Taser attachment for handguns...think we're close to this?

Rem700fan said:

In a true self defense, scared for your life or the life of others situation, anything less than lethal is not a choice IMO. That is why I do not own pepper spray or a taser. Don't want some prosecuter asking why I did not choose to spray or tase instead of shooting.

Click to expand...

Well, just so happens that your opinion is spot on. I wouldn't have pepper spray or a tazer anywhere in the house.

A self defense shooters' action will be determined by the availability of other options available up until he had to shoot. Limit some of those options then you limit the scrutiny of your actions.

Minuteman said:

Civilian sale, or letterhead?

Click to expand...

Cost prohibitive...like $100 a round.

Of course this guy will build it if you have the coin and a high tolerance for BS.




The combo it a no go in my book. One or the other, unless lethal cover is available.

These are awesome answers to things I did not even think of. As I don't know a whole lot about firearms, you've touched on dimensions I would not have considered in a million years. Thank you!

It also shows just how messed up the system is in terms of protecting those who legally defend themselves...

You guys need to think outside the box a little more. I never said I would use pepper spray inside my house when somebody is breaking in. That is not the place for LTL force.

But suppose you see some guy trying to sexually assault your neighbor in their backyard?

Or some deranged, drunk homeless guy is beating the crap out of some old man down the block?

If you decide to use a gun in either of those situations, even if you don't discharge the weapon - you are likely going to be in serious legal jeopardy in Marylandistan. You are outside your house, not defending your own life, etc. You have basically gone on offense to defend somebody else. The law is not your friend if you do that - even it is morally the right thing to do.

Yes, you call the police first in both situations. But if you decide that your intervention is necessary - you have the CHOICE of a LTL option. Personally, I look out for my neighbors and my neighbors look out for me. I am not going to let my neighbor get raped if I can stop it before the police arrive.

I think not owning pepper spray leaves a gap in your defense options - particularly in this state where you cannot carry. It doesn't replace a gun, but it does give you options you will not have if your only choice is gun or nothing. They don't cost much, you can stuff them anywhere, etc.

AlpineDude67 said:

You guys need to think outside the box a little more. I never said I would use pepper spray inside my house when somebody is breaking in. That is not the place for LTL force.

But suppose you see some guy trying to sexually assault your neighbor in their backyard?

Or some deranged, drunk homeless guy is beating the crap out of some old man down the block?

If you decide to use a gun in either of those situations, even if you don't discharge the weapon - you are likely going to be in serious legal jeopardy in Marylandistan. You are outside your house, not defending your own life, etc. You have basically gone on offense to defend somebody else. The law is not your friend if you do that - even it is morally the right thing to do.

Yes, you call the police first in both situations. But if you decide that your intervention is necessary - you have the CHOICE of a LTL option. Personally, I look out for my neighbors and my neighbors look out for me. I am not going to let my neighbor get raped if I can stop it before the police arrive.

I think not owning pepper spray leaves a gap in your defense options - particularly in this state where you cannot carry. It doesn't replace a gun, but it does give you options you will not have if your only choice is gun or nothing. They don't cost much, you can stuff them anywhere, etc.

Click to expand...

Oh well since you put it that way...

Where do folks come up with these "what if's"...sorry I live in reality.

Name Taken said:

Oh well since you put it that way...

Where do folks come up with these "what if's"...sorry I live in reality.

Click to expand...

If you live in Maryland, I think you live in a reality which contradicts reality like the rest of us.

90% of US States live in reality in which they don't shaft over law-abiding citizens who defend themselves, their family, or other good people from criminals. They don't highly restrict carry permits so that criminals are protected by harm and law-abiding people cannot defend themselves from criminals. They don't make purchasing a legal firearm more difficult than buying a car. They don't violate the USC on multiple fronts with gun control laws that restrict 2A rights and many rights to privacy and pursuit of happiness. And they have strong laws protecting those who use firearms in self-defense.

People note that it is better to be tried by 12 than carried by six...and while I agree, I would also prefer to not lose everything I have worked for because some thug decided he was going to victimize others rather than honestly work. It shouldn't work like that, but sometimes it does. Does it mean people should modify their reactions? I'm not sure...that's partly why I asked the original question, which clearly is not a potential solution due to all the problems it could create.

The likelihood that you will ever end up having to discharge a firearm in a HD situation is exceptionally small.

The likelihood that you will ever be in a position to stop a rape or other assault is also exceptionally small.

But small does not equal zero.

Why do you think lots of otherwise normal, intelligent people are so incredibly anti-gun? It is because they have the privilege of living such a safe and secure life. They don't experience crimes of violence in their daily lives and so they think the risks are so small that they don't need to worry about it. They assume that what they have experienced in the past is always what they will experience in the future.

What these people miss is that the modern world is largely non-violent, but not completely non-violent. There are a very small number of seriously dangerous, psychopathic people out there who should not be walking the streets. Just as I have fire insurance even though I don't expect my house to burn down, I have a gun just in case my path crosses one of these lunatics.

As for stopping a rape not being something you need to worry about - I don't know anybody who has been the victim of a home invasion robbery. But I actually know two women who were gang-raped by strangers. One was an acquaintance I barely knew, but one was a good friend. Both crimes happened in nice parts of town where one would not expect such a thing could ever occur. One occurred in broad daylight.

Psychopaths don't just do home invasion robberies. Unfortunately, that is about the only time the law accepts the idea that you can use a gun to defend yourself or others.

After I saw what my friend had to go through - there is no way I'm doing nothing. Maybe I'd pick up the pepper spray instead of my AK. I don't honestly know. I know what the rapist deserves - but the law thinks different.

If/when I have to point my firearm at another person, I intend on using it to its full lethal capacity. I can't foresee a situation, at least for SD, in which I would use a LTL and need the option of lethal. If I've already drawn, then the situation is serious enough for lethal force.

I'm tired as heck and I doubt I typed that how I ment in my head.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk

AlpineDude67 said:

You guys need to think outside the box a little more. I never said I would use pepper spray inside my house when somebody is breaking in. That is not the place for LTL force.

But suppose you see some guy trying to sexually assault your neighbor in their backyard?

Or some deranged, drunk homeless guy is beating the crap out of some old man down the block?

If you decide to use a gun in either of those situations, even if you don't discharge the weapon - you are likely going to be in serious legal jeopardy in Marylandistan. You are outside your house, not defending your own life, etc. You have basically gone on offense to defend somebody else. The law is not your friend if you do that - even it is morally the right thing to do.

Yes, you call the police first in both situations. But if you decide that your intervention is necessary - you have the CHOICE of a LTL option. Personally, I look out for my neighbors and my neighbors look out for me. I am not going to let my neighbor get raped if I can stop it before the police arrive.

I think not owning pepper spray leaves a gap in your defense options - particularly in this state where you cannot carry. It doesn't replace a gun, but it does give you options you will not have if your only choice is gun or nothing. They don't cost much, you can stuff them anywhere, etc.

Click to expand...

AlpineDude67 said:

The likelihood that you will ever end up having to discharge a firearm in a HD situation is exceptionally small.

The likelihood that you will ever be in a position to stop a rape or other assault is also exceptionally small.

But small does not equal zero.

Why do you think lots of otherwise normal, intelligent people are so incredibly anti-gun? It is because they have the privilege of living such a safe and secure life. They don't experience crimes of violence in their daily lives and so they think the risks are so small that they don't need to worry about it. They assume that what they have experienced in the past is always what they will experience in the future.

What these people miss is that the modern world is largely non-violent, but not completely non-violent. There are a very small number of seriously dangerous, psychopathic people out there who should not be walking the streets. Just as I have fire insurance even though I don't expect my house to burn down, I have a gun just in case my path crosses one of these lunatics.

As for stopping a rape not being something you need to worry about - I don't know anybody who has been the victim of a home invasion robbery. But I actually know two women who were gang-raped by strangers. One was an acquaintance I barely knew, but one was a good friend. Both crimes happened in nice parts of town where one would not expect such a thing could ever occur. One occurred in broad daylight.

Psychopaths don't just do home invasion robberies. Unfortunately, that is about the only time the law accepts the idea that you can use a gun to defend yourself or others.

After I saw what my friend had to go through - there is no way I'm doing nothing. Maybe I'd pick up the pepper spray instead of my AK. I don't honestly know. I know what the rapist deserves - but the law thinks different.

Click to expand...

Training can help clear up a lot of myths and fallacies with self defense law, even then it depends on the instructor. I attended one class where a defense attorney(legal instructor) and officer(live fire instructor) had a few disagreements on what you "should" do, but were on the same page as what you are "required" to do, there is a difference, and you should learn it. MD is based mostly on case law, where other states have a broader codified law on the matter, ultimately it comes down to the charges if they occur, evidence, your ability to prevent mistakes dealing with police, and your lawyer's abilities. Generally you can use lethal force to stop an imminent deadly, or debilitating attack, in many cases this includes coming to the aid of a 3rd party under deadly attack, and can be considered outside of the home although the circumstances are more restrictive than inside the home where there is no duty to retreat amongst other common law protections.

In some cases outside the home, you can use force to intervene, then might be justified in escalating to stop an escalated attack that turns on you. #3d party defense is a risky thing though, people are nuts, and jumping into a domestic situation might have plenty of pitfalls you are unaware of, some may even be a setup where the "victim" and "attacker" end up uniting in a lawsuit against the 3rd party that intervened. There is also use of force, not including deadly force, this may be legally justified in some cases like theft, you can use verbal force to confront a car thief, or to physically block their path to continue the theft, if then they escalate, present a weapon, and go after you, then you may escalate to deadly force as long as you did not initially escalate or could be considered the aggressor. It is the details, shooting someone trying to steal a car has a decent chance of ending in conviction, using verbal force to confront a thief, then escalating to lethal force in response to an attack with a weapon has little chance comparatively. Yes, you probably would be justified in using deadly force to stop a rape or beating of a neighbor, definitely justified in using force to intervene.

The disparity of force principal(equal defense force to aggressor force) doesn't mean if someone pulls a knife, you have to fight back with a knife, it means you can respond to verbal force with verbal force, physical force with physical force, and deadly force with deadly force. Most "less lethal" force can still be considered deadly force, including tasers, OC spray, and blunt weapons, so you really aren't avoiding liability using them, in some cases you are increasing liability, both tactically with an inferior weapon in a deadly encounter, and legally by holding back when it could be argued a legitimate fear would have prompted you to use the most formidable weapon available. If you aim to stop an assault with no sign of a weapon, or large disparity in force(big guy vs little girl) using OC or a taser you could run afoul of the disparity of force principal, where walking over and physically shielding or using hands would have probably been fine, although it could still escalate, and you would be less than ideally prepared for it.

I do use OC on occasion, attended a class, and am confident with it. Up here with better SD laws, I carry it for 4 legged threats exclusively(on my weak side), easier to hit a charging dog, and very effective, although if a 2 legged threat met the criteria for lethal force, I will resort to my firearm only, as it is the most effective weapon at my disposal in that case. Visiting in MD, my right to effective self defense is discriminated against and deemed unlawful, OC beats nothing, so I carry it along with my usual large folding EDC knife.

Some decent cases to look into
Baltimore Transit Co. v. Faulkner
State v. Faulkner
Roach v. State
Bruce v. State
Crawford v. State
State v. Evans

There are also jury instructions, provided criteria like the inability to safely retreat outside the home (including a 3rd party victim) were met
For self defense:

Self-defense is a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following three factors are present:
1.The defendant actually believed that <he> <she> was in immediate and imminent danger of bodily harm.
2.The defendant's belief was reasonable.
3.The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend <himself> <herself> in light of the threatened or actual harm.

Click to expand...

for defense of others aka 3rd party defense:

Defense of others is a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following four factors are present:
1.The defendant actually believed that the person defended was in immediate and imminent danger of bodily harm.
2.The defendant's belief was reasonable.
3.The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend the person defended in light of the threatened or actual force.
4.The defendant's purpose in using force was to aid the person defended.

Click to expand...

Defense of your home:

Defense of one's home is a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following three factors are present:
1.The defendant actually believed that (victim) was committing <was just about to commit> the crime of (crime) in <at> the defendant's home.
2.The defendant's belief was reasonable.
3.The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against the conduct of (victim).

Click to expand...

Defense of property:

Defense of property is a defense, and the defendant must be found not guilty if all of the following three factors are present:
1.The defendant actually believed that (victim) was unlawfully interfering <was just about to unlawfully interfere> with property.
2.The defendant's belief was reasonable.
3.The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against the victim's interference with the property.

"A person may not use deadly force to defend <his> <her> property. Deadly force is that amount of force reasonably calculated to cause death or serious bodily harm."

Click to expand...

See a pattern, immediate danger, reasonable belief, reasonable force aka verbal for verbal, physical for non-lethal physical, lethal for lethal. pretty much covers most instances.

NickZac said:

If you live in Maryland, I think you live in a reality which contradicts reality like the rest of us.

90% of US States live in reality in which they don't shaft over law-abiding citizens who defend themselves, their family, or other good people from criminals. They don't highly restrict carry permits so that criminals are protected by harm and law-abiding people cannot defend themselves from criminals. They don't make purchasing a legal firearm more difficult than buying a car. They don't violate the USC on multiple fronts with gun control laws that restrict 2A rights and many rights to privacy and pursuit of happiness. And they have strong laws protecting those who use firearms in self-defense.

People note that it is better to be tried by 12 than carried by six...and while I agree, I would also prefer to not lose everything I have worked for because some thug decided he was going to victimize others rather than honestly work. It shouldn't work like that, but sometimes it does. Does it mean people should modify their reactions? I'm not sure...that's partly why I asked the original question, which clearly is not a potential solution due to all the problems it could create.

Click to expand...

When it comes down to it... It is NEVER going to be about losing everything you worked for. It is going to be about losing your life. And in that case, everything you worked for will just have to take second billing. IF you are ever in the position where you know that the only thing that is going to save your life... is to pull the trigger to stop what threatens to take it... you won't be thinking about thinks you worked for. And if you do have time to think about that stuff, you most likely do not have the justification to pull that trigger.