Carrying a Less-Than-Lethal Weapon in Addition to a Firearm?

I have been thinking a lot lately about carrying a less-than-lethal (LTL) weapon (such as pepper spray) in addition to a concealed firearm. Thinking about it in terms of my own safety and from a legal standpoint.

Though my life I have found myself, my family and/or my friends in more than a few situations where there was a threat of physical violence from aggressor(s). In a few cases the threat was realized. Thankfully the aggressor(s) have received worse than they have given, at least thus far.

In none of those situations did I feel my life or the lives of any of my family/friends were ever remotely in danger. On the other hand until the adrenaline got pumping I've felt concern a number of times that one or more of us were going to be physically assaulted. Some suggest one cannot make such a distinction on the fly. I vehemently disagree with that belief although it might be true of some with absolutely no street smarts.

Only a fool draws their firearm to "scare" someone away without the intent to shoot them if they do not back down. Only a fool draws a weapon with the intent of firing a warning shot or heaven forbid "to shoot the aggressor in the leg." Not one time did I encounter a situation where I felt it would have been prudent to draw my firearm. Not even close.

In some cases had things gone differently, I might have been forced to draw my weapon. Not because I was afraid for my life based on a potential beating from the assailant. Rather, a concern that a wrestling match could end with the assailant getting control of my weapon and using it on me and/or my family/friends.

All that said would it be best to train-on and carry a LTL weapon in addition to a concealed firearm? I can think of more than one time where I would appreciated having that option. Just spray away and then bug-out. Explain it to law enforcement once I was out of harm's way.

Has anyone else pondered this question at length? Have any of you made use of an LTL weapon like pepper spray while also carrying a firearm? I know LEO's do it all the time, but I have read little about private citizens doing so. I would appreciate any insights.

Look at the non-firearms weapons forum. Many of us are carrying heavy 'walking canes' when we travel or go into the bad part of town. You can always have the option of whacking the bad guy in the leg rather than using deadly force. Besides, canes are legal everywhere, even on airplanes.

I'm pushing fifty with a bad wrist, knee and ankle so running and fighting are not happening.

Yes, i carry pepper spray as an alternative to physically having to defend myself. Never needed it but it can be reassuring to have in your hand with your car keys. I got them for my wife and daughter too since non lethal defense is a good option for everyone.

If your old enough to pull it off a person could also use one of those zap canes.

You'd refer to having more options than a gun as having more than one tool in the defensive tool kit or being able to have to tools to put a force continuum into use.

Many of us think it is foolish to just have one defensive response.

A cane in hand can be put into action faster than a concealed handgun.

Thanks for the input. The is good stuff -- especially the cane. I hope there is more...

Training is important for any weapon, lethal or less-lethal, whether it be the simple training to use pepper spray or the more extensive training of a martial arts tool.

Whether you carry sprays, canes or tasers you should at least have the basic training to put them to use with minimum effect.

I definitely agree with this idea. I personally do not think anyone should ever have just one tool in the "toolbox" as hso often puts it. No one weapon or tool is appropriate for all defensive situations.

This is the reason we police officers carry a variety of tools. It's to give us additional steps between "hand-to-hand-combat" and "gun".

Pepper spray can be mighty effective, and has far fewer legal repercussions than does the firearm.

...and has far fewer legal repercussions than does the firearm.

With respect, this is completely untrue and dangerous to believe.

One of the problems with less-than-lethal (or "less lethal") weapons is that the threshold of legal justification for their use is not substantively different from the threshold for use of deadly force.

Non-sworn citizens don't have a "force pyramid" like a police officer does. They have no (or very little) situations where they are allowed to use force on another person. They don't have the authority to force compliance, or make an arrest. They can ONLY use force to stop an unlawful attack. If an attack is happening, the threshold for deadly force is crossed. (In almost all cases.)

(Yes, there are places where the use of force to defend property or some other need is lawful, but deadly force isn't. They are few and I'm not getting into that dangerous territory.)

It is ALWAYS good to have more than one option for defending yourself, but the primary benefit of less-than-lethal weapons in the hands of a citizen is for carry where they are legal but deadly weapons are not legal. And there aren't many places like that.

I can think of more than one time where I would appreciated having that option. Just spray away and then bug-out. Explain it to law enforcement once I was out of harm's way.
The problem there is that if you weren't faced with an articulable, realistic, immediate threat, you've just assaulted someone, which is a felony. If you were faced with an articulable, realistic, immediate threat, the justification was there to use the more effective firearm.

The risk is in believing that, because your weapon is less-lethal, you can use it under broader circumstances. And that's just not so.

With respect, this is completely untrue and dangerous to believe.

One of the problems with less-than-lethal (or "less lethal") weapons is that the threshold of legal justification for their use is not substantively different from the threshold for use of deadly force.

Non-sworn citizens don't have a "force pyramid" like a police officer does. They have no (or very little) situations where they are allowed to use force on another person. They don't have the authority to force compliance, or make an arrest. They can ONLY use force to stop an unlawful attack. If an attack is happening, the threshold for deadly force is crossed. (In almost all cases.)

(Yes, there are places where the use of force to defend property or some other need is lawful, but deadly force isn't. They are few and I'm not getting into that dangerous territory.)

It is ALWAYS good to have more than one option for defending yourself, but the primary benefit of less-than-lethal weapons in the hands of a citizen is for carry where they are legal but deadly weapons are not legal. And there aren't many places like that.

Actually that's not true. First, please don't suggest I am promoting the cavalier use of LTL weapons. I'm not. Their use is not a trivial matter. No matter how you spin it though, someone shooting an assailant in self defense is going to face a FAR different reality than someone who pepper-sprayed an assailant or someone who was able to knock them out their canes. That's not disputable.

Further, even in locations that do allow one to carry I am convinced that one or more legal LTL weapons make an invaluable part of a defense system.



The problem there is that if you weren't faced with an articulable, realistic, immediate threat, you've just assaulted someone, which is a felony. If you were faced with an articulable, realistic, immediate threat, the justification was there to use the more effective firearm

The risk is in believing that, because your weapon is less-lethal, you can use it under broader circumstances. And that's just not so.

Absolutely, positively, no way. It's simply not true to suggest an individual cannot be faced with an "realistic, immediate threat" without fear for their lives. I've seen many suggest there is "no time" to make the differentiation" and that's just not true for me, although for others with absolutely no street smarts it might possibly be.

Others suggest that even if one faced immanent attack and honestly felt no threat to their lives that they should draw because it's legally justified. (Please no chest-thumping about how the safest thing to do is just to clear leather and fire.) Legal or not it doesn't seem as though it would always be the moral thing to do. The one complicating factor of course is that a fight could always lead to the assailant getting hold of one's firearm and using it on the concealed carrier.

If you were faced with an articulable, realistic, immediate threat, the justification was there to use the more effective firearm.

Sam,

I gotta disagree. Using a spray to help you break away to avoid having to resort to a lethal weapon is a valid reason to use a less lethal defensive tool without knowing that your life was threatened, but being assured that you were at risk of assault and bodily harm that might or might not represent a threat to your life.

LE have an obligation to use a force pyramid, but as citizens we have no obligation to risk a beating because we're not convinced that our life is threatened.

Perhaps I'm overstating the matter (or oversimplifying it) then. If so, I apologize.

What I'm getting at is that there are instances where force is justified, as distinct from deadly force. However, that is tricky ground. The rules for such are different from state to state, and speaking very generally (and I know NOT to the law in every state) the threshold for applying force (but not deadly force) is very close to the threshold for use of deadly force.

I do not count on being able to operate in the slim margin between the two. As laudible a goal as NOT SHOOTING someone is, I practice situational awareness, avoidence, de-escalation, and all means of not engaging in violence. If forced into a violent encounter that I cannot escape from, I have every reason to believe my life is in danger, and drawing a weapon is a reasonable response.

Spraying someone with pepper spray, Tasing them, or striking them with a baton (a really knotty issue itself), (or, for that matter, punching or kicking them) is still felonious assault, and you have to have an articulable reason for why you HAD to do that. It cannot simply be that you felt they were threatening, or that they did not comply with your request, even your request for them to go away and leave you alone. The bad guy has to have done or attempted to do something specific, harmful, and unlawful to you for you to justify your assault on him -- whether it was just assault or assault with a deadly weapon.

Kynoch, you said:
In none of those situations did I feel my life or the lives of any of my family/friends were ever remotely in danger. On the other hand until the adrenaline got pumping I've felt concern a number of times that one or more of us were going to be physically assaulted. Some suggest one cannot make such a distinction on the fly. I vehemently disagree with that belief although it might be true of some with absolutely no street smarts.

Only a fool draws their firearm to "scare" someone away without the intent to shoot them if they do not back down. Only a fool draws a weapon with the intent of firing a warning shot or heaven forbid "to shoot the aggressor in the leg." Not one time did I encounter a situation where I felt it would have been prudent to draw my firearm. Not even close.

If you "aren't even close" to drawing your weapon, and you are not even "remotely" concerned that the lives of you or any of your family/party are in danger, then you should not be considering using any form of force.

Now, if you're saying that you were actually being attacked, that's a different matter. If you can break away, you should break away and de-escalate. If you are unable to retreat to safety, it would appear to me that you are in fear for your life. If you are attacked while carrying a gun, you're in a fight with a gun -- i.e. a GUNfight -- IMHO, you HAVE to draw that weapon in order to retain it. Whether you must shoot or not depends on the actions of the attacker in the next instant.

I do not actually mean to say DO NOT avail yourself of these options. Of course, any encounter where someone DIDN'T die (and in fact, where you didn't have to draw your sidearm) is a victory. My caution is that these things are often treated with casualness that is wrongheaded and unlawful. These aren't tools to help you win a fistfight. They are to stop an assault and prevent grevious injury or death. Just like a firearm.

However, that is tricky ground.

Sure is. We understand that when we're in fear for our lives that lethal force is justified by the law, but it is much less clear when force is justified without the fear of death. That's the sticky part. The law doesn't require you to let yourself be subjected to an assault.

I'd much rather a chemical defensive spray be used when force, but not lethal force was justified.

I'd much rather a chemical defensive spray be used when force, but not lethal force was justified.

Well, I sure would, too! Maybe we should discuss exactly where the boundaries lie? That might help focus the conversation.

Under what conditions would you say you are in fear of grevious injury -- sufficient to pepper-spray an assailant -- but not justified in firing a handgun?

Perhaps I'm overstating the matter (or oversimplifying it) then. If so, I apologize.

What I'm getting at is that there are instances where force is justified, as distinct from deadly force. However, that is tricky ground. The rules for such are different from state to state, and speaking very generally (and I know NOT to the law in every state) the threshold for applying force (but not deadly force) is very close to the threshold for use of deadly force.

No worries about your comments...

The ground exists though. One of the main reasons I posted this thread is because where I live, it's very difficult to get a CCW permit. I know quite a few people that have been denied. One of the first things I ask them is if they have trained and carry a LTL weapon? To a person, none of them do. That is a very eye-opening piece of information to me.

I do not count on being able to operate in the slim margin between the two. As laudible a goal as NOT SHOOTING someone is, I practice situational awareness, avoidence, de-escalation, and all means of not engaging in violence. If forced into a violent encounter that I cannot escape from, I have every reason to believe my life is in danger, and drawing a weapon is a reasonable response.

I do. It's something I train for.

If you "aren't even close" to drawing your weapon, and you are not even "remotely" concerned that the lives of you or any of your family/party are in danger, then you should not be considering using any form of force.

That's not what I said. I said despite the immanent threat of physical harm, I did not fear for my life. You are trying to gloss over that critical point -- the instant one chooses to flee or fight and the means in which they choose to flee or fight.

It's not as simplistic as you want to make it sound. You're trying to boil down to a black and white flee (always choice #1 if possible) or shoot and it's simply not always that simple in real life.

Well, I sure would, too! Maybe we should discuss exactly where the boundaries lie? That might help focus the conversation.

Under what conditions would you say you are in fear of grevious injury -- sufficient to pepper-spray an assailant -- but not justified in firing a handgun?

That's very difficult to define. It's more an instinct honed from coming in contact with a whole lot of different people in one's life. I can certainly give examples but I don't think I could define the exact boundaries in all cases.

That's a sliding scale issue and can be a slippery slope (see what I did there, huh, huh;)).

Why should I have to gauge the difference between a slap in the face, a poke in the nose or a full on fight? A slap in the face may not produce permanent harm, but having had my nose broken and paid for the surgery to make it more functional after years of unpleasantness I'm personally aware of the consequences of a busted trunk. I'd happily pepper spray some guy to keep that from happening again (although I seriously doubt I'll ever end up in a situation that I'd have time to deploy a spray that I wouldn't extract myself from before it got that far, but I've been surprised by life before). The point is that making a gun and deadly force your only option between a busted nose/teeth/head and life and death leaves you unable to deal with the range of hostile behavior you might encounter.

We talk about awareness, avoidance, deescalation, withdrawing before using deadly force, but there is a continuum of responses to threats that aren't obviously lethal (but are injurious) that are justifiable. If I do all the things we preach to avoid a violent conflict and still find myself under the threat of a violent assault that I don't know is life threatening and justifying of a lethal force response I have the ability to defend myself and the legal right to do so.

Is a knife considered LTL? Close up they can be handier than a gun if used properlly.Also quieter and faster, "again if used properlly". I have always carried a folder, but have thought about a slim combat knife, carried in the waistband. Practice with it and you can easily become quite good, from a strike to a more deadlly move in under a second.
Close up a knife can be deadlier than a gun or used to buy you time to escape or get to your gun as you aquire distance.
I never liked sprays because of the wind factor, and the possibility that the person may not be bothered by certain types. No one is going to grab a two sided combat knife from you if you spend a little time each week doing a bit of work or instruction on the proper use and stratagies.

I've never heard of a jurisdiction where a knife wasn't considered a lethal weapon, most jurisdiction's include the baton as a lethal weapon as well. I think theres a place for LTL if you cannot ccw for whatever reason but the standards for legally deploying a LTL weapon makes them fairly useless if you can ccw.

Yea I wouldn't consider a knife LTL or a cane for that matter since you can definitely kill someone with it. Mine came with a warning not to hit someone in the head as you may kill them, so of course that's what I'll be aiming for!

I've never heard of a jurisdiction where a knife wasn't considered a lethal weapon, most jurisdiction's include the baton as a lethal weapon as well. I think theres a place for LTL if you cannot ccw for whatever reason but the standards for legally deploying a LTL weapon makes them fairly useless if you can ccw.

Wrong. I wonder a great deal about that mindset too. If one is legally able to carry a concealed weapon that does not render an LTL weapon "useless." If anything, a person who chooses to carry a firearm should be even more keen with the idea of also carrying an LTL weapon.

I say "more keen" because I can certainly imagine scenarios where I would fairly comfortable fighting my way out of a corner (unless I could escape first), unless I had a gun. If I had I might be very worried that my assailant might get control of it during a fight and use it on me.

So if I cannot escape, if I have no LTL because I previously decreed them "worthless" because I had have a gun and if I am paranoid about having my gun used on me, I am left with one option. That's bad form.

Is a knife considered LTL?

Nope

Yeah, I also have a rare instance of disagreement with Sam. :)

If someone approached you, giving a threat of assault, but not necessarily grievous assault, a stick, pepper spray, or Taser would be justifiable force, but firearm or knife might not be.

On the other hand, if someone clearly poses a (potentially) lethal threat- you see a crowd running towards you waving machetes, screaming "Die!" for instance- there is clear justification for immediate use of lethal force. There are a lot of gray areas, and someone with only a firearm may be reluctant to bring it into action when force but not lethal force is justified.

Example: someone doesn't like the way you look, as you innocently shop at Target. You are followed into the parking lot by one or more individuals uttering threats of physical but not lethal force. With a stick or OC spray, you can engage. With a firearm, you choose between deploying while NOT facing what appears to be a lethal/grievous threat, or not deploying, being beaten until you can't choose, and then hoping it's only a beating, and that your firearm and/or life aren't taken in the process.

Option 2 is pure foolishness, and anyone who says "all or nothing" regarding defensive tools doesn't live in the real world or understand the appropriate laws.

John

Yeah, I also have a rare instance of disagreement with Sam. :)

If someone approached you, giving a threat of assault, but not necessarily grievous assault, a stick, pepper spray, or Taser would be justifiable force, but firearm or knife might not be.

On the other hand, if someone clearly poses a (potentially) lethal threat- you see a crowd running towards you waving machetes, screaming "Die!" for instance- there is clear justification for immediate use of lethal force. There are a lot of gray areas, and someone with only a firearm may be reluctant to bring it into action when force but not lethal force is justified.

Example: someone doesn't like the way you look, as you inocently shop at Target. You are followed into the parking lot by one or more individuals uttering threats of physical but not lethal force. With a stick or OC spray, you can engage. With a firearm, you choose between deploying while NOT facing what appears to be a lethal/grievous threat, or not deploying, being beaten until you can't choose, and then hoping it's only a beating, and that your firearm and/or life aren't taken in the process.

Option 2 is pure foolishness, and anyone who says "all or nothing" regarding defensive tools doesn't live in the real world or understand the appropriate laws.

John

I really appreciate and agree with your comments. There's one other factor I would like to discuss. Being followed out into the parking lot while carrying vs. not carrying.

If I was not carrying and was attacked, I wouldn't hesitate to get physical. But if I had a gun, I would be very concerned that in a struggle it might be taken from me and used on me. My only option then (assuming I do not have an LTL weapon) is to draw.

I really wonder why this isn't talked about more? The fact that carrying a gun (by itself) might further limit options for some?

Second, I have read little about means of carrying (holsters, etc.) that make it very difficult to be disarmed during a struggle.

More and more this is becoming a profound subject to me. Thanks for the input.

There are holsters with varying levels of retention. The least retention possible with be a friction lock. Next will be a button or strap, followed by a "thumb drive" or Serpa-style lock, and so forth.

Friction- only retention will of course be defeated by just a strong pull. Buttons and straps can be configured so that your drawstroke automatically disengages the strap, but that your weapon can't be drawn without the button being opened or the entire strap brute-force ripped off. Either way should give you time to respond, but your response time won't matter much if you've already been battered senseless because you didn't feel you faced a lethal threat, and chose not to draw.

Canes carried in the non-weapon hand can be used to buy distance for a drawstroke, just as some serious weaponry students train to use the non-weapon hand to cut free from an sidearm grab. A knife may not be inherently more dangerous than a stick, but knife use will always be considered lethal force, even if the user didn't use it in a potentially lethal way.

An attacker trying to gain control of your handgun is a lethal threat. If you the defender can stop an attacker with less-lethal force such as OC spray or a cane before the attacker even knows you're carrying a firearm, that's much preferable.

Wow, very thoughtful responses! Thanks!

Now, I know it's all a slippery gray sloped area (;)) but I'd still like to try to put some realistic boundaries on it. Realizing that the law is different in every state, can we say anything definitive?

For example, John suggests that you could spray or Tase someone for making threats (of course you'd want to be able to articulate why you reasonably believed they could carry out those threats). So what kind of threat? ("I'm gonna punch you!" vs. "I'm gonna STAB you!"?) Weapon visible, vs. no weapon visible? Disparity of force?

How do you establish when you're facing grievous injury, but NOT death? (This seems a mighty difficult call to make accurately.)

What is the bottom threshold of this range? hso mentions getting punched in the nose. Reasonable to use LTL force to prevent that? Or prevent more if you've already been hit? NOT reasonable to draw/present a firearm (with the possibility of shooting) to prevent that?

(FWIW, drawing and presenting/brandishing a firearm would be considered "force" in some states so a firearm can have its own psychological less lethal application.)

-Sam

Oh it get's worse Sam, when the cops arrive and it dawns on you that nobody but you and the BG know what happened. Worse, that only his friends saw what happened and your side of the story is all alone. Even if you did everything right in accordance with the laws/case law of your state, does the physical evidence at the scene help you or make you look bad? Are you believable to the police? More believable than him or his pals? What if they all lie and have a consistent story because they worked it out before the cops arrived. What if some neutral witnesses are morons and only remember parts of what happened. Do they remember the guy being a threat, or do all they remember is tunnel vision on a gun?

Those discussions involving firearms and attacks often take place in S&T and General from time to time. We've had a few here as well where the right mindset and skill set allowed men and women in our community to prevent or stop an assault (Heck, Springmom used the cane I made for her and the brief training on a visit with me to "convince" 2 young toughs that she was not a suitable target for a mugging. Her mindset and the obvious show of determination and unexpected skill surprised them and disrupted their script so that they decided they needed to be somewhere else).

Using a stick or knife or spray to prevent/stop/end a fight does and has happened to our members. It is obvious that you don't want to end up rolling around on the ground in an assault. Not only for the obvious reason that hitting the ground can injure you or the concern about loosing control of a firearm, but because the attacker may have pals that will happily stomp or kick you while you're tied up with your attacker. Our goal is to avoid this worse case.

The point we drive home is that we need to do everything possible to keep from letting any interaction from becoming physical. Leave a questionable place when you see it is possibly unsafe even if you're having fun or foolish friends won't. Deescalate any confrontation that you failed to avoid so it doesn't become physical. Withdraw and get out to a safe(r) place. If that means "tucking tail" to get safe then it is certainly preferable to risking a debilitating injury due to an assault instead of letting foolish ego get in your way. Even if you've failed at all the previous steps and it means just getting into advantageous "terrain" for the unavoidable assault, keep your head and do that so you can end the situation quickly. Having several injuries that have been repaired and some that healed on their own due to a very active/clumsy life I can personally attest to the fact that IT AIN'T WORTH IT to get into any physical confrontation that can be avoided. That said, I assure you that without the training I've had my injuries from the few violent encounters I have had would have been much worse.

There are confrontations that are bluster and posturing and there are those that are wind ups to an attack. Any verbal confrontation should be considered serious enough to get out of the area right away since you can't always tell the "monkey display" from the spin up for an attack. I won't stay where there's such a display taking place whether it is directed at me or someone else (only BTDT twice) UNLESS there's an overwhelming disparity of "US" vs. "THEM" and then it is foolish not to leave as soon as possible. Nasty illustration - A buddy of mine who is an accomplished and very experienced martial artist and fighter had a good friend killed and almost died himself after leaving a bar where an argument broke out and some pushing and shoving occurred between his pal and another guy. The bad guy, for want of a better term, and his partner were outnumbered and left with threats and my pal and the others thought that was the end of it and continued to enjoy the evening of karaoke with the others. As they left the bar the bad guy and his buddy ambushed my pal and his friend coming out the door of the establishment. The guy who had gotten into the confrontation slashed the throat of the young man that had gotten into the shoving/shouting match and his buddy slashed the arm of my pal as he caught the movement at the last instant. The murderers took off leaving the young man to bleed out while my pal tried to staunch the spurting wound in his friend's neck. It wasn't until my buddy started to get weak that he realized he'd been cut as well and that he was bleeding to death while he was trying to save his friend. Luckily, and obviously, others heard the calls for help and they were able to save my buddy. If they'd have called it an evening and left as soon as possible they could have probably avoided the attack or been concerned about the possibility of the BGs lingering.

More and more this is becoming a profound subject to me. Thanks for the input.
Kynoch,
I appluad your "ah hah" moment.Thinking planning, training and mindset are essential.
The more tools in the tool box, either mental or physical, the better equipt you are.

For me, at my age, situational awareness, with ADEE is premier.

On the force continuun, if unable to walk away, ( I dont run anymore) or even better dont go in the first place, my mind set and training is such that I ignore,>descalate
( sorry, or not today works well) > use harsh words, ( I am good at convinving you I am not a soft target, and not worth the effort)

Depending on the threat, I am well versed in cane, OC, and gun.

I rarely have gone beyond harsh word, thank god, and attribute it to situational awareness coupled with a mind set that projects a "not Worth the effort image"
YMMV
Keep learning, thinking, and growing my friend.

Kynoch,
I appluad your "ah hah" moment.Thinking planning, training and mindset are essential.
The more tools in the tool box, either mental or physical, the better equipt you are.

For me, at my age, situational awareness, with ADEE is premier.

On the force continuun, if unable to walk away, ( I dont run anymore) or even better dont go in the first place, my mind set and training is such that I ignore,>descalate
( sorry, or not today works well) > use harsh words, ( I am good at convinving you I am not a soft target, and not worth the effort)

Depending on the threat, I am well versed in cane, OC, and gun.

I rarely have gone beyond harsh word, thank god, and attribute it to situational awareness coupled with a mind set that projects a "not Worth the effort image"
YMMV
Keep learning, thinking, and growing my friend.

I appreciate your comments. Thank you. The more I learn the more appalled I am with information I have read/heard elsewhere ridiculing those who think in terms of defense "systems" and not merely a firearm.

By the way, it should probably be mentioned that any defensive tool with the potential to stop an attack has the potential to kill. Even OC spray. The weapons in question are less lethal, not less than lethal. Yes, even that baton blow to the "green zone" arm could, in rare circumstances, kill.

John

Regarding hso's final paragraph in post #29, I must add loud AMEN! As a working street LEO, I see such scenarios occur. All too often, if one stays, there will be a subsequent ambush waiting outside, or the other party will return with weapons and/or in greater numbers, and walk right back inside to continue the unfinished business. If a confrontation has occurred, exfil as soon as practicable, and try to find another watering hole for the future.

All things being equal, It would look a lot better in court if you hit an attacker on the forearm and knee with a walking cane rather than putting two 230 grain hollowpoints through his torso, especially if he was unarmed.

By the way, it should probably be mentioned that any defensive tool with the potential to stop an attack has the potential to kill. Even OC spray. The weapons in question are less lethal, not less than lethal. Yes, even that baton blow to the "green zone" arm could, in rare circumstances, kill.

John
True! Or, as has happened many time with my fellow LEOs, the bad guy ducks from what he thinks will be a head strike, and the defender's intended strike to the arms inflicts a head injury. By definition, a head strike IS deadly force.

The above has not happened yet to me, perhaps largely because a bad shoulder prevents me from making forceful overhead movements, so my baton strikes are more lateral, so bad guys do not flinch downward. (It is not like I have many baton strikes to my credit; kind words have usually worked well enough. It is
interesting how the presence of weapons enhances the effect of kind words.) ;)

I'm of the mindset that having as many familiar tools in your self defense tool box that you can fit is a good thing.

Case in point: I carry a pistol nearly daily. I also have on my person a pocket knife and multitool. The pistol has never been needed, thankfully. The knife and tool are utility pieces for work. However, the gun (obviously) is a self defense tool and the knife that I carry is usually selected to be both fast to deploy with a sound lock up for defensive work.

That being said, part of my job requires me to go down town to pull building permits. Said permits are located in a government building with metal detectors requiring you to go to such lengths as removing your belt in order to get inside. What I am left with is a several block walk (parking is terrible) in a rougher part of town without my weapon set. It's amazing how naked you feel without your pocket knife:uhoh:

I have since begun carrying and familiarizing myself with a heavy duty steel pen and a very bland flashlight with a bezel aggressive enough to strike with yet not "tactical cookie-cutter" in nature. Neither of these items are even remotely marketed as self defense gear. I purchased the pen for $8 at Office Depot once I verified that was both soundly constructed and offered good grip purchase. The flashlight is an LED AA cheapy that I bought at Target for about 17 dollars. The brightness of the light is a moot point as it is a general utility tool for work, but I like having a back up striking tool.

Working on basic strikes, blocks, and escapes, I feel a bit better walking around in a higher risk area "unarmed". Furthermore, the police officers at the entrance have never even raised an eyebrow at my EDC items. A contractor with a smartphone, a belt, a wallet, a "nice pen", and a small flashlight does not raise any flags. Both of these items are useful as I use the light nearly daily to inspect pumps and having a heavy pen on my person means I won't be as apt to misplace it when I need to sign a check.

If the OP reads NFW a bit he'll find people carrying flashlights that also make great striking tools, heavy ballpoint pens that make great pressure point and striking tools, canes, heavy rigid water bottles, knives, sprays, etc.

Knowing how to use them defensively makes for some interesting training, but knowing how to avoid and extract yourself from a confrontation so it doesn't turn violent is as important. Having the mindset and confidence to use them can help keep you from having to (see my comment about grandmotherly Springmom and the "youts").

Regarding hso's final paragraph in post #29, I must add loud AMEN! As a working street LEO, I see such scenarios occur. All too often, if one stays, there will be a subsequent ambush waiting outside, or the other party will return with weapons and/or in greater numbers, and walk right back inside to continue the unfinished business. If a confrontation has occurred, exfil as soon as practicable, and try to find another watering hole for the future.
Bugging-out is always choice #1...

Answering the OP's question, here is an interesting thought. After the Colorado theater shooting, this forum and others was buzzing with discussions about storing the micro pocket guns and switching to full size, high capacity semi auto's with spare magazines, but a post event evaluation showed the most effective weapon against the shooter (wearing body armor) would have been a fixed blade knife through the vest.;)

LD

Answering the OP's question, here is an interesting thought. After the Colorado theater shooting, this forum and others was buzzing with discussions about storing the micro pocket guns and switching to full size, high capacity semi auto's with spare magazines, but a post event evaluation showed the most effective weapon against the shooter (wearing body armor) would have been a fixed blade knife through the vest.;)

LD

Not to get off topic, but I thought the whole "bulletproof vest" was proven to be media hype? I was under the impression that he was actually just wearing a ballistic "tactical vest" or at most surplus "riot gear". I figured a few rounds of quality .380 would have at least shut him down enough to stop firing.

However, to stay on point, yes I think a different tool set to augment your primary is never a bad idea if you can fit it into your daily carry. If the shooter was wearing actual armor and if one did have the opportunity and presence of mind, I would think even a 3.5" folding blade could make a difference. Even armored up, there are lots of soft spots.

That said, I might have shot back, but I don't think I would have had the sand to flank a guy wielding an AR with my knife:o

The more tools you have the better off you are.
I use the High Road to learn mostly to expand weapon #1 my mind.
I have to have a pen, flashlite pocket knife and cane. I work with them daily in my life.
I love having options pepper spray and a 38 for more serious business.
Everything I have can be used if needed to kill but a prepare cause the wolves are alway out there.

Only a fool draws their firearm to "scare" someone away without the intent to shoot them if they do not back down.

I heard a woman on the radio once...

She kept an unloaded firearm with which to scare anyone who broke in. She believed that shooting was wrong. If the evildoer did not run from the gun, she would use her katana. Why was it okay to kill someone with a large piece of steel rather than a small piece of lead? She didn't say.

I heard a woman on the radio once...

She kept an unloaded firearm with which to scare anyone who broke in. She believed that shooting was wrong. If the evildoer did not run from the gun, she would use her katana. Why was it okay to kill someone with a large piece of steel rather than a small piece of lead? She didn't say.

Someone should have pointed that out to her. They should have also pointed out that it's foolish to bring a katana to a gun fight...

Kynoch,

The "knife to a gunfight" meme doesn't work very well here since within a certain range and conditions a knife is on par and perhaps better than a firearm defensively. Those conditions are where the attack is close and fast, but within those constraints we have people here who can explain how the gun isn't the solution to every defensive problem.

Great discussion, and I emphasize "discussion"!

In addition to firearm, pepperspray, cane/umbrella, knife (horrors!), let me remind everyone that a good flashlight with a high output bulb is very useful as well.

It can both startle/blind an aggressor as well as make a good fist load. It can also help your risk assessment by identifying the target.

All weapons and tactics are compromises and each has its optimum range.

There is a distance where a sniper rifle would be no use against an unarmed wrestler and a distance where your highly tuned custom 1911 would be no use against a sniper rifle. A knife can beat all three but only within a narrow window of oppertunity. It is sort of like the childrens game of rocks, paper and scissors. The best general compromise is usually a medium length rifle, knife or stick.

Kynoch,

The "knife to a gunfight" meme doesn't work very well here since within a certain range and conditions a knife is on par and perhaps better than a firearm defensively. Those conditions are where the attack is close and fast, but within those constraints we have people here who can explain how the gun isn't the solution to every defensive problem.
It was an attempt at levity. :(

It was an attempt at levity

Sorry, we hear it so much we've become a little humorless about it.:o

To Fiv3r,
Nothing like a nice big framing hammer in a belt holder to complete the contractor "ensemble" while pulling building permits.

nice big framing hammer in a belt holder to complete the contractor

Too "Village People" unless you're actually on a construction site.

Not to get off topic, but I thought the whole "bulletproof vest" was proven to be media hype? I was under the impression that he was actually just wearing a ballistic "tactical vest" or at most surplus "riot gear". I figured a few rounds of quality .380 would have at least shut him down enough to stop firing.

However, to stay on point, yes I think a different tool set to augment your primary is never a bad idea if you can fit it into your daily carry. If the shooter was wearing actual armor and if one did have the opportunity and presence of mind, I would think even a 3.5" folding blade could make a difference. Even armored up, there are lots of soft spots.

That said, I might have shot back, but I don't think I would have had the sand to flank a guy wielding an AR with my knife:o

As far as the armor vs tactical vest, I've heard both reported from trustworthy sources, we'll see what the FBI says in their report. If he was wearing Kevlar, unless he had a trauma plate inserted in the sternal area, a knife, arrow, bolt (crossbow version), and many other object will penetrate the vest like warm butter.:uhoh:

LD

Pepper spray is another club in the golf bag, and can be the right answer or the wrong answer in different situations. In Alaska I carry bear spray when out in the woods, and wish I'd had it in the Lower 48 in the past for dealing with aggressive dogs once or twice.

I have never been a huge fan of pepper spray simply because there is always the chance that it could blow back in your face.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't think that pepper spray is useless at all and can be a game changer if it is one of the tools in your tool box. Obviously, in the case of dogs, it's awesome. If dog charges me, I feel that giving him a snoot full of PS and swift shove with my foot decreases my chances of being bit better than trying to draw a knife or make the split second decision of drawing my pistol.

I think my biggest beef with PS is that some ladies and gentlemen will sometimes brandish this little tube of it like it's a firearm. I understand that a lot of people simply do not want to hurt anyone and want to give "fair warning", but if you're going to draw the spray, you better use it. PS loses a lot of its advantages when you present it. It's a great stealth option to spray, break the grasp, and run.

Conversely, I really like the Tornado spray that Ruger is now handling. I have a customer who is a rep for it and gave me a sample to give to my wife. I have to say, I really like it as it's not just a PS but also an alarm/distraction system. When you draw the spray from its special beeper-looking holster, it lets out an ear piercing alarm as well as a strobing flash at the front of the nozzle. Not only are you armed with spray, but you also are drawing attention to yourself and potentially disorienting an attacker. I think it does a lot of things to help stack the deck for someone who may not handle physical altercation well.

I know my wife likes having it on her person, but then again she's 5'10, of good german/amazon stock, and would have no problem flattening the nose of someone getting fresh with her:evil:

I was just directed to this thread having posted one substantially similar myself and had it closed in favor of this one.

Very good discussion here.

I posit that using pepper spray is a MEANS TO DE-ESCALATION, which is in keeping with our commitment as gun owners to avoidance, and also is a plausible explanation for a Grand Jury to hear, no matter what the ultimate outcome is.

As to the spray drifting, I bought a Pepperblaster for this. I live in IL, so I can't CCW, so I carry the PB instead, along with at least one knife. My job takes me to farms fairly often and I'd rather have the PB than a knife for aggressive dogs. I'd rather not kill a client's pet if I don't have to.

A question. I know drawing a firearm is brandishing and assault in many places, is the same true of drawing a knife or OC spray? It seems to me if you draw a knife or OC spray and they continue their attack, they just crossed a line into threatening my life, so if I'm CCW'ing I'll draw and fire if I must.

I posit that using pepper spray is a MEANS TO DE-ESCALATION,

I can't see using pepper spray as de-escalation since the guy sprayed and/or his buddies will consider it going a level up and not down the scale, BUT it is a less lethal defensive measure to allow you to break off and flee.

I used pepper spray to break up a bar room brawl once and got it on my hands. On the way home I made the mistake of rubbing my eyes and had to pull off the road. I am glad that did not happen during the fight!

For puroses of self-defense, in most states, threat of imminent death is not the sole ground on which you can use deadly force. Usually it's death OR substantial bodily harm ("SBH").

Having said that, I understand your point. I carry a 21-inch ASP and a Surefire G2 with a Cree Q5 drop-in and Solarforce crenelated strike bezel. At night, hit them in the eyes with 300 lumens of light and then whack away when they're still blinded.

If you're close enough to whack them with the flashlight, the reflection of the light off their face is probably going to blind you too

the reflection of the light off their face is probably going to blind you too

Nope

I own a similarly bright flashlight and no amount of reflection short of a mirror's will blind you.

I just checked. It's an R5 (320 lumens), not a Q5. And no, the reflection off his face wouldn't blind me. But this beam would disorient anyone even during the day. And just a suggestion: don't waste $160 on a Helzetta. Buy a G2 and mod it w/ aftermarket bulb and bezel with EBay purchases.

I have actually used bear spray six times in the last
few years on aggressive dogs (4) and drunks (2).
Yes, I know that spraying humans with bear spray
might not be legal, the alternative was to use my
daily carry firearm. Where I live there would be no
problems with law enforcement with using the less
lethal to avoid having to take a life. I do plan on
adding a high lumen light, with the strobe feature.

I played with a buddies AR awhile back that had one of the new super brite lights on it. It would be fine for night hunting hogs at long range but it was really too much for indoor use. Inside the close quarters of a dark house the brilliant white light reflecting back off an interior window or even a smooth white surface like painted drywall is enough to distroy your night vision. I think a 2 cell TLR-1 is plenty brite for indoor use, maybe even a bit too much.

Just about any light wrecks your night vision so it doesn't much matter how bright it is as long as it doesn't "wreck" your "day vision".

If it's night your day vision doesn't do you much good *shrug* It's a different level of force but a similar application - I'd rather spray someone than flash them with a light at night

Edit: I will say I can definitely see better flashlight application at a distance if your bat signal is really going off on someone and you want to hightail it away, but I consistently avoid bright beam for anything close up at night because it leaves me with next to no vision

If it's night your day vision doesn't do you much good *shrug* It's a different level of force but a similar application - I'd rather spray someone than flash them with a light at night

Edit: I will say I can definitely see better flashlight application at a distance if your bat signal is really going off on someone and you want to hightail it away, but I consistently avoid bright beam for anything close up at night because it leaves me with next to no vision
I am not a fan of the back-splash, or mist arising from back-splash, of OC spray. OC can certainly be useful, sometimes, but I find light to be very useful, and in 28 years of big-city policin' on night shift, have used light countless times to persuade, dissuade, direct, and otherwise deter folks. I have deployed and used OC one time. (I have used "conducted energy" about ten times, which is more a substitute for a baton strike, though one Taser deployment would have probably been OK for OC.)

My biggest gripe with OC is that it can be difficult to pre-arrange that the wind blow in one's favor. Even when using a stream of OC, the mist arising from back-splash will drift with the lightest breeze.

The good thing about light, is that if it does reduce one's night vision for a while, it can serve to light one's way after the event.

One trick to saving one's night vision is to avoid focusing one's eyes on the brightest portion of a light; keep the brightest area in one's peripheral vision as much as possible/practical.

My newest, and much-favored lights, are my working pair of the Surefire LX2 Digital Lumamax, which offer a choice of two levels of power. When I temporarily misplaced my first one, I bought a second, in spite of the substantial cost; now I have two of them. The first level of pressure produces a nice beam that is not excessive, while firmer pressure produces something like 200 lumens. The switch on the end is momentary; one twists the tailcap to get constant light, which is fine with me, as I so rarely desire constant-on light.

Years ago there was a big problem in my town when the police used some sort of spray on a rowdy drunk at a concert. I don't know if it was peper spray or Mace but the fumes were enough that the band up on the stage could not preform and they left with several thousand people demanding a refund.

Years ago there was a big problem in my town when the police used some sort of spray on a rowdy drunk at a concert. I don't know if it was peper spray or Mace but the fumes were enough that the band up on the stage could not preform and they left with several thousand people demanding a refund.
How does mace differ from pepper spray?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mace_(spray)
Mace is traditionally CN tear gas - phenacyl chloride.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OC_spray
Pepper spray is Oleoresin Capsicum, extracted from pepper plants.