# TASER facts



## Lisa (May 8, 2008)

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

Full Article


----------



## FieldDiscipline (May 8, 2008)

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 (May 8, 2008)

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 (May 9, 2008)

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 (May 9, 2008)

FieldDiscipline said:


> 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 (May 9, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> 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 (May 10, 2008)

Lisa said:


> 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 (May 12, 2008)

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 (May 12, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> 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:
> 
> ...


 
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 (May 12, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

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


 I disagree...




			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				5-0 KenpoIt is a great tool for law enforcement officers said:
			
		

> 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 (May 13, 2008)

kenpotex said:


> 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 (May 13, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> 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 (May 13, 2008)

FieldDiscipline said:


> 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 (May 13, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> *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 (May 13, 2008)

FieldDiscipline said:


> 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 (May 13, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> they are notably heavy handed at the best of times.



I know!


----------



## KenpoTex (May 13, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> 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



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> 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?



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> 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 (May 13, 2008)

kenpotex said:


> 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 (May 13, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...


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.





			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> 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.





			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				5-0 Kenpo said:
			
		

> 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 (May 14, 2008)

kenpotex said:


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


----------



## KenpoTex (May 14, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


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


back at ya


----------



## tkd1964 (May 15, 2008)

Now that law enforcement is using the Taser more often, do you see more officers using the Taser, how do you say, prematurely? With a pistol you knew that death could occur and your life or someone elses life had to be in danger. With the less lethal taser, they may not feel the same restraint.
What do you think about the new Shotgun Taser round? :shock:

Mike


----------



## Bodhisattva (May 15, 2008)

Lisa said:


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



Far too many people are maimed or killed by Tasers.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (May 15, 2008)

tkd1964, I share your concern with the above.


----------



## KenpoTex (May 15, 2008)

The Taser is generally placed at the same level as OC or sometimes Baton on the force continuum.  
There have been fatalities in situations where a Taser was used.  However, I would be willing to bet that if the Taser did not exist, many more people would have been dead or injured since the officers would have to resort to empty-hand or baton techniques, or in some cases, maybe even a firearm.


----------



## jks9199 (May 15, 2008)

Bodhisattva said:


> Far too many people are maimed or killed by Tasers.


Support your claim with facts.  Too the best of my knowledge, no death has been directly attributed to the Taser, nor have any maimings.

The Taser is a very good, less than lethal tool.  In virtually every case of a solid, two probe hit, the modern Taser WILL produce incapicitation for the 5 seconds of the cycle, with little lasting injury.  When I was trained on the Taser, I and several other students in the class took that ride.  For the full 5 seconds.  Every one of us was able to stand up immediately, and were functional.  In the class I was in, that ranged from people in their early 20s to those in their 40s.  (I'm aware of even older people voluntarily being given that ride, as well.)  Fitness levels were also quite varied.  EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US was able to get up immediately, and would have been functional.  I felt a little wobbly, kind of like taking a good hit, but not really being rocked.  Others didn't feel that much.

That's anectdotal... but, through voluntary exposure in training and re-training, literally hundreds of thousands of men and women have been given that ride.  You'd be stunned at things the RCMP has done testing the Taser; those guys are NUTS!

Through the use of the Taser, many people have been subdued with minimal injuries to themselves, or to the arresting officers.  It's not perfect for every situation, but it's much better than beating someone with a stick or shooting them... and it's more reliable than pepper spray.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 16, 2008)

tkd1964 said:


> Now that law enforcement is using the Taser more often, do you see more officers using the Taser, how do you say, prematurely? With a pistol you knew that death could occur and your life or someone elses life had to be in danger. With the less lethal taser, they may not feel the same restraint.
> What do you think about the new Shotgun Taser round? :shock:
> 
> Mike


 
I would not say prematurely.  What I will say is that officers use it rather then relying on physical control holds to  accomplish the same effect (the arrest of the bad guy).

But one thing you have to remember is that police officers are not martial artists.  It is not uncommon for officers to be injured when using force.  I know several officers who have broken their hands (as well as parts of a suspects face) due to punching.  Most departments spend a minimal amount of time training officers in the use of defensive skills.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 3, 2008)

* Nostrums: After Taser Jolt, a Regular Heartbeat Again*




> The Taser is known mainly as the shock-giving device that helps police officers incapacitate suspects and, thanks to YouTube, made Dont Tase me, bro a national catchphrase. But could there be a medical application in its future?
> 
> Probably not, but researchers say they have found one case in which a suspects irregular heartbeat returned to a normal pattern when he was hit with a Taser.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 14, 2008)

KenpoTex said:


> I just think there are better alternatives.


 Better for you and me....but Taser's C2 is the perfect option for the 'average' person who A) Isn't going to carry a gun and B) has no desire to train to use a knife or impact weapon.

It's a technological aid that does have a useful place in self-defense situations.....is it a magic bullet?  Absolutely not, but it's a decent tool.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 14, 2008)

Bodhisattva said:


> Far too many people are maimed or killed by Tasers.


 Name ONE!  Hint: 'Correlation equals causation' is a logical fallacy. 

So again name ONE person killed BY a Taser!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 14, 2008)

tkd1964 said:


> Now that law enforcement is using the Taser more often, do you see more officers using the Taser, how do you say, prematurely? With a pistol you knew that death could occur and your life or someone elses life had to be in danger. With the less lethal taser, they may not feel the same restraint.
> What do you think about the new Shotgun Taser round? :shock:
> 
> Mike


 The Taser is not comparable to a firearm, which is lethal force.  Using the Taser 'prematurely' as you say, however, has been shown to REDUCE deaths by stopping situations that were in the process of ESCALATING to lethal force.  The Taser by it's very nature SHOULD be used 'prematurely' to avoid allowing a situation to escalate!

For the record, i've been Tasered a couple dozen times.....it's not nearly the big deal that AI and the ACLU attempt to make it out to be.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 14, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> Support your claim with facts. Too the best of my knowledge, no death has been directly attributed to the Taser, nor have any maimings.
> 
> The Taser is a very good, less than lethal tool. In virtually every case of a solid, two probe hit, the modern Taser WILL produce incapicitation for the 5 seconds of the cycle, with little lasting injury. When I was trained on the Taser, I and several other students in the class took that ride. For the full 5 seconds. Every one of us was able to stand up immediately, and were functional. In the class I was in, that ranged from people in their early 20s to those in their 40s. (I'm aware of even older people voluntarily being given that ride, as well.) Fitness levels were also quite varied. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US was able to get up immediately, and would have been functional. I felt a little wobbly, kind of like taking a good hit, but not really being rocked. Others didn't feel that much.
> 
> ...


 There is SOME potential for maiming......such as catching one of the barbs in an eye, but that's why center mass is the target.  The Taser wave itself, however, has not shown to create ANY permanent harm, not matter how hard the ACLU and AI attempt to invent it.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 14, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> The Taser is not comparable to a firearm, which is lethal force. Using the Taser 'prematurely' as you say, however, has been shown to REDUCE deaths by stopping situations that were in the process of ESCALATING to lethal force. The Taser by it's very nature SHOULD be used 'prematurely' to avoid allowing a situation to escalate!
> 
> *For the record, i've been Tasered a couple dozen times.....it's not nearly the big deal that AI and the ACLU attempt to make it out to be*.


 

Mmm you're not getting to like it are you? 

I hated pain when I started MMA, now it's almost enjoyable lol!

How does it work against the drugged up type, the ones that feel no pain etc as they are so high? Effective or can they shrug that off too? That's always one of those oh oh moments.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Jun 14, 2008)

Used to spar a Shotokan guy like that.  He _*really *_liked being hit, and hard.  

Sparring him was no fun at all.


----------



## Jenna (Jun 14, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> For the record, i've been Tasered a couple dozen times.....it's not nearly the big deal that AI and the ACLU attempt to make it out to be.



Sir, some time ago I also was tasered albeit by an illegally held device.  It's a minor point that the barbs dragged the skin out of my chest and have left permanent scarring, but the shock itself precipitated an existing condition in me that needed long term hospitalisation - my point being - with respect - it *is* a big deal, least to a non armour-plated sort like myself.  I think maybe NOT a device any martial artist should be complacent about? 
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 14, 2008)

Never said that there wasn't a potential for maiming...

The taser's flinging straightened fishhooks at the target, at respectable velocity.  There's a chance for a maiming sort of injury, especially if they strike the eye or are fired at close range.  An agency in my area had a Taser cartridge discharge accidentally into an officer's hand; one of the darts actually stuck in bones of the officer's hand.

But, all told, the Taser doesn't tend to cause serious or persistent injury.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 15, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> Mmm you're not getting to like it are you?
> 
> I hated pain when I started MMA, now it's almost enjoyable lol!
> 
> How does it work against the drugged up type, the ones that feel no pain etc as they are so high? Effective or can they shrug that off too? That's always one of those oh oh moments.


 I've been a Pepperspray instructor and a Taser instructor for several years.....part of both has been exposure to the tools......I don't 'enjoy' being Tasered, but I certainly enjoy it a HELLUVALOT more than being Peppersprayed!  The irony to that is that the Taser incapacitates me, while the Pepper spray does NOT incapacitate me in the LEAST!  However, when you stop being Tasered it's over!  Pepperspray keeps on giving, and once the adrenaline wears off, Pepperspray SUCKS while you wait the hour or so for the effects to subside to a comfortable level.

As to the specific question of drugged up types, it is nearly 100% effective, assuming no malfunction and the darts reach the required targets.  Assuming that, no one i'm aware of, including some VERY pain resistant tough guys, have fought through it.  Why?  Because it's not a pain compliance device.....it LITERALLY interrupts the signal of the voluntary muscles of the body and takes them OVER by putting it's own signal on top of the brain.  Will-power ceases to be an element, as even if you have the WILL to make those muscles do what you want, they are being given a more powerful signal than the one your brain sends!  And bigger, more powerful muscles merely contract and expand more powerfully! Hopes that answers the question.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 15, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> Never said that there wasn't a potential for maiming...
> 
> The taser's flinging straightened fishhooks at the target, at respectable velocity. There's a chance for a maiming sort of injury, especially if they strike the eye or are fired at close range. An agency in my area had a Taser cartridge discharge accidentally into an officer's hand; one of the darts actually stuck in bones of the officer's hand.
> 
> But, all told, the Taser doesn't tend to cause serious or persistent injury.


  You're absolutely correct, the potential for serious injury is far lower than most of our other options.  The Taser has been PROVEN safer for BOTH the Officer AND the Suspect than other means of control!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 15, 2008)

Jenna said:


> Sir, some time ago I also was tasered albeit by an illegally held device. It's a minor point that the barbs dragged the skin out of my chest and have left permanent scarring, but the shock itself precipitated an existing condition in me that needed long term hospitalisation - my point being - with respect - it *is* a big deal, least to a non armour-plated sort like myself. I think maybe NOT a device any martial artist should be complacent about?
> Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
> Jenna


  I understand if you can't say further, but was this a criminal using a Taser on you?  And what was the extent of injuries?  I ask merely out of professional curiosity as I always ask people about the extent of any Taser related personal experience.

One REAL risk of Tasers are injuries to connector tissues that CAN be injured while the muscles are being stimulated, such as knees, back injuries, etc.....though, for LEO purposes the risk of those injuries is actually lower than the risk to those soft connector tissues while in a physical scuffle!  Far less than the risk to them from a baton strike or knee strike.


----------

