|
It depends on what we mean by "most situations". If by "most situations", we mean typical confrontations or arguments, then it's safe to say that most situations can be and should be resolved by a cool head, common sense and some very basic people skills. Even stuff like tasers and pepper spray won't be required to resolve most situations like that.
If by "most situations" we mean "armed confrontations with violent criminals" then non-lethal means are absolutely a very poor choice.
Ok, all that aside, here's a fact about armed self-defense that we often forget. Most self-defense scenarios where the defender has a firearm don't involve the attacker being shot, or even shot at. The deterrent value of a firearm is, far more often than not, enough to end the confrontation without bloodshed--typically without a shot being fired.
The point is that the threat of deadly force offers deterrent value that is unmatched by any non-lethal/less-lethal options.
Without trying to construct careful arguments or spending a lot of time researching the issue, it seems reasonable to assume that in most self-defense scenarios the threat of deadly force will be much more effective in ending a situation than any non-lethal/less-lethal option.
For what it's worth, in Texas, the display of a firearm to create the apprehension that it might be used if necessary is legal when force is legal to use. One does not need to meet the criteria for the legal use of deadly force in order to display a firearm--as long as force alone (as opposed to deadly force) is justified then displaying a firearm is also justified.
I have not researched other state laws, but I imagine that many of them have laws that are roughly similar in that respect.
What I'm getting around to is that a firearm (when displayed as opposed to being fired) may be the idea "non-lethal" method for deterring attack. It also has the considerable benefit of enabling the user to immediately switch to the use of deadly force if required.
|