Using your circular logic, you could arrive at that. However, I see it as they protect you in both cases. Are you really stating that you would rather have no weapon at all during an attack than to have a stun gun where you knew you could disable the attacker without permanently harming him?



>>SNIP
>>
>>>It's the inablity to get a decent hight's sleep with tha hard lump under the pillow that's done it! :-) Anyway, why've you kept a piece under the pillow? It's not exactly Dodge City or a gold mining settlement where you live!
>>
>>It was never here in the U.S. but while assigned overseas in various locations...
>>
>>
>>>The point you have not addressed is what's good for the goose is good for the gander. i.e. if all hands can get hold of stun guns or tasers then they can be just as easily used by the bad guys as the good. e.g. someone breaks into your house and stuns you in bed while they steal all your jewels from under your nose, or even worse ... e.g. at the ATM they don't bother telling you they have a gun or knife but just drop you and take your cash, etc. etc.
>>
>>But if a burglar uses a stun gun on you and steals all your stuff, you will at least be alive in the morning rather than dead from a gunshot wound.
>
>So stun guns are a good thing, not because they protect you, but because they provide a less lethal weapon for the felon?
>
>Bit of a means to an end then.