So, you respond to a call to emotions by saying "It's not that big of a problem" without providing _any_ data? Yes, he said almost literally, "Think of the children", but there is no statistical evidence on either side. I imagine there isn't much data on this, because gambling establishments wouldn't tout "We've ruined X people" (bad for business) and the causes behind someone's downfall are usually more complicated.

If we did have some statistics, though, then maybe we would see that ShadowRangerRIT is not simply pulling our heartstrings, but pointing out a serious issue: the negative effect that gambling has on children of gamblers.

Of course, a counter argument could be along the lines of "alcohol is legal but we have alcoholics" (but not "that's an appeal to emotion, but here's _no_ facts to back my claim up")

Returning to ShadowRanger's point, there are more losers than winners in gambling. In house games, the odds are stacked in favor of the house (so they can stay in business). Otherwise, money goes straight from one player to another. It's a zero-sum game, unless the losers go to the bank to get more money. So, when we think of gambling, we associate it with winning lots of money (as the casinos want us to think) but with some proportion of winners and losers, as it really is.

I don't buy the 'busy kids don't have time to misbehave' argument. Plenty of my friends had completely full schedules in elementary and middle schools (sports, activities, church, etc) and by the time we reached high school, they were tired of it, and dropped out of everything. Anyways, this is only anecdotal evidence, which I believe is good enough to disprove your point, but I can't really say what the solution is, except good parenting, which I was fortunate enough to have.

What's to prevent someone using the wrong setting? A dialog box?

But seriously, I don't see how this would help with crowd control. Even on stun, the crowd will hear gun fire, and see guns, and conclude that lethal force is being used and panic or (worse) fight back.

And in what situation would you want to switch rapidly between lethal and non-lethal? I can see that putting down one weapon and picking up another can be problematic, and forces law enforcers to carry lots of equipment, but why not focus on creating lightweight weapons that do the same damage instead?

Add that to the concerns about overuse, and what happens if these get into the hands of those without training, and I don't think we have a viable solution.