Originally posted by: Slickone
They were showing stun guns on the news this week and showed police testing them on each other. It was putting some rather large men to the ground. I'm fairly sure it was a stun gun and not a tazer. ?
I didn't see this demo, so I can't directly comment.
BTW, one of the biggest downsides to stun guns is clothing. Good luck shocking someone through a winter coat. One of the reasons tasers are more effective than stun guns is that they encounter fewer ohms. Piercing the skin with barbs will do that.
Regarding the effective of stun guns, a lot of the effect depends on psychology. If someone thinks a weapon is going to hurt them, it has a much greater chance of doing so. People have literally gone into shock and almost died from being grazed by a .22. OTOH, back when I was still a cop, a perp in Cook County took 19 shots to the torso before going down (mostly .38s). In the famous shoot-out in Florida (don't remember the name, but the one that inspired the FBI creation of the 10mm and .49 S&W rounds) -- one of the guys took a lethal hit in the opening shots but continued to fight for 5 minutes with multiple other hits, including 00 buck in his face.
Applying this "predisposition" principle to the news clip you saw, I'm wondering if the police were subjected to product hype beforehand -- surrounded by "safety experts" who were there to catch them when the fell, made to stand on safety mats, watch video demonstrations of people being "taken down", etc. -- measures to dispose them to fear the effectiveness of the item. Under those circumstances, especially if the mood was light and jovial, I imagine people would quite likely topple to the floor. Stuns guns do hurt like a mother.
But ask one of those guys to apply it to himself and make it a challenge to see which cop can do it the longest (like we did at Chicago Police Academy - btw, fun to train with Mr. T's older brother) and I'd bet you'd see quite a different picture. As you would if you tried it on someone who was dead-set on beating your head into the pavement.
One thing that does make stun guns somewhat effective, IMO, is that people generally fear them. Holding out a stun gun at night with blue electricity arcing out is intimidating. But I'd rather not depend on mere intimidation for my safety. Intoxicated people (probably the majority of people who want to hurt you) often don't care about getting hurt and their pain response is significantly dulled anyway.
All I'm saying is this -- I'd hate to see someone get hurt because they thought a stun gun would protect them, and it turned out not to. My wife gets assaulted by neighborhood dogs (I hope never by a person) and the only device I've entrusted her safety to is a large canister of Sabre 10% OC pepper spray (typical civilian models have 1%). I also recommend buying a training canister so you can practice how to use it and know what to expect (plus you could use it to freak out a buddy).
But if you decide to use the pepper spray, never threaten someone with it. Just pull it out and spray the guy down without warning. Seriously. Forget using short bursts. Hose the guy down without warning -- and then run. Warning the guy just gives him the opportunity to psych himself up, protect his eyes, or attack you suddenly. It's totally non-lethal, so just hose him down and then run.
I hate to contradict Mr. Miagi, but:
Strike hard, strike fast, show no mercy.
The fact that you're using a non-lethal method of protection is mercy enough. Anything more than that and you just risk your own safety -- and the safety of anyone who might be with you.