I don’t carry a Taser. It’s one too many weapons systems for me. But if someone wants to carry a stun gun instead of gun, or in addition to a gun, why not? More specifically, if Michigan allows its citizens to carry concealed firearms, why would the po-po object to law-abiding members of the general public carrying a Taser? Reporter Heather Lynn Peters of The Muskegon Chronicle asked two top cops why they oppose civilian stun guns. Their answers reveal that the Wolverine State’s concealed carry laws have done sweet FA to alter the attitude of authoritarian condescension infecting local law enforcement . . .
“I think it’s a bad thing,” said [Muskegon County Sheriff’s Department Deputy Jeff] Blackmer, who has been a stun gun instructor for the sheriff’s office since 2009. “It’s bad enough to keep kids away from knives and firearms.
“People might treat (stun guns) like toys and they’re dangerous. There is an awful lot of power,” he said . . .
A Taser could be used for just about anything — an armed robbery, a car-jacking, any violent crime. They are far more persuasive than a knife,” he said.
And Deputy Blackmer’s logic is about as persuasive as the ATF’s logic for launching Operation Fast and Furious. Again, if adults can handle deadly weapons, why not not-so-deadly weapons? Because A) they’re too stupid and B) they might fall into the wrong hands. Gotcha.
So here we are again: legislative control to control criminal access to dangerous weapons, and stop people from doing dumb things with objects that can make others go owee. How’s that working out for ya at the moment? According to these 1960 – 2009 Michigan crime stats, same as it ever was.
While a Taser is arguably more “persuasive” than a knife, I know which one I’d rather face. More generally, where did Blackmer get the idea that protecting people from themselves—rather than each other—is a policeman’s proper role? Have we as a society decided that cops are now substitute parents and full-time social workers, not law enforcers?
Take it from someone who lived in the UK for 18 years, treating adults as children—the “Nanny state” philosophy—is a direct path to tyranny. Meanwhile, as always, beware the “reasonable man” . . .
Muskegon County Undersheriff Dan Stout said he sees “both sides” of the issue.
“I can see where people say, ‘I don’t want to kill somebody, but I want to protect my family,’” Stout said. “On the other hand, I can see people getting a false sense of security, too, and maybe not waiting for local law enforcement to get there. They need to let the true professionals take over.” . . .
His only concern about allowing “citizen Tasers” is the possibility that someone hit by a stun gun might recover more quickly than expected and cause trouble for the stun gun owner.
“In law enforcement, we train our people to react when we deploy a Taser and subdue a suspect,” Rosema said.
“You as a private citizen, you have to deal with the reaction of just Tasing somebody, and it’s usually not an enjoyable event for a person who has just been Tased.”
Hubris much? Honestly, someone needs to sit these cops down and explain the intersection of Darwinism and the U.S. Constitution, if you know what I mean.