I’ve personally always thought that they are a viable option. There are times when protection is needed other than deadly force, having another option is always a good thing.
I’ve been approached in the past by inebriated folks, they’re boisterous, unpredictable and present a threat, however in these situations I would not want to use deadly force if the situation turned nasty.
I ride an unusual motorbike which some times attracts unwanted attention, I walk most nights down an unlit bike path, with darker nights on there way by the time I reach the parking lot after my round trip it’s pitch black. You meet all sorts on that path from animals to two legged folks that you are a little leery of. Again having some thing a little stronger than pepper spray but not deadly in my mind is safer for everyone. My wife is not anti firearm but would never carry one, she would carry a less deadly option such as a stun gun. I would like to keep my options open, appraise the situation and decide if I need t use delay force or a simple shock and awe approach.
If I had a choice between a close up stun gun or a stun gun/taser combination that shoots out at a distance and works close up if need, I would prefer the latter.
just my 2 cents, not worth as much as it used to.
harry