Happens from time to time here in WA also. Most don't care or notice and those that do I have not 1 iota of concern about. I just can't get it to even register on my give-a-crap meter.
There is less likelihood of that than me being hit by lightning. And there is a much better chance of me being hit by a car. And you think I'm so pathetic I would "scream for someone to save me"? Really? But go ahead and keep screaming the sky is falling chicken little......... My thoughts are "suspect and dangerous?" What incredible paranoia... You and I clearly have different views of the society in which we live (Oh.. and I'm also not a lap dog for Glen Beck) seek help my son...quickly.....
Well...the idiot put himself in that situation.... - - - Updated - - - That tired old dog whistle... really? Nice car...what's it got in it?
Note: police carry both. If non-lethal methods were sufficient, police would have no need for guns. Also, there is a difference between civilians and police. The policemen are often needed to quell situations for third parties--it's their job. Citizens should not be using non-lethal force on parties that aren't directly effecting them. Lethal force is a different matter.
Basically, it's a matter of need. If I ever need to use any sort of weapon on a person, I will use lethal force. Any situation that doesn't require lethal force, I will back out of. The only time I would use a non-lethal alternative is if I couldn't legally have a gun. At one time in my life (when I was a high school teacher in a gang-ridden school), I had a can of pepper spray in my car in easy reach. Why? Well, I wasn't legally allowed to have a gun on campus, and the gangs in my school's neighborhood had an initiation that involved doing a violent crime on a white man (which is what I am). The pepper spray was the only alternative I was allowed. That said, I would never use that for home defense, or in a situation I was allowed to have a gun. - - - Updated - - - Cops always have a gun to back up non-lethal alternatives.
LOL @ comparing carrying a gun to having accidental insurance. A more apt comparison would be to say I don't carry a gun (even though I am fully authorized to , even on a plane btw) to saying I also don't have armed guards around my house. I have life insurance on myself in case something happens, just the same as I have insurance on my home just in case something happens. You guys are amazing.
Thanks for the explanation. Personally, I would have to disagree with the idea that if force is necessary, then lethal force is necessary. In the case of Zimmerman, for example, lethal force was not necessary. That said, it was legal. I don't think that Zimmerman wanted to kill TM. I think it was his only option at that point. I also assume, that MOST people, when given the option, would prefer not to use lethal force. Those that disagree, probably have never had to use it. Ask Zimmerman today, and I think that he would agree that if he possessed a taser, he would have preferred to use that over a gun. I also believe, that concealed carry permits are not a 2nd amendment right. It is a privilege... sure, and one that should be attainable in most states and areas, but it is not a right. You said it yourself perfectly, cops also have a gun as backup. As trained professionals who put themselves in harms way on a daily basis, they even agree that not all forceful situations should be met with lethal force. IMO, a non lethal deterrent should be required when carrying a firearm because it gives you an option before requiring lethal force. It would also help to protect self-defense cases, because it helps your case that lethal force was required in a situation. Zimmerman's story, for example, would be a lot less questionable if he had another option, and then described why he had to use the gun instead. It simplifies a lot of legality, which in turn, would help to make the justice system cheaper and more efficient. In your example, a man that you know you can't fight punches you in the face deserves to die... rather than be detained without lethal force?
http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/ So sad. No coverage. A man goes outside because he thinks three white teens are going to break into his car... shoots one who was "lunging" at him. Is only charged with manslaughter... and gets away with it. Where is the outrage?
Jury nullification!!! I think I'll go riot (eg. steal and or damage private property) in solidarity. sarcasm off.
Pepper spray and tasers are offensive compliance weapons, law enforcement uses them to get someone to do what they want, using them for self defense might not work depending on how determined the attacker is to hurt you.
People who carry pepper spray or tazers would get too stuck on the idea that they are "non-lethal" and would be too inclined to use them unlawfully just because somebody made them uncomfortable. They can, of course, be quite deadly if used wrong or if the person on whom they are used has certain health issues.
I think this is a good question. 9 times out of 10 when you feel the need for protection, a non-lethal solution works fine. In fact, it is best. I've been around for 50 years and haven't found the need to carry a lethal weapon in my personal life. Having the pepper spray has sure come in handy for me, and I didn't have to worry about my kids getting ahold of a gun and shooting themselves . I fear that people will be more apt to shoot and ask questions now that Zimmerman was able to walk. Personally, I think it should be required for a person with a carry permit to have to also carry a non-lethal solution.
We thought about it. It still as bat (*)(*)(*)(*) crazy as the first day you came up with it. Even more so now.
Another question would be, why do conservatives need weapons in their avatars? They wouldn't be happy with Sigmund Freud's diagnosis!
Walk into any emergency room and inquire as to the number of patients being treated for injuries due to crime and conversely lightning strikes. Your statistical rational is extremely flawed.
