• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tasers: Why do gun grabbers want them?

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,661
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is something that the State of Florida has decided should be treated the same as a firearm...actually...a handgun. You must be 21 years of age or older...and you must have a concealed license. On top of that it cannot be carried on a college campus.

Can anyone explain the logic behind gun grabbers? An electrical stun gun that does not fire darts is treated differently. It is allowed. So is pepper spray. Carry concealed without a license, and even on a college campus. So why do the gun grabbers want tasers? Is there anyone who is pro gun control that can explain this to me?
 
An electrical stun gun that does not fire darts is treated differently. It is allowed. So is pepper spray. Carry concealed without a license, and even on a college campus. So why do the gun grabbers want tasers? Is there anyone who is pro gun control that can explain this to me?

What's the difference between a taser and an electric stun gun that does not fire darts?
 
What's the difference between a taser and an electric stun gun that does not fire darts?

An electric stun gun is pain compliant. Basically you push it on someone until they leave you alone. Essentially it sucks compared to a taser that lets you stand away and shoot someone with a dart that zaps them and locks them up for a second or 2.

But the fact is in terms of hazards to someone's body? About the same. It is garbage that one is against the law to use for self defense on a college campus or for 18 and up.
 
That seems to be the line drawn. Pepper spray hardly counts as a projectile.

With an effective range of roughly 15 feet, traceable to the dealer, and near 0 lethality. Why is it treated like a gun?
 
An electric stun gun is pain compliant. Basically you push it on someone until they leave you alone. Essentially it sucks compared to a taser that lets you stand away and shoot someone with a dart that zaps them and locks them up for a second or 2.

But the fact is in terms of hazards to someone's body? About the same. It is garbage that one is against the law to use for self defense on a college campus or for 18 and up.

I support concealed carry on campus, but the line they've drawn seems clear.
 
With an effective range of roughly 15 feet, traceable to the dealer, and near 0 lethality. Why is it treated like a gun?

Because it shoots something? Are pellet airguns allowed?
 
Ok, how about this:

A taser, used offensively (and thus illegally), greatly reduces a victim's chance of running away from a confrontation that is beginning at some distance.
 
This is something that the State of Florida has decided should be treated the same as a firearm...actually...a handgun. You must be 21 years of age or older...and you must have a concealed license. On top of that it cannot be carried on a college campus.

Can anyone explain the logic behind gun grabbers? An electrical stun gun that does not fire darts is treated differently. It is allowed. So is pepper spray. Carry concealed without a license, and even on a college campus. So why do the gun grabbers want tasers? Is there anyone who is pro gun control that can explain this to me?

I think the anti-2nd amendment crowd in general doesn't like the people having the means to defend themselves. Tazers are not the only non-gun weapons they try to ban or severely restrict.
 
I think the anti-2nd amendment crowd in general doesn't like the people having the means to defend themselves. Tazers are not the only non-gun weapons they try to ban or severely restrict.


James nailed it.


If they ever do ban guns, they won't stop there... next it will be pocket knives, pepper spray... just look at England.
 
James nailed it.


If they ever do ban guns, they won't stop there... next it will be pocket knives, pepper spray... just look at England.

Exactly. I am also curious as to why they don't make the argument here?
 
I think the anti-2nd amendment crowd in general doesn't like the people having the means to defend themselves. Tazers are not the only non-gun weapons they try to ban or severely restrict.

Never forget that the anti-gun crowd is on the side of violent criminals, and against that of honest citizens.

It should never be a surprise to see them opposed to any product that gives an honest citizen a good chance of defending himself against a violent criminal. Why would they support something that is detrimental to their criminal constituents?
 
Gun laws, or more specifically weapons laws, are many times illogical, and I think that perception plays a larger role than lethality. Spring operated knives are not allowed, but flip openers are fine. Kitchen knives of 12 inches are fine, other knives not so. Guns? All over the place. A .223 sporting rifle is OK, put a folding stock on it, a flash suppressor, and a bayonet mount on, and it is far to lethal for the average person to possess. Has anyone heard recently of a death by bayonet?

These, along with such things as tazer bans vs stun guns are all proposals or laws made by those who claim they just want common sense gun control.
 
With an effective range of roughly 15 feet, traceable to the dealer, and near 0 lethality. Why is it treated like a gun?
Because it's a firearm by the very definition of the word.

A firearm is a gun which expels a projectile through action of a chemical explosive. If they don't restrict tazers then it will undermine their gun regulations.
 
Civilian tazers fire 15 feet, law enforcement fires 30 feet. They also spew out micro-tags identifying the tazer and the tazer itself time stamps being fired.

Tazers are fare more powerful than they were when their safety was tested. They can be lethal, although usually are not.

Tazers are considered the ultimate rapist, robber, home intruder, carjacker weapon - and also accordingly poise dangers to police. It is that they are ideal for rape is the primary reason given for outlawing them.

I would like to see them classified as a deadly weapon - to slow down both people and police using them when not truly necessary. For civilian versions, they should be required to "BANG" as loud a gunshot, as some safeguard against their being to easily used by rapists, home invaders, carjackers, robbers and so forth.
 
Because it's a firearm by the very definition of the word.

A firearm is a gun which expels a projectile through action of a chemical explosive. If they don't restrict tazers then it will undermine their gun regulations.

Actually. No. Muzzloaders do the same thing. They are not classified as firearms. It seems the legislation is based on something else then?
 
I think the anti-2nd amendment crowd in general doesn't like the people having the means to defend themselves. Tazers are not the only non-gun weapons they try to ban or severely restrict.
Why in gods name would you want to defend yourself? Or how do you possible think you can.
You know all criminals are 6'4", 245lbs, 2%body fat, can shoot like John Wayne. Just bend over and give them what they want.
LOL
 
Back
Top Bottom