Give me some hosting, and I'll show you a guy shrugging off four barbs while coked out of his mind, requiring three officers to tackle him.
An AK47 is not a fvcking handgun.
- M4H
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Many of your points are valid in favor of handguns, but a couple things... Show me evidence that heavy clothing affects the shock from a Taser.
Also... We have been largely unsuccessful in Iraq not because they all have handguns. But because they know how to make homemade bombs and have RPGs.
Originally posted by: Lifted
Originally posted by: BigJ
Well it's safe to say Lifted was summarily owned in this thread, and I'll doubt he'll be coming back. Another voice of reason like yours is always welcome. :beer:
Yeah, you sure made some great points there. All you did was sitck your little dong up Scotty's butt while whispering sweet little nothings into his ear.
You might want to at the very least hold back the childish comments for when YOU make an attempt to reply to one of my posts, not when somebody else manages to. Do you really think that first sentence is conrtibuting to the discussion? It's childish bullshit only a SUV driving goomba could come up with. Stop taking steriods Johnny V and try working out the muscle between your ears for once. Yes, you will fall flat on your face quite a few times at first, but eventually you may be a productive member of a future conversation.
Until then.... Ay Oh - Oh Ay! You talkin ta me?
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Many of your points are valid in favor of handguns, but a couple things... Show me evidence that heavy clothing affects the shock from a Taser.
Also... We have been largely unsuccessful in Iraq not because they all have handguns. But because they know how to make homemade bombs and have RPGs.
Originally posted by: EpsiIon
Originally posted by: Lifted
Originally posted by: BigJ
Well it's safe to say Lifted was summarily owned in this thread, and I'll doubt he'll be coming back. Another voice of reason like yours is always welcome. :beer:
Yeah, you sure made some great points there. All you did was sitck your little dong up Scotty's butt while whispering sweet little nothings into his ear.
You might want to at the very least hold back the childish comments for when YOU make an attempt to reply to one of my posts, not when somebody else manages to. Do you really think that first sentence is conrtibuting to the discussion? It's childish bullshit only a SUV driving goomba could come up with. Stop taking steriods Johnny V and try working out the muscle between your ears for once. Yes, you will fall flat on your face quite a few times at first, but eventually you may be a productive member of a future conversation.
Until then.... Ay Oh - Oh Ay! You talkin ta me?
Most. Obvious. Hypocrite. Ever.
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: CadetLee
How does this have anything to do with your argument? Officers carry firearms. The use of a firearm is DEADLY FORCE, even if you do not fire.
Example: You are authorized (I am authorized, LEOs are authorized, etc) to use deadly force to stop/prevent serious bodily injury and/or death.
I doubt you'll find a LEO who will choose a taser over a firearm in a situation that warrants the use of deadly force. Why should I do any less? Your 'if it's good enough for LEOs' argument doesn't fit this situation, since LEOs DO NOT USE TASERS INSTEAD OF FIREARMS IN SITUATIONS THAT REQUIRE DEADLY FORCE. If we're not talking about deadly force issues, a CCW holder wouldn't be drawing anyway.
If you believe that deadly force is ever justified outside of war and the electric chair, then we have the underlying discrepancy - because I do not. One should not have the right in a split second to decide between life or death when incapacitation is an option. What if you were wrong? It is not a choice I believe we are entrusted to make. So possessing that deadly power in your hand, to me, is that aforementioned power trip.
Let's make it your way. You have a taser. You're 30 feet away from the guys raping your wife. You taser-ize your guard. Now what? You're going to hit the guys (out of range) before they do something even nastier to your wife and yourself? Incidentally, the 'deadly range' for someone with a knife vs an individual with a holstered firearm is 21 feet. If someone is 21 feet or closer with a drawn knife, and you have a holstered firearm, you're probably getting stabbed..so back up and draw. Can you hit someone with a taser from 21 feet? I just read something on a small (cell phone sized) taser with a 12ft range..that's well within knife distance.
Tasers don't work from 30 ft away. Even if you had a handgun, would you risk shooting from 30 ft away when the attacker is surely using your wife as a human shield?
Even if you had a taser, would you risk shooting from 30 feet away when the attacker is surely using your wife as a human shield?
You're running in circles. With a firearm, and the ability to use it, you wouldn't be in the situation above. Let's take a step back..four guys approach from front/sides -- you feel uncomfortable...one starts to pull a knife from 30 feet away. You draw a handgun (or taser). If they leave, great. If they don't, you don't need to wait for them to be within 15 feet. 15 feet is not a long distance at all...and I'd rather have four guys at bay from 30 feet away than pray that my taser is fast enough to knock out four from 12 feet...
Neither situation is good, but you can't deny the practicality of a firearm. In the above situation, a properly trained individual with a firearm would be much better off than someone with a taser. It's undeniable.
As Mookow said, how many LEOs do you see without firearms? Not many..
Many of your points are valid in favor of handguns, but a couple things... Show me evidence that heavy clothing affects the shock from a Taser.
On a closing note, I doubt severely that the Taser needles carry enough omph to penetrate even moderately heavy clothing and while Taser claims that they'll work through clothing, the effect would likely be radically diminished in effect. Considering it's already lacking effectiveness, this can only be detrimental.
Mind you, it would suck badly to have one of those lovely darts hit you in the eye
But the Taser is not necessarily a sure thing on the street.
Since both probes have to make contact to complete the circuit, missing the mark with one means that the subject will keep coming. Also, a thrashing suspect can break the wire leading from the Taser to a probe or pull out a probe. Heavy winter clothing can also sometimes prevent the Taser charge from reaching the subject?s skin.
And the weapon itself can malfunction. The most common reason why the Taser doesn?t work is that the batteries are weak. When a Taser with weak batteries is deployed on a subject, it may not immediately incapacitate him, if at all.
It would really suck to be in that other 5% -- and in the vast majority of situations, you won't have an officer on-scene or en route to assist you.Officers were cautioned against the use of the Taser, when confronting lethal threats, except when an armed and ready officer was available and in place to provide protection.
In general, to obtain a full effect: both darts must hit the target, the copper wires must remain attached and useable, and heavy clothes, if not completely penetrated, must be near the subject's body. When these conditions are not met, the expected results may not be obtained, and a Taser officer may need to reapply the device either with a new cartridge or in the stun mode.
Verified Taser contact was obtained in 86% of the incidents. Where there was verified contact, the Taser delivered a disabling or partially disabling effect 95% of the time.
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: CadetLee
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: CadetLee
How does this have anything to do with your argument? Officers carry firearms. The use of a firearm is DEADLY FORCE, even if you do not fire.
Example: You are authorized (I am authorized, LEOs are authorized, etc) to use deadly force to stop/prevent serious bodily injury and/or death.
I doubt you'll find a LEO who will choose a taser over a firearm in a situation that warrants the use of deadly force. Why should I do any less? Your 'if it's good enough for LEOs' argument doesn't fit this situation, since LEOs DO NOT USE TASERS INSTEAD OF FIREARMS IN SITUATIONS THAT REQUIRE DEADLY FORCE. If we're not talking about deadly force issues, a CCW holder wouldn't be drawing anyway.
If you believe that deadly force is ever justified outside of war and the electric chair, then we have the underlying discrepancy - because I do not. One should not have the right in a split second to decide between life or death when incapacitation is an option. What if you were wrong? It is not a choice I believe we are entrusted to make. So possessing that deadly power in your hand, to me, is that aforementioned power trip.
Let's make it your way. You have a taser. You're 30 feet away from the guys raping your wife. You taser-ize your guard. Now what? You're going to hit the guys (out of range) before they do something even nastier to your wife and yourself? Incidentally, the 'deadly range' for someone with a knife vs an individual with a holstered firearm is 21 feet. If someone is 21 feet or closer with a drawn knife, and you have a holstered firearm, you're probably getting stabbed..so back up and draw. Can you hit someone with a taser from 21 feet? I just read something on a small (cell phone sized) taser with a 12ft range..that's well within knife distance.
Tasers don't work from 30 ft away. Even if you had a handgun, would you risk shooting from 30 ft away when the attacker is surely using your wife as a human shield?
Even if you had a taser, would you risk shooting from 30 feet away when the attacker is surely using your wife as a human shield?
You're running in circles. With a firearm, and the ability to use it, you wouldn't be in the situation above. Let's take a step back..four guys approach from front/sides -- you feel uncomfortable...one starts to pull a knife from 30 feet away. You draw a handgun (or taser). If they leave, great. If they don't, you don't need to wait for them to be within 15 feet. 15 feet is not a long distance at all...and I'd rather have four guys at bay from 30 feet away than pray that my taser is fast enough to knock out four from 12 feet...
Neither situation is good, but you can't deny the practicality of a firearm. In the above situation, a properly trained individual with a firearm would be much better off than someone with a taser. It's undeniable.
As Mookow said, how many LEOs do you see without firearms? Not many..
From 30 feet, with my wife as his shield, I would be at his mercy with or without any weapon. I would not shoot. Please, tell me what you would do from 30 with a gun or knife to her throat.
Taking a step back in your second scenario, if they see you pulling something out from 30 ft away, they can't tell what it is. If it escalates from there to a point where shots are fired - I concede that the chances with a taser may not be as good. But the odds of that are remote - and either way, I am not a vigilante with a vest - and realistically speaking, I always concede the advantage if shots are fired. If you don't, you're either a pro, or you're kidding yourself.
Originally posted by: Lifted
Originally posted by: EpsiIon
Originally posted by: Lifted
Originally posted by: BigJ
Well it's safe to say Lifted was summarily owned in this thread, and I'll doubt he'll be coming back. Another voice of reason like yours is always welcome. :beer:
Yeah, you sure made some great points there. All you did was sitck your little dong up Scotty's butt while whispering sweet little nothings into his ear.
You might want to at the very least hold back the childish comments for when YOU make an attempt to reply to one of my posts, not when somebody else manages to. Do you really think that first sentence is conrtibuting to the discussion? It's childish bullshit only a SUV driving goomba could come up with. Stop taking steriods Johnny V and try working out the muscle between your ears for once. Yes, you will fall flat on your face quite a few times at first, but eventually you may be a productive member of a future conversation.
Until then.... Ay Oh - Oh Ay! You talkin ta me?
Most. Obvious. Hypocrite. Ever.
Would you mind pointing out where I started name calling in this thread or ANY other thread?
Didn't think you could.
Bye bye now troll.
Originally posted by: busmaster11
From 30 feet, with my wife as his shield, I would be at his mercy with or without any weapon. I would not shoot. Please, tell me what you would do from 30 with a gun or knife to her throat.
Taking a step back in your second scenario, if they see you pulling something out from 30 ft away, they can't tell what it is. If it escalates from there to a point where shots are fired - I concede that the chances with a taser may not be as good. But the odds of that are remote - and either way, I am not a vigilante with a vest - and realistically speaking, I always concede the advantage if shots are fired. If you don't, you're either a pro, or you're kidding yourself.
Originally posted by: aplefka
Why is this thread still here?
Originally posted by: EpsiIon
lol
Wow... You just don't get it, do you? I never said anything about you starting name calling. You whined about how insults don't contribute to the discussion and then you insulted him... Heck, your post before the one I quoted was just a big *I'm plugging my ears NANANANANANA* with some insults thrown in. If you claim to value intelligent discussion, you might want to re-evaluate how you go about it (having an intelligent discussion, that is).
EDIT: Grammar
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Originally posted by: busmaster11
From 30 feet, with my wife as his shield, I would be at his mercy with or without any weapon. I would not shoot. Please, tell me what you would do from 30 with a gun or knife to her throat.
Taking a step back in your second scenario, if they see you pulling something out from 30 ft away, they can't tell what it is. If it escalates from there to a point where shots are fired - I concede that the chances with a taser may not be as good. But the odds of that are remote - and either way, I am not a vigilante with a vest - and realistically speaking, I always concede the advantage if shots are fired. If you don't, you're either a pro, or you're kidding yourself.
From CadetLee's post directly below yours, a taser looks nothing like a pistol and a criminal will hesitate, but upon realizing that you have a single-shot shortrange weapon and there's four of them, will press the attack if they're serious.
Next, you're definitely not aware of the amount of training needed to qualify for concealed carry. I'm sure everyone with a legal CCW would be a "Pro" in your eyes.
- M4H
Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Originally posted by: busmaster11
From 30 feet, with my wife as his shield, I would be at his mercy with or without any weapon. I would not shoot. Please, tell me what you would do from 30 with a gun or knife to her throat.
Taking a step back in your second scenario, if they see you pulling something out from 30 ft away, they can't tell what it is. If it escalates from there to a point where shots are fired - I concede that the chances with a taser may not be as good. But the odds of that are remote - and either way, I am not a vigilante with a vest - and realistically speaking, I always concede the advantage if shots are fired. If you don't, you're either a pro, or you're kidding yourself.
From CadetLee's post directly below yours, a taser looks nothing like a pistol and a criminal will hesitate, but upon realizing that you have a single-shot shortrange weapon and there's four of them, will press the attack if they're serious.
Next, you're definitely not aware of the amount of training needed to qualify for concealed carry. I'm sure everyone with a legal CCW would be a "Pro" in your eyes.
- M4H
But all he did was quote people from other forums! I would think you all know how high on the credibility scale that ranks!
In any case... I don't ever plan to go to enough seedy places or piss off enough people that it becomes reasonable for me to prepare for (four guys really determined to get me, even with my showing a CW.)
But I can see here that Taser's technology has ways to go before it gains the confidence of most of you who CCW... What I have not yet seen however, is anyone making a case against my "power trip" egoist theory... It appears to me that is still a big factor. - It is not trendy nor cool to carry a Taser, perhaps because mercy shows softness, and we can't have that.
Originally posted by: Lifted
Originally posted by: EpsiIon
lol
Wow... You just don't get it, do you? I never said anything about you starting name calling. You whined about how insults don't contribute to the discussion and then you insulted him... Heck, your post before the one I quoted was just a big *I'm plugging my ears NANANANANANA* with some insults thrown in. If you claim to value intelligent discussion, you might want to re-evaluate how you go about it (having an intelligent discussion, that is).
EDIT: Grammar
No, you don't get it.
I didn't "whine" about his insults, I was responding to his claim that I somehow started it, while it is VERY CLEAR from his preceding post that he started the childish nonsense.
We both dropped it as it was going nowhere, if you hadn't noticed. You are simply trolling by bringing it back up.
Why don't you learn to follow a thread before you start calling people hypocrites. Until then, you remain a simple minded, uneffective, troll.
"You whined about how insults don't contribute to the discussion"
Since you are calling me a hypocrite, thus insulting me, you obviously disagree with the above.
Originally posted by: EpsiIon
Originally posted by: Lifted
Originally posted by: EpsiIon
lol
Wow... You just don't get it, do you? I never said anything about you starting name calling. You whined about how insults don't contribute to the discussion and then you insulted him... Heck, your post before the one I quoted was just a big *I'm plugging my ears NANANANANANA* with some insults thrown in. If you claim to value intelligent discussion, you might want to re-evaluate how you go about it (having an intelligent discussion, that is).
EDIT: Grammar
No, you don't get it.
I didn't "whine" about his insults, I was responding to his claim that I somehow started it, while it is VERY CLEAR from his preceding post that he started the childish nonsense.
We both dropped it as it was going nowhere, if you hadn't noticed. You are simply trolling by bringing it back up.
Why don't you learn to follow a thread before you start calling people hypocrites. Until then, you remain a simple minded, uneffective, troll.
"You whined about how insults don't contribute to the discussion"
Since you are calling me a hypocrite, thus insulting me, you obviously disagree with the above.
Let's pick apart the claims you never made.
1. "You just don't get it, do you?"
False
2. "You whined about how insults don't contribute to the discussion and then you insulted him..."
False
3. "Heck, your post before the one I quoted was just a big *I'm plugging my ears NANANANANANA*"
False, though that appears to be your specialty. Or, did you not just post...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: EpsiIon
False! I never made any claim except that you were hypocrtical. And I'm done with this "discussion."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for trolling, it's been fun watching you get owned.
Originally posted by: s8v4o
Maybe we should change the topic to something less "controversial" like abortion or religion We can talk about how much my God would kick your God's a$$.
Originally posted by: mwtgg
Originally posted by: s8v4o
Maybe we should change the topic to something less "controversial" like abortion or religion We can talk about how much my God would kick your God's a$$.
My God would shoot all the anti-gun jackasses.