There are some places where the government has, for some reason, seen fit to ban pepper spray, mace, and/or stun guns. Why would they have any business doing so? We’re talking about things designed, marketed, and AFAIK used exclusively for personal protection. IMO, this is completely messed up. I can understand a desire to make society safer, but laws of this nature seem like they were meant to make society safer for muggers and rapists.
I’m not sure about stun guns, but I know mace and pepper spray can cause serious illness and even death for asthmatics and others. (yeah, I know that’s the least of your concerns in the area of self defense but…)
For the very good reason that criminals could just as easily pepper-spray their victims first or–as David Spade’s recent assault demonstrated–stun them.
Weapons are weapons. There are no “good” or “bad” ones. The govt. is concerned b/c pepper spray and stun guns–like big knives and firearms–give an extreme advantage to one person, enabling them to do a lot of damage to someone very easily.
As such, it’s good when your grandmother pepper-sprays a big, burly mugger in order to allow her to escape, but bad when a big, burly mugger pepper-sprays your grandmother in order to take her purse with less resistance.
Sorry–I should have quoted directly for clarity.
as far as you know…but the fact is that they, indeed, are NOT used exclusively for personal protection. Here in NYC, you have to register your name and address when you buy pepper spray–a wimpy, but similar, echo of gun registration.
Sorry–I should have quoted directly for clarity.
as far as you know…but the fact is that they, indeed, are NOT used exclusively for personal protection. Here in NYC, you have to register your name and address when you buy pepper spray–a wimpy, but similar, echo of gun registration.
“Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins.”
–Sammy “The Bull” Gravano, mafia member turned informant, in his Vanity Fair interview.
Okay, used primarily for personal protection.
Here’s something yuo should consider: Anyone who intends to take up mugging isn’t going to care what’s legal and what’s not, weapon-wise. If he can’t get his hands on mace, he’ll probably just use a gun, as many muggers already do. Guns are probably far more common on the black market than mace.
So what SHOULD innocent people use to protect themselves?
Or…
Should innocent people protect themselves?
There are no innocent people. There is no need for protection. We are all crooks and don’t deserve our freedoms.
C’mon. Didn’t you do 45 in a 35 recently? You’re a BAD man. Very bad man!
toadspittle wrote:
Pepper spray, for example, can add a spicy accent to an otherwise bland meal.
– tracer, avoiding the obvious mace-the-cooking-spice vs. mace-the-tear-gas comparisons.
[Homer Simpson]Mmmmmmm… Incapacitating![/Homer Simpson]
Actually, a mugger probably does care somewhat about the legality of what he is using. If he robs someone with a gun, the police are more likely to actually investigate somewhat, and if he is caught he will probably get a stiffer sentence.
Also, guns may be widely available on the black market, but in some areas pepper spray and stun guns can be bought at any pawn shop, and a lot cheaper than guns.
BTW, there was a case where a guy was prosecuted under Hate Crimes legislation for knocking on some guy’s door and pepper spraying him in the face, just because he had a Christian sign on his lawn. It was the first time a hate crime against a Christian was prosecuted that way.
There are many cases where the person who was attacked defended themselves and faced prosecution. I personally do not understand this at all…if you attack me and my wife, I should be able to make sure I am alive and you are not a threat. But, Land of the Lawsuit and all, you are now expected to be able to use your judgement and only respond with just the right amount of defence…Even though 2 seconds ago you were eating ice cream walking down the street thinking about the ball game, now you are being mugged and your mind should be clear enough to know that this is an underprivileged sole who is simply trying to put food into his children’s mouths…don’t hurt him, he’s a product of society. Grrrr…I would feel very comfortable living in a society where if you attacked me I could do whatever was necessary to defend myself. You don’t want to be shot? Don’t attack me.
Anywho. If you are interested in carrying a weapon around for self defense that is legal and won’t get you thrown in jail if you use it, buy an oak walking cane. There are courses that are offered all over the place that will teach you how to use one quickly and effectively. A few companies even make specialized fighting canes (www.canemasters.com) and offer videos, etc. A cane is probably the most effective weapon against knives and fists, and you won’t get questioned too much about having a cane. You know, that trick knee of yours and all.
Take care-
-T
Well, he’d care more about attracting attention. As you said, using a gun in a mugging would attract a lot of attention (after-the-fact, anyway). However, a gun WOULD be a lot more effective, so I guess it depends on the mugger’s preference.
(Now I’m having images of a mugger standing in front of this cabinet, looking at a number of weapons - guns, knives, mace, pepper spray, rubber chickens - and thinking to himself “Hmm, what will I use tonight?”)
However, given the notion that more and more people are using pepper spray/mace for illegal purposes, wouldn’t it make more sense to make sure that MORE innocent people have them?
“I’m sorry, the bad guys are more dangerous, so we have to make you less able to defend yourselves now.”
I’m missing the logic. Sure, people can accidently spray someone else with mace, but Holy Hell, people can also accidently have a virus in their body mutate into a super germ that kills all life on the planet. Isn’t there such a thing as “overrestriction”?
I’m not defending the banning of self-defense devices, I’m sorry if it may come across that way. I was just giving an explanation as to why a criminal may choose to use them. I personally think there should be no restrictions on personal weaponry, whatsoever.
BTW, is there any way you could get a license to carry a sword? Are there areas where that is legal?
Actually, that’d be pretty cool. I have a (mostly decorative) cutlass hanging on my wall, and I’d love to go out in public with that dangling from my belt.
Or, better yet, get a massive Celtic Broadsword strapped to my back. Just imagine some of the looks I get… 
Canes are legal to carry…what about a 6-foot bo staff? You know, you’re just using it as a “walking stick”…
Unless you were trained by a Jedi, I don’t think that sword will do you much good against a guy with a gun.
I think if there was no restrictions on carrying personal weaponry, we would be a lot more polite to each other. There would also be a lot fewer of us.
[python] how to defend against someone armed with raspberries! First, you release the Siberian tiger. THe advantage to the tiger is that he not only stops the raspberry fiend, but he also eats the raspberries![/python]
Kershaw has a great new knife out that has a “torsion bar” which allows a very quick openning. THe advantage overa switchblade is that the blade stays shaving sharp and is of good quality. It is illegal in NY though because it can be openned with one hand…unlike a dagger :rolleyes:
You need a license to carry a sword? crap.