Love a man. That can detect rationality

@Fernapple Then TAZERS need developing to be more like the zappers on Star Wars. Not beyond our wit. Good training for all citizens is key to all our problems. Voluntary of course.

@Mcflewster They tried to make them weaker in Britain, but that just meant that they no longer worked on determined criminals.

Because people are so variable, medical science long ago proved that no matter what the device, poison, radiation dose, infection, or impact, you need to make it at least strong enough to kill fifty percent of people, called the fatal dose technically, ( The fatal dose term medically means that which kills fifty percent, not a hundred. ) before the last person in the hundred will notice any effect at all. While if you make it so weak that it only kills one percent, then a large number will just brush it off. I am sorry to say that safe zappers, are likely to remain forever a sci-fi fantasy.

So nothing is better than something. Do you really suppose that the average shooter is the hardened criminal...or like a combat trained person will ignore the pain and discomfort???

@HankSherman No, Mcflewster was talking about people who would carry tazzers to defend themselves, not getting criminals to use them. I said that that would probably just cause a lot of accidental deaths, since most gun deaths are actually accidental, and if people think that tazzers are less harmful than guns, which they are, they may be inclined to use them more, and the more frequent use will cancel out the less harmful effects. The big danger in tazzers is that they are wrongly perceived as not dangerous.

A shop keeper for example who saw a kid steeling candy, would almost certainly not reach for a gun and shoot, but they would perhaps use a tazzer if they believed the myth that they do no real harm.

@Fernapple You make good points as always. Have you thought of aiming it at.a particular point of the body as a weak dose, police would wear cod piecees.This of course would be for men only. Not aiming yet for viability only radicality

@Mcflewster Now that is a sharp point, or three round soft ones.

Never mind