USAF_Vet
Member
Don't know where you live, but all but the two folders on top would get you a stay in the grey bar hotel where I live.
Alternate self defense weapons ?
- Thread starter BADUNAME30
- Start date
- Status
in your situation ... what you need is something that will make him back off. if you hit somebody who's angry with a tactical flashlight - that could drive him into the FIGHT part of Fight-or-Flight. How about a Barracuda stun gun? I would probably think twice before I had one of those things jammed into my ribs.
CA R
CA R
DNS
Member
I don't carry a maglite 24-7.
I don't carry a fire extinguisher either.
My wasp sprays at the house for wasps.
Pepper spray gives me a small package to carry on my key ring which means its always with me. It also allows me some distance against BGs, dogs, etc.
I don't carry a fire extinguisher either.
My wasp sprays at the house for wasps.
Pepper spray gives me a small package to carry on my key ring which means its always with me. It also allows me some distance against BGs, dogs, etc.
It's true that a small flashlight is a contact distance weapon, just as pens are (though I prefer flashlights). If I am truly in fear for my life, though, and he's in range, I'm striking for the temple.
If I'm not in fear for my life yet, and/or the attacker isn't in range, I'm really, really good at nailing attacker's fists and forearms. If you do that while holding a small flashlight, there's a darn good chance his arms will be numb. Hard to attack with arms that don't work.
I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't pay to make assumption about how others are going to use a defensive article.
John
If I'm not in fear for my life yet, and/or the attacker isn't in range, I'm really, really good at nailing attacker's fists and forearms. If you do that while holding a small flashlight, there's a darn good chance his arms will be numb. Hard to attack with arms that don't work.
I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't pay to make assumption about how others are going to use a defensive article.John
leadcounsel
member
Regarding wasp sprays, bleach sprays, etc....
Not a good idea to go using bleach or wasp sprays at people, unless you want a Federal conviction, find and jail.
Why the effort to find some less effective unconventional weapon when handguns are affordable, compact, effective, and legal?
Not a good idea to go using bleach or wasp sprays at people, unless you want a Federal conviction, find and jail.
Why the effort to find some less effective unconventional weapon when handguns are affordable, compact, effective, and legal?
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Good points.
However, I think some people (not everybody) on both sides of this equation are missing a very important point.
The point being that you should defend yourself to the maximum extent possible with whatever weapon(s) of opportunity you have at hand.
To intentionally make a weapon out of wasp spray before hand may indeed be in violation of the law. However, grabbing a can of wasp spray to defend yourself in the heat of battle is using a weapon of opportunity. Big difference.
It's the same difference between carrying a baseball bat you've driven gutter spikes through as a deadly weapon and grabbing you son's baseball bat in the den to defend yourself. Both are potential deadly weapons, not intended for that purpose; the difference being in the approach to how they were brought into play.
I don't think there are very many, if any, legal cases where a person defended themselves in a matter of serious assault with such a weapon of opportunity where they were prosecuted for "weaponizing" such items.
TAKtical
Member
Fox labs. A buddy of mine works for the local PD swears by the foam.
That addresses the state use of force laws and the state laws pertaining to the possession of weapons.
But that's not the issue regarding wasp spray.
There is a Federal law that covers the use of wasp spray for uses other that killing wasps and hornets. USC Section 18, Part 1, Chapter 11B, Chemical Weapons makes it unlawful for anyone to knowingly receive, stockpile, retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical which, through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals, except for "any peaceful purpose related to an industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity or other activity."
Criminal penalties include fines, imprisonment (up to life) and even the death penalty, if death results. There is also a provision for hefty civil penalties, which of course do not require the Government to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is important to realize that this is entirely separate from state use of force laws; there is no provision for a defense of justification, and the case would be prosecuted by an Assistant US Attorney in a Federal court, presided over by a Federal District Judge. It is very possible that facts concerning the reason for the unlawful use would not be admitted into evidence.
Pepper spray and chemical mace are specifically exempted from the law.
One could hope that the Assistant United States Attorney would use his or her discretion to not prosecute someone for using wasp spray for self defense unter extreme circumstances, but when one considers the number of people who have ended up with federal criminal convictions under what anyone in his right mind would judge to be entirely innocent circumstances, that would not be a prudent gamble at all.
In cases involving a whole raft of Federal laws, "innocent" means that one did not do it.
One would be better off using pepper spray if deadly force is not justified. If deadly force is justified, one would be better off using a firearm.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Thanks.
Being the good little boy that I am, I looked this up (thanks for the reference).
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C11B.txt
I'm not so sure that this actually covers what we're talking about.
Chapter 11B is specifically titled "Chemical Weapons". And, as it appears to be defined in 229F, wasp spray doesn't seem to fall into that category:
A- It is a toxic chemical, but it's intended for a purpose not prohibited under that chapter in the type and quantity intended for its use.
B- It is not a munition or device, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in the paragraph above.
C- It is not specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions or devices specified in paragraph B above.
Purposes not prohibited by this chapter includes "Peaceful purposes. - Any peaceful purpose related to an industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity or other activity."
Killing wasps is a peaceful purpose (well...not for the wasps, anyway) which can fall under agricultural or "other activity".
It seems that the entire context of this chapter deals specifically with chemicals and precursors designed or directly related to military chemical warfare use.
I don't see wasp spray as falling under any of those definitions. And, if it does, then there are a great many household chemicals which may also fall under this prohibition you speak of, such as ammonia, bleach, and lye.
That they may be lethal when used in self-defense doesn't matter in my opinion. (Of course, my opinion isn't "law", either.) The guns we profess to be ready and willing to use in self-defense are lethal weapons. The kitchen knife I may grab is a lethal weapon. The baseball bat or crowbar I grab is a lethal weapon.
The kitchen knife is designed for a peaceful purpose...as is the baseball bat and the crowbar.
Now, I'm not an attorney and I may, indeed, be 100% wrong in my opinion. I am open to that option and will gladly eat crow if someone can make me see the light. Certainly, if I AM wrong, I would not wish to advocate such actions.
I did some more research and there may be laws specifically dealing with intentionally poisoning someone...and wasp spray IS a poison. This is, of course, a felony.
It also turns out that wasp spray is a really poor defensive weapon...it's not a very powerful skin or eye irritant, so it really sucks compared to the pepper sprays available. And pepper sprays can, indeed, have similar ranges to wasp spray. So one would be stupid to advocate going through the trouble to buy a can of wasp spray specifically for self defense when he could spend the SAME amount of money on a much more effective can of pepper spray.
To that end, I will NOT advocate deliberately staging wasp spray for defensive purposes.
I guess the main problem I have is the issue that there may be no provision for an exemption for self-defense...where it's a "him or me" situation and a person will literally grab anything they can reach in an effor to stay alive.
Take a look at the Kimber Pepper Blaster II. I carry one as well as my Sig P238. My wife and daughter also carry one. There are some Utube videos that give a good idea how they work. I took the recommendation of buying two for each of the ladies. The first one (They are 2 shot) was used to ally their fears of it and show them what it did and shoot at a target The second one to carry. A very good non-lethal option.
Jim
Jim
It does.
Of course. That is why it is sold.
But spraying it on a person is not lawful.
Among the operative words, however, are "precursor" which means any chemical reactant which takes part at any stage in the production by whatever method of a toxic chemical. A toxic chemical is defined any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals.
How so?
You are right on the money.
As a matter of fact, one person of whom we know has been prosecuted under the act in Federal court, convicted, and imprisoned for having knowingly exposed someone to contact with household lye.
All of that falls under state laws, and under those, there are provisions for defense of justification.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
@ Kleanbore:
How 'bout this:
I'll take the high road on this one and defer to your judgement. This is, by far, the most conservative route to take on the subject. And I doubt that I'll find any firm support of my previously stated views by trying to interpret these things on my own. As I said, I'm not an attorney, and I do know that my opinion does not necessarily constitute reality with respect to the law.
I'll leave off on further discussions here about the legality of this and just bring it up in private conversations with some friends/family who are attorneys and see what all I can learn on the subject. Right or wrong, I'm always willing to learn.
As I said in my last post, it does seem to me to be a stupid thing to deliberately plan on staging wasp spray as a potential self-defense weapon in the first place, after what I found out about it's effectiveness.
- It's not really any cheaper than a quality pepper spray or mace.
- It's not nearly as effective an irritant to skin and eyes as pepper sprays or mace.
- It has no better effective range than a quality pepper spray or mace.
- It's not nearly as small and convenient to carry as pepper spray or mace.
As one site I researched said, it's stupid to count on the comparatively feeble effectiveness of wasp spray as a reliable defensive weapon, especially since its lack of effectiveness may only serve to enrage your attacker and increase the danger to your own life as a result.
Thanks for taking the time to point all this out to me.
How 'bout this:
I'll take the high road on this one and defer to your judgement. This is, by far, the most conservative route to take on the subject. And I doubt that I'll find any firm support of my previously stated views by trying to interpret these things on my own. As I said, I'm not an attorney, and I do know that my opinion does not necessarily constitute reality with respect to the law.
I'll leave off on further discussions here about the legality of this and just bring it up in private conversations with some friends/family who are attorneys and see what all I can learn on the subject. Right or wrong, I'm always willing to learn.
As I said in my last post, it does seem to me to be a stupid thing to deliberately plan on staging wasp spray as a potential self-defense weapon in the first place, after what I found out about it's effectiveness.
- It's not really any cheaper than a quality pepper spray or mace.
- It's not nearly as effective an irritant to skin and eyes as pepper sprays or mace.
- It has no better effective range than a quality pepper spray or mace.
- It's not nearly as small and convenient to carry as pepper spray or mace.
As one site I researched said, it's stupid to count on the comparatively feeble effectiveness of wasp spray as a reliable defensive weapon, especially since its lack of effectiveness may only serve to enrage your attacker and increase the danger to your own life as a result.
Thanks for taking the time to point all this out to me.
That's a good point. Also, although it may appear inconsistent with that, there is the issue that the use of wasp spray on a person would likely be judged as constituting use of deadly force, because it can be reasonably expected to cause permanent blindness. And there's the Federal law.
All in all, the use of wasp spray on humans is a very poor idea.
That's what we are here for.
I appreciate the expanded explanation. I've had similar instances, too.
Of course, when the story is expanded to explain all the actions and circumstances, it's pretty easy to say "can't be more wrong." If information is withheld and the wrong interpretation of a sparse story given, I don't think that's the fault of the reader.
It does point out that there's no give or take in this presentation, which IMHO only underlines my point. Otherwise, why post up at all?
Given that the long version makes it apparent neither one of us is posting from the high school library, I'd like to say I appreciate your actions at the pump. Obviously somebody else was having a bad day and took it out on you. It's apparent they weren't thinking about it, and were engaged in the "dance" completely.
Of course, when the story is expanded to explain all the actions and circumstances, it's pretty easy to say "can't be more wrong." If information is withheld and the wrong interpretation of a sparse story given, I don't think that's the fault of the reader.
It does point out that there's no give or take in this presentation, which IMHO only underlines my point. Otherwise, why post up at all?
Given that the long version makes it apparent neither one of us is posting from the high school library, I'd like to say I appreciate your actions at the pump. Obviously somebody else was having a bad day and took it out on you. It's apparent they weren't thinking about it, and were engaged in the "dance" completely.
Sam Cade
Member
You sir have won the internet for the day. Nice 1950s B-Movie Reference!There is one very unlikely scenario...
USAF_Vet
Member
What does it mean if I actually own that movie?There is one very unlikely scenario...
Sam Cade
Member
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
