National Conceal & Carry

[Enadail]

See, if one person did, and someone died from it, to me that means that person should get prosecuted, not that all firearms owners should be affected.

My problem is that that's a slippery slope. One becomes two becomes 10. At what point is it a problem? And is even one preventable death acceptable?

I don't carry for protection. Actually, I don't carry at all, for two reasons. One, I'm still waiting for my permit to come in (I'm supposed to get an answer within 8 weeks according to CT state law, but I've been waiting almost 11 weeks now). Two, I currently only have a rifle (AR-15 with a 16" barrel, not exactly concealable, and owned for target shooting). When I do have my permit, and when I do get a pistol, I'm only planning on carrying it to the range and back, or to the gunsmith if it needs major repair service/upgrades.

I have no issues with people using guns for sport. And no issues with carrying back and forth to be used in sport. We're talking about concealed weapons right now

Non-projectile taser? Do you mean a stun gun? I don't own one because I don't want my roommate to use it on me when I'm asleep, as a prank (he says he owes me one, for a prank I played on him recently).

That's the word I was lookin for! Stupid brain fart... But no, I said projectile taser. I'm not sure what they're called, or if they're actually just called tasers.

But yah, I feel a stun gun is comparable for the common civilian to a gun for defending themselves. As for the prank part... I'd personally be all for reducing the gun culture in daily life (again, I don't object to guns for sport), and pushing for more people to be able to get tasers (not that its that hard today), and make new laws about the abuse of tasers.

[Heinleinites]

An armed society is a courteous society.

Rarely do I find your average gun owner courteous.

That might have more to do with you, than with them. You know what they say about common denominators.

[Hiddenrun]

The fact that we do not yet have a federal conceal and carry license illustrates effectively how state governments have been more supportive of gun rights throughout our history.

Washington DC with its gun control lobby is effectively limiting our Second Amendment rights by continuing to deny us such a license.

I am not sure about all this licensing. On the one hand, my family and I are all well-trained with several types of guns. Because of my military experience and my strong relationship with local police, I'm already effectively allowed what I want when I want. When there's deer wandering into town, they call me up to cull a few, as I'm one of the few people they trust to control my gun.

I use those words specifically to denote what real gun control is about. I shouldn't have to point this out, but some people in American politics and this forum seem to have a socialist definition of gun control.

Which brings me to my criticism about all this licensing. How effectively can an armed population be a deterrent against tyranny if the government knows exactly who is skilled in weapons, and who is not? What's to stop the government from rounding up all those who threaten their monopoly on force?

[Gun Manufacturers]

See, if one person did, and someone died from it, to me that means that person should get prosecuted, not that all firearms owners should be affected.

My problem is that that's a slippery slope. One becomes two becomes 10. At what point is it a problem? And is even one preventable death acceptable?

I don't carry for protection. Actually, I don't carry at all, for two reasons. One, I'm still waiting for my permit to come in (I'm supposed to get an answer within 8 weeks according to CT state law, but I've been waiting almost 11 weeks now). Two, I currently only have a rifle (AR-15 with a 16" barrel, not exactly concealable, and owned for target shooting). When I do have my permit, and when I do get a pistol, I'm only planning on carrying it to the range and back, or to the gunsmith if it needs major repair service/upgrades.

I have no issues with people using guns for sport. And no issues with carrying back and forth to be used in sport. We're talking about concealed weapons right now

Non-projectile taser? Do you mean a stun gun? I don't own one because I don't want my roommate to use it on me when I'm asleep, as a prank (he says he owes me one, for a prank I played on him recently).

That's the word I was lookin for! Stupid brain fart... But no, I said projectile taser. I'm not sure what they're called, or if they're actually just called tasers.

But yah, I feel a stun gun is comparable for the common civilian to a gun for defending themselves. As for the prank part... I'd personally be all for reducing the gun culture in daily life (again, I don't object to guns for sport), and pushing for more people to be able to get tasers (not that its that hard today), and make new laws about the abuse of tasers.

It's a problem when one person dies. But to blame that person's death on an inanimate object, instead of the person who actually did the killing, is putting the blame in the wrong place.

I mentioned carrying for sport (target shooting) because to carry a pistol outside your home in CT, you need a CT pistol permit (and although technically open carry is legal in CT, it's not recommended due to harassment). Of course, in other states, YMMV.

As to the non projectile taser vs not projectile taser, I misread. Yes, projectile firing electroshock weapons are called tasers.

[Gun Manufacturers]

The fact that we do not yet have a federal conceal and carry license illustrates effectively how state governments have been more supportive of gun rights throughout our history.

Washington DC with its gun control lobby is effectively limiting our Second Amendment rights by continuing to deny us such a license.

I am not sure about all this licensing. On the one hand, my family and I are all well-trained with several types of guns. Because of my military experience and my strong relationship with local police, I'm already effectively allowed what I want when I want. When there's deer wandering into town, they call me up to cull a few, as I'm one of the few people they trust to control my gun.

I use those words specifically to denote what real gun control is about. I shouldn't have to point this out, but some people in American politics and this forum seem to have a socialist definition of gun control.

Which brings me to my criticism about all this licensing. How effectively can an armed population be a deterrent against tyranny if the government knows exactly who is skilled in weapons, and who is not? What's to stop the government from rounding up all those who threaten their monopoly on force?

Having a license doesn't mean the person has, or is skilled in weapons. My older sister has/had a pistol permit (I don't know if she still does, I think she got it when she and my brother in law first got married), and I doubt she could be considered skilled in weaponry. I'm currently waiting for my pistol permit to come in, yet I don't have a pistol (you need one to buy a pistol in CT).

[Enadail]

It's a problem when one person dies. But to blame that person's death on an inanimate object, instead of the person who actually did the killing, is putting the blame in the wrong place.

I mentioned carrying for sport (target shooting) because to carry a pistol outside your home in CT, you need a CT pistol permit (and although technically open carry is legal in CT, it's not recommended due to harassment). Of course, in other states, YMMV.

As to the non projectile taser vs not projectile taser, I misread. Yes, projectile firing electroshock weapons are called tasers.

I agree, never blame the weapon for what the person did. But that doesn't mean give people access to things that can be controlled. Again, it goes back to what you're arguing. If its defense, and a person can be equally safe carrying a taser vs a gun, and a gun has the additional disadvantage of killing people, why allow guns? Yes, a taser can kill, but it is harder to kill someone with a taser.

Sorry Hiddenrun, but I couldn't disagree with you more. If the concern is overthrowing tyranny, why bother to vote, or have a government at all? If a government wanted to control its populous today, and had the support of its military, no number of guns are going to save you. If the US government did decide to subdue its people and the rest of the world didn't object, you're not stopping bombs and strike forces with a few rifles. And if the military didn't support it, it has no chance of success with or without the general populous having guns.

[Gun Manufacturers]

It's a problem when one person dies. But to blame that person's death on an inanimate object, instead of the person who actually did the killing, is putting the blame in the wrong place.

I mentioned carrying for sport (target shooting) because to carry a pistol outside your home in CT, you need a CT pistol permit (and although technically open carry is legal in CT, it's not recommended due to harassment). Of course, in other states, YMMV.

As to the non projectile taser vs not projectile taser, I misread. Yes, projectile firing electroshock weapons are called tasers.

I agree, never blame the weapon for what the person did. But that doesn't mean give people access to things that can be controlled. Again, it goes back to what you're arguing. If its defense, and a person can be equally safe carrying a taser vs a gun, and a gun has the additional disadvantage of killing people, why allow guns? Yes, a taser can kill, but it is harder to kill someone with a taser....

Tasers are a one shot at a time deal. If someone's wearing a heavy jacket, a taser may not penetrate (thus, not being effective), leaving you unprotected unless you can change out the cartridge before the person attacking you hits you/stabs you/etc. The same can happen if you miss. A firearm holds multiple shots, and doesn't always need to be fired in order to be used successfully in a self defense situation.

[Enadail]

It's a problem when one person dies. But to blame that person's death on an inanimate object, instead of the person who actually did the killing, is putting the blame in the wrong place.

I mentioned carrying for sport (target shooting) because to carry a pistol outside your home in CT, you need a CT pistol permit (and although technically open carry is legal in CT, it's not recommended due to harassment). Of course, in other states, YMMV.

As to the non projectile taser vs not projectile taser, I misread. Yes, projectile firing electroshock weapons are called tasers.

I agree, never blame the weapon for what the person did. But that doesn't mean give people access to things that can be controlled. Again, it goes back to what you're arguing. If its defense, and a person can be equally safe carrying a taser vs a gun, and a gun has the additional disadvantage of killing people, why allow guns? Yes, a taser can kill, but it is harder to kill someone with a taser....

Tasers are a one shot at a time deal. If someone's wearing a heavy jacket, a taser may not penetrate (thus, not being effective), leaving you unprotected unless you can change out the cartridge before the person attacking you hits you/stabs you/etc. The same can happen if you miss. A firearm holds multiple shots, and doesn't always need to be fired in order to be used successfully in a self defense situation.

Thus why I stipulated more research into tasers. Not to mention, they are working on what are essentially "taser bullets" like from the scifi shows. I accept that currently, tasers are not equal defense to a gun for a responsible owner.

The point I'm trying to gleam or drive is that is it about the protection or the gun itself?

[Dyakovo]

And no one generally advocates free acquisition of firearms,

No one besides the NRA and their legion.

Thank you, you have just proven that you know absolutely nothing about the NRA.

[Intestinal fluids]

I would love a national conceal carry law. Im really upset this last bill got shot down by 2 votes. NY has terribly restrictive gun laws. I had a pistol permit in NY for 20 years. I moved 100 miles to PA and immediately lost my NY permit because i was no longer a State resident regardless of the fact i own a business there and 180 acres of wood/farmland ideal for shooting. So the Gun that was there just fine for 20 years is now a felony if i bring it back to NY. NY does not allow non residents to apply for permits under any circumstances. I have my CC permit in PA and i would just LOVE the National bill to pass (maybe we try again next year) so i can say fuck you to NY.

I dont normally carry concealed unless i know im going somewhere particularly dangerous, like Killadelphia or to the bus station late night in Scranton or something.

[The South Islands]

As I see it, the 2nd Amendment and CCW are two very different things. Carrying a concieled firearm, in my view, is not a right, and does not fall under the 2nd Amendment. Possessing arms is certainly a right under the constitution, not to be deprived without due process, but I am equally certain that CCW is a privilege.

If the Federal Government really has to get involved, I'd rather them not issue licenses or have standards themselves, but rather determine which CCWs would become accepted by all states based on uniformity of their conditions. For example, FedGov would say "Ok, people that hold licenses in Michigan, and those that have the same application process (in this case, class, background check, fingerprint, and scored shoot), would be allowed to carry in all states that issue CCW licenses. Other states can still have their own license process, but would have to rely on the same reciprocity-treaty system that is in place now." I think it would move towards nationwide CCW by nudging the states towards uniformity regarding CCW application processes, whilst still retaining the ability of the states to determine their own laws if they so desire.

Of course, if a state wanted to adopt Vermont style CCW laws, I don't see any reason that FedGov could step in.

[CanuckHeaven]

So I was reviewing in my mind the reciprocal agreement law regarding conceal and carry licenses (I think it failed).

It did fail on July 23/09.

Now, my question is, is a national conceal and carry really a bad thing?

Absolutely!!

Earlier this week, the VPC released a new study (http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf) showing that concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009. Among the study's findings--

Over the two-year period May 2007 through April 2009, concealed handgun permit holders have slain seven law enforcement officers resulting in criminal charges or the suicide of the shooter. All of the killings were committed with guns. An additional three law enforcement officers were injured in these incidents.

Over the two-year period May 2007 through April 2009, concealed handgun permit holders have slain at least 44 private citizens resulting in criminal charges or the suicide of the shooter. All but one of the killings were committed with guns. An additional six private citizens were injured in these incidents.

In six of the 31 incidents (19 percent), the concealed handgun permit holder killed himself, bringing the total fatality count to 57.

Five of the incidents were mass shootings resulting in the deaths of 23 victims.

Time to rethink the whole CCW issue?

I think it would be very good, as it would set standards that you could carry across states without having to worry about the specific laws and regulations each time you cross an invisible line in the country.

That is the biggest part of the problem:

“The Thune Amendment would have nullified laws in states such as New York and California that have tough standards for the issuance of concealed handgun permits. Those states would have been forced to allow the carrying of concealed handguns within their borders by people with permits issued by states with the lowest standards, such as Idaho and Florida. The amendment would have also undermined state assault weapons bans because it would have allowed permit holders to carry concealed assault weapons into the seven states that currently ban these guns.

More guns + weak gun laws = more death:

Alabama ranks second nationally to Louisiana in gun deaths per capita, reports the Montgomery Advertiser. Also in the top five are Mississippi and Nevada, according to the Violence Policy Center. A gun store cited Alabama’s culture, history and wide expanses of rural areas. The VPC study showed that 57.2 percent of Alabama households own guns.

The study found that high gun ownership coupled with what it called weak gun laws makes for a dangerous combination. In states that fit that definition, gun death rates far exceed the national rate of 10.32 per 100,000 residents, according to federal statistics. Alabama’s rate was 16.99. Conversely, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership had far lower rates of firearm-related deaths. Last in the nation was Hawaii, followed by Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York.

[Willman]

So I was reviewing in my mind the reciprocal agreement law regarding conceal and carry licenses (I think it failed).

It did fail on July 23/09.

Now, my question is, is a national conceal and carry really a bad thing?

Absolutely!!

Earlier this week, the VPC released a new study (http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf) showing that concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009. Among the study's findings--

Over the two-year period May 2007 through April 2009, concealed handgun permit holders have slain seven law enforcement officers resulting in criminal charges or the suicide of the shooter. All of the killings were committed with guns. An additional three law enforcement officers were injured in these incidents.

Over the two-year period May 2007 through April 2009, concealed handgun permit holders have slain at least 44 private citizens resulting in criminal charges or the suicide of the shooter. All but one of the killings were committed with guns. An additional six private citizens were injured in these incidents.

In six of the 31 incidents (19 percent), the concealed handgun permit holder killed himself, bringing the total fatality count to 57.

Five of the incidents were mass shootings resulting in the deaths of 23 victims.

Time to rethink the whole CCW issue?

I think it would be very good, as it would set standards that you could carry across states without having to worry about the specific laws and regulations each time you cross an invisible line in the country.

That is the biggest part of the problem:

“The Thune Amendment would have nullified laws in states such as New York and California that have tough standards for the issuance of concealed handgun permits. Those states would have been forced to allow the carrying of concealed handguns within their borders by people with permits issued by states with the lowest standards, such as Idaho and Florida. The amendment would have also undermined state assault weapons bans because it would have allowed permit holders to carry concealed assault weapons into the seven states that currently ban these guns.

More guns + weak gun laws = more death:

Alabama ranks second nationally to Louisiana in gun deaths per capita, reports the Montgomery Advertiser. Also in the top five are Mississippi and Nevada, according to the Violence Policy Center. A gun store cited Alabama’s culture, history and wide expanses of rural areas. The VPC study showed that 57.2 percent of Alabama households own guns.

The study found that high gun ownership coupled with what it called weak gun laws makes for a dangerous combination. In states that fit that definition, gun death rates far exceed the national rate of 10.32 per 100,000 residents, according to federal statistics. Alabama’s rate was 16.99. Conversely, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership had far lower rates of firearm-related deaths. Last in the nation was Hawaii, followed by Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York.

The statistics you post show nothing. Low gun death rates doesn't equal low TOTAL death rates. As in the UK, while criminals don't use guns there, they still have knives and other weapons that are just as lethal. And since I live in Massachusetts, which is a may-issue state (note that neither of the states that have no-issue laws are among the lowest), i know that it's not that hard to get a CC license. Also, i blame religion for higher death rates in the south. Notice that the states with lower rates of religion (namely New York and the New England states) also have lower overall death rates. If your a Christian, you can receive "forgiveness" simply through prayer. If your an atheist....no such luck there. I'll just leave this link here......http://americanhumanist.org/hnn/archive ... &article=7

[Bdellovibrio]

So I was reviewing in my mind the reciprocal agreement law regarding conceal and carry licenses (I think it failed).

It did fail on July 23/09.

Now, my question is, is a national conceal and carry really a bad thing?

Absolutely!!

Earlier this week, the VPC released a new study (http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf) showing that concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009. Among the study's findings--

Over the two-year period May 2007 through April 2009, concealed handgun permit holders have slain seven law enforcement officers resulting in criminal charges or the suicide of the shooter. All of the killings were committed with guns. An additional three law enforcement officers were injured in these incidents.

Over the two-year period May 2007 through April 2009, concealed handgun permit holders have slain at least 44 private citizens resulting in criminal charges or the suicide of the shooter. All but one of the killings were committed with guns. An additional six private citizens were injured in these incidents.

In six of the 31 incidents (19 percent), the concealed handgun permit holder killed himself, bringing the total fatality count to 57.

Five of the incidents were mass shootings resulting in the deaths of 23 victims.

Time to rethink the whole CCW issue?

I think it would be very good, as it would set standards that you could carry across states without having to worry about the specific laws and regulations each time you cross an invisible line in the country.

That is the biggest part of the problem:

“The Thune Amendment would have nullified laws in states such as New York and California that have tough standards for the issuance of concealed handgun permits. Those states would have been forced to allow the carrying of concealed handguns within their borders by people with permits issued by states with the lowest standards, such as Idaho and Florida. The amendment would have also undermined state assault weapons bans because it would have allowed permit holders to carry concealed assault weapons into the seven states that currently ban these guns.

More guns + weak gun laws = more death:

Alabama ranks second nationally to Louisiana in gun deaths per capita, reports the Montgomery Advertiser. Also in the top five are Mississippi and Nevada, according to the Violence Policy Center. A gun store cited Alabama’s culture, history and wide expanses of rural areas. The VPC study showed that 57.2 percent of Alabama households own guns.

The study found that high gun ownership coupled with what it called weak gun laws makes for a dangerous combination. In states that fit that definition, gun death rates far exceed the national rate of 10.32 per 100,000 residents, according to federal statistics. Alabama’s rate was 16.99. Conversely, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership had far lower rates of firearm-related deaths. Last in the nation was Hawaii, followed by Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York.

A one in ten thousand chance of being killed by a gun. That is truely frightening. I'd want to own a gun in those circumstances, though it might be directed at a government that allows twenty-five thousand citizens to be killed by guns per year. That is just about half the total number of soldiers that died in Vietnam.

[DrunkenDove]

I can understand having a gun in your home, and having one for hunting or practice shooting, but what kind of a person wants to carry a gun around with them all the time? "Hey, I'm just popping off to the shop to buy some milk, can you please hand me my magnum in case I'm attacked by ninjas?"

[Intestinal fluids]

I can understand having a gun in your home, and having one for hunting or practice shooting, but what kind of a person wants to carry a gun around with them all the time? "Hey, I'm just popping off to the shop to buy some milk, can you please hand me my magnum in case I'm attacked by ninjas?"

What store do you go to thats apparently immune from robbery? Do you use a Star Trek transporter to get from your house to the store so you can avoid dark parking lots and car-jackings? Do you think you need a gun in broad daylight doing nothing but sitting in a cafeteria eating lunch? Think again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPMjcOrmdYY

[Enadail]

I again ask, which no one seems interested in answering, which to me says more then anything else...

Is having a gun for defense or for having a gun? If its defense, and there was a non-lethal alternative, would you oppose repealing gun laws in the stead of non-lethal alternatives?

[Intestinal fluids]

I again ask, which no one seems interested in answering, which to me says more then anything else...

Is having a gun for defense or for having a gun? If its defense, and there was a non-lethal alternative, would you oppose repealing gun laws in the stead of non-lethal alternatives?

Its a disingenuous question as there is no non lethal alternative in existence that is effective as a gun for self defense. Part of what makes a gun a good weapon for self defense: defends at range, can defend against multiple targets, far less failure rate (plenty of drug crazed maniacs shrug off tasers and the like like nothing) and the best defence of all, if you pull out a gun the criminal goes oh shit if i fuck with him i could die. Youd be amazed how the threat of instant death serves as a deterrent like no other to cause criminals to refrain from continued offensive action.

[Enadail]

I again ask, which no one seems interested in answering, which to me says more then anything else...

Is having a gun for defense or for having a gun? If its defense, and there was a non-lethal alternative, would you oppose repealing gun laws in the stead of non-lethal alternatives?

Its a disingenuous question as there is no non lethal alternative in existence that is effective as a gun for self defense. Part of what makes a gun a good weapon for self defense: defends at range, can defend against multiple targets, far less failure rate (plenty of drug crazed maniacs shrug off tasers and the like like nothing) and the best defence of all, if you pull out a gun the criminal goes oh shit if i fuck with him i could die. Youd be amazed how the threat of instant death serves as a deterrent like no other to cause criminals to refrain from continued offensive action.

Ok, I did say that at the moment there are no direct alternates, but I did post the hypothetical.

First: I'm not sure you know anything about biology. With 1.5kV of electricity running through you, you do not shrug it off, even if you were unconscious. Your muscles spasm uncontrollably, not because of thought, but because electricity causes muscles to spasm. So no, point is moot.

I will grant you multiple targets and range (tasers are typically only 15ft or so). As for the "oh shit, I might die..." I see that as almost vigilantism. If someone attacks you, you have the right to kill them? Or even possibly kill them? I'm not arguing self defense... if you're defending yourself and the attacker dies, its self defense (for the most part). But if someone comes at you holding a knife, a gun is overkill.

I will agree that tasers need work. But my point was simple: people seem overly enamored with the idea of the gun itself rather then the defense part.

Lets rephrase my question: would you oppose government research into a more effective taser, one with multiple shots and a longer range for example, or the public access to "taser bullets", and then laws being passed to only allow those non-lethal alternatives?

[DrunkenDove]

I again ask, which no one seems interested in answering, which to me says more then anything else...

Is having a gun for defense or for having a gun? If its defense, and there was a non-lethal alternative, would you oppose repealing gun laws in the stead of non-lethal alternatives?

Its a disingenuous question as there is no non lethal alternative in existence that is effective as a gun for self defense.

You are of course correct. But can you imagine it as a hypothetical question? Say if someone invented the star trek phaser complete with stun setting?

[Intestinal fluids]

But if someone comes at you holding a knife, a gun is overkill.

Boggle. Are you serious? If someone charged you wielding a knife at your throat and you had a gun you wouldnt attempt to shoot him?

Well i guess we have to thin the herd somehow.....

[Enadail]

But if someone comes at you holding a knife, a gun is overkill.

Boggle. Are you serious? If someone charged you wielding a knife at your throat and you had a gun you wouldnt attempt to shoot him?

Well i guess we have to thin the herd somehow.....

Um... like I said, self defense is self defense... but a mugger doesn't generally start with a charge... And someone intent on killing probably won't be using a knife.

But again, you ignored the hypothetical question.

As for thinning... given I've studied enough martial arts to have defended myself once in real life, I'm certain the extra training since then will do fine against the next knife.

[Intestinal fluids]

And someone intent on killing probably won't be using a knife.

Do you need cites on the thousands of people killed by stabbing or do you concede thats a ridiculous point?

But again, you ignored the hypothetical question.

If you want to deal in hypotheticals, then i support the giant red button that you can push to instantly beam someone into a jail cell. Until then lets deal with reality.

As for thinning... given I've studied enough martial arts to have defended myself once in real life, I'm certain the extra training since then will do fine against the next knife.

Im going to assume you value your life. What would you guess is a preferred option to preserve it in a deadly situation? Shooting someone charging at you from 15 feet away, or grappling with someone in hand to hand combat who is armed with a deadly weapon when you arnt?

[DrunkenDove]

If you want to deal in hypotheticals, then i support the giant red button that you can push to instantly beam someone into a jail cell. Until then lets deal with reality.

[...]

Im going to assume you value your life. What would you guess is a preferred option to preserve it in a deadly situation? Shooting someone charging at you from 15 feet away, or grappling with someone in hand to hand combat who is armed with a deadly weapon when you arnt?

This is a hypothetical question. I thought you weren't going to deal in hypotheticals?

[Enadail]

Do you need cites on the thousands of people killed by stabbing or do you concede thats a ridiculous point?

I'd like the numbers of stabbings from someone with a knife charging. I suspect those numbers are MUCH smaller.

If you want to deal in hypotheticals, then i support the giant red button that you can push to instantly beam someone into a jail cell. Until then lets deal with reality.

Except that non-lethal alternates are feasible and viable.

Im going to assume you value your life. What would you guess is a preferred option to preserve it in a deadly situation? Shooting someone charging at you from 15 feet away, or grappling with someone in hand to hand combat who is armed with a deadly weapon when you arnt?

What happened to no hypothetical? Regardless, I would opt to have a stun gun, actually understanding their mechanics and physiology and utilizing that over shooting someone with a lethal weapon.

All your statements prove to me is your concern is not defense primarily, but the weapon itself. The feel of authority and power, and to control others destinies when given the correct circumstances. If I'm wrong, prove me wrong.