And I say there is no gravity, only an infinite number of microscopic unicorns that pull everything together so they can play with you.

Really cool :) I want video. And also a wireless version of this, because it won't really take off as long as the patients need to have that huge box and cord sticking out of their heads.

Little-known fact: saying something is a "fact" doesn't make it so, and what you said is not true in the least.

Oh, I completely understand. I know how strong survival instincts are. But at the same time, you can't fire a gun that you don't have. That's my point—you may not be able to easily fight your instincts, but you can make sure you don't have the tools around for your instincts to kill if they don't need to.

The idea that you didn't feel all that threatened would fall flat the moment you show that the Taser is the only weapon you own. You can't use a gun if you don't have one. Now, if you use a Taser with a gun sitting in your nightstand, then that method of inquiry might hold some water.

Wow. Thank you for that eye bleach—it works well :) .

Taser: 35 ft and can be reloaded. Shock rounds can be loaded like bullets, even, and have comparable range to bullets.

Yes, it is much harder. It's easier to get a gun than it is to be properly trained in using one (either that or a lot of people just don't bother with the training). Chances are that's true of any weapon. So one which is more likely to kill if not used with expert skill should be a lower preference than one which is…

At 76% effectiveness, it's definitely worth having around.

I didn't ignore it, I missed it. Still, injuries to the point of needing emergency services are a small step below death. A step nonetheless, so thank you for pointing out that I missed it.

No, he doesn't deserve to die. And yes, I'd trust a 76% effective Taser because numbers don't lie. The choice is an effective nonlethal weapons or a very slightly more effective weapon that kills. I'll take the option where no one dies, thank you.

If he's already shot? There is no way to defend yourself. You're already dead, too late. Unless you're wearing a bulletproof vest, of course. But even if you were holding a gun, you'd still be dead unless you can manage to shoot his bullet out of the air before it reaches you...good luck with that.

Tasers are 76% effective. Nothing is 100% effective, so there's a less than 24% difference between them. Considering that difference is obtained at the cost of being deadly to others, I'd say it's not worth it. You can believe that your life is more important than a robber's. That's fine. It makes you a terrible human…

Mmmhmm. I rely only on the cops. It's not like I've said anything about Tasers, stun guns, pepper spray, or any other form of defense here. If I don't like guns, obviously I would never protect myself or my loved ones in any way, because guns are the only way to do that.

Actually, when police use Tasers, it prevents 76% of officer injuries (source: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/09/06/a-new-life-for-taser-this-time-with-less-controversy/ ). Considering nothing, not even guns, are 100%, 75% is a very high effectiveness. So guns may provide more protection, but not "far more", and the…

I don't presume to know what you are thinking. I only know the reasons gun owners have told me directly why they have guns, and those are what I'm protesting. I'm not assuming anything. If you have a reason to own guns other than so-called protection, practice for such a thing (i.e. the range), or hunting, let me…

How eloquent and full of sources and research. Bravo, sir.

And how will a gun protect you from a bomb, exactly? That's just a straw man argument.

Actually, I have done my research. You clearly have not.

Wow. It's amazing how you know so much about me, including things that I didn't say because they aren't true. I would NOT kill to protect my own life—at least not intentionally. I would do everything in my power to defend myself without taking another life in my place. Everyone's life is equal—if I die or if a thief…