1.1.a "Chemical sprays, stun guns, and other nonlethal methods are effective and easy to use in stopping an attacker."
Description
This article is from the talk.politics.guns Official Pro-Gun FAQ, by Ken Barnes (kebarnes@cc.memphis.edu) with numerous contributions by others.
1.1.a "Chemical sprays, stun guns, and other nonlethal methods are effective and easy to use in stopping an attacker."
see Ayoob,"In The Gravest Extreme"(see above) p.35-38.
Air Taser homepage at http://www.airtaser.com/
Jonathan Glater, "Wild Wild Wet,""Washington Post,"July 25, 1994, p.F3
In summary: Unfortunately, even_shooting_an attacker doesn't always
stop them immediately, unless the shot is directed at the central
nervous system. A fatally wounded assailant can still be dangerous
for the few seconds or minutes they have left. Non-lethal methods,
while they can be effective in some cases and can provide an additional
option for personal defense, are not something you want to bet your life
on when confronted with deadly force. The chemical sprays available
to civilians (such as CS tear gas, or OC pepper spray) are not always as
strong as those used by law enforcement, but even though the police
carry chemical agents, they also carry firearms, since even the police
sprays (like FREEZE+P) don't stop everybody, and aren't appropriate for
every situation. The chemical sprays are most effective when they can
reach the mucous membranes, such as when sprayed in the eyes or inhaled.
Yet if an attacker is wearing glasses, or holds their breath, or is
on drugs, or is just unusually impervious to the pain, the spray may not
be effective. (After all, some people can_eat_extraordinarily hot
peppers, and some people just have high pain thresholds.)
Chemical sprays are designed for outdoor use, and will persist and
can cause problems for the defender if used indoors. Outdoors, they
can be affected by the direction of the wind, and blown off target, or
back into the defender's face, if not delivered in a stream. Inclement
weather can also affect their effectiveness as a defense, and they
require a few seconds to fully incapacitate when they work. It should
be noted that pepper sprays are more effective against dogs than man,
since dogs expose their mouth and tongue when threatening attack, but
chemical mace (CS tear gas) is not effective against dogs, since dogs'
tear glands are less active, and they have smaller tear ducts, limiting
the spray's effects. Use of OC sprays on non-human animals may require
the highest concentration of pepper, i.e. 10%-13%, since it is believed
that dogs, for example, are less sensitive to the pain. Many sprays
contain visible or invisible dyes which are useful in identifying and
apprehending a suspect, but if the victim ends up wounded or dead due
to the essentially random chance that the spray is ineffective as a
defense, that's a fact of interest primarily to the police. Criminals
can be equally and more indelibly marked for capture by the use of a
firearm, if use of deadly force is justified, since their wounds often
require that they seek medical attention. Medical personnel are
required to report patients seeking treatment for gunshot wounds to
law enforcement authorities.
Most stun "guns" available for civilian use require direct contact
with the attacker's body, putting the victim dangerously in harm's
way, when the objective is to keep as far away as possible. Many
civilian stun guns are also underpowered, and can require several
seconds contact with the attacker in order to incapacitate. They may
also have difficulty penetrating heavy clothing, like winter coats.
Their loud crackle and brilliant blue arc_are_certainly intimidating,
however. Other stun guns (like the police TASER, and its civilian
cousin, the Air Taser) can fire electrode darts with trailing wires
"into_the target from a distance. The civilian version of the TASER,
approved for sale as a "non-firearm" by the BATF in June 1994, uses
compressed nitrogen to expel its electrode barbs, unlike the police
version, which uses an explosive propellant and is regulated under
the NFA (see National Firearms Act, Appendix I). Most stun guns
are now equipped with safety devices designed to prevent them from
being used against the defender if taken away. Criminal misuse of
contact-type stun "guns" as torture devices has occurred, so this
is a significant concern for stun gun users. The civilian TASER
includes a weapon registration system which dispenses dozens of
serial numbered microdots with each use, so as to deter criminal
use of the weapon. However, as with any registration system, theft
of the weapon or cartridges from their rightful owner could occur.
The civilian TASER also doubles as a contact-type stun "gun" for
use if the darts miss their target, or if there is no time to reload
the dart cartridge system during an assault by multiple attackers.
Another variety of stun "gun" is under development which squirts
a stream of liquid electrolyte at the target, rather than using a
wire to deliver its current. Like a TASER, it has limited range,
but it could provide for a multi-shot capacity that current wire-
launching stun "guns" lack. Still, it seems unlikely that carrying
around a liquid electrolyte reservoir will do much to reduce the
weapon's size or weight. Unfortunately, there is no "Star Trek"
style weapon that can reliably and safely "stun" a person without
some risk, however small, of lethality. People vary in their
biochemical and physiological responses to various weapons, and
the level of force which may be required to "stun" a person whose
strength and stamina has been abnormally enhanced by drugs could
prove lethal to some ordinary people. Persons who already suffer
from significant stresses to their heart or other organs can die
from the additional stresses of what would otherwise be a "less
than lethal" weapon, particularly if such weapons are misused.
But if sufficient force is not used in defending against a life-
threatening attack, the_defender_runs the risk of injury or death.
Even police stun "guns" don't always work, as evidenced by the
1991 Rodney King video. King was TASERed prior to being attacked
by baton-wielding officers but was still able to move around and
present a potential threat. (Some of the fired darts may have
missed, but had he been incapacitated by the TASER, the baton attack
would have been even more obviously excessive, and unnecessary.)
Both chemical sprays and stun guns are virtually useless in
stopping multiple attackers, while with sufficient practice, firearms
(and particularly handguns) are quite effective at stopping violent
attack, even by a determined gang of assailants. (See 3.3) Unlike
these two common non-lethal weapons, a gun, when fired, acts to alert
possible aid, and is less likely to be ignored than personal alarms.
Also, unlike non-lethal weapons, guns offer an additional intimidation
factor due to their lethality which may deter attack in circumstances
where the risk of confronting a spray can or stun "gun" would not.
Ironically, many of the same localities which have strict "gun control"
laws also prohibit ordinary citizens from owning and using chemical
defense sprays or stun guns, and the rationale is the same. Law-
abiding citizens are disarmed of any possible effective means of
self-defense because of the possibility of criminals misusing these
weapons.
Some people in high-crime "gun control" zones like Washington, D.C.
and other U.S. cities have taken to carrying cans of aerosol spray
oven cleaner (potassium or sodium hydroxide, a powerful caustic agent)
because the laws in these localities deny them the right to carry a
non-toxic pepper spray, or any other effective means of self-defense.
This illustrates precisely the type of "weapon substitution" effect
that opponents of "gun control" argue will occur if any particular class
of weapons, such as "Saturday Nite Specials," is banned. People who are
determined to have weapons, whether they are honest citizens defending
against crime, or criminals obtaining the tools of their trade, will
find a way around any ban, and will often end up having a deadlier
weapon that the one that has been banned. (After all, if someone is
breaking the law_anyway,"it matters little whether they break it to
carry a "Saturday Nite Special" or a sawed-off shotgun or machinegun.)
Oven cleaner can cause permanent damage and/or blindness, and aside
from the child-resistant cap (which would make the can difficult to use
in emergency situations), oven cleaner cans lack the safety mechanisms
which are found on many tear gas or pepper spray containers to
prevent accidental discharge. Its permanent and harmful effects may
also be used by prosecutors to prejudice a jury, moreso even than if
the defender had used a gun! There's very little chance that banning
oven cleaner will occur, since the_only_localities which have this
"problem" are the ones which deny their good citizens any other means
to protect themselves.
In Canada, use of pepper spray against bears and dogs is legal, but
not against human predators. Only the police in Canada are allowed
to use OC pepper spray on humans. Anyone else caught using this
"prohibited weapon" to protect themselves faces a possible_10-year"
"prison_term!" In spite of the law, Canadian citizens are "arming
for bear" by exploiting this legal loophole, though the government
is cracking down on sales. Pepper defense sprays are also legally
unavailable to citizens in Germany, since German law requires that any
such defensive spray be first tested on animals, and a 1987 German law
prohibits the testing of weapons on animals. Pepper sprays are gaining
popularity worldwide, however, since they are the most effective
personal defense option for people whose governments don't trust their
citizens with firearms, or for people who choose not to use firearms
in defense of their lives and their families.
There has been some concern expressed by the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) in about 30 cases in which pepper spray has thought to have
been associated with deaths of suspects in police custody, but a review
of these cases by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, a
pro-"gun control" police organization, said that most of the incidents
could be attributable to factors such as improper use of restraints like
handcuffs in ways which restricted breathing, the suspect's obesity,
and/or the suspect's use of alcohol and/or cocaine. That the ACLU could
find only 28 such questionable incidents during the three year period of
its investigation, and also the fact that ACLU did not claim that pepper
spray directly caused the deaths, only underscores the essential safety
of the sprays as a non-lethal defensive weapon. (In light of the ACLU's
findings, users concerned about the remote possibility of killing an
attacker with pepper spray should beware of using the spray against
drunken asthmatic fat guys on "crack.")
Continue to:
My Books
