[green iguana]

So I guess I'll have to buy and carry around 8 or 10 Tasers in case I'm attacked by a gang. Going to have to purchase a whole bunch more holsters. And get about 6 more arms attached...

[Diana in Wisconsin]

We all saw this coming. No matter what SCOTUS said last week, you know the gun-grabbers will still be out in force making sure we’re all sitting ducks.

Some ducks are more equal than others; like the thug ducks with the guns.

[Red Badger]

Shoot for effect..............

[dirtboy]

Talk about a fact-free editorial. First of all, the VAST majority of defensive uses of guns do not involve firing them. Just demonstrating that you are armed is sufficient.

And second, Castle Doctrine laws are becoming more, not less, common.

The Gun Control types act like we can't shoot holes in their arguments with a peashooter.

[xDGx]

Taser Int’l just lost their first wrongful death civil suit. Expect more to follow. Any non-LE (ESPECIALLY w/o proper training) considering using a Taser places themselves in grave financial risk.

[holymoly]

A NARROWLY divided Supreme Court ruled last week that the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to keep

The Court ruled no such thing.

They ruled that, quote: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right..."

"Protects", not "gives'.

[Panzerlied]

Are NYT writers born stupid or do they have brainectomies before being hired?

[xkaydet65]

How about a semi auto paint ball gun with the balls filled with pepper spray or mace? Or a shot gun fille with rock salt?

Both better than nothing, but with the SCOTUS decision I think a .40 Sig Sauer 229 a better solution.

[TexasRedeye]

Of course, anyone who uses a gun in self-defense may argue that he would have used a less lethal weapon if he had had one at hand, but there was only the firearm.

Then the prosecutor asked, "Why did you shoot the bad guy 13 times?".

Answer, "My pistol only held 13 rounds!".

[DieHard the Hunter]

> So I guess I’ll have to buy and carry around 8 or 10 Tasers in case I’m attacked by a gang. Going to have to purchase a whole bunch more holsters. And get about 6 more arms attached...

Last week it was reported in the NZ Herald that our cops are lobbying for some new Taser technology. Apparently it is fired from an ordinary shot-gun, and the slug carries all it needs to deliver a nasty, wireless jolt.

(Presumably it somehow builds and carries a charge with an onboard capacitor or something...?)

That sort of technology has a certain amount of appeal to me. Being to tase a gang of, say, 10 scroats with a pump-action shotgun loaded with taser shells sounds like the Cat’s A$$!

Have you lot heard much of this technology? Is it for real?

[isrul]

And of course, they aren't legal in NYS. And you have no constitutional right to own one.

[TC Rider]

The idiot professor didn't inform in the article about what to do after you've tased your home invading gang banger.

Do you keep the juice on until the batteries run down while waiting for the 911 response? What if your stunned gangster pulls out the darts? It has and does happen? Then what?

The most dangerous thing that cops do is putting the cuffs on a suspect. That is the first thing they do after tasing a suspect. Is that what you want your daughter/wife/mom to be doing? Holding a Taser in one hand while attempting to cuff one handed?

All going well, the cops arrive and arrest the guy, charge him with breaking and entering and he's back on the street in 30 days. Think he'll be pissed that you tased him for 30 minutes while waiting for the cops?

[Eagles6]

My brain is tired trying to follow that contorted logic.

[AreaMan]

Dead criminals don't sue.

Well, unless the local gun store starts carrying these:

[sionnsar]

But given the growing effectiveness and availability of less lethal weapons

Such as...?

[Beagle8U]

“As effective less-than-lethal weapons proliferate, the laws of self-defense may ultimately relegate last week’s court decision to the status of an odd little opinion, one that works mainly to ensure some special constitutional status for gunpowder technology. Gun collectors will be fond of it, but for most of society, it will have little practical effect.”

This liberal douche just can't get his tiny brain around “shall not be infringed.”

[Manly Warrior]

Exactly!

I have contacted TASER and asked if they were developing a muti-shot (not just single shot-multi-shock) version.

I have not heard back from them.

Also, anyone that believes (yes, it is a faith thing) that a less-than-lethal tool will prevent a drugged-up, crazed and perverse man or woman from pressing home a potentially lethal attack is, well, smoking something.

In the real world, there is only one kind of “stopping” effect that is viable: A handgun of sufficient caliber and capacity, wielded by a well-trained and determined law-abiding citizen. Nothing less will do. Historical data (law enforcement,civilian and military) proves it.

In order to stop a lethal threat, one must employ a counter-lethal force (in legalese it is called “counter-vailing force”).

Imagine a woman being targeted in a dark parking garage by one man bent of robbing, raping and/or killing her (pick one or more if you wish) and then ask her to face a monster with a weapon that can deliver one moderately accurate shot that must be taken at approx 20 feet or less.... I think she may slap you!

Well, a man can cover 20 feet in less than 2 seconds, which means that this victim must have lightening fast reaction time, dead eye accuracy and nerves of steel to stand and deliver that single shot.... (Oh, by the way, a small percentage of shots that hit in fact do not make skin contact and therefore are ineffective- this increases with the amount of clothing being worn.)

Now, I agree that a similar situation with the victim now armed with a concealable handgun (say either a 5 shot 38 revolver or a similar sized automatic-6-9 shots) still must react quickly enough, aim and fire, and fire, and fire if need be-the goal to STOP the bad guy.

I would not trust my life to a wire-guided CO2 powered single shot electric CNS disrupter.... I would rather attempt to do so with a fighting caliber handgun, with at least one reload and a effective range of 25 yards (with practice and professional training). In fact, I do so all the time.

According to accepted research, firearms are used 14 million times by CIVILIANS per year to stop crimes (w/o a shot being fired). I doubt that a pretty pink TASER would have that effectiveness rate, are you willing to bet your wife's or daughters safety/piece of mind on such a risk?

One other aspect-how do you train with one of these things? I am not all that familiar with training reloads for TASERS, but high quality handgun ammunition costs about $.75 per shot (premium defensive rounds) with genereic practice ammo running at about $.25 per shot. Hmm, lots of practice opportunity for my girls!

Also, several states prohibit the private carry and use of TASERS-oh, well, probably these states do the same with firearms as well; the difference being one is protected by the second amendment to the US constiution (a God-given right to self defense enumerated as the right to keep and bear ARMS).

Okay, buy a TASER if you want one, but rely on a quality combat handgun- I learned long ago in a dark situation, anything with batteries will fail just when you need it most; my firearms can be quickly, almost effortlessly returned to action while immediate action with a TASER is....mail it back to the factory?

I think TASER has a place in the continuum of defense tools, but not the premier position-as the old adage goes” God made all men, Sam Colt made them equal”

God Bless and MOLON LABE

[wita]

I just viewed the aftermath of the front end loader attack in Jerusalem. Guns blazing was the proper answer to another Muslim/terrorist/pali gone mad. Any other response and the destruction and death were sure to continue.

[raynearhood]

From the article "Typically, a defender can lawfully use deadly force only to prevent death, rape, kidnapping or bodily injury serious enough to cause long-term loss or impairment of a body part or organ."

Ummm... incorrect:

Georgia (the state I currently reside in) Code 16-3-23:
A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence;

(2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or

(3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

Ohio (my legal residence) Revised Code Section 2305.62:
Sec. 2305.62. (A) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person using the force reasonably believes that the use of the force is necessary to defend the person's self or a third person against the imminent use of unlawful force by the person against whom the force is used.

(B) A person who is justified in using force pursuant to division (A) of this section is justified in the use of deadly force against the other person and does not have a duty to retreat if either of the following applies: (1) The person using the deadly force reasonably believes that the use of the deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious physical harm to the person's self or a third person or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. (2) The circumstances described in division (A) or (B) of section 2305.63 of the Revised Code apply.

(C) For the purposes of divisions (A) and (B) of this section, a person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

Often called the "Stand Your Ground" Law, as of 26 June 2008, twenty other states had passed or signed into law the same laws (all similarly worded). Those states are:
Idaho
Arizona
Alaska
Colorado
North Dakota
South Dakota
Minnesota
Kansas
Oklahoma
Mossouri
Louisiana
Michigan
Indiana
Kentucky
Mississippi
Alabama
Florida
South Carolina
Pennsylvania
Virgina

As you can see, these laws clearly give the property owner the right to protect their property (not run away) with use of deadly force, as an attempt to unlawfully enter one's home or vehicle implies use of force by the criminal.

[BooksForTheRight.com]

This is really bothering the left. Editorials all over the land about this decision. Too bad. We have the right to defend ourselves and those who depend on us and those weaker than us. No politician and no court can take this right away from us.

[Bubba_Leroy]

A NARROWLY divided Supreme Court ruled last week that the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to keep a loaded gun at home for their personal use.

It was a 5 to 4 decision. If President Obama gets to replace any one of the 5, they will reverse this decision the first chance they get.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.