One of the characters in Adam Sandler's funniest movie, Happy Gilmore, wore a t-shirt towards the end that stated a popular position on gun control.

The basic gist of things was that it was not guns that kill people but him (or people) that do.

Proponents of gun control are quick to say that we need to protect people from themselves than and just take the guns out of their hands.

Opponents to gun control are quick to claim the right to bear arms and to be able to defend oneself if necessary.

A logical compromise to this conflict would be to allow for widespread access to non lethal forms such as a stun gun for self defense.

Most states and municipalities do allow for stun guns to be possessed and used to a certain extent.

However, there are eight states- Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin- that consider stun guns illegal.

Interestingly enough, while thee states have outlawed a non-lethal form of self defense they have few restrictions on the types of guns that do kill.

This makes no sense; why stop people from trying to neutralize people and still allow them to potentially kill people?

The District of Columbia also bans the use and possession of stun guns, and has even tried to all but ban firearms in general.

That controversy culminated in a landmark Supreme Court decision in 2008 that for the first time recognized the right of the people to bear arms not when in the interest or act of forming a state militia.

So while people could bear arms now; they were still not able to use a stun gun for self defense.

If the lawmakers in favor of gun control really wanted to protect the people they would be pushing legislation everywhere to allow for the possession of stun guns.

USING A STUN GUN FOR SELF DEFENSE

ILLINOIS

It would stand to reason that stun guns would have looser restriction than handguns since they are less likely to kill people.

However, as previously stated there are eight state that consider them illegal.

Illinois at least approaches the possession of a stun gun on equal footing as a firearm, requiring owners to apply for a license for them just like they would a handgun.

PROTECTION

People just want to feel safe; it is not within most of us to be able to point a gun at someone let alone pull the trigger.

Whether it is a revolver, rifle, or stun gun for self defense people just want to feel protected.

Police and gun control advocates are quick to say run or call the police; where is the sense of safety in that?