|
Ring: Tasers depends a lot on their use. They have trouble with thick clothes, and they can easily be used to disable victims if used by criminals. On the positive side, they are pretty effective in practical use. Most tasers can disable an average or even large man when used correctly, and their fatality rate is pretty low (few muggers have artificial hearts).
moot: I have more than enough training to disable someone who has a non projectile weapon, especially a simple knife. The first thing you're taught in real classes (for me it was everything from Krav Maga to Kali) is to avoid confrontation, but the scenario which Cromp laid out made it clear that the intention of the question was that wasn't an option. Considering my training and the average person who's used a knife before, I should be fine. I put myself between the other intended victims (wife and child) and the attacker so that his attentions are on me. I tell them to run while I engage him in combat. There's virtually no chance of this guy not just getting by me, but getting by me fast enough to get them. BTW, no one who ever bravely defended their family has been the shame of the city. That kind of sentiment is childish and is intended to try to control my perceptions by insulting me or appealing to ego.
I'd disable him. It's really that simple. If by some miracle he manages to do any level of harm to me, my family is long gone and has probably called the police. It has nothing to do with ego or anti-guns. He's not going to die and neither am I.
If he had a gun, I'd again get between him and my family as we went for the closest cover unless it was clear that cover was too far away. If cover is too far away, I toss him my wallet. People out there who just want to kill indiscriminately are exceedingly rare and it's not reasonable to prepare for that.
|