Quote:
Originally posted by Sty
There's a lot of non-lethal alternatives which are even more efficient at stunning the opponent than a .50 desert eagle. Would save a lot of lives too.
|
You raise a good point. I wonder if the few people (was it two or three?) posting here who have resorted to utilizing a firearm in their defense would have been able to use a Tazer, rubber bullets, or some other disarming/incapacitating device.
So to those posters:
Are there reasons you would not have felt equally safe or think you would not have resolved the episode to your satisfaction by resorting to current or future non-lethal devices?
If you wouldn't have felt just safe or feel current non-lethal devices would not have resolved the episodes to your satisfaction, why not and which improvements would you suggest to reach comparable results as lethal means?