Gump Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Maybe they should toss Bibles at the bad guys or those little pencils. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted January 4, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 How can Joe Q Public practice with a taser? Maybe a can of wasp/hornet spray in each pew makes the most sense, you can shoot that bastard in the eyes from 30 feet.The taser comes with practice cartridges. It has a laser sight for the top dart and the lower dart hits one inch per foot lower. I've fired the supplied metallic target for training. Haven't hit a person but then I haven't sprayed, cut or shot anyone either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swingset Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 The taser comes with practice cartridges. It has a laser sight for the top dart and the lower dart hits one inch per foot lower. I've fired the supplied metallic target for training. Haven't hit a person but then I haven't sprayed, cut or shot anyone either.Have you trained for what to do after you've tazed someone? If you only land one probe and attempt to apply the drive taze?Cause it's not a tool of incapacitance - it's for submission and its effects can vary wildly even if deployed perfectly. You might knock someone stupid, or you might have a pissed off angry bull on your hands a millisecond after the zap is done. Who knows, and this assumes you can get close enough and hit both probes on target and the proper spread to do their job.....against a guy who might be shooting at you with better range?Yeah, good luck with that. Most self defense training rightly drills us to create distance, seek cover, fight your way to safety or a superior weapon. A tazer requires you to close on your threat. It's a damned difficult thing to ask LE to do, let alone a terrified parishioner with little use in applied force.It's an effective less-lethal tool, but requires a lot of training to effectively subdue and overcome an attacker by using. Not many people have a plan for "what now?"A gun is still the superior tool for bringing the fight to an end, and surer...without going hands-on when your charge is done. The death or permanent injury is a sad byproduct of someone who was unreasonable and violent in initiating the violence (see Trayvon)...but I'll still choose a gun as a more efficient tool than a Tazer, any day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted January 4, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Have you trained for what to do after you've tazed someone? If you only land one probe and attempt to apply the drive taze?After tasing someone you run away, leaving the taser on the ground, still connected. The C2 has a 30 second cycle. Your criticisms are based upon the LE model with it's 5 second cycle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jblosser Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 But the more you know the more you are liable for. If you need to protect yourself with deadly force and you know lesser effective forms you will be asked why you used deadly force instead of the lesser forms of force you know of. no, no, and no.you're either justified in using lethal force or you are not justified in using lethal force. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swingset Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) After tasing someone you run away, leaving the taser on the ground, still connected. The C2 has a 30 second cycle. Your criticisms are based upon the LE model with it's 5 second cycle.Straight from the Tazer product literature....I'm seeing how you developed your self-defense knowledge, Magz. I know the difference between the two, but even the 30 second taze assumes you can land the probes correctly on your fist and only shot, and once those 30 seconds are up you've still got an unsecured, armed, violent and now very much more violent guy running around. What then? Maybe you got away, maybe you left him behind to kill the rest of the people who don't know what the fuck is going on.It's an alternative to a gun, it beats nothing at all, but really it's loaded with complications that few people are trained to cope with, especially under extreme duress.Gun brings the fight to an end, from a safer distance, without requiring a one-time perfect shot requiring an upclose shot or closing on the violent, armed target. A gun can also cope with more than one target. Two attackers? Have fun with that Tazer. Attacker with a heavy coat or a chest rig in the way? Gun doesn't care, Tazer does.Tazer is a secondary weapon, and a paltry self-defense tool.But guns are icky, I get it. Edited January 4, 2013 by swingset Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted January 4, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Tazer is a secondary weapon, and a paltry self-defense tool.I agree it is not ideal. I carry it as a backup or less lethal option while I'm CCW'ing. I carry it alone in places where I can't take my P226.But guns are icky, I get it.No you don't get it. Part of claiming to be a "law abiding gun owner" means not committing felonies. If you want to carry in a state mandated CPZ then that's your business. Don't assume that people who want to remain in compliance with the laws are anti gun. How many anti-gun folks would give speeches at the Ohio statehouse in support of expanded CCW rights? I've done that. More than once. My speech was cited by the sponsor of the first amendment of CCW as being part of the reason he eliminated the "Citizens only" provision of the legislation. (the other part of the reason being another Brit who gave a speech that echoed mine). I have played my part in the pro-gun legislative process and know for a fact that my efforts have contributed in a demonstrable way to the liberalization of CCW rules.I have several guns and I CCW and have to scary black rifles that I use for home defense. I'm not scared of guns - never have been, never since being first trained in small arms handling by the military a quarter of a century ago. Yet despite this, you still maintain that I don't get it.I put it to you, sir, that is is YOU that doesn't "get it". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted January 4, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 no, no, and no.you're either justified in using lethal force or you are not justified in using lethal force.Agreed. Deadly force meets deadly force. You are not required to give the bad guy a sporting chance by using only just enough force to keep yourself alive. Any bad guy that threatens serious bodily harm or death to you or yours, and that guy gets stopped, by fair means or foul. If your chosen method sends him on to explain himself to his maker then so be it. "Shoot his leg" or "shoot the gun out his hand" is hollywood bollocks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokey Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Example.......you get wounded as an innocent victim and others get killed in a gun shooting spree, but that happened because you didn't have your pistol in the CPZ.....but hey at least you didnt commit a felony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jblosser Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 there's nowhere I need to go that I'll risk a felony to enter that place.I'll find some other business that deals in what I'm after (food, hardware, whatever), or I'll leave the weapon locked in the lockbox in my vehicle.simply cannot risk Jr.growing up without me due to a completely avoidable action on my part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted January 4, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) The chances of me getting caught and felony-charged are infinitely higher than being in a position to deal with a mass shooting. I will actively advocate for the removal of CPZs, but I won't commit a felony.If I get fired from work, or get a felony charge, then I lose my IT job and any hope of getting close to that same salary again for a long, long time, if ever. After weighing the options, I feel that staying on the right side of the law is a better way to protect and provide for my family. If I get killed in a mass shooting they get my life insurance. If I get fired they get nothing. Edited January 4, 2013 by Scruit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cOoTeR Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 no, no, and no.you're either justified in using lethal force or you are not justified in using lethal force.I didn't say you wouldn't be justified just that your going to have to explain more. Ability is a big part of justifying any type of force used. What one person would be justified in doing another wouldn't. If you've ever used a type of force on someone and had to explain it you would understand. If you were carrying in that church and shot the guy with the knife you would be explaining why you chose to shoot him to a prosecuting attorney. If you had the ability to safely disarm him with a lesser form of force ie taser or specialized martial arts training you'd better be able to articulate why deadly force was the only option you felt you had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Those of you advocating for carrying in cpz zones, then also suggesting that felons shouldn't be allowed to carry guns crack me up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted January 4, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Those of you advocating for carrying in cpz zones, then also suggesting that felons shouldn't be allowed to carry guns crack me up...Those who advocate carrying in violation of the law, then call themselves law-abiding citizens crack me up too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Punk Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Have we established if these two aren't the same person yet?Those of you advocating for carrying in cpz zones, then also suggesting that felons shouldn't be allowed to carry guns crack me up...You will not find me promoting no guns for felons; they should have them after sentence is served.Those who advocate carrying in violation of the law, then call themselves law-abiding citizens crack me up too... I have never tried to give the impression of being law abiding. A lot of folks here have been on rides with me so this place is a meeting place for people to go out to break laws. I'm missing your point in the hypocrisy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted January 4, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 I have never tried to give the impression of being law abiding. A lot of folks here have been on rides with me so this place is a meeting place for people to go out to break laws. I'm missing your point in the hypocrisy.Nothing to get. If YOU don't call yourself a law abiding gun owner then YOU are not covered by a statement that includes "People who call themselves law abiding gun owners..."Your compliance or non-compliance with the law is your business, not mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 I have never tried to give the impression of being law abiding. A lot of folks here have been on rides with me so this place is a meeting place for people to go out to break laws. I'm missing your point in the hypocrisy.Little difference between minor misdemeanors and felonies imo...But whatever makes you happy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madcat6183 Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 I have never tried to give the impression of being law abiding. A lot of folks here have been on rides with me so this place is a meeting place for people to go out to break laws. I'm missing your point in the hypocrisy.Ditto, don't remember saying I was, then again, I bet one or both of you have been known to speed, maybe even run a yellow light? I dunno, something really crazy like drop a gum wrapper and not pick it up..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madcat6183 Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 Little difference between minor misdemeanors and felonies imo...How? It's still breaking the law right? Isn't that exactly what your point was? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 How? It's still breaking the law right? Isn't that exactly what your point was?I guess if you don't get caught, it's not illegal, but if you're defending the "law abiding gun owners" and how gun laws only affect them... then advocate that they DON'T abide the law when it doesn't suit them, it seems a bit absurd to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokey Posted January 4, 2013 Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 A CFZ is what the bad guys and crazy people want to target. The options are as follows: Don't ever go into a CFZ "which is impossible in some cases", go to the CFZ and don't carry a weapon, or go to a CFZ and carry a weapon. There are potential and obvious repercussions for any of these choices, and I "believe" that only on duty law enforcement can carry in those zones as well. The repercussions are felonies, jail time, loss of license, mass shootings, murders, injuries and utter chaos. Doing the right thing and the lawful thing isn't always the right decision, but once again, there are repercussions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted January 4, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 There are many instances where someone could be committing a felony without even knowing it. Also' date=' some misdemeanors are less excusable than some felonies. I'd wager most of the members on this forum have accidentally, unknowingly committed a felony. That's the problem with too much legislation, but that's for another thread.[/quote']The patchwork of gun laws is ridiculous. I agree it is too easy to become an accidental felon. Your chl should let you carry anywhere a cop can take a gun. I want to see national ccw reciprocity with no cpz's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted January 4, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 A CFZ is what the bad guys and crazy people want to target. The options are as follows: Don't ever go into a CFZ "which is impossible in some cases", go to the CFZ and don't carry a weapon, or go to a CFZ and carry a weapon. There are potential and obvious repercussions for any of these choices, and I "believe" that only on duty law enforcement can carry in those zones as well. The repercussions are felonies, jail time, loss of license, mass shootings, murders, injuries and utter chaos. Doing the right thing and the lawful thing isn't always the right decision, but once again, there are repercussions.You have to weigh the likelihood of any given outcome, not just the impact. Getting caught armed in a state cpz won't kill you, but getting caught unarmed might. But the what are the chances of a mass shooting versus the chances of getting caught?A difficult decision that I leave up to personal choice without being judgmental but I will do my best to ensure the making that choice have all the best information to support their decision. (There is a difference between arguing what the law says, and arguing if that law makes sense) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jblosser Posted January 5, 2013 Report Share Posted January 5, 2013 I didn't say you wouldn't be justified just that your going to have to explain more. Ability is a big part of justifying any type of force used. What one person would be justified in doing another wouldn't. If you've ever used a type of force on someone and had to explain it you would understand. If you were carrying in that church and shot the guy with the knife you would be explaining why you chose to shoot him to a prosecuting attorney. If you had the ability to safely disarm him with a lesser form of force ie taser or specialized martial arts training you'd better be able to articulate why deadly force was the only option you felt you had.i believe we're on the same side here, but...if i were carrying in church and shot a dude, i'd first have to prove that i had permission from the preist/pastor to do so, otherwise i'm in violation of at least one of Ohio's laws. Assuming the dude i just offed was a "bad guy", and meant to do harm, i probably wouldn't get charged, but still...same bad guy w/knife, same me but this time with a knife, and we're out on the public sidewalk in front of the church, i DO NOT need to explain why i didn't kung-fu-judo-chop-mace-taze him into submission. it seems you've alluded to being some sort of LEO (fed, local, don't know, doesn't matter), so if you are, and as part of your duties have to use force, then yes, you have to explain it. different standards.on the other hand, as a civilian resident of Ohio, i don't have to explain anything as long as what i did passes the "imminent grave bodily injury or death" test. Part of Ohio's "Castle Doctrine" assortment of gun laws. No duty to retreat, no duty to use less-lethal means.By your thinking, Bruce Lee (assuming he were alive and a resident of Ohio) would never be able to use a gun in defense of self/other, since we all know he could take on 10-15 armed dudes with his bare hands/feet and whoop 'em all.Again, not <really> arguing with you, but trying to clarify a civilian's rights under Ohio's laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted January 5, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2013 Again, not <really> arguing with you, but trying to clarify a civilian's rights under Ohio's laws.The rules for deadly force for police and civilians differ in a relatively easy-to-describe way...- The police are expected to resolve confrontations with appropriate enforcement action, they can use deadly force in more types situations (fleeing felons etc) but are expected to not use excessive force so may have to justify skipping steps in their continuum of force.- Civilians are expected to avoid, de-escalate or flee confrontations (if able to safely), they can use deadly force only to save themselves from deadly force or violent felony (rape included) but saving others carries great risk (if you "save" the bad guy by shooting the "good" guy expect to pay for it). You are not expected to hold back if the bad guy is just "a little bit deadly". When it's go time, you bring your A game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.