I would not describe myself as being anti-gun because I do believe in our 2nd amendment rights and that people who have proven themselves to be law-abiding, respectful, drug-free citizens should have the right to bear arms for protection. However, as with most major issues I do not side myself fully with anyone person or party. I can usually, at the very least, understand both sides of an argument relating to a major topic like gun control. I understand that guns cause injuries and fatalities every day and if Im being honest I would say that if every gun on the planet vanished into thin air right this second we might live in a more peaceful world. However that will not be the case and if the bad guys of the world have access to firearms I feel it is a law-abiding citizens constitutional right to protect themselves and their families with a firearm as well.
I have a friend who is a staunch anti-gun advocate and he knows that I am employed in the non-lethal self-defense industry. He is not quite as passionate about being anti-stun gun as he is anti-gun but he is nonetheless against stun devices of any kind as well. This I do not understand as stun devices, including tasers, do not mortally wound an attacker and still allow innocent people to defend themselves in an effective manner. My friend argues that although stun devices are listed as non-lethal they still have proven to be fatal on multiple occasions. I argue back that the world 'multiple' would be more properly replaced with 'extremely rare' and that the stun device could not be the least bit effective without some inherent level of danger. The truth of the matter is that any instrument of self defense could prove fatal in rare circumstances but the amount of fatalities resulting from the use of a stun gun pales in comparison to that of a firearm. More than 99% of the time the attacker is left with no lasting adverse physical effects whatsoever. The same cannot be said for just about anything else that has ever been used as a weapon of self-defense from a firearm to knives to fists.
I truly cannot think of another device that is as humane as the stun gun while still remaining effective enough to actually protect a person against attack. The whole reason stun devices were invented was to give law enforcement and private citizens alike the ability to defend themselves without having to take a life or severely injure another. Again this is merely my opinion but I cant for the life of me understand why any anti-gun advocate would be against stun devices.
Stay Safe,
Carl Vouer
I have a friend who is a staunch anti-gun advocate and he knows that I am employed in the non-lethal self-defense industry. He is not quite as passionate about being anti-stun gun as he is anti-gun but he is nonetheless against stun devices of any kind as well. This I do not understand as stun devices, including tasers, do not mortally wound an attacker and still allow innocent people to defend themselves in an effective manner. My friend argues that although stun devices are listed as non-lethal they still have proven to be fatal on multiple occasions. I argue back that the world 'multiple' would be more properly replaced with 'extremely rare' and that the stun device could not be the least bit effective without some inherent level of danger. The truth of the matter is that any instrument of self defense could prove fatal in rare circumstances but the amount of fatalities resulting from the use of a stun gun pales in comparison to that of a firearm. More than 99% of the time the attacker is left with no lasting adverse physical effects whatsoever. The same cannot be said for just about anything else that has ever been used as a weapon of self-defense from a firearm to knives to fists.
I truly cannot think of another device that is as humane as the stun gun while still remaining effective enough to actually protect a person against attack. The whole reason stun devices were invented was to give law enforcement and private citizens alike the ability to defend themselves without having to take a life or severely injure another. Again this is merely my opinion but I cant for the life of me understand why any anti-gun advocate would be against stun devices.
Stay Safe,
Carl Vouer