There are a few issues I have with your methods. First and foremost, where are normal citizens going to buy flashbangs? Also, in a close quarters situation, flashbangs work both ways. In wide open spaces, flashbangs lose their effectiveness. I also assume that if you, as a regular citizen, deploy a flashbang, you will most likely end up in handcuffs. Flashbangs are categorized as a destructive device that is for Military and Police use only. Not only would you be subject local prosecution, you could possibly fall under federal jurisdiction. As far as "dislocating someone's arm (for minor agression)" as well as paralyzing someone, or even rendering them comatose, you are asking for a major lawsuit, that you most likely will lose. And, in the case of minor aggression, dislocating someone's arm will most likely get you locked up as well. Maiming someone with a firearm can also backfire as well. Your statements also assume that you will have the physical ability to do all of those things. Are you some sort of Ninja? Do you think that self-defense situations in real life are like those portrayed in movies? Tell me how much of that you will be able to accomplish if I sneak up behind you and hit you with a crowbar? How is a small women supposed to render a large attacker comatose? What if there are multiple attackers? I do not condone the immediate discharge of a firearm for all self-defense situations, although there are situations where that is necessary. There are many instances of self-defense with a firearm, where that weapon was not even fired. You see, most criminals do not want to deal with an armed victim. They would rather prey on the weak and defenseless. And honestly, the best self-defense method is not to place yourself in a situation in which you may need to defend yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0bd7TYGPac - better link to the video I posted above.

I would like you to keep that same mindset if you, or your family was ever placed in a life threatening situation. If a man was holding a knife to your child's throat, what non-lethal method of self-defense would you use to protect your child? How would your method prevent that man from practically decapitating your child? Would you rather, in this instance, put that man in a grave or bury your child? People face these types of situations. Did you see this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGXlHGWnZGQ ? Now, in this situation, if that man started attacking this child, how would that woman protect that child? You assume that all self-defense situations are equal.

The actual statistic that people state is that more people are killed by fists, hands feet, blunt objects, knives, etc. than by RIFLES. Also, when talking about people killed by firearms, you should separate out how many were justifiable homicides, suicides, accidents, and murder. These additional statistics matter.

You are ignoring the fact that gun violence rates have been decreasing over the past 20 years. You also seem to want to use the object as a cause of the violence rates. If guns were removed from our society, under the current conditions, I am sure you would find that the sword problem would be just as deadly. When societies have no respect for one another or even for life itself, then it does not matter what weapon is used. A person bent on death and destruction will find any means to fulfill their wishes. Instead of prosecuting the object, try to figure out the causes of the violence and a way to prevent it before it starts.