'But it's better than a gun' - another angle

It's well past time to address the other aspect of this 'better than a gun' argument. (As opposed to my first reaction that tasers are used about 100 times as often - roughly - as guns ever were.)

Sometimes this 'better than a gun' argument is used by reasonable but ill-informed people in response to a taser-associated death. Their point is something like: 'Although the taser might have caused this death, it's still better (safer) than a gun.' It's a nice argument and it's also correct (in a trivial manner).

But it misses the point, and it'll also bankrupt Taser if they ever admit to it.

The reason is that Taser has never clearly admitted ('warned') to any internal risk mechanism (such as lethal cardiac effects). They've made claims of safety that preclude any such internal mechanism of death.

In fact, this detail is the entire freaking point of the entire overall debate.

If Taser admits to, or is found liable for, any particular taser death due to an internal mechanism (such as direct or indirect cardiac effects), then they're screwed. They'll be successfully sued into the next galaxy multiple times. It'll be a feeding frenzy as the plaitiff lawyers race to beat the other to the meat before there's nothing left but bleached bones.

So if you're one of those people that simply feel that the taser is 'safer than a gun' (as opposed to Taser's position that the taser is "safer than Tylenol"), then please realize that it's not the point of the argument.