Hi Joe,
You make all good points, and I agree.
I live in AZ, which looks very favorably upon the rights of citizens to bear and use arms for self-defense.
In many places, if one does shoot or kill anyone, even when in a life or death situation, the legal costs and problems can just be horrific. We have all heard the wacky cases.
I have always said that for the "average person" (none of whom are here at TBN /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif) they are probably better off without a gun --- UNLESS they are truly trained and REGULARLY go to the range (like every couple of weeks, at least).
Those who have have law enforcement or military backgrounds are in a different category, to my mind. They probably can handle weapons well. But many average people with no prior experience with handguns, they COULD NOT hit a 4 X 4 piece of plywood at 20 feet with a .45.
In our family, among other things, we carry Surefire E2 flashlights in the side panel of every car. That is a VERY effective tool to lift and flash the light at somebody, and get enough time to GET AWAY.
I am not especially interested in shooting or killing anybody: I ONLY want to remove myself or loved ones from the danger if at all possible. I'll get way and call the cops. They are infinitely better at shootouts with armed criminals than I ever will be.
I would like to get my hands on one of the actual Taser guns. If I am confronted with anything less than deadly force, I probably can get the job done with a stun device. But you're right, if I have both lethal and non-lethal, well, maybe better off to just shoot. But, that has many considerations as well, the first being, will I hit the attacker? Not a sure thing by any means.
I don't think the Rodney King officers were using the Taser device, but other stun guns. There is a difference.