First of all, stop using ad hominem. It's not valid, and your reliance on it makes me think that even you know you're not making sense. I personally don't have defensive methods. That doesn't suddenly change the validity of nonlethal weapons, and it doesn't make lethal weapons somehow better just because I have…

Once again...it's not the end result that's the problem (most of the time), it's the method. "...the main purpose of a firearm is to deter violence..." Your own words. How does a firearm deter violence without being used as weapon?

Burglars aren't often wearing both a face mask and a thick, Taser-proof sweater. And if they are, I'd be willing to bet they'd have a bulletproof vest as well (and I'd be worried about what his motives are if he's that prepared). Which makes guns as useless as the other methods in a contrived situation like that.

No, it's not. How else can you use a gun in self-defense besides as a weapon (or as the threat of a weapon, which is only threatening if you're willing to use it as a weapon)?

It didn't work. It only works if, as you admitted (and I'd like to quote your words on this), "If they choose to fuck with me, then the gun serves as a threat because i WILL shoot". So it only works if you're willing to kill or maim someone. That's not something that should be encouraged. Stopping violence with the…

I did put out my sources; check the adjacent thread reply. There are deaths from nonlethal alternatives, and I never claimed there weren't. However, those deaths are a lot less than gun-induced deaths. Not to mention the main purpose of a gun (when used in so-called "self defense" at least, if you're going to be…

In the military, targeting mines, pirate crafts, etc. is possibly legitimate. But in civilian use? Not at all. What civilian needs a gun to explode ordnance? As for practice—practicing what? Aim for when you need to shoot either said irrelevant ordnance or a person.

For me, call the cops. It's all I really can do, isn't it? However, if I had a Taser, pepper spray, stun gun, etc., I'd use those. I don't know if you've ever been Tasered, but that's far from "laying down and taking it like a $2 whore". It's also nonlethal, with a very, very small chance of killing the guy.

Mutually Assured Destruction on any scale is just plain stupid. If you don't plan on using the weapon, then it's not a threat. If you do plan on using it, then it's more than just a threat, it's a lethal weapon.

Not sure how well this link will translate, but I'll try to post it:…

I have zero defensive methods in my house. I also don't have a gun. What I have or don't have is irrelevant; the point is they're available, defensive, and nonlethal. If it makes any difference to you, my father owns a Taser as well as a stun gun and pepper spray.

That's a really interesting hypothesis! :D Perhaps you should propose that to an evolutionary psychologist? It would be really cool if something came of it and I can say, "Hey, it's that thing from that guy on the tech site!" :P

You're ex-military. So if I ask you what you used those guns for in the military, can you honestly say it wasn't used to hurt or kill other people (even in self-defense)?

I didn't make any generalizations. I acknowledged the tiny percentage that use guns for sport. The fact that most people use it as a weapon is not a generalization, it's just a statistical fact. Likewise, the idea that guns are created, and have always been created, as a tool of injury and death is not imaginary, it's…

I still wouldn't consider it justified, to be honest. Especially when several nonlethal defense alternatives exist.

What in God's name are you talking about? This is not Suboxone, it's Naloxone (it doesn't have the 80% buprenorphine that Suboxone does). I also never said that inhibition of receptors always cures addiction. When did I? I simply said that it blocks the receptors that cause addiction, thus inhibiting the addiction…

I never said anyone would buy an AK for hunting. I said "gun owners"—owners of any gun. I didn't forget about those who shot for freedom. I simply believe that "offense is the best defense" is a terrible, terrible motto, and in modern day there are plenty of effective nonlethal alternatives for defense.

Um, no, not necessarily. Blocking the receptors doesn't mean you'll be addicted to the chemical that does that. In fact, it's less likely to be addicted to a dopamine-receptor antagonist than to another chemical which would increase the dopamine flow.

Need shotguns, not rifles. Rifles wouldn't do shit against a zombie.

To the very first sentence: not true. It doesn't have to be premeditated to be murder. Third-degree murder (a.k.a. manslaughter) is still murder.