Quote:
Originally posted by smooth
You raise a good point. I wonder if the few people (was it two or three?) posting here who have resorted to utilizing a firearm in their defense would have been able to use a Tazer, rubber bullets, or some other disarming/incapacitating device.
[...]
Are there reasons you would not have felt equally safe or think you would not have resolved the episode to your satisfaction by resorting to current or future non-lethal devices?
If you wouldn't have felt just safe or feel current non-lethal devices would not have resolved the episodes to your satisfaction, why not and which improvements would you suggest to reach comparable results as lethal means?
|
My brother was a security guard at a relatively insecure apartment complex in Minneapolis and before he was able to carry a gun, he carried such non-lethal weapons as pepper-spray and baton. The problem with these (and a Taser), is that they are unreliable and you either have to get very close to the attacker, or have incredible aim. Miss, and you will only make your attacker more determined to do and/or your family harm. Honestly, it isn't worth it to me to risk my life or my family's life in order to save that of someone who's trying to do me bodily harm.
An effective non-lethal means of self-defense would have to be intimidating as well as incapacitating. It would have to be effective when used on any part of the body, and be able to travel through heavy clothing. Lastly, it would need to be fast acting/shooting, as you generally only have seconds to react in a life-threatening situation.