Those posts are not germane to my statements.
Since my argument is true, any "stupidity" you find must be in the law; and I'm sure we'll find plenty of stupidity in the law.
I never claimed otherwise. You wasted your time typing this.
No, it doesn't. You're free to use a less than lethal weapon to counter lethal force against you.
It's stupid and it's also true. The prosecutor just needs to show that your actions were some shade less than perfect. You don't need to be guilty of unlawful use to be found guilty of a lesser crime and, at the very least, be found civilly liable. We live in a world where you could be convicted simply for using a single-action trigger. Your use of a firearm could in all ways be legal, but you can still be found guilty of a lesser crime simply for using the single-action function of a pistol or an SAO trigger. Yes, it's stupid, but my reporting it to you does not make my arguments stupid, it makes the law stupid.
If you draw a taser, you draw a less-than-lethal weapon. If you draw an firearm, you draw a lethal weapon even if it's loaded with less-than-lethal ammunition. A firearm is always a lethal weapon in the eyes of the law. Your choice of ammunition does not change a firearm's legal definition.
Even if the firearm is empty and you know it's unloaded, the firearm is still a deadly weapon in the eyes of the law, and you pointing an unloaded firearm at someone is still use of lethal force in the eyes of the law.