Dear Is Mise,

Please tell me why you think a walking stick or an umbrella would have anywhere close to the incapacitating capabilities of a stun gun for an average person.

And here is a question for you. If there were more rapes conducted through the use of stun guns than those prevented would you change your mind about banning them?

Steele,

A walking stick and a man's umbrella are deadly weapons that can be used both for attack and defence, the umbrella is probably the better of the two as it will stop a sabre cut or more to the point, in today's world, a machete.
The walking stick is more handy for the parry or the counter stroke but the umbrella because of its slender foot is better for the thrust, particularly to the throat.
The "butt stroke" with a curved handle walking stick can easily dislocate or break the lower jaw.

As to your second question, No.
If the number of rapes exceeded the defensive use that would not be a reflection of the number deterred by the legality of the items.
Personally, I think that a pistol is far more effective a deterrent than a stun gun and does not need such proximity.

Is Mise, thank you.
I've been waiting for the right moment to jump in.
Read all the posts and as usual they cover a fair width of thoughts and ideas.
As I see it, the question of having the right to protect ourselves, is more than a right.
It's a given.
On what planet or universe does one come from to simply be OK with being attacked.
Being that I'm starting to call myself an 'oldie' these days, and as someone who feels like he's 100 years old, and looks it, I have always wrestled with this very topic.
I concluded that, anyone of a lesser physicality and agility like myself, does not/cannot/must not, get withing arms length of an attacker.
Thereby, I resolved, that as I am physically inept at any form of defense, I would need some form of 'eqauliser'. So if I am not to get within arms length of this miscreant, what options do I have?
They are;
Taser, cordless nail gun, spear gun and of course the good ol'e 'gun', obviously hand gun, easier to conceal.
Now let's have a look at these choices.
Taser, no problems here, probably at the top of the list.
Doesn't kill, although I believe it does, if the 'perp' has some underlying condition rendering him dead if tasered.
Cordless nail gun, hmmm, bit obvious maybe? So no not unless your being attacked while mending your wooden fence.
Spear gun, hmmm still even more obvious, unless you are standing very close to a body of water at the time, you might have trouble.
So no.
Now the one I like is the hand gun.
Easily concealed.
I am too old to fight, I'm too stubborn to just 'give them what they want'.
So as far as I am concerned, given the benefit of distance I can take it out, point it at him and then decide what to do.
My preferred option is to shoot him in the leg, thereby rendering him unable to run/walk off, let the law deal with him.

"Closing the gap"is best achieved by those who consider themselves disadvantaged by a gap, not by do-gooders mounting a gap industry. Best thing people not disadvantaged by a gap is lend a hand to those seeking to rise above the gap by their individual effort.

EJ, I love your candor.
The sad part is that these days people would rather take out their phones and film an attack, rather than try to stop it.
To be fair, I don't blame them.
Because today's miscreants are of a much more unpredictable and aggressive nature than in the past, you don't know what your getting yourself into.
Possibly death.
So it is that it takes a special kind of person to throw caution to the wind and risk his life for another.
I would be the first to dissuade someone to do so and encourage them to stand clear for fear I might end up with his life on my conscience.
The problem with a majority of these low lives we speak of, is that they are fearless.
As I have explained in the past there is only one course of action which will suffice.
The only deterant; DEATH.
Because sadly if he lives to be incarcerated or punished in any way, you are then in danger because at the very least he will keep on making your life a living hell, until, God forbid he eventually gets you.
More so as a show of power, in saying 'I'm in charge here, how dare you think your better than me'.
Over the years there have been stories reported of older couples bailed up in their bedroom, with the door locked and the old man holding a shotgun, whilst standing behind the locked door telling them to leave as he had a shotgun and would use it if he came any closer.
They kept attacking the door.
As the door began to give, the old man let fly a round.
I'm not sure but he definitely killed one of them.
It might have been both of them or the other got away.
I'm not sure.
The moron cops charged him with some shitey charge.
There was one hell of an outcry here, even I, who want nothing to do with stupid rallies was prepared to go to this one.
Suddenly, all charges were dropped.

There are actually pros and cons to this whole situation of self-defense scenarios which we can apply to our daily situations. Some would favor the idea but others oppose it simply because they are too afraid should the defense mechanisms fall into the wrong hands. It is true that some people could be taking advantage of the idea and misuse the self-defense prerogative during incidences that are not even near critical. Perhaps the percentage of non-threatening situations exceeds the latter and that is why majority of people feel there isn't a need for us to carry around weapons of self-defense.