To the discussion of tasers/stun guns and peppersprays (I'm in _STRONG_ favour): I have this to relay.
Who has the lowest threshold for hurting people and committing crime?
Who has the least respect for both cranium and head/brain?
Who has the least respect for people in general?
Thus it should be clear who has the initiative to hit people on the basis of bare knuckles (by hands/bones). This hurts law-abiding citizens unreasonably hard and serves to incite "silent" anger/hate. It's also hurtful to live under a threat from people who are more willing to commit this kind of act, i.e., to crack the skulls of people, with no special regard for the human they destroy the life of.
The conclusion must be clear: tasers/stun guns and peppersprays must be allowed, and in the face of (vast/"vast") corruption within the Police forces, we have NO time to waste! Act now! To Europe!!! (And business...)
It may be an objection that people may have a lower threshold for stunning/incapacitating other people if these means become available, but I think the strength of this is lower than the strength of the following, that law-abiding citizens, people of primary priority, are better protected both in self-defence, but also in case they may feel threatened and want to do something about it, let's say in the face of absurd rudeness from a bigger "caveman", to "save the day of one's date/business" and so on. In this way, the law-abiding citizen is allowed a milder tool and a mechanism for escalation of conflict and injury if these are allowed, again, tasers/stun guns and peppersprays. I hope you get the importance of this!
You know, this is for the prevention of the escalation of conflict and for the prevention of injury, that is, beyond necessity of circumstances like injury from merely falling to the ground!