3 ms·

My main problem with this is.. why "armed" have to equal "lethal firearms"? Why no more R&D into nonlethal options (something like an improved taser?). I don't

My main problem with this is.. why "armed" have to equal "lethal firearms"? Why no more R&D into nonlethal options (something like an improved taser?). I don't want to own a gun, because a gun is not effective unless you're willing to use it (in a last resort), and i don't want to do that... I want to own a Taser though (for self-defense).

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
In the American Constitutional case, 'arms' meant firearms. In some newly constituted society you could make a different rule I suppose. And of course nothing keeps you from carrying a taser now.
- giaour 11y ago
  There are generally much stricter regulations on non-lethal weapons than there are on guns, so the OP might have to be careful in his choice of taser (depending on where he lives). I grew up in Texas and was always surprised by how cautious I needed to be with my boy scout issued knife -- carrying it in Houston would have been a felony, but carrying a glock was permitted everywhere. I remember my mom having to carry a can of bear repellant instead of mace for the same reason.
- GFischer 11y ago
  I don't live in the U.S., but you're right that it's defined that way in the American Constitution, and as giaour answers, non-lethal weapons are more strictly controlled. The main thing preventing me from carrying a taser now is price :) (they're really expensive in my country, the cheapest one, C2, costs 950 dollars - http://www.silvercat.com.uy/pistolaselecc2.html http://www.silvercat.com.uy/pistolaselecc2.html)
hga 11y ago
It's a really hard problem, and even current Tasers are only "less lethal" like every other vaguely effective alternative I'm aware of. So, yeah, there's R&D, but sometimes nature just isn't cooperative. I'll note that in the up to 2.5 million times a year a gun is used in the US for self-defense (as of some years ago), more than 90% of the time it isn't fired (or hits, but I think it was fired), but the user indeed needs to be willing to fire it if the simple threat of lethal force is not sufficient.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago

In the American Constitutional case, 'arms' meant firearms. In some newly constituted society you could make a different rule I suppose. And of course nothing keeps you from carrying a taser now.

giaour 11y ago
There are generally much stricter regulations on non-lethal weapons than there are on guns, so the OP might have to be careful in his choice of taser (depending on where he lives). I grew up in Texas and was always surprised by how cautious I needed to be with my boy scout issued knife -- carrying it in Houston would have been a felony, but carrying a glock was permitted everywhere. I remember my mom having to carry a can of bear repellant instead of mace for the same reason.
GFischer 11y ago
I don't live in the U.S., but you're right that it's defined that way in the American Constitution, and as giaour answers, non-lethal weapons are more strictly controlled. The main thing preventing me from carrying a taser now is price :) (they're really expensive in my country, the cheapest one, C2, costs 950 dollars - http://www.silvercat.com.uy/pistolaselecc2.html http://www.silvercat.com.uy/pistolaselecc2.html)

hga 11y ago

It's a really hard problem, and even current Tasers are only "less lethal" like every other vaguely effective alternative I'm aware of. So, yeah, there's R&D, but sometimes nature just isn't cooperative. I'll note that in the up to 2.5 million times a year a gun is used in the US for self-defense (as of some years ago), more than 90% of the time it isn't fired (or hits, but I think it was fired), but the user indeed needs to be willing to fire it if the simple threat of lethal force is not sufficient.