MSU Red Cedar Message Board

Nope. Don't need one now that they're legal any more than I did when they were illegal.

Do all concealed carry rules apply? If so, why not carry a gun.

Yes they do. The same pistol free zone laws, self-defense, etc. rules apply to tasers as they do to pistols. Since that's the case, carry a pistol. Taser gets you one shot at 15 feet. They are NOT what the police carry.

One also wonders if the additional taser training is the same as the police taser training (i.e., a requirement that you get shot with one). If so, no thank you.

No, I would carry a gun before a taser.

I read up a little more, USA Today had the most informative article.

In short, I agree with others who said you might as well carry a gun, these aren't the same thing that cops carry (just like the pepper spray you can buy isn't nearly as effective). The civilian version of stun guns are "one shot" with a 15 foot range, at least the version that can be carried. All other CPL restrictions are in place (can't carry when consuming alcohol, restricted zones, etc.) The burden of use is also the same as with a concealed weapon.

I still can't find any info on whether a person can buy one for home protection use, or a multi-shot version without taking CPL and other training.

You come in my house I have no interest in a stun gun. A shotgun to the dick will do.

They're bulkier than a small 9mm pistol, as well, making them harder to carry and conceal.

I guess if you really had some kind of a moral objection to firearms they'd make sense, but since you need a CPL to get one, I don't know how anyone like that would ever qualify.

So, yeah, just sticking with my pistol for now. Glad the law passed and I have the option, but no thanks for now.

As a CPL-holder, I think this is a bad idea and a bad law.

“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I wish to point out to you that the defendant, a CPL-holder who will claim that he was acting in self-defense when he shot the victim, chose to carry a handgun and employ lethal force when state law gave him the option to carry and use a non-lethal means to defend himself in a situation in which he felt threatened. Please keep that in mind as this trial moves forward.”

~ part of some prosecutor’s opening statement in the future

Tying it to the CPL, with the additional training, is what is a bad idea.

As has already been stated, a stun-gun would be effective in very limited circumstances. As a CPL-holder, unfortunately, when I walk out the door in the morning, I have no idea what potential defensive situation I may find myself in at some point -- i.e. one in which a stun-gun would be quite effective or not at all.

Am I supposed to carry both a stun-gun and a hand-gun and decide which to use when a self-defense situation presents itself ?
Yeah, no, I’m not going to do that. I’m carrying my handgun and using it, even if the situation turns out to be one in which a stun-gun would’ve been effective in stopping the threat.

So, I’m not real happy that an overzealous, anti-gun prosecutor can now plant the thought in a jury’s collective mind that I had the “option” under my CPL to carry and employ non-lethal force and “chose” not to.

Then don't carry a stun gun. Problem solved. "No I couldn't use a stun gun. I don't have one."

You already have the option, under your CPL, to not shoot. This changes nothing.