For a more surer and more smoother “get off with self-defense in a court of law” measure, wouldn’t you say just carrying a CO2 powered BB pistol is “the” smart man’s alternative to carrying a firearm or a tazer or a stun gun in 2014 and beyond?
I know for a fact that if you need to defend yourself, just aim for the face where the eyes are, if your weapon of choice for self-defense is a CO2 powered BB pistol.
You can avoid jumping through hoops when it comes to purchasing and owning a CO2 powered BB pistol. Why go through stress to own a firearm in 2014? :dubious:
Self-defense is about being smart. Firearms will only have you marked in a gov data base, basically.
I had a Daisy CO[sub]2[/sub] pistol when I was a kid in the '70s. Power decreased dramatically with multiple shots as the CO[sub]2[/sub] cylinder became ice cold (Gay-Lussac’s law). It lasted a Summer or two, but then started to leak and was useless.
In most states you can buy a cap-and-ball Colt replica through the mail, and it would be more reliable than a BB gun.
ETA: The ‘smart’ thing, if you absolutely feel the need to go armed (I don’t) is to get an actual firearm, learn how to use it, and follow all federal and state laws regarding its use and carriage.
If it’s effective as a weapon, it will probably be under the same restrictions as regular firearms; if it isn’t, it’s because it’s minimally harmful. Doesn’t seem like a useful “less lethal” option to me.
In the UK BB guns with more than a certain muzzle velocity are subject to restrictions. But being hit by a BB pellet is only a sting. It won’t break the skin.
To clarify my last, I was talking about buying a black powder revolver. Actually carrying one loaded is most likely treated the same as carrying a ‘firearm’. (Under federal rules, muzzle-loaders aren’t ‘firearm’ firearms because they do not fire fixed ammunition.)
If I were on two juries - one defendant claiming self defense by using a taser to incapacitate someone, the other claiming self defense by trying to blind an assailant with a BB gun - I think I would vote to acquit the first defendant under a much greater number of possible scenarios. The number of scenarios where I think trying to cause likely permanent eye damage can be considered proportional to the threat is mostly limited to the extreme scenarios where the use of deadly force would probably also be justified.
Yep, you’ve just escalated the situation and God help you if the guy you just shot is carrying a real gun because now he’d be justified in being genuinely afraid for his welfare and just may decide to shoot back.
If it’s legal to shoot someone with a BB gun (which can be lethal, even if it’s often not), then it’s legal to use deadly force. The conventional wisdom is that if you’re in a situation where it’s legal to use deadly force, either you want to extract yourself from the situation without escalating it at all, or you want to use as deadliest of force as you can. Now I suppose it’s true that it might, depending on the laws in your state and local jurisdictions, be easier to legally carry a BB gun than a firearm, but honestly, I wouldn’t feel safer having a BB gun than having nothing (of course I’m the type of person who doesn’t feel the need to carry a firearm regularly either, so YMMV)
Tell that to the 40+ rabbits I’ve killed over the past few years with BB rifle (not CO2, requires pumping to charge it up). Usually one shot is enough. As a teen a friend & I killed a muskrat with a CO2 pistol. It required about 20 shots and I felt bad after.