What is your personal opinion about Stun Guns & Tazers?

Question

I find their being used far more here in Canada than anywhere else. I think it's wrong to use either weapons just for the sake of the police feeling they have more control and power over helpless individuals! Personally I think should be banned.

Answer 1

Love 'em. I believe some police officers use them way too much though. Just watch an episode of COPS to see that. Often a police officer has it drawn just leaving his vehicle and there is no need for that.

EDIT: to clarify where I was going.. it takes away from an officer's verbal skills that used to be the benchmark of the profession. Cops now know they have a good "weapon" to use besides deadly force and persuasion.


exilio- before a tazer the officer had many options for a knife wielding indidivual. He could use his "billy club" (now most dept's have an asp or Pr-24), verbal persuasion, or if another officer was there... distraction (while someone else snuck up behind and disarmed the individual).

I am definitely for the use of tazers and stun guns but officers are relying on them too much. Better training can change this trend.

Answer 2

Not sure what the weapons laws are exactly in Canada, but down here, police need to carry guns. The vast majority of police do not abuse that power and follow the strictest of guidelines for when to use them, how to use them, and on who. I have no problem with stun guns either. I honestly think they should carry both. Problem is, those who were sypathizing with those people who got shot (who most of the time did someting that would warrant that resul) demanded that police use tasers and stun guns instead because it's more humane. Now that a lot of cops are doing that, those same people are complaining that too many people are getting tasered. Then what, should cops carry Nerf guns so it doesn't hurt the person when they try to apprehend them? The same people that the cops are shooting and zapping are the very one's they are protecting everyone from, and the vast majority of the time, they deserve it. It's just that once in a while there will be an instance of abuse and it makes national news and become a faux crisis because the media decides it should be. I say nuts to that. Give the police more weapons and resouces so they can do their jobs. If some idiot who decides to run gets tasered, I say he just got what was coming to him.

Answer 3

Simply put, Tazers save lives. How so? Glad you asked. ;-)

Here is an example. Imagine a suspect is wielding a knife, before Tazers, an officer had only one force option -- a gun. However, with the advent of the Tazer, an officer can perhaps taze the suspect instead of using deadly force. I can almost guarantee the suspect would rather be tazed than shot once they come out of their drug or alcohol-induced rant.

Like any tool, there is always potential for abuse. To call for a ban just because a few officers might be overzealous, would deprive officers and the public of an invaluable resource in dealing with threats to officers and the community.

Sadly, there are no stats on the lives Tazers have saved. And the supposed data of Tazers killing people is dubious at best.

Ask yourself, if it was someone you loved wielding that knife in the example above; would you rather them be shot, or tazed?

Answer 4

The use of non-lethal weapons keeps police officers from having to take the ultimate step in the use of force continuum, which is deadly force.

And two more thoughts for you:
Would you rather be shot by a stun gun OR shot by a real gun?
Also, if you don't do anything wrong do you have anything to worry about?

Answer 5

As has already been said, tazers are a good idea in many sitatuions. Against people protesting in public forums? No. Against 80-year old women with hammers? No. But in lieu of using a Beretta 9mm and ending someone's life, yes. They are the center of much controversy because people don't understand why they are favorable to other things, such as manually disarming/subduing a subject. It may be easier to taze a subject than having to break several of their (and possibly an officer's) bones trying to bring them down.

Answer 6

If applied properly and appropriately they are certainly better than lethal force.
Unfortunately in Canada tazers have killed 3 people in the last month.
There is no available data on how many occurrences total in Canada over this year, in order to establish what percentage of incidents were fatal, so it is tough to decide if they are an acceptable tool.

Answer 7

I would rather be shot with a Stun Gun or Tazer than a 357 Magnum.

Answer 8

Stun guns and tazers are irrelevant to your saftey. Rather they are kinky sex toys. For self defence I would try martial arts if you have muscle and free time, or a gun. GG

Answer 9

Since they cause no permanent harm, I think they are one of the best alternatives for the Police to use. The options are Batons, Pepper Spray, Physical Confrontation, or Firearms. And since they are only used against those who refuse to comply, so be it.

Answer 10

Well I can either:
1.Shoot you, which results in death, not appropriate for most situations
2. hit you with a baton, which results in Blunt force trauma, which can leave you with broken bones and internal bleeding, and still may not stop you
3. Pepper spray, I hate pepper spray, it gets everywhere and sometimes does not gain compliance, and allows you to still use all of your body parts
OR
4. tase you, which hurts like a mother f-er when the trigger is pulled, completely takes you out of the fight and stops any and all pain once it is over.