Yes, because I always carry a gun with me to the movie theater just in case someone else starts shooting at me.
Lol, I wasn't even thinking about that.
Why not have a weapon that doesn't kill, but merely incapacitates? Granted, a gun can be used in such a way that it only inflicts a light wound, but under pressure people don't tend to think about aiming for the foot or arm.
Having guns be legal - and available to everyone - makes it seem like a permit to kill. Yet no one has the right to take another's life.
Of course, in last resort situations, you could kill to save your own life (morally discussable) or the life of another. But if, at the crucial moment, you didn't have a gun but a non-lethal weapon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-lethal_weapon), a life could be saved and your conscience clear (killing another human being has psychological impacts not to be brushed aside).
many people carry non lethal weapons as well as lethal weapons. but the truth of the matter is that non lethal weapons are far less effective than lethal weapons. when it comes to self defense it's all about stopping the attacker and non lethal weapons have proved in many cases to not work. no weapon is full proof and when it comes to a life or death situation I would much rather have a weapon that is almost sure to stop the attacker rather than one that probably will.
I don't think anyone says this.
There was just a post of this on the homepage.