“Bear Spray” probably kicks butt. Its just high powered pepper spray though. Use a can of this stuff in your house though and you probably need a gas mask. Even outside you probably better run upwind.
Check out the videos of this stuff being used. It aint your grannies tiny can of mace. Warning, home page has a rather graphic photo of company owner after surving a bear attack (blood head/face and a few holes). Link below is to the videos page, not home page.
I am thinking of getting it because getting attacked by roving packs of dogs in our neighborhood has become an almost regular occurrence. I guess a bunch of aussies moved in recently and brought their dingos. Probably works well on drunk rednecks in the woods too.
Tasers are lethal weapons fairly regularly, even if the manuffacturer would like to make up a condition like “excied delerium” to explain the death. Basically, shocking someone with a disabling electrical shock can sometimes cause death. Oddly, Taser sues any medical examiners who assert in an autopsy that Taser was the cause of death.
Also google “vancouver airport robert dziekanski taser death”
One of the problems with Tasers is that lazy LEOs seem to think they are harmless weapons. (“Don’t taze me bro!”) Another problem is that they don’t seem to work, so lazy LEO’s end up using them repeatedly. In that Vancouver incident. the fellow was shocked 5 times or more, despite being on the ground. When he struggled because of the pain, they took that as a reason to shock him again.
Probably the best self-defence weapon is a good locked door.
Non-lethal is a myth. Tasers, stun guns, and pepperspray all have recorded deaths. As have beanbag nightsticks, certain defensive holds and lots of other things we can list. Some tasers have gotten so bad that police are being asked to remove them from their arsenals and sued for their use. Stun guns are a favorite among rapists as well as a favorite among their victims. As for going on a spree - cars have been used to some effect and the specifics can be argued in light of history but poisoned tylenol could be handy as well.
It is possible that my old DI was right ----- there are no such things as deadly weapons; just deadly people.
In the parts of the US I’m familiar with, shotguns are used for bird hunting and rifles are used for deer and other mammals. Sometimes deer are hunted with a shotgun firing a slug or, more commonly today, a bullet within a sabot. I doubt many people use buckshot to kill bucks anymore.
Or a knife, or a baseball bat, or a tire iron, or there may be two or three of them , or the guy may just be 6’3" tall and built like a linebacker. I’m a 5’2" female; while I’m not a weakling, I’m likely to lose any conflict with a male which turns physical. (And even a strong man will probably lose a fight against multiple attackers.)
So that’s why I keep a firearm in my bedroom (which has only one door out, and two second-story windows both over a concrete patio; it’s a very easy room to become trapped inside). I keep my bedroom door locked at night; if an intruder tried to break it down, by the time he succeeded I’d have my handgun out and ready and HE’D be the one facing an ugly surprise.
Your old DI was absolutely right. Deadly people are willing to turn pretty much anything into a weapon, while most people are surrounded every day by potentially lethal objects (kitchen knives, hammers, power tools) and never hurt anyone with them because they simply lack the desire to kill or maim others.
One thing to bear in mind, the more effective a non-lethal weapon is, the greater its offensive potential. An incapacitated person can be killed fairly easily.
While it is certainly true that good defense and self protection goes far beyond just equipping oneself with a weapon (lethal or non-lethal), it is hardly the case that having a weapon is 'hand[ing] them an advantage." In most cases of threat, prevention and awareness will deter a perpetrator without a weapon every being drawn or displayed, much less used. But there are determined predators who will press forward in attack even if the defender is aware, and unless the defender has the ability to retreat, which is not always tactically advisable even if there is a route of egress, the only means of defense at that point is to respond with force. From a self-defense (and legal) standpoint it is almost always better to avoid confrontation than to meet with it, but that choice is not always available.
That being said, buying a gun, or a can of pepper spray, or a Taser, and tucking it away for future use is completely inadequate preparation for self-defense. Unfortunately, this is the extent of preparation that most people perform.
That is a nice hypothetical, but outside of science fantasy there is simply no such thing as invulnerable armor or a reliable “disarming” system that is reliable at stopping an attacker. The o.p. specifically mentions “mace” (which is phenacyl chloride, commonly known as CN “tear gas”, although oleoresin capsicum “pepper spray” is more widely used due to a quicker action time) as “They are perfect for home defence, perfect for defense against a mugger on the street, and they are very hard to go on a killing spree with.” The last statement is certainly true, but the former two are not. Anyone with experience with pepper spray knows that blowback is almost inevitable in any wind, and that use inside will result in some degree of incapacitation of the defender. Add to this that pepper spray has a wide range of effectiveness depending on the experience and aggressiveness of the subject. As part of a womens’ self defense course I was assisting, the instructor would demonstrate by having one student attempt to spray him in the face with a full-sized can of 10% spray at 21 feet while he charged forward; the only student to successfully evade him stopped spraying and hit him over the head with the canister when he came into range. It is one thing to spray an animal like a bear or dog, that does not understand why it can’t see; it is quite another to spray a determined attacker who has previously experienced the painful burning sensation and is willing to trade that for taking your money or life.
The deficiencies and risks of using the Taser have already been noted, and the fact that they are single use weapons makes them questionable for defense. They are well suited for law enforcement use as a less-lethal option against an aggressive but unarmed attacker, but then, police are also armed with sidearms in case the Taser is ineffective at stopping the threat.
Regardless of what you think of the rights of firearm ownership, it is indisputable that there is just no less-than-lethal weapon that provides as good of a chance at stopping a determined attacker, much less multiple attackers, as a firearm. It isn’t the matter of being an “arms race” as much as giving the defender a means of deterring or defending from attack against a larger or more aggressive attacker.
Only thing I would think would be cool is a man portable version of the Active denial systems. Having a “get the fuck off my lawn” rifle would be pretty damn cool. Great for sales people who cant take a no as well.
Stranger on a Train, it’s wonderful to see someone post such a sensible comment in this thread! I heartily agree with every word you’ve said.
Which is why I’m beefing up my home security, and doing as much realistic scenario training as possible to prepare me for encountering trouble outside my house. I’m well aware that the only surefire way to win a fight is to avoid it in the first place. My pistol’s the last choice option, never the first.
… or raped. Or kidnapped. Some incapacitating weapons are ideal for certain offensive purposes.
Another problem with tasers - the people the police really do need to use them on are not women who won’t put down the cell phone and get out of the car, or people who insist on asking John Kerry a follow-up question. It’s crazy guys high on PCP or other aggressive irrational types- and often the taser does not work, even after multiple shocks, not until they’ve been hit enough times to go into cardiac arrest.
So a defensive weapon that will not stop is not a real weapon.
I even recall reading one clever fellow who walked into a store with a gun, sprayed a liquid on the counter, and told the clerk to put his hands in it. Crazy glue. The guy was stuck there (literally) while the thief helped himself to the register. Instant handcuffs…
Gammerhorn – but they could have been related. Or possibly related to R Lee/Sgt Hartman. He also liked to point out that most homicidal maniacs were Marines and not Army. The only maniac allowed in the Army was him.
Well, sure, but then again, a firearm is no use against a firearm, either. Guns can inflict eventually-lethal wounds very quickly, but they do not usually incapacitate instantly. Someone carrying their own gun, who gets shot, will still be able to return fire.
Booby traps are a very different legal issue from a weapon wielded by a live individual. The argument is something along these lines (though this obviously varies between jurisdictions): Self-defense laws (personal or property) are based on the perceived threat. A booby trap cannot perceive threat and a person who sets it up based on an imagined/potential threat is not the same as that person responding to real danger perceived at the present time.
Of course, you’re right that zapping sales people is not going to be legal regardless of the kind of weapon used. Despite the temptation
