Non-lethal alternatives to protecting your family and home

[Anexio]

I haven't posted in this group before but I've been reading it a lot. I'm particularly disturbed by the number of people that want to argue against the use of guns in and around the home for protection. In fact I find it very disturbing and dangerous.

Since none of you (non-violent) people that think guns should be outlawed appear to be swayed into becoming responsible gun owners I'd like to make some suggestions to you so that you can protect yourself, your family and your home. I urge you, in the strongest possible terms to get something other than your good intentions and naivete to protect yourself. Simply talking to the bad guy is going to end up with you or your family dead.

Let me state that I am in the security business and I own and operate security based company in an area just south of Tampa, Florida. I am not trying to sell you anything. In fact I'm not going to give you links to products, you can find them yourself.

All the products I'm listing for you are non-lethal but they are considered weapons. Like all weapons you need to learn how to use them. If you end up buying one of these weapons ask for assistance on how to use it. And for goodness sake, don't let the bad guy take it away and turn it on you. When you use it, use it fast and be decisive. You're life depends on it.

1.) Pepper spray - Pepper spray is usually a chemical,(oleoresin capsicum), that you will spray into the bad guy's face and eyes. It comes in various strengths and containers. Personally I would get the type that has the most percentage of chemical in it. 10% oleoresin capsicum will usually put the bad guy on the floor for 30 minutes which will be long enough for the cops to come pick him up. Get something that shoots the spray as far as possible. Caution: Do not let that spray get near you, if it hits a wall and sprays back on you, you'll be in big trouble. Recommendation: Buy several units and practice with at least one. Spray some on your hand so you'll get an idea of what it can do.

2.) Taser - Okay, I know most of you don't like Tasers, but they work and work well. In fact I would recommend a Taser before I would recommend pepper spray because you're most likely not going to hurt yourself with it. Buy a Taser that shoots darts. These metal darts can go as far as 10 or 15 feet and have barbs on the end to stick into the bad guys clothing or skin. If there is more than one bad guy you better have another weapon as a backup.

3.) Burglar/Intrusion Alarm - Here in Florida there are a lot of alarm companies available and they will usually wire and install an alarm for no cost but you will have to sign a contract for them to monitor your house for two years. That cost is usually between $15 and $35 a month. Here in my home we turn on the alarm not just when we leave the house but when we go to bed at night. If during the night any door or window is opened or broken the alarm will instantly go on and call the police. Also, you can get portable panic button that you can wear around your neck. If you are being threatened you simply press the button and the police will be called. NOTE: Get an alarm company recommendation from a friend or neighbor and call them. They will come to your home and give a recommendation for no cost whatsoever.

4.) Clean up your house and don't be a target - This really isn't a weapon recommendation but I wanted to add it. Keep your garage door closed all the times unless you have to open it. Turn your outside light(s) on at dusk and leave them on until sunrise. Don't leave valuables like bikes outside your house. At Christmas don't leave that box that your new 50" Plasma TV came in out at the road for the trashman. Be smart and break it down and drive to the recycling center. Don't let the bad guys think you're rich and stupid. DONT BE A TARGET!!

[madeline_con]

1. These are all wonderful suggestions unless

you're faced with a perpetrator who has a firearm.

Level the playing field whenever possible.

[Anexio]

2. I totally agree with you....

but what upsets me are the people that comment in here that are totally against the use of firearms. I figure having a non-lethal weapon is better than having none at all.

[madeline_con]

6. It thins out the herd. n/t

[Longtooth]

65. Or if the bad guy is doped up on drugs.

[Blackeye101]

77. Sums it up

level the playing field!

[jellen]

3. Protection

Have you ever had to use your weapon for protection?How long
have you had the gun?

[benEzra]

24. My father had a "save" with a firearm when I was a child (mid 1970's). No shots fired.

I'm not sure how long he had that particular gun at that point. A few years, probably. He had owned other guns since the 1950's, though.

[Anexio]

59. Sorry, I missed your post

jellen, sorry I missed your post. You asked me a question and it's taken me far to long to respond.

I do not own a gun nor am I proficient in using one. I have never had my life threatened by a violent force. My original post is for people, like me, that are reluctant to make a commitment to having a gun in the house.

If you have a gun, you need to know what your doing....and I don't.

Again, sorry for not responding sooner.

Take care

[DesertFlower]

4. our house has an elaborate security system

and i have a 38 in my nightstand. hubby has several handguns too.

i've been thinking about getting a taser. if someone were to get passed the security system i'd like to be able to hold him until the police get there. i think a taser would do the trick.

[avenger64]

5. I'd throw machete and baseball bat in there ...

... also, that Kimber lifeact spray looks promising.

[Anexio]

8. Those are good weapons...

but they're lethal. The people I'm trying to help are the passive non-violent folks that can't bring themselves to kill someone that is trying to kill them.

Thanks for mentioning the Kimber product. I didn't want to explicitly recommend that unit as I didn't want to appear to be selling anything. It shoots far and fast and doesn't appear to have much chance of blowback unless you hit something like a column, furniture or wall.

[iverglas]

12. you really shouldn't distress yourself

Really. In fact, you might consider minding your own business.

I might have been persuaded to take your alleged interest more gracefully, had it not been for, oh, the very first thing you said:

Since none of you (non-violent) people that think guns should be outlawed appear to be swayed into becoming responsible gun owners

You claim to have been taking an interest in the discussions in this forum.

And you start out here by addressing "people that think guns should be outlawed".

Have you sent these people whose welfare is of such concern to you PMs to invite them to read this thread?

I'd recommend that you do that. Because for the life of me, I can't put any names to that description. You seem to be the only person who knows who they are. So you should probably give them a shout, and not just cross your fingers that they see your thread. They don't actually seem to spend much time here.

Ditto these ones:

The people I'm trying to help are the passive non-violent folks that can't bring themselves to kill someone that is trying to kill them.

Is somebody posting here in invisible ink?

My star expired about an hour ago. Maybe that's my problem ...


Meanwhile, gosh, I'd always understood that nobody in this forum was trying to persuade anyone to become a firearms owner, "responsible" or otherwise. I've been given to believe that many of the gun-luvvers down here think it's an excellent idea that people who disagree with their policy positions not possess firearms. I guess I'm just all confused.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

14. Did you really just tell someone to mind their own business?

A Canadian posting on a progressive web site about US politics and you are telling people to mind their own business.

David

[michreject]

20. That is the reason

I ignore she has to say. Nothing is relevant.

[iverglas]

22. gosh, you'd almost think

that I had told a bunch of strangers what to do after addressing them as if they were complete fools incapable of behaving rationally.

That, of course, being what our new little friend here did.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

29. You routinely address gun owners in that manner.

[Tejas]

44. it's a defence mechanism,

it helps them feel safer.

Not that antis will admit that they are in any danger from criminals, just our guns.

[SteveM]

37. "new little friend," "gun-luvvers": no "thinking" here. (nt)

[enfield collector]

57. in all fairness this website isn't just for USA memers. Progressives

are in all countries, I was a lifelong member of the British Labor party (back when it was progressive) before emigrating to America.

[Anexio]

15. It's against my better judgement to reply to you.

I've seen a few of your 21,000+ posts here on this board and most of them are disruptive but I'll try to reply to your post anyway.

I'm glad you're not being graceful, as you say, because protecting your family and home in an emergency is not graceful in the least. Here in America there are lots and lots of bad people that invade homes and steal things and kill people. Their reasons are various. The bad guy might be a crackhead or maybe he's a psychopath that would be just as happy raping your wife while you were tied up and watched as he would be buying milk at the grocery store. We have just over 300 million people here in America and that means we have plenty of everything.

The problem that we have as the homeowners trying to protect our families is that we have no idea what the bad guys intentions are when they break in. Personally, I'm not going to take the chance that he's just stealing some bread to feed children.

Wake up and smell the violence, iverglas. And while your at, actually read this thread. There's a few replies from people that think guns aren't the answer to home protection and those are the people I'm trying to help. I'm hoping that if they don't want a gun in the house maybe they would consider an alternative.

You're welcome to your opinion, even if you aren't American, but if you don't have a comment or question about non-lethal weapons I'd like to suggest that you start your own thread.

[iverglas]

23. if you have any better judgment

the time to exercise it would have been before you decided to address a bunch of strangers (who appear to exist only in your mind in the first place) as if they were complete fools incapable of behaving rationally. Too late now.

[Tejas]

45. patent double-talk

"as if they were complete fools"


You've never addressed much less treated posters here as fools.....yeah, got it, uh huh, the check is in the mail and I won't co..........

[iverglas]

46. patent leather

You've never addressed much less treated posters here as fools

I most certainly have! I have addressed people who behave like complete fools as if they were complete fools. Why would I not?? Why would you say I didn't??

[avenger64]

48. I've never had to use ignore before, ....

.... but you're bringing me close, Iverglas.

[iverglas]

49. don't worry

You won't have to put up with me for long.

In the meantime, if you imagined I was worried ...

[avenger64]

52. Insulting people is no way to argue, it only tells me ...

... you have nothing to say.

"You won't have to put up with me for long."

I don't know what that means - but I'll go out on a limb, and I hope it's not depression. Best wishes.

[Tejas]

43. no, you read correctly

"Meanwhile, gosh, I'd always understood that nobody in this forum was trying to persuade anyone to become a firearms owner, "responsible" or otherwise. I've been given to believe that many of the gun-luvvers down here think it's an excellent idea that people who disagree with their policy positions not possess firearms. I guess I'm just all confused."

Given the nutty what-if scenarios that some antis come up with on this and other forums, a firearm is indeed the last thing they need.

[iamjoy]

7. Why Is It Disturbing

those of us who have no desire to own a gun are not all naive and pacifist.

What if some one has children in the home? Responsible gun ownership means keeping bullets separate from the gun. If some one breaks into your house in the middle of the night, how are you going to get to your protection?

What if some one is not very coordinated or adept? They may have the concern that they will not be able to hit the target. One think I imagine one thing you don't want when confronted with some one who wants to hurt you is to fire a gun and miss . Target practice only does so much, because the conditions in a shooting gallery are nothing like being confronted with an actual attacker. I probably couldn't shoot straight to save my life (literally).

What if we do use the gun to defend ourselves and it turns out we overestimated the threat? The law may forgive us, but we know we couldn't forgive ourselves. It could be something stupid and innocent, like a idiot drunk trying to get into the wrong apartment. Or the teenager sneaking in after curfew.
even if it is a burglar - You know, none of my stuff is worth dying for, and it isn't worth killing for either. Yes, the chance that some one could mean to do physical harm to me is a concern, but either way, I am taking my chances.

so, some of us have evaluated the situation quite logically and decided that for us the risks of gun ownership outweigh the benefits. You obviously have come to a different conclusion

I've thought about getting a stun gun or taser. I imagine pepper spray under a ceiling fan is not a good thing. If anyone ever really wants to hurt me, them tasing me would be the least of my worries.

[Anexio]

10. My OP was for people like you...

My post is specifically for people that cannot, for various reasons, use a gun for self-defense.

I'm not going to argue the merits of gun ownership, there are people in this forum that are better suited for that. I want to help people that for whatever reason don't want to have the responsibility of a gun in the house.

Your last sentence makes me feel better. You're at least open to the idea of defending yourself.

If you do decide to get a Taser, please, don't just buy it and forget about it. Get instruction and practice with it.

[shireen]

18. there are solutions to the issues you raise

"responsible gun ownership ... keeping bullets separate ... "I
Nope, there are ways to do it safely without endangering kids. It was covered very well in the NRA firearms intro class. Use a small easily-accessible gun safe. All the concerns you raised in you post are thoroughly addressed in the intro class, and you can even take an additional class on home defense.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. wrong on several points

Responsible gun ownership means keeping bullets separate from the gun.

Why? Quick access gun safes are affordable and effective. Why would you keep a gun separate from the bullets if they are in a safe? I you are uncomfortable with a firearm please don't purchase one.

David

[Anexio]

41. Hi iamjoy

"I've thought about getting a stun gun or Taser. I imagine pepper spray under a ceiling fan is not a good thing. If anyone ever really wants to hurt me, them tasing me would be the least of my worries."

I brought up this subject because I know that there are people that believe the opposite of what I believe. You see, I would have no problem and no regret if I shot and killed someone that was threatening me or my family. I could easily live with it. Please understand that just as you can not understand how I could do such a thing, I cannot understand how you could do such a thing.

With that in mind I introduced this subject as an alternative to using lethal weapons on intruders.

Please, get a weapon into your home and learn how to use it. If you buy pepper spray and your children find it and release it, it won't kill them, it'll just make things very unpleasant for a few hours.

Please get something for your family. It is your responsibility.

You make your kids wear seatbelts don't you?

Best regards,

[Beregond2]

9. It is a well documented fact

that people who have firearms in their homes are far more likely to be injured or killed by a firearm than people who don't. Further, people who attempt to "take on" an armed assailant by producing a gun themselves, whether in the home or not, are even more likely to be injured or killed.

The odds of anyone being involved in an altercation involving firearms at all are exceedingly small. When such events do occur, they are nearly always robberies, in which case the correct course of action is to give the robber or burglar what they want, allow them to leave, then contact the police. Any policeman will confirm this. Even banks have this as a policy.

Obviously, if you live in a dangerous area, you should take extra security precautions. But unless and until someone shows me reliable statistics that prove there is any safety advantage to the possesion of firearms, I will pass.

[Anexio]

11. What is your point in regards to my OP?

If you don't like guns you don't have to have one. I urge you to get something, though.

But if you want to stand there and let the bad guys rob you while you make coffee for them then good luck with that.

[politicalcamper]

62. I'd rather make them coffee

I'd rather make them coffee, let them get away, then call the police and let them do the dirty work and get my stuff back. Even if I don't get my stuff back, it sounds much safer than risking my life for a couple thousand dollars worth of stuff.

PS: I do like guns, but for protecting myself from my government and other people who see no problem in hurting me physically. Financially, I'd rather take the hit than die.

[maxidivine]

66. I'd rather not find out

what the dude who is attempting to forcibly enter my home wants. Maybe you feel like it is "only a couple thousand dollars worth of stuff", but it isn't you who would be risking your life protecting it. Your life is at risk the moment your home is broken into while you are in it, the only person willing to sacrifice their life for material gain in that circumstance is the guy who decided it was a great career move to rob you.

[politicalcamper]

72. I'd rather take my chances

Only about 1 in 1000 people were killed during robberies in 2007. Also, 34% of robbers use a firearm. If I pull out a gun, that means that it's either him or me, and since he has a 34% chance of having a gun, I would have about a 17% chance of dying given the fact that we would both be shooting. Compare that to my 0.1 % chance normally in a robbery situation and it doesn't hold up too well.

Statistics from <http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/violent_crime/robbery.html>

[Anexio]

74. You're anaysis of your statistics are flawed.

If you are a responsible gun owner that would mean that:

1.) Your weapon is always loaded and ready to use and is in PERFECT working order.
2.) You are at least an expert and you go to the range at least once per month.
3.) You take courses in home safety and gun use.


In my opinion, if you meet the above mentioned you are going to tip the balance of 50/50 to odds that will better protect your family.

But you have missed the entire point of my post. If you don't want to have the responsibility of a gun in your house then at least get a weapon that will give you a fighting chance. Read my original post and comment on that, if you would.

Regards

[maxidivine]

76. Little too much statistical analysis there

And not enough thought about the fact that having a firearm available does not neccessarily mean you will be firing, or that the home invader will automatically fire back, as opposed to making a hasty retreat the same way he entered, and that also assumes that neither one of you has any skill whatsoever at firing, or have ever fired before (if not, then it would not be even chances that you or him will get hit) and besides, people who fight back have a tendency to not be murdered as often.

[Anexio]

71. Your post is either a joke or...

you're naive.

Are you assuming that the two guys that just broke into your house are gentlemen? Perhaps they only want your stuff and mean no harm to you and your family? I know, they're just trying to earn a few bucks while they major in theology!

If you have a spouse and children in your house and you really have that outlook on burglars then you are seriously irresponsible. Are you willing to take the chance that the burglars are not going to harm you and family. I hope you realize that everyone in your house are witnesses.

What is it about people like you that put the life of a person that means you harm above the lives of the people that you love and are obligated to protect?

[politicalcamper]

73. I think it's you who are naive

Unlike you, I did some research and got statistics, and I only have a 1 in 1000 chance of dying in a robbery. If I pull out a gun that statistic goes up to 17% given the person has average shooting experience. I wouldn't put my family at a 17% chance of being killed even if it meant the robber took everything we own.

Statistics from <http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/violent_crime/robbery.html>

[shireen]

17. that's why training and practice are important

owning a gun is a big responsibility. Training is essential ... I took the intro NRA class and was really impressed by how the instructors strongly and repeatedly emphasize safety. Gun owners need to practice to feel comfortable with the weapon, anticipate how he or she would react under different situations, and most important of all, only shoot in self-defense.

BTW,you say it's a" well documented fact" ... could you point me to a source, please? I find these statistics quite curious.

[Wcross]

21. More likely to be injured or killed?

You do know that the "statistic" you quoted is valid only when you count suicides. I agree, if you are suicidal it would be a good idea to remove all guns from the home.

The theory of "giving the criminal what he/she wants" works for banks. What if the criminal who enters your home wants to rape & murder someone? Do you give them what they want? How do you KNOW what they want? I can only assume the worst.

You are free to "pass" on firearm ownership & I hope you agree to respect others decisions on that issue.

[benEzra]

25. Actually, no study has ever shown that resisting a violent attack, using a firearm,

is more likely to get you injured. To the contrary, actually; the National Crime Victimization Survey showed that victims who defended themselves with firearms were the least likely to be injured in the course of the crime (even less than those who offered no resistance at all), and all victims who used guns and were injured were injured BEFORE they accessed the gun.

You are probably thinking of media popularizations of Arthur Kellermann and Don Reay, "Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related deaths in the home," New Engl J Med 1986 (314:1557-60). Kellerman has rehashed the study in several iterations since, without significantly changing his methodology.

The vast majority of the deaths Kellerman et al cite are suicides, not homicides or accidents. If you are not at risk for suicide, there goes most of the alleged risk. Accidental gun deaths are statistically insignificant, so much so that I doubt he even recorded any (current rate is ~600/year nationwide for 80+ million gun owners, and this figure does not exclude accidents by gun-owning criminals, a fact which tends to skew the perceived risk higher).

Of homicides in which the victim was the gun owner, Kellerman counted these as if the homeowner's gun were at fault, but in every instance the gun used was the criminal's gun, brought into the house by the criminal with lethal intent. Kellerman didn't bother to control for the fact that people who are in greater danger of being murdered are more likely to purchase a gun than those in the control group, nor did he control for understatement of gun ownership by the control group (which given the area and political climate almost certainly would have skewed his results).

The commonly cited "43 times more likely to kill a family member than defend against an intruder" statistic from Kellerman et al excluded ALL defensive gun uses that didn't result in the death of the criminal, which acts systemically to hugely underestimate the number of actual defensive uses. (Surveys of self-defense incidents imply that 98% or more do NOT result in the wounding of the criminal, much less his death). Using this methodology, if the intended victim pulled a gun and the criminal fled, it didn't count; if the victim fired a warning shot and the criminal fled, it didn't count; if the victim shot the criminal, halting the attack, but the criminal survived, it didn't count; and if the criminal were shot and killed, and was known to the victim, IIRC it was counted in the "shooting a friend or family member" category. Not exactly an objective study. Using this methodology, one could prove pretty much anything she/he wants.

Certainly one can quibble about the Lott et al data, and the Gary Kleck et al data on defensive gun uses, but if you exclude suicides I don't think there is any data anywhere that suggests a gun in the home is a significant danger to you or your family.

[maxidivine]

26. Banks have that policy for insurance reasons

It is cheaper for them to just hope the robber doesn't get more money out of them than would be covered, as opposed to having employees attempt to stop the robber and be killed, resulting in the bank paying out large amounts of money to the family of the victim.

And not all police will agree that just giving your mugger what he wants and hoping for the best is the greatest course of action. You will see that as the advice from the administrative types, who usually have a career to look out for and don't want to be seen as supporting armed citizens.

[slackmaster]

28. People who fight back are actually less likely to be injured or killed

Than are people who don't put up any resistance. That is very well documented.

[57_TomCat]

34. Your are mistaken...

in my case. I am a police officer, a trained police firearms instructor and public information officer. I sincerely believe that the concept of submission to violence is not the preferred option. I most often advocate defensive tactics and defensive weapons up to and including handguns.

As mentioned earlier in the thread there are supporting studies to show defensive actions (NOT necessarily using a gun)will more often reduce the chance of serious injury than not. Defending yourself from aggression is the preferred method. The tools you choose, have available or can appropriate will enhance your chances to survive and win a violent encounter.

In addition as mentioned earlier there is supporting statistics and data to infer that the violence most often reported involving guns is perpetrated by those of a criminal bent to others with criminal histories. If you are not one of these people then a gun in the home is much more likely to be used for positive purposes than to be used to injure or kill a resident or family member. Maybe even to confront evil and assist in overcoming it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

38. Notice how he never responds to any of your points.

Just make a baseless blanket statement and leave it there as fact without any evidence.

David

[iiibbb]

13. Buy a dog...

Self defense is a continuum.

A gun is in my array... it's the final option, but it's there if I need it.

[shireen]

16. thank you

for the excellent comments.

Just an addition to the home section -- take down or trim back any vegetation near you home entrances, where bad guys could be hiding. Lights on all night are an energy drain; an alternative is to activate lights with motion detectors.

If someone tried to break in to my apartment through the windows while I'm home, awake or asleep, my attack plants will get 'em! I have plants on the windowsill, near the windowsills, plant lights on at night, plants supplies scattered around the floor to trip over ...
It's a dangerous place for humans. :wow:

[My Good Babushka]

19. My floor is strewn

with legos and matchbox cars. The house is crammed front to back with toys, they all make loud noises. Strollers are wedged against the front door. My fortress in impenetrable.

[DemOkie]

30. OMG....

This has to be the BEST reply ever. While I used to opt for a .45 as back-up, nothing beats the marbles and Lego's as the first line of deterrence.

Kewpie you rock!!!!

[My Good Babushka]

31. *blush*

I also suppose from the general ramshackle-ness of my dwelling, most would-be intruders would figure out- I don't have a damn thing they'd want.

[shireen]

32. LOL! your home security strategy is ingenius!

CLUTTER!

What thief would want to enter a cluttered house or apartment that has toys or plants to trip over?! Where would he/she start trying to figure out what to steal?


:silly:

[Howzit]

55. My house is a mess too. My excuse is it looks like it has been burgled already n/t

[slackmaster]

27. Another way of looking at vegetation and entrances

If your window is covered with Bougainvillea vines, nobody is going to break in through it.

[shireen]

33. or something with thorns.

:P

[slackmaster]

35. "Bougs" have thorns - NASTY ones

They are very common where I live. It's one of the most robust plants on Earth.

You can cut an established vine down to the ground in the winter, and by the end of the next fall it can completely cover a small house.

[maxidivine]

36. When in danger

When in doubt,
Run in circles
scream and shout!

[iverglas]

50. ... do as the Dangerans do.

[sir pball]

40. For those not entirely averse to firearms, just the idea of killing..

"Less lethal" ammuntion is available to civvies; it's not GUARANTEED to not be fatal but if you're reasonably proficient with the weapon (a laser sight would be great for that) you most likely won't kill anybody, at least no more likely than with a Taser.

And if it is taken and used against you...it's no worse than being beaten with the empty gun at least :)

[Anexio]

42. Thanks for backup sir pball

Less lethal, non lethal, its all the same thing. I'm trying to get people that will, under no circumstance own a gun, get something that they can defend their family with.

People that do not take home security seriously are not being responsible.

You need a security plan and you need to take it seriously.

It is not a joke.

[iverglas]

47. I still don't know why

I'm trying to get people that will, under no circumstance own a gun, get something that they can defend their family with.

Why? Who made this your business? As in: your affair. We know it's your business. It just doesn't seem to be your affair.

You do make a living out of persuading people they are at risk of all sorts of horrors, if they haven't already been persuaded of that, it does seem.


People that do not take home security seriously are not being responsible.

To whom? You? What does this statement mean? And again: where do you come into it?


It is not a joke.

You're right about that.

It's big business. But more importantly, it's big political talking points.

[Duke Newcombe]

53. Wow. Please give me your Postal code.

I want to live in this land you reside in: the one where people don't have to worry about crime, being violated, or killed by people wishing them ill intent, or willing to do anything to have their possessions. The one where the police response time is -instantaneous-. I'll get the Realtor(tm) on the line...

Really, Iverglas...the OP seems genuinely concerned about getting people to consider a real-world possibility, and how they can deal with it. Perhaps I should research more, but on first blush, I'll be damned if I know what your problem is with this post in particular, or self-defense in general. Enlighten me, please.


Duke

[iverglas]

54. oh no!

Not -- the third marriage proposal from the dungeon this month.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

51. You sure about that?

you most likely won't kill anybody, at least no more likely than with a Taser.




David

[rdenney]

56. A fire extingusher filled with a certain alkali compound will put a bull down on the spot. nt

[bossy22]

60. any chemical based fire extinguisher

will stop a living thing in its track...and that includes the operator of such device

and its always a good idea to use fire extinguishers for non-fire related emergencies, just so you can forget about recharging them...and then 2 weeks later when you grab it to put out that small wall fire...nothing comes out....woops.....here comes the Fire Department ready to do $50,000 worth of damage to your house

[benEzra]

61. Depending on what alkali compound you are talking about,

the use of such a device on a person could be considered deadly force, the same as using a gun. The eyes, mucous membranes, and lungs are particularly sensitive, and it doesn't take much NaOH in the eyes to blind you for life.

For example, you cannot legally spray someone with sodium hydroxide (oven cleaner) unless the situation is so dire (imminent danger of death, serious bodily harm, or forcible felony) that you'd be legally and morally justified in shooting them.

[ogsbee]

58. Let's point out that there are no non-lethal alternatives for protecting your family from Blackwater

thugs. Seriously, when a carload of Blackwater psychopaths, in a roid rage, hopped up on coke or meth, break down your door and order you to come in for questioning (i.e., torture) and to bring along your family no alternatives will do.

[Longtooth]

63. There is only ONE way to stop an aggressor bent on doing bad things.

That is through shock to the body. There are a couple of ways of doing this. Chemically with pepper spray or tear gas etc. Electrically with air tasers or contact tasers. Blunt force trauma with batons or bean bags. Or through the rapid loss of blood. Only one of these is not affected by the use of elicit drug use and that is through blood loss.

The single most affective way of stopping a person is by dramatic, rapid blood loss. That is why large caliber handguns are THE preferred means of self defense. It is a gruesome reality, but is reality non the less.

[maxidivine]

67. you are right, but most of those are temporary

sprays are possible to fight through, think of the gas chambers that every single Soldier and Marine goes through as part of basic training (maybe navy and air force too, not sure). It is a room where they have a a little gas cooker, they dump some cs gas solids into it and the entire building is filled with the stuff. The soldiers remove their mask, practice clearing it, usually more than twice, and then, to get out of the building, two at a time they remove their masks entirely and wander around till they find the door, where one at a time they have to answer questions about their unit, where they are from, and whatever other questions the drill sergeant or cadre member feels like asking them. Spray is only really effective at making it a little bit harder for someone to chase you, not very effective against a determined attacker. Tasers only work while the current is applied, as soon as it is shut off, the person is free to resume whatever activity they were engaged in that got them tasered. People not hell bent on something will probably want to take a breather, but someone who is set on hurting you, like an attacker pissed that he has just been electrocuted, can quickly resume his hostilities.

[Anexio]

69. Hey maxidivine

The military's CS familiarization operation isn't even close to the effectiveness of the new pepper sprays. I've experienced both and if I had to choose the the most effective I'd have to choose capsicum.

Oleoresin Capsicum is the active ingredient in pepper spray and at 10% solution I guarantee it will drop anyone to the ground for at least 20-30 minutes. Diminished effects can last several hours.

The new pepper products are so effective I worry about people using it properly. Panicking and spraying yourself is not a good idea when you're to bring down the bad guy.

[maxidivine]

70. Oh. Well I though I was onto something

The Kimber products are supposed to be quite an improvement, probably one of the best implementations of a spray device in a long time, since they fire a gelled spray instead of liquid, and fast too.

Being in the CS chamber sertainly clears your airways for a couple days though!

Good to hear that OC based sprays are better than CS, because I got my (now fiancee) a little sprayer. I have been worried that she does not have the best available tool, but she is not ready to get her own carry license, so OC it is!

[Anexio]

68. I don't disagree with you

I don't disagree with the gist of your post, but my OP is for people that will not have a gun in their house under any circumstances.

Again, I agree with you but I'm concerned about the people that don't want the responsibility of a gun. They need alternatives and they need to take home security seriously.

[iverglas]

64. y'know, every time this thing gets dredged back up, I scratch my head

and wonder: why would anybody want an alternative to protecting their home and family?

Like what -- throwing them to the wolves?

Okay, okay, might not be non-lethal, but it's certainly an alternative to protecting them.

We can work on the details, if somebody's really looking for this kind of thing.

[Boomer 50]

75. Good suggestions all but be aware of the possible.....

Consequenses. Less than lethal defensive items have resulted in a much higher success rate in civil litigation for "intent to cause harm" cases and "deliberate maiming" cases. This is why many people choose firearms over less than lethal defense. I hate to say it but the old saying does apply here... "dead men tell no tales".

Just something to keep in mind when looking into these products. Check your state and local laws before purchasing them and KNOW your rights before using them.