiring people to be skilled by law. By what standard does one follow when considering skill? You then fall into the same problems and politics that you would run into if we had required by law skill-based licensing for martial arts instructors. It doesn't work in practicality.
> 
> So, the best we can do is set the minimal safety standards for carry. One would hope that they would train beyond that!


 
I certainly am enjoying this discussion.   Its always nice to hear other POVs.  Anyways...you mentioned what standards would be followed.  Thats a good question.  Could the standards for a LEO be taken, cut in half, and use those?  An agility test for a PD has certain requirements that people within each age bracket must meet.  I'm sure someone must've sat down and came up with the qualifying numbers.





> Well, having read some of their claims, "who cares what they think" comes to mind.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 14, 2007)

MJS said:


> I certainly am enjoying this discussion.


 
Cool. Me too!



> Its always nice to hear other POVs. Anyways...you mentioned what standards would be followed. Thats a good question. Could the standards for a LEO be taken, cut in half, and use those? An agility test for a PD has certain requirements that people within each age bracket must meet. I'm sure someone must've sat down and came up with the qualifying numbers.


 
I think you mean standards for civie carry?

The standards for law enforcement vary per state regulation, and per department standards. They make those standards based off what they feel the minimum requirement should be to do the job. Just like MDOT (Michigan Dept. of Transportation) has a physical standard and lifting requirement for truck drivers. It's a standard that the state believes qualifies them to safely fullfill a specific duty.

For civie carry, though, we are talking about a right rather then a job. So the standards are only to ensure that the person can safely utilize a right (the right to carry). Fitness, for example, has no baring on the ability to safely carry a gun in public, even though it has huge implications on a persons ability to defend themselves.

The whole point is, the class gives you the information you need to safely operate and carry a firearm. This way, the state can hold you accountable for those safety and legal standards. Anything beyond that (like LE qualification requirements, for example) is well beyond the scope of that program.

Beyond that are all things that one should do to improve him/herself, and should be individually directed rather then mandated by law.


----------



## MJS (Jan 14, 2007)

Sorry for the confusion. Yes, I was talking about civi carry.  I guess where I was trying to go was...LEOs have a certain set of standards.  We agree on that.  There seems to be no set standards for civis.  I see nothing wrong with having someone do say 40hrs of training.  Cover some basic laws, proper care and handling of the weapon, etc.  It could be 80 hrs, 100 hrs...whatever is decided upon.

Like I said, I'd feel more relaxed knowing that they went thru some training.  Hell, if I was going to rely on a gun or a Taser for protection, speaking for myself, I'd want to make damn sure I could operate under pressure.  I doubt the average person shoots in low light, against moving targets and in a stressful environment.  Yet, people go out, I'm sure everyday, and buy a gun for protection.  How well do they know how to use it?  The same for the taser.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 14, 2007)

MJS said:


> Sorry for the confusion. Yes, I was talking about civi carry. I guess where I was trying to go was...LEOs have a certain set of standards. We agree on that. There seems to be no set standards for civis. I see nothing wrong with having someone do say 40hrs of training. Cover some basic laws, proper care and handling of the weapon, etc. It could be 80 hrs, 100 hrs...whatever is decided upon.
> 
> Like I said, I'd feel more relaxed knowing that they went thru some training. Hell, if I was going to rely on a gun or a Taser for protection, speaking for myself, I'd want to make damn sure I could operate under pressure. I doubt the average person shoots in low light, against moving targets and in a stressful environment. Yet, people go out, I'm sure everyday, and buy a gun for protection. How well do they know how to use it? The same for the taser.


 
The problem, once again, is that we are talking about a right rather then a job qualification. 

An individual has a right to self-protection, and the right to carry what could reasonably equalize a threat (which in the case of a lethal force circumstance, particularly a gun or knife weilding assailent, a gun is the only thing that would adequetly suffice). The public has the right to not be endangered by people irresponsibly or unsafely carrying firearms. Therefore, a licensing requirement that entails minimal safety and legal standards and NOTHING MORE fulfills the objective of due dilligence to the public with minimal infringement on the individual right to self-protection.

Anything more for licensing standards (like target qualifications or 40 hours of training) wrongfully infringes on the individuals rights to self-protection, while doing minimal to ensure the safety of the public in excess of a standard safety course.

The reason is because in a minimal safety/legal course, the participant will be given all that they need to know to keep the public safe. They will learn not to put the finger on the trigger unless shooting at the intended target, to only point the firearm in a safe direction, how to safely store and carry the weapon, what legally constitutes "brandishing," and so on. So, even if they aren't particularly skilled with a firearm, there is no reason to feel "uncomfortable" about that lack of skill because they know enough to not put you in danger through improper handling. 

The reason why slapping on additional standards is ineffective is because, once again, by who's standards are we going by? The fact is, just because one spends 40 hours on the range, that doesn't mean that they are less likely to hit an innocent bystander on accident in a shooting, or handle a gun any better. What habits one decides to develop for general handling, or how someone will perform in combat is very individualized, and cannot be ensured even through extensive training and qualification requirements. 

It would behove you to know that the stats for police officer involved shootings state that they (police) only hit what they are aiming at 12-18% of the time in any given year. This is compared to around 90% hit ratio's on the range. Also, most officers who are killed in shootings are killed in under 10 feet (75%). As far as we know, civie standards, who have no qualification requirements, seem to be no better or worse in terms of performance. http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/PoliceMagazine/articles/77165/

This means that survival in a gun fight, and the ability to hit what you are aiming at is independent of 30 minutes, 5 hours, or 100 hours of training at the range. This is because the range is not combat. Most shootings happen under 3 yards (75%), with about 90% under 7 yards. So, it is not accuracy at the range, or simply "time in" at the range that will ensure ones accuracy in a gun fight, and safety of bystandards. It is going to be how the one handles the total package of "combat" at the given time of the incident that will matter, which no statewide qualification standard could ever ensure.

So, if we can't ensure accuracy and performance in a gunfight for cops, who we trust to protect us on the street and who have training and qualification requirements, how can we ensure this for civies? 

We can't.

So, to make a statewide requirement for civies to try to ensure "skill" is completely unreasonable, given this information. It is up to the individual to ensure their own skill. The individual cop, or civie that carries, has to do what they need to ensure combat readiness. This will vary per individual, making it impossible to legislate.


----------



## MJS (Jan 14, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> The problem, once again, is that we are talking about a right rather then a job qualification.
> 
> An individual has a right to self-protection, and the right to carry what could reasonably equalize a threat (which in the case of a lethal force circumstance, particularly a gun or knife weilding assailent, a gun is the only thing that would adequetly suffice). The public has the right to not be endangered by people irresponsibly or unsafely carrying firearms. Therefore, a licensing requirement that entails minimal safety and legal standards and NOTHING MORE fulfills the objective of due dilligence to the public with minimal infringement on the individual right to self-protection.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for the link.  So, to sum this up, in a nutshell, the basic license is good enough?  Anything more is not required, but is an option if they choose to take it that far?

In your opinion, do you foresee any issues once the taser becomes more widely used by non-LEOs?

Mike


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 14, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> Bear Spray is a needed tool for the woods in areas where bears, or even wolves and Coyotes are plentiful. The results are pretty nasty on humans, though. I would definatily rather be tazed then recieve bear spray to the face...


And, to the best of my knowledge, pretty unreliable on animals...  Fur covers lots of their skin...  Dogs, I know, have "filters" built into their noses that reduce the effectiveness on the respiratory system, which means you pretty much need a strong direct hit on the eyes...  But I HAVE seen owners who got "sprayed" when their dog got sprayed by meter readers, and they subsequently gave their dog a big hug!

OC on people isn't hugely reliable (except on cops!); I've seen plenty of drunks who didn't feel it 'til they started to calm down.  It's a good "wake up" for the guy who's thinking about fighting, and hasn't made up his mind, and it can take the fight out of some people.  That first guy I mentioned?  It's either going to push him over to fight -- or he's gonna give up then and there.  (He's probably the same guy who'd give up as soon as he got popped good...)  Otherwise, the fight's on... but at least you can articulate using other means first...

And it's still most effective on cops...  (Can someone explain why it is that every time OC is deployed, I end up getting sprayed?)


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 15, 2007)

We have to look at the research that is available, rather then just anecdotal evidence. One could list anecdotal evidence where OC has worked against assailents and animals as well.

From 10th Internation Conference on Bear Research:

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"We analyzed 66 cases of field use of capsicum sprays between 1984 and 1994. Regarding aggressive brown/grizzly bear incidents associated primarily with close range encounters, in 94% of the cases, the spray had the effect of stopping the behavior that the bear was displaying immediately prior to being sprayed. In six cases, the bear continued to act aggressively; in three of these cases the bear attacked the person spraying. In one of these 3 cases, further spraying caused the bear to stop and leave. Of the three encounters that resulted in injury to the sprayer, two involved a mother with cub(s) and the other involved a single bear. In all three injurious encounters, the bear received a substantial dose of spray to the face. While it can't be known for certain how these encounters would have ended out in the absence of spray, the use of spray appears to have prevented injury in most of this type of encounter. Regarding brown/grizzly bear incidents associated with curiosity of searching for human foods and garbage, in 100% (20/20) of the cases the spray had the effect of stopping the behavior that the bear was displaying immediately prior to being sprayed. The bear left the area in 90% of the cases."[/FONT]

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/brownbears/pepperspray/pepperspray.htm

Also on the use of OC on people:

"The North Carolina study found that the number of injuries to police officers
and suspects decreased after pepper spray was introduced. Complaints that the
police used excessive force also declined."

http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/nij/195739.txt

And this source cited an 85% success rate for OC spray:

Citing the *success* of the LASD TASER ECD program, he gave
the following statistics: a 94% *success* *rate* with TASER ECDs
and 85% with pepper *spray*

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...+for+Law+Enforcement&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9

There are more sources to site similar stats.

The point is, we have to look at the data. No one is claiming that the tool doesn't have it's potential for failure or complication, or that this is the magic answer to every fight. OC does, however, seem to have a significant level of success against either people or animals, and is shown to work in the users favor at high enough percentages to justify its use and carry for those who want to carry it.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 15, 2007)

MJS said:


> Thanks for the link. So, to sum this up, in a nutshell, the basic license is good enough? Anything more is not required, but is an option if they choose to take it that far?



Yup. That basically does the due dilligence for public safety while still maintaining individual self-defense rights. Remember, most people will voluntarily choose to seek training and practice beyond the licensing course anyway.



> In your opinion, do you foresee any issues once the taser becomes more widely used by non-LEOs?
> 
> Mike


 
Sure, there will be more anecdotal reports of civies abusing tazers.

But, the important thing to remember is, it's not the tazers that are the cause of this problem; it is the people that would abuse them. If tazers aren't available, they will pick another tool or method to cause violence or abuse.

So, example, we might here a story of a teenager tazing a cat with his mom's tazer that he stole. But we need to remember that a teen who would taze an animal would decide to do something else abusive and deadly to an animal through another means if the tazer wasn't available.

I would expect that stats of tazers being used for violence would go up, then, due to availability if they were legal for civies. But these stats would be negligable. Furthermore, I would also expect that OVERALL stats for violence would remain consistant. This would mean that people who are going to be violent would do so regardless of tazer availability or not. 

This is almost always the case. Doomsayers always try to predict a huge leap in violence when a restriction is removed regarding weapons. They then try to illogically use anecdotal evidence to support the point at a later date, rather then looking at the entire statistical picture. We saw this when OC 1st became popular. Also, remember all of the wild predictions of mayham in the streets when Florida led the way by removing the "duty to retreat" law? Now many states have the law with no related increase in violence or shooting stats. Or how about Utah removing the restriction of pistol carry in school zones? Predictions of dead children everywhere due to this restriction removal have yet to come true.

Allowing civies to carry tazers will be no different. There will be those who will predict mass tazings and pandimonium in the streets if tazer restrictions are lifted; yet if lifted none of these predictions will come true and life will go on business as usual.

That's what always happends, it seems.


----------



## tellner (Jan 15, 2007)

Just a thought...

Extra training and licensing requirements hurt worst those who most need to carry. The poor are more likely to be victims of violent crime than the rich. The life-threatening crimes which crosse all class boundaries are domestic. All of the measures put forward make the means of self defense less accessible to those who are at the greatest risk.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 15, 2007)

tellner said:


> Just a thought...
> 
> Extra training and licensing requirements hurt worst those who most need to carry. The poor are more likely to be victims of violent crime than the rich. The life-threatening crimes which crosse all class boundaries are domestic. All of the measures put forward make the means of self defense less accessible to those who are at the greatest risk.


 
Very valid and important point!


----------

