Re: Non-lethal protective technologies?
Wed, 2 Jun 1999 05:03:54 -0700 (PDT)

den Otter [] wrote:
>That may be, but it is better to be zapped than to be stabbed/beaten/
>shot, which is often the alternative.

Only one minor problem with that argument; as we've been pointing out, a crook will happily stun you and then rob/rape/whatever because there's no chance of killing you. Kleck's research backs this up, showing that a crook with a knife is far more likely to use their weapon than a crook with a gun.

>And of course anyone with half
>a brain will carry his/her own piece (and the threshold for using the gun
>for self-defense will be lower too).

And when they stun you from cover a hundred yards away without warning? Or are you going to run around stunning anyone who looks like they might even be thinking of stunning you?