Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

How many people carry a nonlethal means of defense? I started thinking about it when I saw thePepperBlaster 2. Looks nice and has sights and a handle, but no holster and it's really pricey.

Got a bat in my truck, does that count. Not sure why, but it's there. It's actually for stunning large fish when they come in the boat, but for whatever reason, It stays behind my seat.

Haha not quite, but it's close. It's not one your person though.

Yup, carry a combat folder...my cell phone would make for a nice weapon too. Would do a right nice job on someone's unfortunate knoggin...

I have a tactical type flashlight with a scalloped front end in that won't kill anyone but will make em think twice while they stop the bleeding after getting poked by it once or twice

whats the point of carrying anything that is non lethal?

Its ridiculous really, if someone attacks you for any reason, you dont owe them anything.

****disclosure statement******

I am not a lawyer and can give no legal advice.....

I am a survivor, my philosophy ,
"being a victim sucks, fight with such fierceness that every onlooker, including accomplices will be terrified to intervene."

I carry several possible none lethal weapons, depends on how they are used. 2 hands 2 feet and 2 elbows along with 2 knees.
Bill

whats the point of carrying anything that is non lethal?

Its ridiculous really, if someone attacks you for any reason, you dont owe them anything.

****disclosure statement******

I am not a lawyer and can give no legal advice.....

I am a survivor, my philosophy ,
"being a victim sucks, fight with such fierceness that every onlooker, including accomplices will be terrified to intervene."

Not ever situation calls for lethal force. If your life or the life of others isn't in danger then you go nonlethal.

I carry several possible none lethal weapons, depends on how they are used. 2 hands 2 feet and 2 elbows along with 2 knees.
Bill

Haha

I will add one thing to GS78's list that I believe and practice,,,there are no rules except to WIN!!

one thing to think about is the legal ramifications if you go non leathal. Say you use pepper spray and the guy starts to have eye problems down the road. He may seek legal means to sue your ass for his medical bills.

My wife wont carry a gun so I bought her pepper spray. Anything is better than nothing. Stun gun would probably be better. twitch twitch

one thing to think about is the legal ramifications if you go non leathal. Say you use pepper spray and the guy starts to have eye problems down the road. He may seek legal means to sue your ass for his medical bills.

Better than getting a manslaughter charge.

There is no such thing as a non-lethal weapon. A taser, rubber bullets, bean bag rounds, clubs, pepper spray, fists, etc. can all be lethal. There are less-lethal weapons though.

IMHO, the problem with less-lethal weapons is the mindset of the defender, the extra choices about defence, and explaining your actions to a jury if necessary. Doesn't matter if we are talking about LE or citizens.

First, because of their perception as alternatives to lethal force, it encourages their use. I will concede that police have the difficult jobs of controlling bad situations, but for citizens, if you are about to get into a fight, DON"T. Just leave the area. Why fight if you can leave? If you can't leave and are threatened why use a less-lethal weapon? In that situation I want the best, most decisive weapon possible because I want to win. I would not handy cap myself with a less effective weapon.

I am not interested in starting the fight, but you attack me or my family, I want to win...period. Don't care how I do it either.

Second, now you must choose. You have pepper spray and a Glock. Which one can you use in any given situation? Which one should you use? When you only have the Glock things are simple. I can't leave, my life is in danger, shoot. Remember, sometimes you only have a split second to make the decision, but you have the rest of your life (if you win) to be second guessed. It goes without saying, what if you use the pepper spray when you should have used the Glock?

Third, if you carry a less-lethal weapon and use it vice your lethal one, it casts doubt on your innocence in this situation. Try defending yourself in court when they ask why you used the pepper spray instead of the handgun? It takes just as long (if not longer) to deploy the pepper spray. The perception and probably correct assumption is that you were not justified in using the handgun. Again, if you can't use lethal force why are you sticking around for this fight?

Police are having these problems with cameras recording them. It is not always clear when they can go from pepper spray to their Glock. I'm keeping it simple with only two choices, police often have several.

If I can use lethal force I will, if I can't I will leave and avoid the fight. Even given that, not all lethal force is well, lethal. Handguns don't always kill. I won't carry a purposely less-lethal weapon. I.e. if I can't use it on purpose for justified lethal defence, then I don't want it for the above reasons.

Pocket knife? Yes.
Baton (where they are legal)? Yes.
Handgun? Yes.
Pepper spray? No
Taser? No.

The key here is the ability for someone to resist the defence and my ability to purposefully use it in a lethal way. Even someone high on PCP will die from a good knife stab, baton blow to the neck or hollow point to the heart. Things like pepper spray and yes, even the taser have been shown it is possible to resist their affects. Pepper spray doesn't work at all on a small percentage of the population. You can build a tolerance to it too (give you one good guess who wants to do that; bad guys). The National Geographic Fight Science show had a guy who could defend against a taser. It knocked him down, but then he got right back up and now what?

It is as simple as that. Can I use this lethally if I need it to be and am justified?

I would add this though.

Less lethal weapons make sense if you can't carry anything else.

Jakeiscrazy wrote:

Not ever situation calls for lethal force. If your life or the life of others isn't in danger then you go nonlethal.


Haha

In such a case there would be NO threat, no need for any reactionary force.

+1 for gunderwood's comments...its almost always better to depart a bad situation if you can...I would qualify that by pointing out if you are in mortal danger then it might be best based on the situation to neutrlize the threat...that is, its probably not smart to try and retreat with a gun in your gut but on the other hand if you frequent slippery places then a fall might be in your future.

I have more thoughts regarding the morality issue of retreating when faced by a BG who's ready to take your life but think that conversation is best left over a beer...where's Tweaker...

Yup, a great converstion regarding the "amount" of force requred to end a situation could get pretty intense with a lot of varying opinions.

Stun gun would probably be better. twitch twitch

I wouldn't trust those, I was at a gunshow one day when one of the dealers asked if I wanted to try out a stun gun. At first I said no but he convinced me. He used the full sized stun gun on my wrist and the effect wasn't that bad. It didn't drop me to the ground and I could have easily broken away from it. It hurt but not that bad. Plus you have to be within arms length. Maybe go with the TASER C2 it's a bit pricey though.

I've been hit with one myself and wasn't that impressed.,. It did have an effect but not enough to keep a person from continuing to fight on in an adrenaline charged situation.

I also agree with gunderwood and his thoughts. "Less than lethal" weapons pose a significant challenge to military and law abiding citizens. Like many others here, I think our personal defense amounts to escalating choices and scenarios. If we can walk away from a bad situation, we should. As the situation escalates, our choices change from retreating to possible self defense. Most of the time this occurs too quickly to effectively utilize a less than lethal weapon.

A military base might set up a layer of less than lethal 100yds from base. Sticky foam, bean bags, etc. Then at 50 yds, have warning shots and voice warnings. At the fence, warning shots and lethal force can be used.

For an individual, where is 100yds? 50 yds? The fence? As previously mentioned, how do you know when to go less than lethal? Then decide it is or isn't working, transition mentally and physically to lethal, and do it in enough time to prevent an unwanted situation.

Additionally, under what circumstances would you use less than lethal? BG threatening you and you are scared because hasn't quite yet threatened bodily harm, but getting close? Is this legal? Might this escalate the situation? Of course there will be scenarios where LTL would probably work, however, I'm in agreement with above posters: retreat, control tempers, or be prepared to defend oneself.