[NoGun]

Mr. Leake,

Thanks for not playing the stereotypical anti, being shrill, or blowing off reasonable answers. That's refreshing.

Thank you for not being the stereotypical "gun nut," spouting conspiracy theories or chest pounding my reasoning away. It's eye-opening

If the officer, with all those resources, needs all that gear AND still carries a handgun, then why should the rest of us feel that a taser will handle any issue?

Good solid reasoning and you're open to acknowledge the weak points of your argument. I like it, I shall enjoy parrying ideas with you.

One could say that Police Officers have guns because the criminals do and in a gun versus taser scenario the taser comes up short in several aspects. But if guns were made to be prohibitively hard to obtain or use than (which could be done fairly easily) then their significance in crime would drop to nearly nil. Thus, there would be no need for civilians to carry them. Also, there are drawbacks to guns as well.

Not all tasers have multi-shot capability. Not all tasers will penetrate heavy clothing. The dart type tasers need two good dart points of contact in order to cycle current through the body. Tasers are not non-lethal, either, as they have been known to kill people with heart conditions, cocaine or PCP users, and those in generally poor health at an alarming rate (at least, at an alarming rate for what was supposed to have been a "non-lethal" weapon).

Some guns also do not have much capacity, not all calibers will penetrate heavy clothing effectively. A rather small bullet needs to hit some rather small area(s) in order to ensure a "stop." People on drugs or with mental problems will be more likely to respond to a taser than pain caused by gunshot wounds, etc.

And while non-lethal weapons can cause death, you have to admit that it is the exception, not the norm. I think you will agree that your chances of surviving being "tasered" is so much infinitely greater than surviving being shot, that the comparison doesn't warrant discussion.

As far as states banning forms of non-lethal self defense, I'm aware of it, and I think it's the height of ignorance and silliness.

On the Constitutional Rights issue, how strong do you think the First Amendment would remain, if the people allowed their teeth (the Second Amendment) to be pulled? Quite frankly, I WANT the US government to feel at least some trepidation when it considers passing some particularly onerous piece of legislation.

On the matter of civil unrest, either a) the military does not support the government, in which case gun ownership is a mute point, or b) the military fully or partially supports the government, in which case you will be branded a terrorist and you are a mute point.

Without meaning to sound harsh, who are you to tell me what I need for defense of myself or my family? Are you going to race to our side should an attacker appear? Would you like me to decide what items in your life you really need?

I'm not, in fact I don't think it's the government's place to tell anyone what they need or want. But they can and do tell you what you can't have. I might think I need to snort cocaine, but the DEA will tell me otherwise. The government, whether we like it or not, is now in the business of public safety. They tell us what to buy in the form of regulating companies. The FDA and other departments tells us what drugs we can buy, what safety features we need to have on our cars, what kind of light bulbs we use, etc., etc..