A reader who wishes to remain anonymous writes:
My apartment was burglarized. It happened, as these things tend to, on a particularly stressful Wednesday a few weeks ago. From what the police, my complex staff, and my neighbors can gather, some thoughtful and patient crooks scouted our complex for weeks, looking for early risers who left their homes at crack-o’-dawn thirty.
They busted in our doors and, in my case, took anything they thought could be used as a weapon, including my Ruger LCR .38 revolver, stored in its safe, hidden where my children would not find it. All of my other neighbors who were robbed had weapons stolen, too. None of us were home when the crimes took place.
“They were looking for guns,” the officer who investigated said.
Having to be escorted to your front door, which is hanging wide open, the door frame utterly destoyed, by the maintenance staff who worked to repair it that night and much of the following day, is unnerving on a level that I can only explain by comparing it to the sense of violation victims of rape experience. While nowhere near that level of personal invasion and terror, walking into my home that evening was…horrible.
Everything had been touched, rifled through and messed with by faceless people whose actions show the only things they value are those which wound, kill, and destroy.
I didn’t sleep for three days.
Relatives and friends immediately came to my aid, offering safe places to sleep, various alarm company and weapons recommendations, someone to talk to or someone to be quiet with. The insurance people were gracious and fast. The investigating police officer was attentive, smart, and thorough.
My boss gave me a day off to get everything taken care of. Several co-workers offered to replace my stolen gun. One friend, attempting to make me smile, said, “How about I rent you two Samoan sumo wrestlers to stand guard at the doors?”
I thought a lot about what to do next. I’ve decided not to replace the gun. Here’s why:
1. I have never been comfortable owning a gun.
There are several reasons for this, two of the main ones being I have a moral objection to killing another human being, and I have teenage sons.
I don’t want to elaborate on my moral objection to killing; I shouldn’t have to. As a free American, I deeply respect the opposite moral stance taken by others to defend those they love and their home and hearth with a gun, and I would never ask them to defend that deeply personal decision, especially after a burglary. I know those who hold our freedoms in high regard will afford my decision the same respect.
My sons are level-headed, responsible, and have been trained on how to safely handle a firearm. But my sons are also teenagers. I always felt a sense of low-level anxiety having a gun in the house, even though it was hidden and stored in a safe.
Whether that is rational or stupid is irrelevant; that anxiety could affect how I acted in an emergency, and it did affect how I stored my gun. I kept it hidden, and the time needed to grab the gun if I needed it could have been all the time that an attacker needed to harm me or my kids.
2. Guns are what thieves want.
“They were looking for guns.” It was a statement, not a question, not even a guess. While the authorities don’t think the thieves who burglarized my home knew I owned a gun, the fact that weapons were essentially the only things they took from all of the apartments they entered gives the police pause.
I live in a gated apartment complex in a nice part of town with security patrols. It’s just the sort of place in a major metroplex that thieves would scope out if they were looking for people who had enough money to afford firearms.
3. I will hesitate to use a weapon that I know will likely kill an attacker.
Had I been home or, God forbid, had my kids been home, and an armed robber broke in, I would have hesitated to shoot them. That hesitation could put my kids or me in danger. I needed another option, so I went with the weapon the thieves missed: the TASER Pulse.
The Pulse is non-lethal and for me that’s its biggest selling point. For others, it’s a huge drawback. All I want is time to escape a dangerous situation and the Pulse, used correctly, can provide exactly that. It’s also compact which is awesome if you’re petite like me, or if you want something discreet. It’s easy to operate regardless of whether you’re right or left handed.
I can legally own a Pulse without having to register it with a soul, and in this day and age when Alexa or that creepy Google pod thingy is recording people 24/7 so Big Brother and Mark Zuckerberg know even more about us, that sense of privacy is also a great selling point.
The Pulse retails for $370-400, and can be shipped to my house in a couple days, which is less money and time than a typical revolver or 9mm + the concealed carry class (if one needs it) + license fees + waiting period + frustration of buying a new gun.
I know most people who read this are gun owners who deeply believe in their Second Amendment right to defend themselves with arms. I do too; I’ve just chosen a non-lethal option. That, along with increased security in and around my home, a new safety plan and more time getting to know my neighbors is helping to restore my lost sense of security without compromising the moral stand I need to have.
I love that in our country, we are each free to make choices that work for us, and innovative enough to make quality products that meet the needs of different types of people.
This person does not need to be afraid of the gun, he/she needs to get training and get comfortable with the idea of self defense.
Did you miss the part where he or she has a moral objection to killing?
A moral training is not something to be trained away.
Yup, if someone is not willing to kill an attacker in order to protect themselves or their children, we should in no way encourage them to maintain a tool capable of helping them do exactly what they have said they are not willing to do. Mindset has to proceed both the training and the tools. If she’s not there, she’s not there.
I concur that she isn’t there and should not own a firearm. I just don’t buy the moral objection bit.
“As a free American, I deeply respect the opposite moral stance taken by others to defend those they love and their home and hearth with a gun, and I would never ask them to defend that deeply personal decision”
That is all I need to know. While I don’t agree with the author’s sentiment I have no issue with it. We all need to make our own decisions as to what is moral. What I do have an issue with, however, is an individual who wishes to dictate to other free Americans what they can and cannot have in their possession to defend themselves with.
My question, if they were targeting guns, how did they know she had a gun? How did they know the other apartments has guns?
Well, she mentioned that she wouldn’t have to register a taser, which implies she did have to register her gun, which means the thieves got ahold of the registration lists. There’s a darn good argument against registration right there.
Self-defense isn’t so much about killing, as it is about living.
It’s not about killing. Some people, way down deep, would rather die than fight. And no matter what feel good stories they tell themselves, those same people will let their kids die too. I’ve seen it in many ways and many forms. Some of those people can find their own self worth and change, some people never will.
I have served in combat and other duties in defense of my country. I have performed law enforcement duties in a number of places. I have a moral objection to taking a life. HOWEVER, that moral objection ends where the safety of others begins. I do not believe in shooting or killing anyone over a television or silverware. I have insurance to cover such losses. Still, nobody is going to enter my home while myself or my family is home and threaten our safety. PERIOD. And nobody is going to threaten my neighbors, friends, or even strangers as long as I have the means to protect them. PERIOD. Naturally, this does not mean that I will not call law enforcement to handle such situations. It’s their job and what they get paid to do. However, until they arrive, I will do whatever I must to protect myself and others. If that is only watching, making note of descriptions, and similar activities, then that will be the extent of my involvement. But, when it looks like someone I going to be in grave jeopardy unless I act, I most certainly will act. Hopefully, it will not reach the point where I must take a life, but I will if I must.
Our nation has sunk into the swamp, and if people who are capable, and hopefully trained, do not rise to the occasion, we are lost as a society. As much as people decry Trump’s lack of progress in certain areas, I am more than pleased to see that, under his watch, action is being taken against illegals who are violent criminals. If it was me, I’d approve executions of MS13 types. In the words of the old rancher when dealing with rustlers, “string ’em up. It’ll teach ’em a lesson.” It’s also why I believe in National Service like the Swiss and quite a number of others do. Patriotism is not just a word.
Well said, my friend.
Almost certainly a “she”. I don’t know ANY men/males (including some fairly flouncy ones) who would describe themselves as “petite” as the author did in the article.
I have no issue if a person makes that choice for themselves. None at all.
That said, when you are a parent you are now making that choice for your children. Who you are supposed to protect. With your life if necessary. Perhaps others disagree, and feel that their children can be sacrificed on the alter of their objections. Maybe, however, they don’t want to die for your ethical dilemma.
If your toy doesn’t work, or your ‘one shot’ zapper fails, now not only do you die, but your children may also be subject to assault, rape, and/or murder.
Make that choice for yourself. No issues.
Your children, however, deserve better.
Close, but I don’t think you quite hit the mark. I think the writer needs to know what it’s like to not fear guns. Training and familiarity are only bandaids. The writer needs to KNOW what it’s like to live somewhere where guns aren’t radioactive. He has too many negative mental connotations built up around it. There are less lethal firearm options that are more effective than a taser. Credit due for a well written/thought out submission. Agree that you don’t have to justify choosing not to kill someone.
Click bait ad for Taser… imagine that. ?
The reader wishes to remain anonymous because they work for Tazer’s marketing department.
Yep. The whole latter half reads like a sanitized product press release.
Plus, parts of it make no sense. The robbers are described as “people” — plural. But the answer to her problem is a single-shot “weapon”? She’s seen first-hand evidence that bad people work in teams/groups, but a single-shot electrical device is the new hotness in her life?
What a load.
Nailed it.
“I love that in our country, we are each free to make choices that work for us, and innovative enough to make quality products that meet the needs of different types of people.”
That’s straight out of the marketing department.
It sounds awfully “crisp,” like most marketing speak.
This tickled my brain and reminded me of some stories I read a few years ago about people being paid by advertising agencies to be “influencers.” It’s basically a word of mouth scheme, people are paid to say nice things about certain products to their friends, family, and people they meet.
Is that what this story is? Maybe, maybe not. I do know that if TTAG published a follow up saying “yeah turns out that was a shill story” the reaction of everybody here would be “fucking obviously.”
Should have been a contest entry. Oh the irony. ?
Just an ad for pulse. Btw it’s harder to steal your gun if it’s carried and it’s much more useful in an emergency than being locked up or hidden. And teasers are regulated in many areas.
I disagee. Not meaning this as an insult but the sheep need to understand they are sheep. Not everyone is cut out to be a sheepdog and when the the sheep pretend they are sheepdogs the results are often tragic.
One doesn’t have to be a sheepdog to wear a gun and defend yourself and your family. I don’t get paid to be a sheepdog, nor do I have qualified immunity.
Don’t fall for this “you’re either a sheep or a sheepdog” false dichotomy.
IF the person is TOTALLY apposed to and/or incapable of shooting someone, that person should NOT have a gun in their possession UNTIL that attitude changes. As NRA instructor more than third of students were women AND of those women almost ALL had a STORY (changed previous attitudes on owning a gun and shooting someone). Likely 90% of those women had never fired a gun and had initial fear of unknown- as an instructor it was my duty to spend more time with those student until they were comfortable.
First and foremost, student MUST be comfortable handling the weapon and SAFELY at all times. All students fired minimum of 50-rounds. Only one woman, who’s boyfriend was forcing her to take the class was never given a certificate, allowing for CCW- could not get past her fear. Even had students coming on second class (after that class was over) to continue where we left off to get the student to point where they could handle, load/unload etc and shoot firearm safely. Students who initially followed recommendations for using revolver for beginning shooters and later changed to semi-auto, came to follow-up classes with new semi carry gun and retook ‘class’ to be safe with new gun (at no charge,, usually instructor used time After a class to do personal shooting since he had two lanes paid for and would be there anyway.. NEVER charged for children under age of 18 years and significant others of LEO done at cost (range, NRA book, etc).
BUT- someone who CANNOT HANDLE A GUN SAFELY and who is NOT willing to learn or train to be safe with a firearm, HAS NO BUSINESS USING or HAVING A GUN- chances are they MIGHT bring a lethal gun into a situation which didn’t already have a firearm- THESE FOLKS SHOULD USE STUN GUN OR MACE as a replacement. DO NOT Flame this commentator who’s owned firearms for five decades, carrying for 30 years since 1987 when state made it legal to do so.. not everyone grew up in gun family and hunted after age six. Stand by remarks that firearm owner or handling the gun MUST be SAFE in doing so and KNOW what that firearm will do,, REAL WORLD, and NOT what they see on TV or in MOVIES.
Sounds like someone needs more training…man training. I’m coming over to your crappy apartment, and starting off your training by throwing out all your skinny jeans and sandals. Then I’m going after your role-playing games, and your beard wax.
The author self-described as “petite,” so I’d let her keep the skinny jeans.
OK to be humorous- when appropriate. Topic is NOT humorous and folks copping an attitude, especially when party is a woman, petite or otherwise; ALSO why many women don’t feel comfortable shooting or going to the range where the ‘GUYS’ rule. Been Range Officer off and on since 1980 on Police and Public shooting ranges and thankfully the ‘attitudes’ are changing. When RO, made a point of seeking out anyone ‘new’ to firearms,,, not a gender, race or anything issue- someone new will have a learning curve and it is up to ALL of the shooting fraternity to make these folks comfortable AND safe while they learn. Newbies should WANT and LOOK FORWARD to returning to shooting range. Personally why believe SASS and Cowboy Action Shooting is the BEST shooting sport, family oriented, where ‘greenhorns’ are always welcomed, loaned guns they might not have to shoot ‘cowboy’, and assigned a seasoned ‘cowboy shooter’ to show them the ropes to make sure they enjoy themselves and return next month’s match. JAHO Gun owners will sink or swim in today’s not so friendly to gun society by how they represent themselves to others. Proud to be SASS Life #3106, RO #1 and RO #2, aka: Hardway Horsley , that’s davzway
And this is why the writer is anonymous.
Rather than respecting the choice of another, you immediately go on the attack, supposing a personal weakness is why the person chooses not to have a firearm. I’d say you are just as bad as Shannon and her army of grabbers, but at least I can group them in the “I know better than you” crowd. Looks like the two of you could have tea and trade tips.
Of stunning note, first, in your rush to harangue someone for choosing not to have a firearm, you suppose that the 2A refers exclusively to firearms, ignoring that the writer has chosen to maintain ownership of the Taser-brand Taser. Second, I’ve never seen a man describe himself as petite, but I doubt the writer would be interested in a Man Card.
I don’t mind someone being a conscientious objector to guns and killing, I hate imbedded commercials purporting to be a real news worthy story. TTAG this article and the trickery in it sucks.
Katy,
I’ll be “that guy”. No other animal in nature refuses to protect itself or its offspring. Therefore, a person who refuses to protect themselves and their children is in a really bad place. And let’s be clear: a taser is a compliance tool, not a weapon. Those are facts.
Since I care about my family, friends, and neighbors, I would do my best to gently and respectfully educate and persuade anyone who has taken the author’s position. That is the loving thing to do.
Yep. A cop uses a taser so he/she can subdue someone and handcuff him. You going to do that? Or just grab your kids and hope you can run past the criminal before he stands back up again? If you don’t miss, and if he’s alone, and if he isn’t wearing a coat…
This is such an incredibly bad plan.
I wouldn’t have fit into skinny jeans even when I was young… but lay a finger on my RPGs and you will regret it! 🙂
Don’t be so cocky. Some of us will kill to protect our roleplaying games.
Way to assume there hero. It’s a woman.
It was still a quality hipster rant. Off target, but quality.
You’ll take my beard wax from my cold dead hands. Molon labe sucker.
“Growing a beard is a habit most natural, Scriptural, manly and beneficial.” – Charles Spurgeon
Post menopausel women agree with Spurgeon.
You’ll have to pry my Magic cards and D&D books from my cold dead hands after surviving the withering fire and wading through a river of spent brass!
You have trouble scaring up any skinny jeans and beard wax though.
The moral objection is where the idea of self defense comes in…
America is still the land of the free (choice).
You’ve been duped. This sounds more like a sales ad. I honestly don’t believe this story sorry.
Me neither.
Nope.
Snowflake liar.
Either a taser rep or the remnants of “correct” the record trying to reach this audience. Upscale gated apartments with security are not where I would go looking for guns. No one has the balls to kick in 5 or 6 doors in the same complex. Teenage boys apparently absent in the early dawn hours. A direct challenge to anyone who might dare question the writer. Lots of feels mixed in. None of it really adds up to me.
I’m in accord. Almost nothing in the piece rings true. The details are not consistent, just thrown together to produce a narrative that one can accept only uncritically:
“I live in a gated apartment complex in a nice part of town with security patrols. It’s just the sort of place in a major metroplex that thieves would scope out if they were looking for people who had enough money to afford firearms.”
No. Gated apartment complexes with security patrols are where people live who do not want the responsibility for their own alarms and security. Such complexes are also not the homes of the prosperous; those people live in condos or coop. They don’t rent.
Her door was kicked “off the hinges”? But the security patrol heard nothing? No neighbor was awakened? Five or six more apartments were robbed subsequently in similar fashion? This isn’t even Marvel Comics level narrative.
The moral principle against killing another human: This, presumably was deeply ingrained. Yet she bought the revolver, a fairly recent model? Sure.
She has teenagers, and so doesn’t want a pistol around? At least one of them was a teenager for a few years already, one can assume. She kept the gun?
If a neighborhood is prosperous, and you’ll have to trust me on this, thieves come in search of gold items and other highly marketable jewelry. If these items were not taken from most of the apartments, calling the neighborhood affluent is silly.
This story simply insults the intelligence of the regular TTAG reader.
Anonymous critic…..
Real or not, don’t know source. BUT:
TWO men went through two states, doing 200 ++ robberies in broad daylight, hitting Bally’s , Gold Gym etc, figuring folks would leave purses and other valuables in cars while inside working out. Hit SIX different cars the day they broke into my SUV at Bally’s, stealing a briefcase which had everything, including main carry gun Glock 20.,,, some are brazen and didn’t care who saw them doing the crimes,,,, and helping at gunsmith who’s armorer for local SO and most PD in area, certifying carry guns twice a year when qualifying – Officers who spoke on MANY cases where you cannot believe what BG will do. Fortunately, those who keep up a pattern, will get caught like the two bozo’s who went after folks working out in gyms (less than 12 filed complaints and went to court to testify against the two darlings who didn’t spend much time in jail or finish paying court ordered restitution.
I know the author personally. Believe what you like, but I can vouch for every aspect of her story.
DZ
If you vouch for this story that does give it more credibility.
There was just way to much about Taser in it and so point by point. The story just seemed to perfect. The person writes well and I hope is in marketing.
I know in SWFL teens do break into multiple cars in the same neighborhood and steal guns. The real thieves like in this story target gated communities around here also, but those thieves aren’t looking for guns. They are looking for high end jewelry, cash, electronics etc. Gangs looking for guns rob gun stores using multiple stolen vehicles.
A Taser commercial disguised as a relevant news story…..TTAG forgiving Springfield and Rock River….as a new reader drawn to your site due to SA and RRA controversary I find you guys to be short sighted and wish washy. How would crooks know who had guns and who didn’t. I call BS.
Exactly. As a long time marketing and copywriting person, the scam of this article jumps up and bites you right in the fear and urgency psychology of selling tricks. Anonymous, and passing herself off as an equitable reasonable person who ‘understands’ (condescendingly) that some poor humans must rely on guns, while the rest of us Holier-than-thou left leaning lovers of life will DO the exactly the same thing to an intruder, without really hurting and gawd forbid, committing the sin of ‘Thou shalt not kill’. This advertisement was obviously catering to the anti-gun crowd.
Ok…..then surely this was a big story in the local media. Please provide some links so we can read about it. Without firm evidence sorry, this just reads like one big propaganda piece(and the more I reread it seems like a cleverly written ad). There’s just too many logical leaps of faith one must take to believe this. While you may know this person…unless you know every detail and have maybe even seen the police reports you can’t really vouche for them. I’ve been told plenty of BS by people I know.
“Ok…..then surely this was a big story in the local media. Please provide some links so we can read about it.”
That. Right there.
real or not, still plausible AND issue remains, person who will NOT shoot and WHO will NOT learn or train or change the basic attitudes towards firearms SHOULD NOT HAVE A GUN,, Tasers, even those firing darts, or really good Pepper spray like unit from KIMBER are not lethal and have limitations AND advantages; however, person NOT safe with firearm MUST use alternatives until basic personal problem with guns has changed. Person unsafe with a gun MAY cause themselves and family hard by bringing a gun into a situation which might NOT have a gun, creating lethal problems. Taser and Pepper Spray many not work, better than nothing and at least the person having those two self defense items is working on proper attitude towards self defense and protecting themselves. Having a gun is NOT a magic wand that will protect someone or automatically be reason person survives- not Hollywood out there.
If Taser thinks targeting TTAG readers with a piece appealing to those uncomfortable with guns is an effective marketing approach, they need to replace their sales manager.
This is not a Taser ad. Taser is not and never has been a TTAG advertiser. Period.
Then you are a fool because you gave away the ad space for free
Until now, that is.
Mr. Zimmerman – I was trying to point out the poor logic of this being a TASER marketing effort; the lack of logical sense seems at least as great as the various presumed discrepancies in the narrative that the conspiracy theorists are focused on.
Links to local media reports of this ‘mass break in’ and burglary targeting firearms.
Come on, Dan. Surely there must be something? Police blotter even?
I don’t believe you/this never happened.
Ah here come the people who are about as bad as the antis at respecting other people’s choices. No, this person does not need “more training.” No, this person does not need to “throw out his (or HER) skinny jeans.”
This man or woman has a moral objection to killing, if you read the article. That isn’t a call for ‘more training’ any more than you should be ‘trained’ by someone into NOT defending yourself. There is something wrong with you if you think someone needs to ‘train’ away their morality and deeply held beliefs.
It’s a lot more mature and responsible to know your limitations, take a moral inventory, and make decisions for yourself based on that than it is to just attack people for theirs (which, I think, was the point of this article). This person has done that and found a method (TASER) that is very imperfect but, you know what? It’s her (or his) decision and I see no reason why I should have a problem with it… or why it’s a problem for anyone else.
Hannibal, you’re the first one to specify why the author isn’t wrong – almost everyone else has nothing but criticism.
The author made it very clear that she respects our civil rights and how we choose to exercise them. That she chooses to exercise her civil rights differently from many of us does NOT diminish our rights whatsoever.
No real gun for you? Fine. The Pulse is the best non-lethal tool for you, then. If I can offer anything at all, please have a can of pepper gel as a backup plan – you only get one shot with the Pulse and it is far from certain.
That is all.
First off, I have reached the point where I immediately tune out as soon as someone uses the word “snowflake.” You might think you’re being clever, but all you’re doing is proving your complete inability to find any common ground with people who have differing opinions from your own. If someone’s opinion upsets you so much that you have to sling insults, then who is the real snowflake?
Second, I agree with others that this seems like an ad for Taser. But maybe it isn’t. Maybe this individual’s experience is real. My dad’s house was broken into years ago. They didn’t find the shotgun, but they did take an old .32 that my grandpa took off of a dead Nazi. I wish to hell I still had that gun, even though it shot sparks bad enough to burn your hand if you weren’t wearing a glove. But in that case, as in the case the author described, there were multiple burglars involved. As many have pointed out, the little zap gun is only good for one assailant (if it makes contact). I totally respect your opinion, but I’ll stick to at least five shots of hollow point .38 Special for my home defense.
I’m not trying to find “common ground” with “snowflakes”, um, I mean people with different opinions, Mr. Virtue Signaller. Never have.
If this story is true and not just a clever “ad”, then you are absolutely correct. It has nothing to do with training,but an aversion to killing.
“It’s a lot more mature and responsible to know your limitations”. This! Better to be skilled with a non-lethal weapon than to be not only unskilled, but also fearful of, a deadly weapon…
Yes, better to know one’s limitations and live by them than to overstate your capabilities in the hypothetical macho or mach-ette abstract but lack the frame of mind or ability to deploy them in realtime. A firearm wielded by a person without the resolve to use it is worse than useless. Criminals have incredible instincts for picking up fear and hesitancy. Pull a gun that you lack the resolve to use and you are likely to find it snatched away and used against you, by a criminal whose adrenaline and worst instincts have just been inflamed by your having pulled the gun that you were unwilling to fire.
Absolutely correct. Rather than respect an opinion and personal choice that in no way infringes anyone else’s rights, our tolerant “Armed Intelligentsia” resort to insults and vaporous suggestions for training. Pathetic response, people. Even as an instructor, I’ve been in a position to counsel individuals to not possess a gun until they are ready if at all.
Another good Virtue Signaller. She’s a big girl. She knows posting something on the Internet will draw opinions from all over the spectrum. White Knight. Whatever.
It actually sounded like this person, assuming this story is true and not propaganda from the antis, should never have owned a gun in the first place. There’s a red flags, such as the thieves were searching only for weapons? They got weapons from several victims? Something’s very fishy here, unless the whole neighborhood broadcast the fact that they all have guns at home. Actually, re-reading this article, I think this is just a thinly veiled commercial for the taser.
If you went through the homes in my neighborhood, community, or any of the nearby apartments, you’d likely find some nice and new firearms. It’s wealthy Texas.
If you went to some of the neighborhoods I lived in while in law school, you’d find no firearms or some worn down street purchases. It’s poor Maryland.
Thieves will take ANYTHING of value, not just well hidden locked up guns. This story is BS to the nth degree. Everyone in the complex sleeps so deeply that they didn’t hear multiple doors get kicked in? Teenage boys that live in the home didn’t know where the gun was hidden but thieves did? Please….
Lets not forget the part where they rifled through the entire apartment, found the “hidden” gun safe, got the gun…but left the tazer (3-400 bucks) behind. Bull.
While it may have been advertising or trickery or something else, I’m willing to consider the point behind it – see is as a fiction that we recognize but still discuss (like a book club?).
But, you’re probably right.
To the commenters above, the Second Amendment works both ways. You are free to have weapons to defend yourself. You are also, by definition, free not to. While I don’t personally agree with it, the moral objection to taking life in any circumstance is a valid position, and one that should be respected.
On a side note, attacking someone’s masculinity because they decide firearms is not for them is A) stupid in this case, since no one ever said the writer was male (or if so I missed it), and B) simply unacceptable regardless. This adult has made their own thoughtful and thorough choice regarding what they are and are not willing to do to defend themselves. That is in no way a negative reflection on any of their personal qualities, but rather the opposite.
Also, I happen to like my beard oil and RPGs, thank you.
Erich,
“… the moral objection to taking life in any circumstance is a valid position, and one that should be respected.”
I’ll tell you why I do not respect such a position, because conscientious objectors:
(a) Claim that actions which end a human life are wrong.
(b) Act in a way that ends their own human life!
Did you catch that? A conscientious objector’s actions (making themselves vulnerable and taking whatever an attacker gives them) ends their life, in violation of their own standard that actions which cause loss of life are wrong.
In reality conscientious objectors are simply elevating feelings above right and wrong … and then cook up some spiel about “moral objections” to justify their self-annihilating position.
Your life is a gift. Willfully throwing it away is wrong. Enabling someone else to easily end your children’s lives is downright reprehensible.
Your second reason (b) is absurd. You assume that refusing to take life means forfeiting your own. That may be true in some cases, but certainly not all cases. Providing security to yourself or loved ones, such as living in a nice area, security systems, door locks, tasers, but not to the point of lethal defense, hardly means they are “willfully throwing their life away”. They’ve taken the steps they’re comfortable with and have weighed the risks.
Also, the possibility of their life being taken doesn’t conflict with their moral position as it isn’t they who are taking a life. You’re equating action with non-action. It’s “Thou shalt not kill” not “Thou shalt not be killed”.
Cubbie,
I was hoping that someone would pick up on that. A conscientious objector justifies their refusal to employ effective self-defense because they are not guaranteed to die when attacked. Guess what? Using a firearm in self-defense almost never causes the attacker to die. Fact: victims used firearms to defend themselves anywhere from 100,000 to 1 million times last year and only about 400 attackers died. If a conscientious objector claims that rolling the dice with their own life is okay, it should also be okay to roll the dice with an attacker’s life when the odds of an attacker dying are at worst about 1 in 250 and could be as little as 1 in 2,500.
Being responsible is not always comfortable. Wearing a handgun on my hip every day is not physically comfortable. Nor is it psychologically uncomfortable because I stand to lose a lot of friends and business if other discover that I am armed. Nevertheless, I have an obligation to myself and my family to have an effective means of self-defense. So I do what is uncomfortable because it is the right thing to do.
First, I disagree that it is okay for a PARENT to let someone else take their life. Parents have an obligation to raise their children. They cannot do that if they are dead. Parents also have an obligation to ensure that their children are not a burden on others. Parents violate that obligation if they let someone kill them and force someone else to raise their children.
And the idea that inaction is okay is perverted. Is it okay if a parent does nothing while a large dog tears into their child? Is it okay if a parent does nothing while a rapist savages their child? Even if you take parenting and children out of the discussion, people are responsible for their own well-being. It is one thing for someone who never thought about self-defense to have no effective means of self-defense. It is entirely different for someone who understands self-defense to choose to have no effective means of self-defense. You are responsible for your choices, whatever they entail.
And I am glad that you brought the Bible into the discussion. The Bible clearly allows for use of force — even deadly force — in defense of human life. That is why the truest translation of the commandment reads (in English) “You shall not murder.” Self-defense is NOT murder. If an attacker dies as a result of the wounds that he/she sustains during his/her attack, that is solely the fault of the attacker.
You might want to consider this:
http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html
So when that electronic gun fails to subdue your attacker and they beat you to death, your 2 sons will be fatherless. Sorry, but lethal force is sometimes what must be done, even when we would rather not. If you would have frozen when attacked, that is also not good. You must realize this; If someone decides to deprive another person of their right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, that person loses the right to all of the above instantly. If a criminal dies a violent death in the process, I’ll consider their demise a happy ending to an otherwise tragic tale.
They should have picked a different line of work. No sympathy from me — and I mean absolutely none. I don’t care about their past life. Their demise was earned. The criminal DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOU or WHAT HAPPENS TO YOU. Remember that.
“…your 2 sons will be fatherless”
Assuming the bad guy stops there.
I have no issue if a person makes that choice for themselves. None at all.
That said, when you are a parent you are now making that choice for your children. Who you are supposed to protect. With your life if necessary. Perhaps others disagree, and feel that their children can be sacrificed on the alter of their objections. Maybe, however, they don’t want to die for your ethical dilemma.
If your toy doesn’t work, or your ‘one shot’ fails, now not only do you die, but your children may also be subject to assault, rape, and/or murder.
So you have to be within nearly bad breath distance to use your taser and it’s not good against multiple attackers, or even one attacker if you miss. Or even one attacker wearing a coat. Or even one attacker after the shock stops. Or even one attacker who may be high on certain drugs (as we’ve seen on video).
Still, if you do not feel comfortable owning a gun and you do not wish to take the training to become so, it is your choice to not own one. Sorry about your break in. I’ve had one, too. It sucks.
What is this an advertisement disguised as news?
I was looking for the disguise. . .
I could have sworn I just read some claptrap BS from Yahoo or Gals demanding action. Yeah you shouldn’t be armed-IF you ever were?
Answer #1: I’m sorry that happened to you, but you’ll get no argument from me; if you don’t feel comfortable owning a gun and/or defending your household with lethal force, you’re better off not having one until your circumstances or convictions change.
Answer #2: I’m not buying your overpriced little zappy gun, anonymous marketer, so take this poorly-disguised advertisement of yours, roll it up nice & tight, and cram it.
A pure anti gun propaganda hit peice paid for by Tazer. Good luck with that one shot, hope it makes positive contact and the atracker/intruder isn’t wearing any heavy clothing or a leather jacket. What a skirt jearker….
If the criminals were only looking for weapons, and they could not know you had a weapon, how would not having a weapon have kept them from breaking into your home?
Wait a minute…if all they were after was weapons, and if your weapon was hidden in a safe, how did they know there was a weapon inside of the safe? Why did they keep looking until they found it and only it?
There are two options at this point. One, at least part of this story is not true, or two, your kids are thieves.
Welcome aboard Taylor! I was expecting White Knighting from you. I rescind all previous criticism! Except the nevertrumper stuff. But that’s just me.
Don’t mistake just trying to be a decent human being with “White Knighting” whatever that means. Just chiming in to ridicule people with ad hominem attacks doesn’t provide value. And again, with reading comprehension problem on “never trump”.
I was wondering about that as well, and I can’t say I’ve ever heard of a “Virtue Signaller,” or whatever he called me. I still say it sounded like a Taser ad, and definitely contained many of the talking points of the antis. But DZ vouches for the author’s story, so I will accept it as her opinion. And since she just related her reasoning, and didn’t attack my rights or try to convince me to give up my guns, I certainly don’t see any reason to insult or belittle her. As you said, if “Virtue Signalling” or “White Knighting” means trying to be a decent human being, then I guess the world could use more of those.
I am under no illusions that I am “adding value”. I wasn’t aware that was the intent around here. Kind of a White Knight thing I’m guess.
JWT:
The kids don’t have to be thieves. They could know things that their parent doesn’t realize that they know, talk about it to or in front of the wrong people and cause a lot of problems.
A conversation between the kids and a friend that contains things like “Mom has a gun, she doesn’t think we know but we do. Hell, most of our neighbors have guns. She keeps it…”leads the wrong people to start thinking about robbing you if they hear the conversation.
Generally speaking, people aren’t very good about hiding other personal information, like where they live, either.
All an enterprising thief needs is those two bits of information, gleaned from children, for this sort of thing to happen.
Sorry…but I call pure BS. This sounds like some manufactured propagandar put out by an anti-gun group. Same as “I’m a gun owner but….” or “I’m a hunter but….”. I can see them strategizing around a table “We have to stop calling gun owners names. We need to start appealing to them like we are one of their own. Maybe act like we’re just an average Joe gun owner who has seen how dangerous it is to own a gun and had second thoughts, Start writing letters to popular gun blogs. They’ll believe that over letters to editors. After all, they’ll think only gun owners read these blogs.”
Obvious things that stand out: They busted in our doors and, in my case, took anything they thought could be used as a weapon, including my Ruger LCP .38 revolver, stored in its safe, hidden where my children would not find it.
Huh? So someone is so brazen as to kick in your door…in an Apt complex…not a secluded home but in a place where a lot of people who live in close proximity would hear it…and ALL they steal is your gun? They don’t look for cash, laptops, ipads, jewelry…only a gun? And a gun they would have no way of knowing would even be there? And what does “anything they thought could be used as a weapon” mean? Did they steal your knives? A baseball bat? Are croooks really stealing anything that can be used as weapons? Last I check knives were pretty cheap at walmart.
Cops say “they were looking for guns”…really? That defies any sense of logic. If someone is going to randomly just kick in doors at an apartment complex why would they only be looking for guns? Especially since there is no possible way they could know what apartments had guns! Most crooks would be kicking in doors to steal EVERYTHING….and if a gun was found that would be a bonus. WHy would they ignore the $800 laptop that would bring more cash to them on the street then a $300 LCP? Why would they ignore items that are much easier to sell and with a lot less risk(or penality if caught). ANTI-GUN PROPAGANDA POINT-Owning guns is dangerous and they will make you a target for criminals
Then there’s “My sons are level-headed, responsible, and have been trained on how to safely handle a firearm. But my sons are also teenagers.” ANTI-GUN PROPAGANDA POINT-Even well trained people are dangerous with guns. In a fit of anger, stupidity, etc they’ll use it to murder people. Guns in the home are x times more likely to be used against you then on an intruder
“he time needed to grab the gun if I needed it could have been all the time that an attacker needed to harm me or my kids.” ANTI-GUN PROPAGANDA -POINT-Owning a gun is stupid, You’ll NEVER be able to use it in time to be of any use. You’ll be to scared to use it or it will be taken from you and used against you.
“I live in a gated apartment complex in a nice part of town with security patrols. It’s just the sort of place in a major metroplex that thieves would scope out if they were looking for people who had enough money to afford firearms.”
First..that’s moronic. If you truly live in a gated community that’s the LAST place crooks are gonna be kicking in doors….they look for low hanging fruit. They aren’t going to perform such a risky thing like this and ONLY take the guns..they’re gonna take everything. Second. only people who live in gated communities and in the nice part of town can afford $300 LCPs? Is she joking? I think people in RICH places would be targeted for jewlrey, cash, etc…not guns. ANTI-GUN PROPAGANDA POINT-Doesn’t matter where you live, the crooks will steal your guns so it’s better not to have them.
“Had I been home or, God forbid, had my kids been home, and an armed robber broke in, I would have hesitated to shoot them. That hesitation could put my kids or me in danger” ANTI-GUN PROPAGANDA POINT-Only the police are trained enough to own guns. If you even tried they’d just take it from you and shoot you with it.
Then she goes on to rave about a taser. So cheap, so easy to get, none of the “hassle” of buying a gun, not lethal so you won’t feel bad about killing someone…..blah blah blah blah
ANTI-GUN PROPAGANDA POINT-You don’t NEED a gun to defend yourself. Ther are plenty of options out there to use.
Ends with typical I love ‘Merica, I don’t wanna ban guns, I believe in the 2nd Amendment.
Come on TTAG….you should have seen this for what this is for. Why would you even publish it and give these morons a win they can point to?
We published this because this happened to someone we know. She was initially reluctant, but agreed to write this post about why she chose not to replace her revolver.
You may be skeptical, but we have zero doubt about the honesty of this person or her account of what happened to her.
Funny that EVERYBODY here including your own JWT is calling bullshit on this one. She just felt the need to let all of us potg know what the brand, model and msrp is? Cram this p.o.s. article in her inaginary place, where it came from.
Oh no, I want to be clear, the story may very well have happened, but the author may be naive on some of the details.
“There are two options at this point. One, at least part of this story is not true, or two, your kids are thieves.” So, what is it? Is she a liar or a bad mother who raised theives who steal from family? You guys love covering each others asses huh? Thats ok, I think a lot of us have learned to read between the lines here at TTAG.
Making nice with S.A. and RRA and now shilling tazers. Someone else used the words wishy washy do describe this site….I would agree. Lets assume this story to be true, whats the point? That you know stupid people who shouldnt be parents? I was raised with LOADED firearms throughout the house and was responsible enough to have survived, apparently this broad couldn’t trust her own kids the same way….nice parenting. I still think its total crap.
Ed, try decaf. There are a whole lot of things the author assumed. First it was that the gun was hidden from her kids. I’ve got kids, lots of them, they can hide anything and I’d never know. That’s the reality of a parent, but one a whole lot of parents won’t believe. Her kids could have told other kids, either maliciously or not. The thieves could have been after more than guns, but that’s all that she actually had worth taking. Maybe that apartment isn’t so fancy after all, and she believes she is in a much more affluent and safe area than she actually is. Maybe the cops told her it was all about the guns and that lots of people had been robbed, or maybe a neighbor did, and she believed them when she shouldn’t have. Or yes, maybe her kids are shitty little thieves. All of those things are possible, and more likely, than her story as she told it. And they are possible without her being a willful liar or a horrible parent. Just naïve.
Oh, and for the record, as my comments on the SA/RRA “forgive don’t forget” article reflect, I have not forgiven, and I’m not likely to.
First off JWT my caffine intake is of no concern here, what is of concern is the amount of assumptions and maybes in your rebuttal to an article. Shouldn’t those questions have been asked before writing the article? Two teenagers and no computer to steal? Not likely. You can piss in peoples faces and tell them its raining all you want, in the end we’ll still know you’re pissing in our faces. Even IF this was a true story, it was totally turned into a advertisement for Tazer and their Pulse model in particular..
But no, we needed ALL the specs and msrp….crap.
Also, on a side note I traded my only Springfield for a Walther P99. F them.
Ed, stop it. Now you are being irrational. We all know caffeine intake is everyone’s concern.
Haha, but seriously JWT you cannot deny the blatent advertisement in the last half of the article and the questionable “facts” in the first half. Too many people calling BS to be a coincidence. Even yourself said…and again I quote,
“There are two options at this point. One, at least part of this story is not true, or two, your kids are thieves.”
No matter the validity…this article put a bad taste in a lot of mouths. Even IF it were true, it seems it was written by someone with a trunk full of Tazer Pulse’s. That sucks.
Dan, she needs to understand what Tom Givens says in his book: “I do not carry a pistol so that I may impose my will on others. I carry a pistol so that others may not impose their will on me.” If she can’t comprehend that basic concept then she will be a victim the rest of her life.
A Taser sales person was reluctant to write up this BS “fake” news story because the sales person knew what the reaction to “her” and this “article” would be. Is Springfield paying you guys to distract us or what?
You know her because she is a Taser representative. The effects of a Taser are temporary, once the electricity stops flowing the target is free to move about again.
Ok….then please provide what you know so we can read about it. Where did this happen….when….etc. We’ll dig up the local media stories on it.
And while there may have been some breakins in her apt building…..she could easily be makin up the whole ” And they were only looking for guns..that’s what the police said” angle and made other embellishments to bolster her “letter”. Did you talk with the police? Do you have first hand knowledge this is what was said? Have you seen the police reports? Did you talk to her neighbors? Did they also claim ONLY their guns were stolen? All relevenat facts to dig up.
Simply having someone say “Oh, this happened to me” is not fact.
She called the LEOs “Authorities”. ???
Very well written comment regarding this clap trap of an “article”
Also, a .38 revolver… LCP? I don’t know about the rest of you fine chaps, but the “P” and “R” keys aren’t anywhere next to each other on my keyboard.
I am very skeptical of this article, despite Dan’s protestations, but it DOES say LCR, not LCP. Unless it was edited by Mr. Thomas A. Swift.
Yep, the sneaky bastiges went and changed it, but note that Mr. Bremer’s comment up above quotes the original error.
Quite right, good catch. I thought there may have been sneaky business happenning… with an article this fishy, no surprise.
Bremer nailed it, I thought. He was spot on.
Nobody who doesn’t want a gun should feel like they must have one. And nobody who doesn’t have the testes to defend himself and his family should be trusted with one.
This. I’m rather happy you no longer have a firearm. If you are morally objected to taking another persons life then you should never have had it in the first place. Guns aren’t a lucky talisman that magically makes you safer without the moral desire to use it if life and limb are threatened appropriately.
Suppose the robbers had kicked in the door while she was away and had been greeted by an angry Rottweiler?
I’ll bet she’d still have her gun. If she’s allowed to own a dog in that complex, she might want to get one to go with that taser. Just sayin.
I have to agree, the only thing missing is the 1-800 number at the end to call and order yours today. Like that’s their only option they considered. Really?
This is clearly just an ad for Taser. Get this garbage off the blog.
+10000000
There was a burglary in the first apartment complex where my daughter lived. It happened when no one was home. Don’t know for sure, but since this was a college area apartment, the rumor was the thieves were looking for drugs, possibly breaking into a dealer’s apartment.
Daughter moved. Woken up in the middle of the night because police were chasing a suspect across the apartment complex, outside her window. She now has a gun, and knows how to use it. However, I do worry about it being stolen while she’s away. Yeah, there are safes, but not allowed to bolt a small safe to anything permanent in the apartment, so it sits in a closet. Not much use. Main thing is daughter feels safer.
Tell her to cable or chain it to her bed frame. Box is available to access and at least damn hard to snatch and take.
I never second guess anybody who tries them and decides that guns are not for them…they know best about what is right for them. I wouldn’t even ask them why they came to that decision. As long as they don’t, in any way, interfere with my gun rights, I say best of luck and god speed.
“The lessons we learn are written on the tombstones of others.”- Reid Henrichs
Wow emotional taser shilling… I’m impressed TTAG didn’t think you could sink to such depths
^^THIS^^ +1000
So did the thieves steal the safe too? Big safes need pallet jacks to move. Smaller safes should be bolted down. Either way the door of the safe should be locked for the contents to be “safe”. So exactly how did the bad guys get the swag? How did the bad guys get into a gated complex? How did they kick or force multiple doors without somebody or somebody’s dog hearing them? How did the bad guys have enough brass to hit apartments which might be occupied?
The story stinks. If it is true ( which I doubt) my first guess would be an inside job by the property management company or security people. Even with that, the details just don’t add up. As a bunch of people have said, I see this as a very bad advertisement for the Taser Pulse that’s aimed at insecure people. Show me a police report, even one with the names and addresses redacted, and I might be convinced this really happened.
by ‘safe’ I’m sure she meant one of those little lockboxes that is easy to carry off if not locked to sturdy furniture and relatively easy to open with a rock.
Teenage boys often “brag” that their mom has a gun or certain jewelry. This word gets to those who would use this information illegally. If you have “a” gun, it should be carried. However, as the writer expressed, she is not comfortable with having the gun. I wonder why she even had it then. It is probably a good decision not to replace it if it would be viewed in the same manner as the stolen weapon. More training and practice should alleviate the uncomfortable feelings. The moral aspect – getting out of an anti-gun circle of friends will help.
I’ve got to ask, why did you have a gun in the first place if you can’t bring your self to kill someone and how do you hide a gun/gun-safe where your -teenagers- can’t find it?
The whole thing smelled like an ad for taser to me.
I can also vouch for the authenticity of this story.
Can you point us to a news story on the burglaries, at least? Seems like a smash-and-grab crew hitting multiple apartments in a tony part of town and only stealing guns would be catnip for the local news. If it went down the way the story lays out, there’s no way it wouldn’t have been in the papers and local TV stations.
By authenticity do you mean all the specs. and pricing for the Tazer Pulse is correct? Too many people calling bullshit on this one….
I too can “vouch” that somebody told me something…does not make WHAT they told me true.
So what exactly are you vouching for? Are you vouching this person told you this story? Or are you vouching that everything they told you is true and you’ve seen evidence to support it?
If that is the case this whole thing can be cleared up very quickly. Let us know what supporting evidence you’ve seen and provide links to it(or local news stories, etc).
TTAG published this and asked us to believe it’s true. There are plenty of things about the article that could lead a rational person to question it’s authenticity. So why don’t you guys clear things up for us?
A simple alarm system is easy to install and monthly monitoring is not too expensive. You get a discount on your renters insurance ( you have that, rigjt?) and the noise from the alarm wakes people up and draws attention. Before they rifle through your stuff and rob your neighbor too. And if cops show up it’s a plus.
The writer did t take responsibility for his security now a .38 is in the hands of a criminal somewhere.
His objection to self defense is irrelevant.
I respect the author’s choice. Not my choice but I respect it.
So the gun was “registered”, only 5 states have direct registration.
HI (bans stun guns)
CA (bans stun guns)
NY (bans stun guns)
MI (ban shot down but still enforced)
MD (no state ban)
So I doubt this guy lives in Maryland. Nice try trying to virtue signal to sell your crap product….. shyster….
Must be Maryland, then, because HI, CA, NY ban tasers, and in MI the “taser” must shoot confetti ID (which according to their website I don’t see the Taser Pulse doing), that only leaves MD. Unless she’s riding dirty.
Why do you think the gun was registered?
Jwtaylor,
The author said his gun was registered. He gave himself away like an idiot.
Where? Seriously, maybe I’m missing it but I’ve read it a few times. She says she wouldn’t have to register a Taser, but I can’t find where she said her gun was registered.
“I can legally own a Pulse without having to register it with a soul. . . ” implies a difference from the gun that would have to be registered. Possibly the “soul” in that case is only the FFL holder who retains the Form 4473, rather than the state. Writer is apparently not much of a gun enthusiast, so may not be precise in their terminology.
Excellent point. A lot of people who don’t know any better assume the paperwork they fill out when purchasing a gun equates to registration.
I respect and applaud this persons decision.
True story or not.
Simple fact is the writer thinks that there would be a hesitation to fire a firearm. But, does not feel there would be a second thought to use the taser…. Everyone has a right to their own choice for defense and a stun gun is better than nothing at all.
hesitation could kill a person faster than any other mistake they could make..
I can understand your reason or not owning a firearm my only question is why did you have one to begin with? The only reason why I’m asking is I see a lot of red flags in your story why you shouldn’t probably have on one to begin with if it was causing you such mental distress. And I mean that in a totally nice way I’m not trying to pick it’s your decision all. I hope everything goes well for you and I would suggest taking maybe a self-defense class that doesn’t involve using a firearm.
I guess the question is, why did you own a gun in the first place?
So she could sell tasers?
The purported author is either really, really bad at logic or is a shill. Here’s why: first and foremost, the scenario described occurred in a gated community, behind a locked entrance and a locked door, all of which were evaded or destroyed and a gun, theoretically secured in a safe was somehow still stolen. The three references to the gun “including my Ruger LCR .38 revolver, stored in its safe, hidden where my children would not find it” and “it was hidden and stored in a safe” were followed by “it did affect how I stored my gun. I kept it hidden, and the time needed to grab the gun if I needed it could have been all the time that an attacker needed to harm me or my kids.” In two of the instances, it was hidden and in a safe, while in the third it was only hidden. This would explain how alleged thieves were able to magically extract it from a safe without alerting anyone: it wasn’t actually in a safe but “hidden” and no safe. Extraction from an actual gun safe doesn’t happen silently and it is highly unlikely that the alleged invaders were able to locate and steal guns from multiple apartments but only from people who had already left for work without alerting any of the other people still in the apartments in the morning hours in the limited time available for a smash-and-grab. That’s not realistic. If that was the pattern, it wasn’t a gang on the outside. It was either an inside job by one of the neighbors who had the time and ability to study their neighbors and their patterns or it didn’t happen.
Second, if the invasion was as violent as described with the door kicked in and shattered, and there is a possibility of children being there at the time of a future invasion, one does not conclude that they will a) stay there, b) rely on defenses which have already failed, c) become magically more protected simply by making friends with neighbors (who may or may not be the perpetrators and who may or may not be home if anything happens), d) that less-lethal means of defense would somehow prevail, or e) while mentioning that the thieves “missed” the taser, thereby implying that it was already present and owned, proceed to talk about how it can be mailed to the author for a certain fee “can be shipped to my house in a couple days” (thereby implying that she has yet to purchase the taser). Pointing out that it doesn’t need to be registered has no bearing on the fact that she wasn’t home, didn’t have it with her, and wouldn’t have been able to use it.
Third, and finally, the language toward the end about product innovation is pure marketing hype “I love that in our country, we are each free to make choices that work for us, and innovative enough to make quality products that meet the needs of different types of people.” This is paid product endorsement language.
This tale is, at best, wildly illogical. At worst, it is a complete fabrication.
If the submitter can provide a copy of the police report (redacted to protect privacy, of course) and I can match it to actual crime reports for that neighborhood then I will reconsider. Otherwise, color me skeptical.
All very good points. Me thinks the author tried to pass an advertisement off as an artilce and got caught with his pants down. And then possibly came back with the whole “Oh I know this person” to try and cover for it. Kinda like RRA and Springfield being caught and then trying to spin their way out of it. So if that’s the case just mea culpa before digging the hole any deeper. It’s tough earning money with a blog so this minor incident will be forgiven. As Nixon learned…it’s the coverup that turns out worse than the crime.
But hey…could be wrong. You guys did a lot of digging for the RRA/Springfield story so I’m sure posting some facts on this one will be easy for you. All you gotta do is backup everything the author said and I’ll be the first to apologize for questioning it.
Perhaps you have failed to entertain the possibility that TTAG engaged in a bit of journalistic sensationalism with the Springfield stories. After destroying the reputation of a major gun company they felt it necessary to CTA by publishing a forgive but not forget piece in the hope that they wouldn’t end up reducing the supply of guns. Once you entertain that fact in becomes easier to ex plain the presenation of this story.
You really overthought every aspect of the story, while ignoring one obvious element. I only store a few of my pistols in the large safe where I keep the few long guns I (currently) own. I keep my home defense and carry pistols in a small safe next to my bed. The safe isn’t particularly heavy or hard to move. It is designed to keep my kids and any guests from being able to get their hands on a loaded gun. It would be very easy for a thief to snatch. I could bolt it to the drawer in my nightstand, but then they could just take the drawer. It probably wouldn’t take more than a few minutes to drill out the lock.
Be incredulous that theives could kick in apartment doors in the wee hours without waking neighbors. Do not be incredulous that they could easily snatch a 20 pound safe from a closet or nightstand drawer.
Should have read yours before posting. You said it better than me.
I have to ask Dan if he vetted this story. Every individual piece of information seems plausible but it has the feel of a “fake but accurate” NYT article. A “gated apartment complex” full of gun owners gets hit by a rip crew makes me believe that this could be a hoax. An inside job makes sense so why were doors broken in.
“so I went with the weapon the thieves missed: the TASER Pulse.”
INSERT FACTORY ADVERT HERE.
“I can legally own a Pulse without having to register it with a soul, and in this day and age when Alexa or that creepy Google pod thingy is recording people 24/7 so Big Brother and Mark Zuckerberg know even more about us, that sense of privacy is also a great selling point.”
“The Pulse retails for $370-400, and can be shipped to my house in a couple days, which is less money and time than a typical revolver or 9mm + the concealed carry class (if one needs it) + license fees + waiting period + frustration of buying a new gun.”
Not “…so I bought a tazer and blah blah.”
Nope, we get the full brand name, model name, value, ease of purchase and some “facebook is spying on me for the goverment” paranoia for good measure….BUT ITS NOT AN ADVERTISEMENT!
HILLARY, IS THAT YOU?!?!?
You guys really should be easier on the author for not being willing to kill. For some of us that seems silly, but some people have deep religious or moral commitments to pacifism, and for someone who is so inclined, a non lethal weapon probably is better than a gun. If someone breaks into their place and they can’t bring themselves to shoot (if necessary) then they just gave the assailant a gun. The right obviously covers non-lethal devices, or even choosing to take one’s chances. So quit giving her shit.
We are calling bullshit on an obvious advertisment trying to be passed off on us…apparently you missed that quite abundant point.
Sorry cedar, but I question EVERYTHING.
Cedar = gullible maroon ?
I’m with you on this one, Cedar.
Not wanting to kill people is part of being a sane human, that being said…real evil people do exist out there. Rape and torture just for the fun of it.
When or if the dark day comes that the real evil in this world comes knocking and you are home this time you won’t reach for the taser given the choice.
Just like when people says “if it’s my time to go so be it ” I don’t buy it. They will pry your soul from your body. Don’t go quietly.
The decision is his or hers. So are the consequences.
I guess I can understand that. So many of the people here have lost thier firearms in a tragic boating accident.
I don’t tell anyone how to live their life and as long as they don’t tell me how to live mine or especially infringe on any of my rights I say more power to you.
That said, I think this story is a crock o’ crap. It does hit many of the anti-gun talking points and reads like a taser sales brochure.
Well. If you don’t think you’ll pull trigger, don’t use a gun for defense.
I personally don’t care for tasers or stun guns. If its that serious, I will shoot.
At least you have reflected on your choice and made your decision. Hope your decision is nevery tested.
A couple of points and then a question:
First, let me say I’ve had the same thing happen to me and it sucks. I sympathize with the author. The feeling of violation sucks and knowing your gun is out there possibly being used to take innocent life sucks even worse.
“…the fact that weapons were essentially the only things they took from all of the apartments they entered gives the police pause.”
No offense intended here but the cops in the author’s area must not be very bright if this “gives them pause”. This is burglary 101. Guns, jewelry, electronics, tools. All big targets for burglars and other assorted miscreants. No shocker there. If this worries the police to a great degree then maybe they should be more proactive about their policing or find a new line of work.
Second point: The choice to not replace a gun is just that, a choice, and it’s a valid one. If you’re not comfortable using a certain type of weapon against a threat then there’s no point in having it because all you’re doing is greatly increasing the chance it’s taken from you and used against you or someone you care about. So, as the author has done, replacing it with something you’re ready and willing to use is the best option even if that item isn’t as “effective” at the job. At least the author isn’t lying to herself about what she’s willing/capable of doing or banking on a scare factor that she might not be able to produce.
Question: Was the pistol safe stolen as well or was it broken into or unlocked?
This is a well written article that lays out the author’s feelings and thought process pretty well. I don’t necessarily agree with everything in the article but I understand and respect the sentiment it expresses. Well done.
I cannot respect anyone that wouldn’t kill to save the lives of their own flesh and blood children.
Anyone that inflicts harm or would kill someone to further their criminal career should have that career immediately ended. Occupational hazard.
Someone unwilling to employ lethal force should never own firearms. That said lethal force isn’t killing force, just the potential for the force applied to be lethal. Lethal force can be applied with many other tools, including that Tazer she decided to retain. Taze someone with a heart condition or a substance abuse problem, or zap them too many times, and they may be just as likely to end up in the morgue as if you shot them.
Even if you feel you shouldn’t put your own life before an unknown bad guys, do you not feel your own children are worthy of defending? If you don’t, you should forgo having them, or give them up to someone more worthy of them.
I disagree. Someone who is unwilling to use lethal force should not own a gun for self defense but there are other reasons for shooting that do not involve living targets. I have advised people who express this view not to buy a gun for self defense but if they like to shoot there is nothing wrong with owning a gun for the sport of it.
I quit reading after the learning about the gated community. Is this what Trump means when he talks about fake news?
She just needed a better safe
Sounds like a winner. Somebody send this person the Beretta APX!
???
Reading through all this triggered a new entry on my list of uses for Star Trek technology: home protection, in this case a transporter set to grab anyone not on my approved list and relocate them. For those who are caught engaged in breaking things, I’d set it to drop them in the nearest war zone.
Anyone want to start a betting pool on how long before this story disappears from TTAG? I’m not passing judgment on whether it’s a real story or a fake ad (though some of the comments here raise some pretty legitimate questions about the veracity of the story), but something just tells me this one is going to end up with that feudin’ hillbillies story, “where’s Chris Kyle’s tombstone?”, and sundry other embarrassments that have been memory-holed.
TTAG articles that are later quitely deleted ?
Sounds like the STE ( Sara Tipton Effect )
In the event I ever need to defend myself, I have already concluded my actions will be based on their actions. They made the choice to move me to act, I have only decided to act if certain actions are taken against me or mine. Pose no threat, I will not act. Pose an imminent threat, I will use any means at my disposal to survive and protect.
“. . . by faceless people whose actions show the only things they value are those which wound, kill, and destroy.”
I smell a troll. This story is either a plant for Taser or the Antis.
Thank you!
Again, every word of this article is true. I stake my life on it.
The 2nd Amendment does not just apply to Firearms. Blades, War Clubs, Batons, Chemical Sprays, Tasers, etc all apply.
A person has the right to choose what to defend themselves with. Certain moral objections are just that. Moral objections.
Maybe the person is Hoplophobic. Maybe the person belongs to or recently joined a Christian Sect that is highly against the use of violence against others. Maybe the person had traumatic past with a firearm. Who knows.
But the right to keep and bear arms isn’t just about guns. Guns are probably the best tool. But they aren’t the only tool. If a person wishes to stick with a Taser. Fine…. as long as they don’t try to take my guns away.
Luis Valdes
Lou4NRA.org
So true. The 2nd Amendment uses the word “arms,” not “guns.” Arms would include swords, guns, clubs – I’m not sure if bazookas qualify.
There is a simple way to verify it. Publish the redacted police report.
There are several reasons for this, two of the main ones being I have a moral objection to killing another human being, and I have teenage sons.
A person who won’t kill to defend him/herself or his/her family fills me with a vague sense of revulsion. I don’t accept that as some mythical moral high ground.
Just because you are forced to shoot someone does not mean that they will die; statically about 1 I’m 3 chance. However, why in the world would you not meet force with appropriate force? If someone has NO qualms about killing or seriously injuring you it is logical to end their criminal career. How many times do we see on the news (did yesterday) where a pile of crap was let out of prison and murders people within the week? Way too often. Prisons are only ‘criminal finishing schools’ where they are taught to be better criminals when let out. Lesson one: leave no witnesses, that’s why you got caught. These bleeding heart morons that think that this scum can be saved should be forced to take this crap into THEIR home, started with our former Moron In Chief Obummer. Criminals do not care about their victims or how much pain, grief, agony that they inflict; hell a lot of them enjoy this part the most. Shoot until the threat stops; if the threat dies they brought it on themselves, you did not ask for it. I have friends that think a baseball bat is all they need, good luck with that. Others unbelievably state that they will let themselves be killed. By NOT stopping a criminal, especially early on in their ill-conceived career, you are an ENABLER making future crimes and murders that they commit partially on your hands, including the blood. Criminals FORFEIT any ‘rights’ by their actions. Don’t enable their careers.
“Just because you are forced to shoot someone does not mean that they will die” LOL – That’s a good one.
Interesting article. With that said did anyone else sense that this was a veiled advertisement for Taser? Just a thought.
Join the club. Or are you being sarcastic? (Read through the comments).
Fully 80 percent of TTAG’s readership (I’m ballparking that number) are in agreement.
I have a moral objection to murder.
I do not have a moral objection to wounding someone who is engaged in an act of physical violence.
Is it morally better to be able to kill the perpetrator and allow him to survive, only to find out later he went next door and killed a whole family? No it is not. You have no moral high ground at all. Only weakness.
I will agree that this is a free country and you’re certainly free to be weak and to have poor arguments and a very shallow sense of morality. Whatever suits you really.
Years ago a buddy of mine started working for the family biz (conv. store / gas station). His father showed him where they stored a pistol under the counter. The father’s parting words as he left his son alone to work his first night shift, “remember, a dead man can’t testify”.
If the editors of TTAG, a site most of us come to for accurate and well-written articles related to guns, stand by the author, why shouldn’t we? If you think they’re lying shills for Taser, then you ought to go find another site.
I’ll admit the author really likes the Taser, but it sounds like someone who found a means of defense that doesn’t conflict with their morals and are eager to share it with others. I know when I’ve found a great new power tool, my friends find out how great it is, too.
Agreed. DZ and RF strongly vouch for the author, and they’re well versed in the power of the interwebs; the data is always at our fingertips to corroborate or debunk a story. TTAG stands to gain a little viewership from publishing an honest story, and hell to pay if it’s dishonest.
Someone took a different stance than the mainstream TTAG reader and everyone loses their minds…I 100% disagree with the author, but it’s a free country and I couldn’t care less in what manner or to what extent they choose to exercise active self defense.
A born Victim.
Odd that this person contacted TTAG, but I 100% support their conclusion they should not own a gun, and for the reasons they gave.
Tasers suck. You pretty much only have one shot. What if you miss? What if there is more than one intruder?
A criminal who breaks into a house knowing people are in it, won’t have anything good in store for them. You and your children could be raped and murdered. You should not value the life of your intruder more than the lives of your family.
If you have a moral objection and/or fear of the situation you can mitigate it by going to a room with your kids and staying there, armed, while the intruders pillage your place and leave. It would be very disadvantageous to only have a taser.
I just had no idea tasers were so expensive. 400$!?
Love. It’s what makes a Subaru.
I respect your feelings, but your solution is not logical. I will list the flaws I see. I urge you to reconsider.
Point 1.
a. I too have a moral objection to killing. However, self defense isn’t so much about killing as it is about living, and making sure that your sons go on living as well. There are violent people in this world who will snuff you and yours out just because you happened to be home when they decided to take your property. If it’s them or you / your sons, whom would you choose?
b. You did the right thing by teaching your sons responsible gun handling. You made the right choice to keep your gun locked up. However, worrying about time to retrieve it from its locked container is now irrelevant, because you no longer have it. An analogy: you have gotten rid of your fire extinguisher because you were afraid that your sons might poison themselves with it.
Point 2.
a. Did all the apartments broken into contain guns? I bet not. Those would have to be some very sophisticated thieves who did a lot of homework to target just the gun owners in your complex. In fact, the police told you they didn’t think the thieves were that sophisticated. Those thieves were simply playing the odds that your affluent gated community would be more likely to have guns. Your gun did not attract them. You just happened to have what they wanted that day.
b. What if you are randomly targeted again?
Point 3.
a. Your Taser Pulse is a single use weapon (unless you want to close to contact range, which you really don’t want to do). What if you miss? What if there is more than one bad guy? When I read your description of your burglary, you seem to believe that there was more than one person involved. I respect that you like the Taser because it is non-lethal, but you must admit that it is a weapon of very limited utility. It is supposed to incapacitate the bad guy for 30 seconds. Is that enough time to get you and your sons out of danger?
Do what you believe is right, but don’t be so quick to dismiss lethal self defense options. A Taser is not a replacement for a gun. You have not made your family safer. What you have done is changed your options to address your concerns about killing somebody, and in doing so you have limited your options to protect yourself and your sons somewhat.
2. Guns are what thieves want.
So are cars. And TVs. And women’s jewelry. But I bet you would replace those. Trying to angle this as a Guns Attract Criminals debate is a huge stretch unless your criminals scoping out your house at 3am knew you had a gun to begin with.
That aside, there’s actually only two objections here because 1 & 3 are basically the same– Moral objections to killing. Given the fact that #2 is built on a fallacy, this entire article is about one thing and one thing only.
I too have a moral objection to killing another person. However, my moral commitment to protect my family trumps it. I will not let someone harm or kill a member of my family or myself. If in the process of protecting myself or my family a person is killed, I am not the one who killed that person(s); they killed themselves when they attacked myself or a member of my family.
To the author of this article: Your taser may allow you to escape… but what will it do for your kids? If you were by yourself, I would argue that yeah, given the odds, it might successfully allow you to escape from some subset of single-culprit crimes.
But… let’s assume it’s a single attacker, you fire it, it hits, it pierces the attacker’s clothing, and it affects the attacker, none of which is a 100% proposition. At that point, you’ve got a limited amount of time (15? 30 seconds?) to organize your family and get out of your residence and your only means of defense has been exhausted. I don’t presume that you’re going to be inclined to enter “drive-stun range” once the CO2 is gone, right?
I’m sure that, if you’re by yourself, you can get out and into your car and en route to a safer location than the place you sleep and let your kids sleep every night. But are you really confident that you can do the same for them?
If you don’t trust them with guns in the house- lock them up tight when you’re not carrying them and remove something whose absence disables the gun, as well. But wouldn’t it be better to put the fear of God into them regarding all the terrible things that could happen if they happen to point it at something they care about and pull the trigger?
What if there are TWO attackers? Consider that for a few seconds.
I have a moral objection to murdering someone, but I don’t have an objection to using deadly force to protect my family or myself from harm. I don’t wish to kill anyone, and I hope to never be put in a position to have to. I would like to think my willingness, and prepardness to take the most extreme defensive action also makes it less likely I would ever have to.
This person made the decision that was right for them.They also are not trying to prohibit anyone else from making a different decision.Respect.
This reeks of guerrilla marketing. But I’ll play along:
1. I agree that not everyone should own a gun for self-defense. If you are not confident that you could pull the trigger to defend yourself, you should make other arrangements for your personal safety.
2. The author says that a Taser costs $370-400. There are a lot of good pistols you can buy for that kind of money, so he isn’t saving anything. And, there is a lapse in logic here if he doesn’t think that thieves that came to take his guns would pass on stealing a Taser, so it would be gone too.
3. Finally, what would this author do if he were home when his apartment was broken into? The burglary would likely escalate into a robbery and he’d be pointing a Taser at a crew of criminals armed with guns. How does he think that would end? Or did he not think that thieves who came to steal his guns would not be armed?
Pure drivel, and welcome to the world of being a perennial victim. Sad.
False premise that every home invader is a “thief” but whatever, maybe you can pee on a potential rapist. Definitely sounds like this is someone that doesn’t want the responsibility of taking care of themselves.
As they say: It’s your funeral
Go ahead and worry about morality as your family is being beaten and raped by a drug crazed lunatic, who is going to move on to more victims. If you do not stop the threat you are as sick as the criminal. If you are capable of stopping a serious crime and do not-I find you guilty and sentence you as well as the evil element you are afraid of. You are part of the problem. I know people like that. If I saw them in need I would do nothing to help. People know who are responsible and those who are part of the problem. You are part of the problem if you do – nothing. There are alot of people afraid to do the right thing even though it is not popular. Why do you think there are so many pedophiles in the catholic church? YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
Since you replied to my reply I will assume you’re addressing me. If not, well….
Look here Shitsack, I say it’s your funeral because no matter what you or any other one says, the writer can say what they want and do whatever they can live with. I commend the OP for putting the story like that on a website like this. Do I like what is being said? Not really. I, myself carry and have quite an arsenal because it is what I do and what I like. I say it’s your funeral because if the OP said they didn’t want to carry, replace the gun or whatever, that’s on them. Do not mistake me for any kind of anti anything. Unlike you, I respect other opinions even if they do not reflect mine. It is part of my character. You on the other hand must be a democrat because if you say shit like you wrote, you are intolerant of other opinions and act just like those a-hole liberals. GFYS.
It is not often that a commenter here says “I have never been comfortable owning a gun.” I wonder if maybe this is a first? I might as well have stopped reading at that point because you won’t get “the truth about guns” from someone with that attitude.
I’ll believe this story when I see a news story or redacted police report to back it up. Otherwise it’s a Taser commercial, and Dan and Robert vouching for it just makes them look bad. Sorry guys, I’m not usually one to immediately jump on this sort of train, but this time it’s just a little too hard to buy.
It’s a gun control story, tasers will save us all
Says he raised his kids well, but doesn’t trust them.
Say he has a moral objection to killing. Doesn’t understand the concept that the people willing to do harm to him don’t give a rat’s ass about his moral objections.
Thieves also want TVs, or really anything they can make a buck with. Better sell all you possessions and live a life of poverty. Even then, someone may just steal your water bottle.
Admits that he would put the life of some douchebag ahead of his kids and is incapable of protecting his family.
This man has decisively made himself and his family victims. You will always be a victim unless you make drastic changes to your life. Eventually your kids will learn of your mistrust, if they have not already, and they will disdain you for it.
I completely concur with nearly everybody’s assertion that this is simply BS and a poorly masked advertisement for the Taser Pulse.
I also agree that a redacted police report should be linked to verify the ridiculous claims made here. There’s no way this didn’t hit the local news hard.
TTAG, you guys are usually better than this. You should know that a group of people who don’t trust their government to protect their lives in an emergency (obviously, we all call the police during a shoot-or-be-killed situation, but that’s not our first thought) to simply trust two of your contributors at their word that this isn’t a way for your blog to make a bit of money.
Enjoy your fear.
It seems to have won.
Comments are closed.