@article{ref1,
title="A right to bear firearms but not to use them? defensive force rules and the increasing effectiveness of non-lethal weapons",
journal="Boston University law review",
year="2009",
author="Robinson, Paul H.",
volume="89",
number="1",
pages="251-264",
abstract="Under existing American law, advances in the effectiveness and   availability of non-lethal weapons may increasingly undermine a right to   use a firearm for defense because the choice to use a firearm for   protection is increasingly a choice to use more force than is necessary.   Ironically, the greatest practical effect of the Supreme Courts   interpretation of the Second Amendment in District of Columbia v. Heller   may be to invalidate statutes that limit the use of non-lethal weapons   and, thereby, to ultimately undermine the right of firearm use.   While some might worry one's right to use defensive force is being   eroded by these developments, the real concern may be the reverse: the   technical advances combined with current law may promote a culture of   non-lethal weapon &quot;cowboys,&quot; in which non-lethal force is authorized in   situations where no force would be used today.<p />",
language="",
issn="0006-8047",
doi="",
url="http://dx.doi.org/"
}