MI citizens get Tasers; easier CCW's next

[Dr Mordrid]

The follow-on bill in the last paragraph would speed up the CCW process by eliminating county concealed-weapon license boards and transfer their duties to county sheriff's office, which is already in the process anyhow.

Detroit News....

Snyder OKs Tasers for personal use

Detroit News Lansing Bureau

Lansing— Gov. Rick Snyder signed a package of bills Tuesday allowing citizens with concealed pistol licenses to carry consumer-grade Tasers for personal protection.

Snyder signed the legislation without ceremony shortly before he was set to introduce Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney at a rally at Lansing Community College's downtown campus.

The package of three bills will take effect immediately, allowing sporting goods stores to stock and sell Arizona-based Taser International's consumer-grade device that fires two dart-like electrodes up to 15 feet at a subject. The Tasers police use can shoot up to 35 feet and contain multiple shots.

State Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, said he wasn't surprised the Republican governor signed the bills, which had bipartisan support in both chambers of the GOP-controlled Legislature.

"I'm not shocked," Jones told reporters. "I think (Tasers are) a very reasonable alternative to guns and bullets."

Jones has been a vocal proponent of easing the state's ban on stun guns to allow citizens with concealed weapons training to carry Tasers. To ease concerns Tasers cause bodily harm, the former Eaton County sheriff once allowed himself to be shocked by a Taser during a 2008 legislative committee meeting.

Snyder's endorsement of the legislation comes as lawmakers are considering another bill that would speed up the process for obtaining a concealed weapon permit and allow some licensed gun owners with additional training to carry concealed pistols in traditionally pistol-free zones, such as schools, sports stadiums, college dormitories, hospitals and bars.

[Brian Ellis]

Too bad if the target wears a pacemaker or similar. In some areas this might be more than 1% of the population. Even if generally less lethal than guns, I don't think this is a clever move in fighting crime, as the perps will use them.

[Dr Mordrid]

Too bad if the target wears a pacemaker or similar. In some areas this might be more than 1% of the population.

if they have a pacemaker and are still doing street crimes or robberies the deserve whatever they get - probably a Darwin Award nomination at the least.

Even if generally less lethal than guns, I don't think this is a clever move in fighting crime, as the perps will use them.

To legally get one they have to be over 21, go through the certified training, and go through the background checks for both the concealed carry permit and the purchase, which includes a photo ID and fingerprinting. Not bloody likely for a criminal since they can get one illegally on the street already.

[Fat Tone]

Are you deliberately ignoring Brian's point about the victim having a pacemaker?

[Umfriend]

Are you deliberately ignoring Brian's point about the victim having a pacemaker?

Methinks the Doc is referring to the situation where a citizen has a taser and uses it on a threat. Not on the situation where a perp obtained a taser illegally (which do probably alread can en do) and uses it on a citizen during a crime.

I'm thinking I'd rather get hit with a taser than with a rock at 1,250 fps?

Moreover, trying to having a US POV, I can imagine that law-abiding citizens that do have a CCW license would still hesitate to use a gun against a threat and thus become victims of a crime wheras that hesitation may be less with a taser?

I am not so sure this is a bad development actually.

[Dr Mordrid]

Methinks the Doc is referring to the situation where a citizen has a taser and uses it on a threat. Not on the situation where a perp obtained a taser illegally (which do probably alread can en do) and uses it on a citizen during a crime.

Precisely. The "target" = the perp.

I'm thinking I'd rather get hit with a taser than with a rock at 1,250 fps?

The problem with a Taser is that a leather coat, parka, pea coat etc. can pretty much defeat one unles you by chance hit bare skin or skin covered by fabric.

Moreover, trying to having a US POV, I can imagine that law-abiding citizens that do have a CCW license would still hesitate to use a gun against a threat and thus become victims of a crime wheras that hesitation may be less with a taser?

I am not so sure this is a bad development actually.

There are a few folks who would hesitate with a firearm and not so much with a Taser, but most concealed carry instructors will put trainees through the Tueller Drill. This drill establishes a defenders "Danger Zone" - the distance at which the defender can react, draw and fire before an aggressor can cross the gap and make contact. This distance is based on each persons reaction time and for a single adversary this is usually stated as an average of no less than 21 feet, but it can be much further - especially if there are multiple aggressors. Let them get that close and you may well lose.

The problem is that civilian Tasers only have a range of 15 feet, while police models can reach out to 35 feet. Obviously a 9mm or .40 can reach out & touch a lot further out than that. Bottom line: start shooting at an aggressor as soon as they get anywhere near 21+ feet.

Examples of the Tueller Drill:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmZj6dYrNzk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhDEION_FnY&feature=endscreen&NR=1