are you actually saying that tasers are more dangerous than handguns? That can only be legitimate if you use the argument that people misuse them more because of their feeling of security in the limited lethality of them. I disagree with this argument, because I'm sure the statistics would back up the claim that more people have been killed by handgun shots than tasers, taking the proportions of shootings and tasings into consideration.
Not to mention the low lethality of tasers for most people and the relative safety of using them. The difference between the taser and the handgun is in reasonableness, which may for the most part come from a subjective decision as I said earlier.
As for the ineffectiveness of a taser on a determined attacker, I argue that a certain level of personal security must be sacrificed for the general safety of a society. As follows with the military hardware being an advantage against a group home invasion, the relative danger outweigs the allowance for personal safety.
Sacrificing personal security for society is the beginning of tyranny.
Your argument on number of incidents wouldn't work either because of the availability of both, but I have seen tasers misused in my life time. I've seen people taser each other out of boredom. They give a false feeling of non lethality and therefore are dangerous.
Why should we have to give up a handgun simply because an attacker would be killed?
The main issue in the United States is the Bill of Rights. It guarantees our right to arms. I say a people's right to overthrow their government is more important than lives lost due to misuse. Yes the relative danger of our government outweighs the rights of people who are scared of criminals.
While we have a government that declares police are not there to protect us, we should have the capability to protect ourselves. (A taser is a less reliable weapon, batteries will lose charge while sitting in your drawer, bullets thankfully will fire for years)
Poll