Ask a Question
or
Create a Poll
  1. Home /
  2. Questions /
  3. Travel
  4. / Air Travel
  5. / Air Travel (General)

by Kevisaurus is a Carnotaurus today on May 1st, 2007

Kevisaurus is a Carnotaurus today

Question

Help answer this question below.

Should air marshals be armed with tazers instead of guns?

  • Like
  • Report
Share:
Other

Answers. Showing one answer.

  • by Christopher Woods on May 2nd, 2007

    Christopher Woods

    I think Air Marshals should be armed with less lethal forms of weaponry (tazers can kill if used too many times, but they're certainly less likely to kill with a single shot than a handgun is). Even a well-trained firearm user can miss their target, and it's all the more dangerous if they're in a tight situation.

    As I've never heard of a tazer shot causing explosive decompression in an airplane, I would prefer tazers over handguns. The shoot first, ask questions later principle also applies here - with a tazer, you CAN shoot first and ask questions later whereas if you shoot a guy in the head, he's not saying much afterwards.

    Comments

    • We have been asking questions in Gitmo for years now and not getting many answers, so answering force in kind does not bother me much...
      How many explosive decompression events have we had when the weapon was discharged by a trained Marshall?

      Mike has a Day job.

      by Mike has a Day job. on May 24th, 2007

    • IT doesn't matter that an explosive decompression hasn't happened yet... There should never be the possibility for it to happen. This kind of matter shouldn't be decided reactively, after the event has happened, it should be proactively - eliminate any possibility of causing danger or injury to people who are not involved in the situation, by removing the handgun element from the situation, and replace it with a tazer, and you've already solved a couple of problems.

      What if the bullet ricocheted into someone's child, killing them... And what if the bullet did go through the skin of the aircraft... Big problems. Tazers are the more logical option in my mind.

      Christopher Woods

      by Christopher Woods on May 24th, 2007

    • continuing the what if game...
      suppose your tazer shocked passenger, (I'm sure the term terrorist would upset you)
      so our passenger who is still "on the wire falls and makes contact with the same baby,,
      Human infants are highly adverse to the type and amount of current involved in your "safe weapon" so I find you point some what imperfect.
      Hey I have a safer Idea, and profitable too
      Lets put airline passengers under general ansethetic; so they can be stacked in smaller areas, cant threaten any one, and don't need drinks or snacks. more passengers , less demand, and no risk;
      Think America will go for it?
      Not on your life.


      Terrorists find aircraft a safe place to terrorize people because they KNOW there will be almost no one who can or will answer force with force in kind and quantity.

      Btw I have not owned a fire arm in over 20 years, but I do take great comfort in living in a country that gives me the right to do so.

      Mike has a Day job.

      by Mike has a Day job. on May 25th, 2007

    • Like
    • Report

    3 comments | Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

You're reading Should air marshals be armed with tazers instead of guns?

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

Answerbag

a Demand Media company