I swear this isn't bait, first off.
Honestly, why carry a gun for self defense? If the primary purpose of a self-defense firearm is to "stop" the attacker rather than kill them, and most of these scenarios occur within 0-7 yards at the very most, why isn't a taser a better choice?
Smaller handgun rounds common in carry guns like .380 or .32 acp are not actually excellent "stoppers", especially against larger targets. A taser will drop almost anyone, drugged up or not, in a second.
I'm not trying to imply that you're obsessed with killing someone by carrying a gun. But I still think a taser is a less-lethal, equally guaranteed method to bring down an attacker. Since you can only carry handguns legally, and you should always bring a long gun to a gun fight, why carry one at all?
Guns kill people quicker than tasers.
You're more likely to tase yourself than shoot yourself.
Guns are more effective deterrents.
Let people carry guns, quit creating kill zones for shooters.
Because tazers flat out do not work on people wearing jackets, thick hoodies, or multiple layers of clothes.
In other words, all black people who arent in the southern half of Florida in August.
because most tasers are not re-loadable, and they have rather high failure rates against drugged, or heavily clothed attackers.
they are also temporary and will not always last long enough for help to arrive.
I'd actually like to see a large study of stats to see which incapacitates faster.
I've heard of people not having any reaction to a taser. I've seen videos of people getting shot multiple times outside a vital area and still keep moving.
it's not guaranteed to bring them down (small percentage could withstand), and the vast majority will stand up afterwards and some will be very pissed off.
once that thirty seconds of power runs out, you probably shouldn't be there anymore.
A gun on the other hand, will put anybody down. especially if you shoot them for thirty seconds. and they will not be getting back up.
as far as the results of the two are concerned, I'll go with the gun.
Hell ive seen people take hollowpoint rifle rounds through the lungs, heart, aortic arch/vena cava, or combinations of these and stay on their feet long enough to continue to be a credible threat.
I didn't know they became ineffective. I thought the current would still travel through you.
I know it's bad form to /thread my own thread, but like I said I wasn't trolling. If all it takes is a heavy leather jacket to prevent the taser from working, I'll take the gun any day.
Nothing else is more effective and reliable at stopping a threat than a bullet. It's as simple as that, when a man acts in a way where he threatens others his life is devalued for the moment.
Doesnt even take a heavy jacket. A thick flannel shirt is relatively effective, and a hoodie with pretty much anything thicker than an undershirt is like 99% effective at stopping a tazer.
both, not just one, prongs MUST be stuck in skin for it to work.
If you watch some polis videos on it being used you'll see it works like a charm against most t-shirted people but when they start wearing layers of loose clothing, like XXXL hoodies when they need a Medium, it loses its ability quite rapidly.
To answer your question in a PAINFULLY honest way:
1) tasers do not work at extreme close distance, or extreme far distance, firearms generally do.
2) The lowest capacity firearm I can think of, a derringer style weapon, has two shots. A low capacity revolver has five. A modern subcompact like a Ruger LCP has 7 rounds, a larger double stacked subcompact like a Glock 26 has 10. The Taser has one. I would rather put 2,5,7 or 10 rounds of ammunition into an attacker than one.
3) A bullet will fuck you up. End of story. The end. A bullet WILL fuck you up. A Taser needs to be at a certain distance to be effective, a Taser needs to make effective contact through clothing to work. A bullet WILL fuck you up, unless you are wearing Kevlar, in which case a Taser won't work either.
4) Incapacitate is different than kill. Yes, a 9mm might not KILL a human, but it can certainly incapacitate him. A Marine who gets his legs blown off by an IED might SURVIVE, but he was certainly incapacitated. The same can be said for bullets, the wounds, shock, blood loss and other factors of a gunshot wound will render an attacker ineffective rather quickly. With a Glock 26 I have 10 chances to incapacitate an attacker, possibly kill him, with a taser I have one.
5) If you threaten my life, I need to ensure my survival. I said I would be honest, I don't want to let you rip out the probes, I dont want my shot to be too close or too far. I don't want fear and excitement throw off my one shot. I want to kill you. End your life, end any possible threat you pose to me. I dont want cloths or drugs or any other factor to prevent that and allow you to harm me, I want to put you down. 10 rounds of 9mm will allow that. If you threaten my life, I will protect my life.
For a police officer the Taser is a good tool, his primary purpose is not to kill, but to apprehend and punish law breakers, to protect and serve.
My primary purpose as a private citizen is to survive.
Tasers are extremely fickle and un-reliable.
>It relies on both probes connecting to be effective. If one misses, doesn't connect with skin, the only pain felt is a pin prick
>Must be reloaded after every use- assuming you even have a spare cartridge.
>Attacker is perfectly fine after the 5 second "ride" is over
When faced with a deadly force situation where a taser could be deployed (crazy guy with a knife threatening to kill himself others etc.) most departments are trained to have one officer attempt to use the taser while another officer keeps his firearm trained on the suspect in case shit goes south.
A taser is a tool used to aid in getting an uncooperative subject into cuffs. There are self-defence scenarios where they are useful, but a firearm is always the go to for self defense when someone is trying to murder you. This is true for cops and it (should) be true for everyone else.
here's a video where (i asumme) some salespeople demonstrate the effectiveness of a taser. they have experts manually attach the probes before firing.
to repeat, this device makes contact so unreliably that in order to sell it, it must be deployed manually.
versus a gun, which puts bullets where I tell it to
I'll consider carrying a TASER when I can get a 4 shot model that's 6.5" long and 4.5" high or smaller and can get practice ammunition for cheap enough to actually practice with.
>high failure rates against drugged
TASERs work by making your muscles lock up. It doesn't matter if you're high on every drug in existence, that is still going to stop you.
There was a study I read a while back and have bookmarked on another computer, if I remember correctly they have an 80%+ chance of instantly stopping someone if you hit them with both barbs like you're supposed to. TASERs are incredibly effective at actually stopping someone quickly when compared to handguns, whenever they actually start making magazine fed TASERs expect their popularity to skyrocket.
You seem to be vastly overestimating how effective handguns are at stopping people. A determined attacker can continue fighting even after being shot in both lungs and the heart, an attacker who isn't determined will stop simply because they are afraid of getting shot more and not because they felt a bullet hit their lung as opposed to passing by their lung and causing little damage. The vast majority of attackers who are stopped by being shot with a handgun are just psychological with nothing actually preventing them from continuing fighting.
>why isn't a taser a better choice?
because Tasers require you to either get close, which can be a death trap (sorry ladies and manlets, if somebody is bigger then you odds are youre fucked) or like your pic only have one shot, and even then that doesn't mean it "stops" the attacker. Mace and tasers aren't magic, and actually don't always stop a guy
>380 or .32 acp are not actually excellent "stoppers
so carry something bigger. And yes, im aware most pistol rounds don't knock people over like on tv, but a bullet wound is more than enough for people to get the message of "fuck off"
>Since you can only carry handguns legally
not true, I don't carry rifles or long guns but understand why people do. Im considering getting a trunk gun though
>you should always bring a long gun to a gun fight
no, you should bring a gun to a gun fight. And at all odds avoid one using common sense. If one lands at your feet, any gun is better then no gun and you GTFO. I doubt im running into any black hawk down shooting the requires a rifle but if I am I be...ok I guess with a pistol even if its a means to get to my car.Yeah Id prefer a rifle but I also prefer not walking around with one all day so my 9mm works. I go back and forth on mall ninja ideology a lot, but Ill gamble that most people aren't willing to die for a cause like pocket change or a mugging and if they do then theyre some kind of serial killer or something in which case its game on
>why carry one at all
why get out of the fucking bed in the morning if you could get hit by a truck crossing the street, when you could board yourself up and be more safe? Because its my life, I want to live through all of it and I take responsibility for it and even at times my close friends and family. Im aware that there are bad people out there and consider myself fortunate to live in a country where guns and self defense are more or less ok'd, so im taking advantage of it.
if you wont want to get shot, don't be an asshole looking to do crime
its really that simple, thousands of people do it everyday. Don't cry and moan over the ones that do and pay the price for it
>you get one shot with a taser
>they do NOT stop everyone all the time
>they are huge
A compact .380, 9mm or .38/.357 handgun is a fraction of the size, more effective at stopping a person, and you get multiple shots with a fast reload.
I carry an FNS-9 with a weaponlight on it, and that's STILL shorter overall than a taser, yet I get 18 rounds of proven defensive ammo. Humans can (and do) resist tasers. A human body can't resist disruption of the CNS or destruction of a major organ, which is why bullets are much more reliable.
If tasers were as good as the public made them out to be, police wouldn't carry guns anymore. They do work in many situations, but not all, and if that's all you rely in you're going to have a bad time.
>A taser will drop almost anyone, drugged up or not, in a second.
Why do people believe this?
Is this what people thought before tasers, when pepper spray was the peak of LTL defensive technology?
>Why do people believe this?
Because it's true as long as you make contact with their skin with both barbs. TASERs stop people by causing their muscles to involuntarily contract, which isn't exactly something you can fight through no matter how much drugs you're on.
>which isn't exactly something you can fight through no matter how much drugs you're on.
Except it is. There are countless videos of people being tased either with a t-shirt or no shirt, taking both barbs, and barely (if at all) being affected
Here's some random black guy taking the barbs to his naked chest. It mildly inconveniences him for about three seconds.
>keep fighting with both lungs and heart shot
Bull fucking shit, the lack of oxygen alone from two pierced lungs will see their fight turn into a meek writhing very quickly, which is the honestly the main benefit of a gun vs a tazer.
A tazer MIGHT stop someone for a short amount of time, a bullet to anything even remotely vital WILL weaken the attacker
SW FL LEO here...because TASERs are an unreliable at best alternative to going hands on, deploying OC, using a baton, pepperball, bean bag round, etc in a NON deadly force encounter. TASERs have been deployed succesfully in conjunction with officers equipped with firearms pointed at the subject armed with edged weapons, but as a solo first on scene officer confronted with an edged weapon threat, you're taking a gamble with your life by deploying a less-lethal over your gun.
In my experience, TASERs complete a circuit and get a good hit maybe 65% of deployments at best. Rarely, though it happens, even a good hit will result in a no or little effect on subject sometimes.
>the lack of oxygen alone from two pierced lungs
No, it won't. Punctured lungs take quite a bit of time to actually have an effect. Here is a case of exactly what I said happening:
>a bullet to anything even remotely vital WILL weaken the attacker
Not in a reasonable amount of time. Massive bloodloss won't even stop an attacker inside of 20 seconds. This is a good article with sources for exactly what it takes to stop a determined attacker quickly:
I don't see a second barb stuck into that guy.
>and even then it only lasts ~5 seconds.
Only because that's what the police ones are set at from the factory. The civilian ones can run for up to 30 seconds.
>determined attacker can continue fighting even after being shot in both lungs and the heart
Uhh no. Firefighter here, unless they are on some incredibly good drugs, the heart shot will incapacitate the person near instantly.
>Why not Taser?
Because they fail about 60% of the time. They don't work though reasonably heavy clothing. They can still cause death uncomfortably often. They fire only one shot. If the assailant grabs you, you taze yourself, bro.
But most importantly, once tazed the assailant then needs to be restrained requiring you to carry some means of doing so, placing you in range of assault, and bringing massive liability should anything happen to the person.
Also while this:
>.380 or .32 acp are not actually excellent "stoppers", especially against larger targets.
These are not:
>Smaller handgun rounds common in carry guns like .380 or .32 acp
>A taser will drop almost anyone, drugged up or not, in a second.
>One Isolated Example
Yeah and 99% of times, the suspect will drop instantly
>Ask me how I know
Aside from the numerous one stop shot instant knockdown suicides, one of our local LEOs instantly dropped a suspect with one shot to the heart. That was the only shot fired. 9 out of 10 times a heart shot will incapacitate someone. ONE cops story of how it didn't doesn't support your argument. One of my friends shot himself in the heart outside of someones house, they ran outside as soon as they heard the shot. He was down, losing consciousness and bleeding from his mouth by the time they got to the front yard.
>If the assailant grabs you, you taze yourself, bro.
That's not how electricity works.
>a taser is a[n] ... equally guaranteed method to bring down an attacker
>at most two shots
>defeated by ordinary clothing half the year
>One Isolated Example
Have more bookmarked, but they're on another computer. That's the only one I remember the name of.
>Aside from the numerous one stop shot instant knockdown suicides
So they committed suicide with someone else on scene to confirm that it was instantly effective?
>one of our local LEOs instantly dropped a suspect with one shot to the heart.
Any evidence that it wasn't purely psychological because the guy was afraid of being shot, like the vast majority of handguns stops?
>One of my friends shot himself in the heart outside of someones house, they ran outside as soon as they heard the shot. He was down, losing consciousness and bleeding from his mouth by the time they got to the front yard.
Again, any evidence that they didn't just stop out of fear, like the vast majority of handgun stops?
This article (with sources) that I linked to earlier does a good job of explaining exactly how long it takes to stop someone who is actually determined to keep fighting.
I would only use my gun if the threat was a deadly threat, if someone has presented a deadly threat I want to use deadly force rather than play around with less than lethal stuff.
Secondly, tasers are pretty finicky. You're limited to a very close range, you have to get both prongs in, and it won't work if the dudes wearing a couple layers of clothing or if he's all hopped up on mountain dew. Within ideal parameters they're quite effective, but I would trust mace far more than I would a taser. But then again why would I fuck around with hot sauce spray when I or someone else is facing a deadly threat?
Plus: mass shooters, dog attacks.
>So they committed suicide with someone else on scene to confirm that it was instantly effective?
Yes, most of the time that happens.
Are you in medicine at all? You are aware that the hydrostatic shock from a gun shot should effectively destroy the heart causing a rapid loss of blood pressure which then will cause rapid LOC. Determination to fight doesn't mean shit if your body is no longer able to circulate blood properly. There are a lot of variables as to what causes them to drop such as where in the heart was struck, caliber, velocity of the round. None of those variables have to do with the person "will to fight". If they were able to fight after being shot in the heart, the round was small and barely hit the heart or struck the wrong spot. A rifle round to the heart will be nearly 100% fatal.
>Are you in medicine at all?
My knowledge of wound ballistics comes from reading studies done by doctors like Martin Fackler and others.
Has been proven to not even exist. If you're talking about the temporary cavity, normal handgun service calibers don't have enough energy to cause damage from that.
>A rifle round to the heart will be nearly 100% fatal.
That's nice, this discussion is about handgun ammunition.
>Has been proven to not even exist.
>A myth is an assertion which has either been disproven by careful experiment or for which there is no historical or scientific evidence in cases where it is reasonably expected. Belief in remote effects of penetrating projectiles may have originated with hunters and soldiers, but their reality is now well established in a broad body of scientific literature..
>Dr. Fackler based his argument on the lithotriptor, a tool commonly used to break up kidney stones. The lithotriptor uses sonic pressure waves which are stronger than those caused by most handgun bullets, yet it produces no damage to soft tissues whatsoever. Hence, Fackler argued, ballistic pressure waves cannot damage tissue either.
>He doesn't Obrez
Look at the sissy man with his working wrists.
You seem to think any average joe can get shot in the heart and walk away just fine. Sure it can happen very rarely but it hardly ever does. That's all I'm saying. Regardless of hydrostatic shock being proven or disproven, the damage and gun shot will do will destroy the heart and cause it to not beat properly. An arrhythmia caused by that can cause loss of consciousness within 20 seconds. You are pretty much saying handgun calibers to the heart aren't fatal, which is bullshit because most of the time, any GSW to the heart will be fatal. And chances are if it was bad enough to be fatal, it probably happened really quickly. For every case you can link where someone continued to fight, there are dozens/hundreds where the person was killed within seconds of the impact. Shotgun shots to the head don't always kill either, but that doesn't mean most of the time they are ineffective. You are wrong. Most of the time heart shots do incapacitate and it isn't because of fear. It is from the rapid loss of blood flow to the brain which causes loss of consciousness where the person then bleeds out.
>You are pretty much saying handgun calibers to the heart aren't fatal, which is bullshit because most of the time, any GSW to the heart will be fatal
No, I'm not. I'm arguing that it won't stop a determined person quickly and that they can still be a threat for a decent amount of time while a TASER's effect will be instant. The case that I linked to where the person continued to fight did end in that person dieing from their injuries, but they didn't stop quickly at all and were still a threat for a considerable amount of time after being shot in the heart and both lungs.
>Most of the time heart shots do incapacitate and it isn't because of fear. It is from the rapid loss of blood flow to the brain which causes loss of consciousness where the person then bleeds out.
Just because they eventually bled out doesn't mean that was what caused them to stop.
>references include articles about the Strasbourg goat test, which is widely considered to be fake
>if the purpose is to "stop" the attacker
Please, seriously, consider these words.
Anyone who attacks you without provocation, will likely have done it to others before, and will almost CERTAINLY do so again to others.
The recidivism rates (the rate at which criminals are re-arrested for the same crime) are astronomical. That only counts people who are effectively arrested again for the SAME crime. Most crimes go without an arrest, many arrests prosecute for a lower charge by way of plea bargain. And these people are often right back out on the street to do it again months, weeks or even just days later.
They can victimize dozens or hundreds of people in their lifetimes.
When you put someone like this down in self defense, you are saving dozens or possibly even hundreds people from future victimization.
If you allow that animal to continue, you share in the responsibility for all the future harm they will do.
Does a good man not owe those people, his community, his fellow man that consideration toward their safety?
That is my thought when it comes to use of force.
I was robbed at gun point twice before I started to carry, I fear how many others have been victimized by those animals since.
Or even killed (and this neighborhood has had plenty of murders).
I will not allow that on my conscience again.
I have tested this exact model. It does not hurt and if you really want to then you can get up after the 5 second burst shit is over. They are wildly inaccurate at 3 yards. I got hit in my shoulder and just above my belt from that distance. Any further and a moving target would be an easy miss. A gun is a much better option when your life is on the line.