If anyone has read any of our published articles or blogs, they know that as a company we are very supportive of law-abiding citizens being able to own defensive products.  Whether that be Conducted Energy Weapons, Pepper Spray, Impact Weapons or even firearms. It is our official opinion as a company that being able to defend yourself (or your family) from a violent physical assault is an undeniable right that each of us has.

No doubt, with that right of personal defense, comes an awesome responsibility.  This level of responsibility is dramatically heightened when the defensive tool of choice is a deadly weapon.  If you have spent any time familiarizing yourself with our defensive philosophies…then you also know that we believe there is no one “perfect” defensive tool.  Or goal in disseminating information on defensive-tactics, defensive tools and the warriors mindset is to be honest and forthright in our assessments.

Having said that, we constantly field questions from our readers asking why a Conducted Energy Weapon (stun gun) is necessary if they already carry a firearm?  This is an excellent question and it deserves to be answered. We will attempt to do so from two distinct positions.

Firearm vs. Stun Gun

If you currently carry a firearm, for sake of argument we will assume that you have a proper level of training and experience to safely do so.  We will also assume that your firearm ownership is legal in the jurisdiction you are carrying in. This then begs the question; do you need a Yellow Jacket if you have a firearm?

Perhaps the best way to answer that is through a series of “scenario resolutions.”  If you are approached by a “panhandler,” asking for spare change in a slightly aggressive manner, would the correct response be to “flash” or even unholster your sidearm?  Probably not. In fact, you may actually be the one committing a crime under those circumstances. Would dry-firing or triggering a warning-discharge with your Yellow Jacket in the air with a command to leave you alone deter such aggressive behavior?  Very possibly.

What if an aggressive dog (growling and barking) approached you at a park with your family? Would the dog “recognize” the imminent danger it was in if you aimed your firearm at it?  Of course not. Could the argument be made that you endangered others by shooting the dog in such a setting? Quite possibly. If instead, you dry-fired or triggered a warning-discharge with your Yellow Jacket in the air could this dissuade the dog from pressing its aggressive behavior?  Very likely.

If someone who was inebriated in a crowded restaurant started “poking you in the chest” during a disagreement, would deploying your deadly weapon be the smart move? No.  However, if you discharged your stun gun against them to make them back off of you also drawing attention to the confrontation, would this be an appropriate response? Yes, it would be a much more appropriate response than drawing your gun on them.

In short, a firearm should only be deployed (which means drawn and presented towards a target with or without discharging the weapon) under deadly force circumstances.  Asking for spare-change or facing a drunk who is looking to pick a fight does not normally qualify as a deadly force encounter. While there are exceptions to every rule, overall…by carrying a Yellow Jacket while armed with a firearm, you are afforded more options to respond with.

At minimum, if you are witnessed first deploying your non-lethal stun gun in an altercation and must then transition to your firearm as the assault escalates in some manner…you have proven that you took reasonable steps to NOT have to deploy deadly force.  This can only help the after-shooting review that will be initiated by responding law enforcement.

[Please Note:  In a future article we will also discuss the advantages of using your Yellow Jacket CEW as a “weapon retention” tool to actually protect your sidearm.]

2nd Amendment…the new reality

The 2nd Amendment is under attack on many fronts.  The new reality is that it will be harder to own and carry firearms in the future.  From a legislative standpoint, while there are strong bastions of pro-firearm ownership…the fact of the matter is that most areas where higher violent crime rates exist… and there is a greater need for formidable self-defense tools, firearms may soon be regulated out of existence for most of us.

As these overzealous regulatory statutes are implemented, there will be a larger need for effective self-defense tools that are both non-lethal and acceptable to the standards set by these communities.  In short, CEW’s (stun guns) will most likely fill the breech between firearms that will be harder to legally rely on and non-lethal devices that are actually formidable enough to provide legitimate protection.

Based on research from various organizations, Stun Guns may be the defensive weapon of the future.  Not the cheap, toy-type stun guns mind you…but legitimate, high-microcoulomb, third-party tested, discreet but formidable Conducted Energy Weapons.  

However, even while firearms are still available for personal protection outside the home today, the case can be made that the discussion should not be choosing a firearm OR a stun gun….but in reality it should be a firearm AND a stun gun!