Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tasers for the Public?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Centurion44
    I was going to go all 2nd amendment on you, but I see your Canadian. So I'll just say this:

    The only people you want armed is the government. That's why your still under British rule and we are not. Nuff said.
    I was going to say the exact same thing. Well put. A Canadian just wouldn't understand.



    To clear up some things...

    For Law Enforcement, the Taser we see for the most part is the M26...and there are more and more X26s out there.

    The civilian version of the M series is the M18 and M18L. The difference between the M18 and M18L is that the M18L has a laser sight exactly like the M26.

    The civilian version comes with cartridges that fire 15 feet. However, you can purchase cartridges that are 15, 21, or 25 feet in length, whether you are a LEO or not.

    The only difference between an M26 and an M18L is that the M26 uses 26 watts of power while the M18L uses 18 watts of power. Also, the civilian model delivers only 10 pulses per second while the LE model delivers 15-19 pulses per second. They still both deliver the same debilitating 50,000 volts and all of the "T-wave" mumbo-jumbo.
    Bill Cosby: Stewie, what do you think candy is made out of?
    Stewie Griffin: Sunshine and farts! What the hell kind of question is that?!

    Comment


    • #32
      Puget Sound

      Thanks for the extra info...was not clear on the differences between LE and civi versions. Its been 6 months or more since anyone had even asked me for a taser quote.
      An impressionable child in a tumultuous world, and they say I'm at a difficult stage... --Meat Loaf

      Professional Stupidity Recognition Technician

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by zap
        Puget Sound

        Thanks for the extra info...was not clear on the differences between LE and civi versions. Its been 6 months or more since anyone had even asked me for a taser quote.
        Not a problem.

        The differences between the civ and LE versions do show that Taser is thinking about the potential of a civilian using one stupidly. The lower wattage and the lower pulses/second makes it much less dangerous but still an extremely effective self defense tool.

        I can't see any real reason why civilians should not be able to buy a Taser. If you think Tasers should be outlawed for civilians, you likely think guns should be outlawed for civilians as well. And if that is the case, that's a much heavier discussion than I care to get into right now.

        Like others have said...we don't see pepper spray fights. We don't see collapsible baton fights. Why are Tasers going to cause a huge upsurge in crime? Especially with the $400+ price tag. When you can buy a .38 Special for $50, why spend $400-1000 on a Taser?
        Bill Cosby: Stewie, what do you think candy is made out of?
        Stewie Griffin: Sunshine and farts! What the hell kind of question is that?!

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Finch
          I'd say the lives saved by restricting firearm rights would be worth it.
          Believe whatever your armed government tells you to you believe. However, I don't want to hijack this thread, so if you'd like you take this up on a seperate topic, I'd enjoy obleterating you in a civilized debate.
          You have no right to not be offended.-Neal Boortz

          Comment


          • #35
            These people do not understand the concept of a firearm as a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. A gun IS the same as a knife, (including the apple peeling variety), a baseball bat, or a car. Each CAN be deadly IF USED INCORRECTLY.

            Many people with your opinion don't understand the CORRECT use of a firearm, therefore attach MISSuse to the tool and not the operator where it belongs.
            I agree that it's the person behind the "tool" that actually kills people (whether intentionally or otherwise), but the bottom line is that a disproportionate number of Americans are killed each year thanks to the firearm laws there. Lives to me are worth more than rights.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Finch
              I agree that it's the person behind the "tool" that actually kills people (whether intentionally or otherwise), but the bottom line is that a disproportionate number of Americans are killed each year thanks to the firearm laws there. Lives to me are worth more than rights.
              Rights to me are worth more than Life
              To give up our rights would be a slap in the face to all the good men and women that died for them
              Straight Up

              new office pic relocated to: http://truckingamerica.blogspot.com/

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Tennsix
                ...A prisoner died after being zapped in the sally port a while back. A jail officer was charged with battery with a deadly weapon. CBS came to town and aired the story on 60 Minutes...
                I looked up the story, of course the resisting prisoner had a heart condition and toxic levels of TWO drugs in his system. It doesn't really explain why he was tased in the first place, though. Based on that story, though, what a load of crap! I'm sure there's plenty of lawsuits going around right now? I hope everything works out for the jail deputy, it appears he is the actual victim in this case. It's also interesting that he was charged with battery with a deadly weapon. All sorts of possible debates found in that story.
                Originally posted by Finch
                I've said it before and I'll say it again; the only people who should have firearms are military and police.

                Too bad for the rest.
                No.


                Anyway, tasers. There's obviously the chance of mis-use, and if a taser was pointed at an officer obviously there should be no issue when it comes to shooting the idiot. Once he tases you, he's got your gun.

                The biggest issue is tasers being used in crimes, someone mentioned robberies. Here's how I see it: yes, probably some tasers will be used in criminal acts. It's bound to happen. But with the high price of tasers, they should be few and far between anyway. If a criminal does get ahold of one, he tases a few people and gets a few wallets. Everyone gets to go home that night. If a woman alone at night uses one, God knows what she's prevented.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Finch
                  I've said it before and I'll say it again; the only people who should have firearms are military and police.

                  Too bad for the rest.
                  Sounds like a short German fellow with a mustache. What was his name? Oh yeah, Adolf Hitler!
                  " (T)o preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.... " Richard Henry Lee, 1788

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Finch
                    I agree that it's the person behind the "tool" that actually kills people (whether intentionally or otherwise)...
                    So it is people not guns that cause the deaths using firearms

                    Originally posted by Finch
                    ...but the bottom line is that a disproportionate number of Americans are killed each year thanks to the firearm laws there. Lives to me are worth more than rights.
                    Or is it laws Man is naturally depraved and will find ways to circumvent any laws restricting his actions if it is what he desires to do. Restricting firearms, without their total destruction and the erasure of all relevant technology, will accomplish nothing in preventing the criminal element from continuing to use them. Neither of those is possible. I have to stop now

                    Every person has the right to defend him/herself. The tool that they use is immaterial.
                    " (T)o preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.... " Richard Henry Lee, 1788

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Finch
                      I agree that it's the person behind the "tool" that actually kills people (whether intentionally or otherwise), but the bottom line is that a disproportionate number of Americans are killed each year thanks to the firearm laws there. Lives to me are worth more than rights.

                      Wow...that is soooooo wrong that I'm not sure where to start.


                      "I agree that it's the person behind the "tool" that actually kills people (whether intentionally or otherwise),"

                      We agree here.

                      "but the bottom line is that a disproportionate number of Americans are killed each year thanks to the firearm laws there."

                      I think when you look at the number of Americans that die of unatural causes all together, the number that die because they were shot is actually disproportianately LOW.

                      Many, many, more people die in cars every year than are killed by someone using a gun (crimminally or otherwise).

                      I have yet had one person who was able to answer this one simple question intellegently..... WHY would a criminal, (someone who does NOT OBEY LAWS BY DEFINITION), be thwarted by disarming you and me with laws??

                      Another question that often goes unanswered.... How does MY being disarmed KEEP YOU SAFE? The obvious answer is that it does not. My being armed might keep you safe in a dismal situation, whereas I would be unable to help if disarmed.


                      "Lives to me are worth more than rights"

                      This one just sat me back in my chair. Maybe it is because you are Canadian....or simply not American...that you feel this way. But I have to ask....if lives were more important than rights...why are you a cop? Do you ignore robberies unless someone is about to die? No...you protect the RIGHTS of your citizens to live free (as is allowed) and hopefully without the cloud of harm to them and their property. If there is a shooting going on in a building...do you wait outside so your life is not endangered...no you do your job.

                      You know...if this statement was made by a citizen of the United States...I would have called him/her a traitor. To me, and I suspect a vast majority of my countrymen would agree that this country was FOUNDED by people who disagree with that statement. Further, that every soldier, sailor, marine, and airman ...as well as many who were never recognized..fought and died for the principle that rights ARE worth dying for.

                      Finch...I don't mean to be disrespectful of you personally...you just struck a very deep running chord with that comment.
                      An impressionable child in a tumultuous world, and they say I'm at a difficult stage... --Meat Loaf

                      Professional Stupidity Recognition Technician

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by zap
                        "but the bottom line is that a disproportionate number of Americans are killed each year thanks to the firearm laws there."

                        I think when you look at the number of Americans that die of unatural causes all together, the number that die because they were shot is actually disproportianately LOW.
                        I meant disproportionate in the sense that the US has 10 times the population Canada does, but 100 times the amount of violent crimes involving firearms.

                        Many, many, more people die in cars every year than are killed by someone using a gun (crimminally or otherwise).
                        Obviously, but cars serve a legitimate purpose in society, whereas firearms do not. The world would be a much better place if there were no firearms. The world would not be a better place if there were no cars.

                        I have yet had one person who was able to answer this one simple question intellegently..... WHY would a criminal, (someone who does NOT OBEY LAWS BY DEFINITION), be thwarted by disarming you and me with laws??
                        I'm not exactly sure what you're asking.

                        Another question that often goes unanswered.... How does MY being disarmed KEEP YOU SAFE? The obvious answer is that it does not. My being armed might keep you safe in a dismal situation, whereas I would be unable to help if disarmed.
                        Keeping people safe and using firearms is the job of the police, not the citizens. I'm sure there are situations where a random person having a firearm could help a dismal situation, but I think regular joe playin' cowboy does more harm than good in the long run.

                        "Lives to me are worth more than rights"

                        This one just sat me back in my chair. Maybe it is because you are Canadian....or simply not American...that you feel this way. But I have to ask....if lives were more important than rights...why are you a cop?
                        To protect life.

                        You know...if this statement was made by a citizen of the United States...I would have called him/her a traitor. To me, and I suspect a vast majority of my countrymen would agree that this country was FOUNDED by people who disagree with that statement. Further, that every soldier, sailor, marine, and airman ...as well as many who were never recognized..fought and died for the principle that rights ARE worth dying for.
                        Fighting for people's safety and freedom is justified, but fighting to make sure people can carry guns? I agree most rights are worth fighting for, but some aren't.

                        Finch...I don't mean to be disrespectful of you personally...you just struck a very deep running chord with that comment.
                        No disrespect taken. We hold different opinions and are having a discussion. Nothing wrong with that.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Finch said:
                          Obviously, but cars serve a legitimate purpose in society, whereas firearms do not. The world would be a much better place if there were no firearms. The world would not be a better place if there were no cars.
                          I have to disagree Finch. As a mere Citizen, I have used a firearm to save my life. I think the world is a better place with me in it.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Norm357
                            Finch said:


                            I have to disagree Finch. As a mere Citizen, I have used a firearm to save my life. I think the world is a better place with me in it.
                            There are always exceptions to the rule. I was speaking in general terms/on the average. Good to hear you're ok though!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Finch
                              I meant disproportionate in the sense that the US has 10 times the population Canada does, but 100 times the amount of violent crimes involving firearms.
                              With that permise, it just means we have a disproprtionate number of criminals. If they didn't use guns, they WOULD use something else. To me, that alone more than justifies the training and arming of QUALIFIED citizens



                              Originally posted by Finch
                              Obviously, but cars serve a legitimate purpose in society, whereas firearms do not. The world would be a much better place if there were no firearms. The world would not be a better place if there were no cars.
                              I have to strongly disagree with that. Without firearms, the world as we know it would not exist. It would not be a peachy place either. The biggest guy with the biggest club or spear would ALWAYS win. There can be no laws and no order unless the rest of us can enforce them.

                              I won't go into the legitimate uses of firearms. You already know there are many of them. BTW...don't you carry a gun?


                              Originally posted by Finch
                              I'm not exactly sure what you're asking.


                              Ok...let's try again. A criminal is someone by DEFINITION that does not obey or abide by laws. The question is why would a criminal, by definition, be hindered in any way by a law saying that he should not have a gun?

                              My answer is that he would NOT be hindered in the least. It would simply make his 'job' easier. Here is an example. Say we have two grocery stores right next to one another. One has a prominently displayed NO WEAPONS sign on their door. The other has no sign, or one that says CCW WELCOME. Now, if you were a thug....in which parking lot would you look for a victim? The one that is guaranteed to have disarmed the honest people going in and coming out....or the one that would be like playing Russian roulette?



                              Originally posted by Finch
                              Keeping people safe and using firearms is the job of the police, not the citizens. I'm sure there are situations where a random person having a firearm could help a dismal situation, but I think regular joe playin' cowboy does more harm than good in the long run.
                              Nope....wrong again. Keeping people safe IS the job of police, and to a lesser extent the responsibility of every citizen. Using or having firearms is a separate issue entirely, although often overlapping.

                              I just don't get why anti-gun people (what ever country they are in) always equate citizens and guns with "cowboy" and "shoot outs in the streets"!!

                              We have experience....it NEVER happens that way. Violent crime on the other hand does tend to sharply drop.

                              Same thing with the tasers. The chance of a problem with tasers in the hands of a "cowboy" are slim and none. I have had tasers available for about 3 years now. I am certain they have been available to the public long before that ...and we see NO problem with privately owned units.



                              Originally posted by Finch
                              To protect life.
                              Are you saying that you refuse to answer robbery calls or theft calls...or neighborhood complaints like loud music at 3 am? I doubt it.



                              Originally posted by Finch
                              Fighting for people's safety and freedom is justified, but fighting to be sure people can carry guns? I agree most rights are worth fighting for, but some aren't.
                              I see fighting for people's safety and freedom as justified also. However, I see the right to keep and bear arms in self defense of self, family, and country to be a symptom of the freedom that is justified fighting for.



                              Originally posted by Finch
                              No disrespect taken. We hold different opinions and are having a discussion. Nothing wrong with that.
                              Well said....likewise



                              Now....we have gotten off on guns, but the issue for tasers I think is just the same. We are really talking about the freedom to protect yourself, your family, or others from harm if it is NECESSARY.

                              You said that you felt fighting for freedom and safety, as well as some rights, is justified. I agree. (I would not fight for you to have the right to burn the flag....but would for your right to say that you should be able to burn it...for instance)

                              I think the ability to defend yourself is a necessity in a truly free society. Lets face it, cops can't be everywhere at once. LE cannot stop crime. We can prevent crime we see...but not when it happens just before we pull up to the scene. Why should that person who was just victimized be so because of the notion that they can't be trusted to defent themselves without turning into a thug?

                              That argument just does not make logical sense anyway you roll it over.
                              Last edited by zap; 07-26-2005, 09:19 PM.
                              An impressionable child in a tumultuous world, and they say I'm at a difficult stage... --Meat Loaf

                              Professional Stupidity Recognition Technician

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by zap
                                With that permise, it just means we have a disproprtionate number of criminals. If they didn't use guns, they WOULD use something else. To me, that alone more than justifies the training and arming of QUALIFIED citizens
                                Well, in this case, we should look at criminals per capita (ie. the total number of criminals in Canada / total population against the same thing in the US). I doubt there would be much difference per capita. Believe you me, we have our share of criminals.

                                I have to strongly disagree with that. Without firearms, the world as we know it would not exist. It would not be a peachy place either.
                                It's not a peachy place with them either.

                                I won't go into the legitimate uses of firearms. You already know there are many of them. BTW...don't you carry a gun?
                                As I've previously stated, military and police should be the only ones armed.

                                Ok...let's try again. A criminal is someone by DEFINITION that does not obey or abide by laws. The question is why would a criminal, by definition, be hindered in any way by a law saying that he should not have a gun?
                                While there are always exceptions, that law is working pretty well in Canada. (ie. the low amount of firearm violence compared with the US)

                                Nope....wrong again. Keeping people safe IS the job of police, and to a lesser extent the responsibility of every citizen.
                                Morally maybe, but ultimately, (untrained) citizens shouldn't be deciding when to shoot someone. There are the obvious cases where everyone knows to shoot someone (someone knifing someone else etc.), but when it comes down to split second decisions, it takes a highly trained individual to use a firearm properly (under the law).

                                I just don't get why anti-gun people (what ever country they are in) always equate citizens and guns with "cowboy" and "shoot outs in the streets"!!
                                I was using hyperbole, but I don't think it's that far from the truth.

                                We have experience....it NEVER happens that way. Violent crime on the other hand does tend to sharply drop.
                                Maybe I'm missing something, but gun-related violence in the US is so out of whack compared to most other countries.

                                Same thing with the tasers. The chance of a problem with tasers in the hands of a "cowboy" are slim and none. I have had tasers available for about 3 years now. I am certain they have been available to the public long before that ...and we see NO problem with privately owned units.
                                My opinion is that the less weapons in society the better. That's really my only comment on that.

                                Are you saying that you refuse to answer robbery calls or theft calls...or neighborhood complaints like loud music at 3 am? I doubt it.
                                Of course not. As a police officer, I know one of my roles is to enforce the laws/rights of the citizens. My point is that citizens should not have the right to own firearms to begin with.

                                I see fighting for people's safety and freedom as justified also. However, I see the right to keep and bear arms in self defense of self, family, and country to be a symptom of the freedom that is justified fighting for.
                                We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

                                You said that you felt fighting for freedom and safety, as well as some rights, is justified. I agree. (I would not fight for you to have the right to burn the flag....but would for your right to say that you should be able to burn it...for instance)
                                I don't think that right is worth fighting for either. But, if someone were to burn a flag, I could care less really. Their opinion of the country I live in doesn't alter mine.
                                Last edited by Finch; 07-26-2005, 09:48 PM.

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 4454 users online. 290 members and 4164 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X