New proposed anti 2A law in Massachucetts

More liberal logic.

1 Like

Kind of ironic that they’re coming for the guns in the state where Lexington and Concord are.

Can anyone explain to me what their beef is with stun guns? They aren’t firearms. They aren’t lethal (no more than a baseball bat is, anyway). If they’re so afraid of actual firearms, why wouldn’t they encourage people to carry less lethal tools for self-defense?

I’ve just never understood this. My state used to ban people from carrying tasers. I could carry as many firearms as I wanted, but I couldn’t tase someone. It never made sense to me.


Tasers are generally a control device. Obviously when used by the police they are trying to control a suspect.

Tasers used in the general populace are most often used to wrongfully control another person. I handled several rape/rape attempts where tasers were used.

Which means that the perp was committing a crime. So, explain why a law-abiding citizen should not be “allowed” to defend him/herself?

1 Like

I just can’t understand the modern hysteria over guns. I’ve been alive for 55 years, and so much has changed. I’ve had guns around me, and owned them, since I was a kid. My mom taught us all basic gun safety. I shot them in cub scouts. I started skeet shooting when I was about 12. It was never a big deal. They were just tools to use properly and carefully. Just like a chainsaw or a knife or a car or anything else that can do a lot of damage if abused.

A lunatic can do so much more harm with a car in such short order compared to a gun, and the damage done to people is horrific, but any 16 year old that can drive around the block is set free on the highway. Insane people bent on harming others can get a drivers license, rent a uHaul truck, and barrel down a crowded sidewalk, destroying everyone in their path, but no one calls for car control. What’s going on here?


I would opine that a baseball bat is far more lethal than a stun gun, in fact. Just sayin’

Also, generally, a stun gun and a taser are two different things. In my vernacular/understanding, a stun gun is simple pain compliance.


Are they most often used to wrongfully control another person?

If you watch the mainstream media you would be led to believe firearms are only used by criminals and almost never used in self defense. But even if you use the anti self defense crowds biased research numbers, firearms are used somewhere between 50k and 120k times per year in legal self defense incidents. That number is likely significantly higher.

I doubt anyone tracks lawful taser use. And I suspect most defensive incidents likely go unreported. Especially the incidents where a woman just pulls out the taser and pushes the button to dissuade a would be attacker.

Anti taser laws just like anti gun laws aren’t going to dissuade criminals from using them. They just leave law abiding citizens defenseless.


Because a taser is crappy self defense, especially against an aggressive individual. You want to “tie up” with someone so you can tase them? Do you think that a woman would be able to properly tase a rapist?

No, tasers aren’t appropriate.

I am giving you my experience here. However, you make a good point about tracking ability. But tasers are lousy tools for self defense, as they require getting in way too close.

Consider if you find yourself in a shooting situation, would you move in towards your assailant? Hopefully not.

It is a good debate regarding our rights.

1 Like

Thanks for sharing your experience. I don’t own a taser and have never used one. It certainly wouldn’t be my first choice.

I can imagine some situations though were a taser might be useful. Such as a car jacking attempt when you are in a State or location where firearms are not allowed. If someone broke your window and reached in to grab you while you’re stuck in traffic it might stop the attacker? Perhaps better than pepper spray or even gel since those might impact your own ability to drive away from the situation if you catch some of it near your eyes. The attacker is going to already be in close in this case.

It also has the advantage of being a less lethal option for those who don’t want to or can’t carry a firearm or other lethal option. Maybe the zapping sound might also deter some would be attackers? I’ve been zapped a couple times in my life and didn’t like it. So if someone started one of those zapping near me I’d definitely be wanting to stay out of reach.


Why shouldn’t she have the opportunity? That’s all I’m asking. If I can trust a person with a lethal form of self-defense, why can’t they be trusted with other tools? You and I can say that we’d recommend a firearm over a taser or a stun gun, but why should a person with one of those be charged with a crime?


With women, I have found that the majority are not mentally or physically able to effectively defend themselves against a larger man intent on assault.

(Please understand, I am not discounting the many women who are very capable. I am talking though of the majority who are not.)

The problem here is that firearms, pepper spray, and tasers/stun guns can and have been turned against women and game over.

We recommend situational awareness and “personal shrill alarms” for these ladies.

Those that are willing and capable, I personally recommend a comfortable firearm backed by consistent training.


So, based on this opinion they should be made illegal? It’s not about getting close, but the “close” getting to you. That same argument can be made about handguns CQB, too. I would not be trying to get in close, regardless of the defensive tool I had. Trying to unholster a handgun while in CQB would be dangerous - unarmed and knives far better. Not everyone has the skills or nerve to use knives, and many do not like firearms or cannot legally carry them due to numerous factors, some of which are state and federal laws. So your opinion is to make the victim totally defenseless.


If they are attacked and have no means of self-defense, game over, too. Even people trained in self-defense and trained on the tools they carry can still become victims. The opinion that someone should not carry self-defense tools because “they might be used against” them is ridiculous, since if they are being assaulted, they are already in harms way, and that can happen to anyone.

Using your reasoning, police should not carry weapons because statistically, their weapons are used against them far more than any other group. How many police have been shot with their own handgun during retention fights?


I agree with this for the most part. Though I do know a few people and have read of quite a few more who think they are good to go because they own a defensive tool even though they have questionable skill and will to use them. If those people find themselves in a sketchy situation and go for the tool first without considering other viable options such as running or drawing attention to themselves with an alarm then they could be putting themselves at greater risk.

If someone draws a tool and hesitates to use it due to inexperience or inability to be aggressive when needed they could just be handing their attacker a tool to use against them. If someone is cornered and under attack then having the tool and no experience is better than nothing. But if they allow themselves to be cornered because they thought the tool would protect them then the tool is doing more harm than good.

1 Like

If you are going to respond to me, please read my posts more carefully.

I have trained many women, and there are quite a few who for whatever reason cannot carry a firearm responsibly and appropriately. We recommend shrill alarms over pepper spray for two reasons 1) Sprays are not that effective either because some of these guys are impervious or (2) the spray misses, usually due to the wind or poor application. Pepper spray can and indeed has been used against women.

We do also teach self defense, eye gouging, groin slapping, etc. and as a last resort (in rape situations) defecating. (Yes, I come from the real world).

I would like to know if you have ever pepper sprayed an aggressive violent individual?

Your analysis of my reasoning is disingenuous and silly. I understand that you do not care for me even though we have never met. But I assure you that when I post in these types of threads, these are not my opinions but what I have been trained in “Train the Trainer” classes, and observed and experienced on the streets.

1 Like

Same. I quoted your opinion on taser, not pepper spray.

An opinion unworthy of further reply. Your deflection of what was being discussed is typical from those that have nothing worthy of debate other than their professed “badge of honor”.

I’m going to be visiting MA later this year and was just looking up the knife laws since I always carry a knife for utility purposes. Their knife laws may be even worse than their gun laws! They have a 400 plus word sentence listing all the things you can’t carry. But almost none of those terms are defined.

Apparently prosecutors have charged people for carrying assisted opening knives even when they were only carrying a knife with a manual thumb stud.

Guess I’ll have to settle for the pen I always carry. Not to poke a violent attacker with of course since I’m sure that is somehow illegal as well. I’ll just quickly write them a note asking them to please stop attacking me:/

The pen also really sucks for slicing cheese and other snacks. Maybe I can borrow my son’s little Swiss Army knife without the risk of being thrown in jail?


I know that statistically, there are way more attacks in the U.S. with knives than with firearms. But I still can’t relate to people who think of knives as weapons to be regulated or banned. I carry a knife because not a day goes by where I don’t have to open some box or plastic container. How do people function in states where knives are verboten?


I have no idea. Though there seems to be a lot of people who don’t carry knives even when they are allowed. I know this because I often have to loan them mine:/