Is pepper spray better than a gun for anti-thug work?

Status
Not open for further replies.
piettakid said:
We still need guns for hunting and fighting the govt but for fighting criminals bear spray has a lot going for it. I'm talking about those big cannisters that cost $40 and contain 8 ounces of spray. Among their virtues

1. Don't really have to be aimed

2. Don't wreck your ears like shooting a gun indoors does. Very important to me.

3. Much cheaper than a gun

4. Fewer legal hassles. You shoot somebody and you're most likely gonna need a lawyer no matter how justified you were.

5. No chance of a bullet going thru a wall and killing some innocent.
Click to expand...
Hahahahaha..... No.

Pepper spray? Why? Do you see the cops not carry guns and use pepper spray? No? Wonder why?

See

1. SOME PEOPLE ARE IMMUNE TO PEPPER SPRAY. Druggies, insane, PO'ed, those who wear breathing gear, and those trained to resist it.

2. Pepper spray is very short ranged, vulnerable to the wind, and not so hot indoors to the user.

3. Pepper spray don't go through intermediate objects that might protect the attacker.

4. oh heck... it's just a stupid idea. But if you wanna just use it, go ahead.

Deaf
 
As someone who just re-certed with OC it does not work on everyone the same. I was hit and was able to, with both eyes open: run to station 1 and punch an ASP baton bag, run to the next station and baton an ASP baton bag, then take down a guy and handcuff him calmly. It wasn't until I started de-conning that it kicked in, approximately 2 mins later. It really hurt!

Other people were hurting and still able to do the same, just with their eyes and noses not functioning normally. It is a nice option to have on the belt but I'll not be replacing my firearm anytime soon.
 
cslinger said:
Couple things.

1-Believe it or not this stuff doesn't work on everybody. Remember folks in the military are exposed to real CS gas so they are able to function at least in a limited way and know what to expect.

2-If you use any kind of pepper spray you better be prepared to be a victim of your own spraying. Mother Nature is a funny gal and with a little wind in the wrong direction you are both in a cloud.

3-Depending on the encounter you may have just enraged an attacker who will now press an attack in a blind rage.

Not that sprays are not options you just need to understand the limitations and I highly recommend you get sprayed so you know what to expect if you get back spray on you.



Chris
Click to expand...
The military doesn't do the exposure so you can learn to operate under exposure, they do it so you learn to trust your gas mask.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk
 
I carry a tube of Sabre in addition to a firearm. The Sabre is mostly for dogs or for when I can't carry my firearm somewhere (like work)
 
Old Dog said:
A moral obligation? Sorry, but this is one of the more preposterous statements I've seen in a while, or in the past few days of incredibly preposterous statements.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a moral obligation. I'm aware that some cannot comprehend why and that's squarely on them. I question if such people should ever be licensed to carry a firearm.

Old Dog said:
However, Aragon, if this is how you feel, kindly explain your reasoning. There's never a "default" to using using deadly force if one is not presented with a lethal threat.
Click to expand...

Why would you change what I said? Do you get away with doing that in real life? What I actually said was:

"One thing I do believe is that those who carry firearms (concealed or open) have the moral obligation to also carry a non-lethal weapon (ex. pepper spray.) The default action cannot always be to shoot.

I believe it should actually be a requirement of licensing. Some claim there is "no time" to choose which weapon to use. I find such people amusing and rather laughable. They either need to train or they need to train more."

I stand by those comments.
 
Aragon, Robert, and herrwalther, to name a few, are spot on. And there are some good points throughout, but most of the rest is incorrect.

Things like:

1. SOME PEOPLE ARE IMMUNE TO PEPPER SPRAY. Druggies, insane, PO'ed, those who wear breathing gear, and those trained to resist it.
Click to expand...

That is like saying that you won't carry a firearm because someone may be wearing a bulletproof vest. And as far as someone being "immune"... I can probably link more videos of a perp continuing to aggress after taking lead, than videos of someone "immune" to pepper spray. In fact...

There's never been credible video or account (that wasn't hearsay) of someone being 'immune' to OC spray. You can scour YT and you will not find one. Anything that even remotely appears to be so - the OC simply DID NOT enter the mucus membranes of the eye or lungs, period. If you look closely you will see it. They spray the brow, or right above the eyelids with their eyes already closed. That's why they start every OC training exposure at academies with the recruits eyes closed. Plain and simple.

OC is not a panacea. It has its pros and cons just like any other tool. It's one and only job is to inflame the mucosa to cause temporary vision loss and/or to restrict breathing. For the facts on OC spray, see this thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-768705.html
 
Last edited:
Quick thought on using spray indoors:
ou live there and the entire area will retain the spray effects till you clean it all off.
 
piettakid said:
but for fighting criminals bear spray has a lot going for it. I'm talking about those big cannisters that cost $40 and contain 8 ounces of spray
Click to expand...

It is apparent that you've not done any reading in NonFirearms or had any real experience or training with OC or you'd understand that the volume of the container isn't even a relevant topic when discussing OC. You also repeat several common myths that have been debunked by those with training and experience with OC. OC is a great tool when applied as PART of a full defense-in-depth approach to self defense, but alone it is not a replacement for the final option of lethal force because there are people who are trained to fight through OC or who are able to act lethally before succumbing to OC or who simply are in an altered state and can act lethally when OC is used upon them.

Please take the time to read through the OC discussions here and educate yourself.
 
piettakid, you have got some great advise in the thread, and you have also got a lot of complete bull crap to!

I strongly suggest you read a thread from a while back, it's long but it's great information there..

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=768705

EDIT:
Well upon further inspection I see you've pointed to the link already... I still advise reading it
 
Last edited:
OC-Trainer said:
Aragon, Robert, and herrwalther, to name a few, are spot on. And there are some good points throughout, but most of the rest is incorrect.

Things like:

That is like saying that you won't carry a firearm because someone may be wearing a bulletproof vest. And as far as someone being "immune"... I can probably link more videos of a perp continuing to aggress after taking lead, than videos of someone "immune" to pepper spray. In fact...

There's never been credible video or account (that wasn't hearsay) of someone being 'immune' to OC spray. You can scour YT and you will not find one. Anything that even remotely appears to be so - the OC simply DID NOT enter the mucus membranes of the eye or lungs, period. If you look closely you will see it. They spray the brow, or right above the eyelids with their eyes already closed. That's why they start every OC training exposure at academies with the recruits eyes closed. Plain and simple.

OC is not a panacea. It has it's pros and cons just like any other tool. It's one and only job is to inflame the mucosa to cause temporarily vision loss and/or to restrict breathing. For the facts on OC spray, see this thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-768705.html
Click to expand...

Amen. Some of the comments remind me of the silly 9mm comments by misguided fans of other calibers.

One thing that really bothers me are those that claim that a potential victim does not have a chance on which weapon to choose. That might be the case in a tiny number of situations but the solution for all the other situations is to train, train, train!
 
Yeah, a moral obligation. I'm aware that some cannot comprehend why and that's squarely on them. I question if such people should ever be licensed to carry a firearm.
Click to expand...

Maybe I should suggest no-one should carry pepper spray until they've had several hundred hours of hand-to-hand training. If you don't comprehend why, that's squarely on you. I question why such people should be allowed to carry OC spray, because I sit on some ill-considered yet self-righteous moral pedestal. :rolleyes:
 
One thing that really bothers me are those that claim that a potential victim does not have a chance on which weapon to choose. That might be the case in a tiny number of situations but the solution for all the other situations is to train, train, train!
Click to expand...

I'm going to guess you're pretty young. Nothing wrong with that...as long as know when to just be quiet and listen. Defensive tool use will often be dictated by distance and constraints.

I don't actually feel patient enough to go into more detail, so I'm going to suggest you step away from the keyboard...and go train, because it's clear you need some good training.
 
JShirley said:
Maybe I should suggest no-one should carry pepper spray until they've had several hundred hours of hand-to-hand training. If you don't comprehend why, that's squarely on you. I question why such people should be allowed to carry OC spray, because I sit on some ill-considered yet self-righteous moral pedestal.
Click to expand...

Cute. Not. It's sad that you resorted to sarcasm rather than honestly discuss this issue.
 
JShirley said:
I'm going to guess you're pretty young. Nothing wrong with that...as long as know when to just be quiet and listen. Defensive tool use will often be dictated by distance and constraints.

I don't actually feel patient enough to go into more detail, so I'm going to suggest you step away from the keyboard...and go train, because it's clear you need some good training.
Click to expand...

Now you're transitioning from sarcasm to an ad hominem attack. That's low road bunkum.

You just showed us all that you cannot defend your belief on this matter.
 
Now you're transitioning from sarcasm to an ad hominem attack. That's low road bunkum.
Click to expand...

Not in the least. Your verbiage demonstrates you lack experience and training. Go get some.

Cute. Not. It's sad that you resorted to sarcasm rather than honestly discuss this issue.
Click to expand...

That's ironic, considering I just used your words to point out how silly a statement you made.
 
JShirley said:
Not in the least. Your verbiage demonstrates you lack experience and training. Go get some.

That's ironic, considering I just used your words to point out how silly a statement you made.
Click to expand...

Still tap-dancing, huh? Your comments are so very transparent.

You lack the qualities to honestly defend your personal beliefs on this matter. Instead you resorted to sarcasm and a personal attack. That's bad form and that's on you. Finis.
 
I pointed out that the tools used will mostly depends on distance and constraints. You just don't have the training and experience to understand that statement, and I repeated your verbiage almost exactly, merely changing what was in reference, just to point out how very silly a statement it was.

Knowing one Latin word gives no credence to anything else you've said. OC is just one tool in the box, and one that should be used with caution.
 
JShirley said:
I pointed out that the tools used will mostly depends on distance and constraints. You just don't have the training and experience to understand that statement, and repeated your verbiage almost exactly, merely changing what was in reference, just to point out how very silly a statement it was.

Knowing one Latin word gives no credence to anything else you've said. OC is just one tool in the box, and one that should be used with caution.
Click to expand...

That's not true.

I posted a position (that I'm more than willing to defend) which apparently does not agree with your own personal opinion. Your first response was devoid of any facts and it was sarcastic. Your second posting was a personal attack.

You said "...I pointed out that the tools used will mostly depends on distance and constraints..." That's not only axiomatic that's why exactly there is a need to partner a less than lethal weapon with a firearm.

Nothing you have posted on this thread lends credence to anything you have said. You don't want honest discourse, you want to get over on others. That's the LowRoad bunkum. If you think others are missing this, you're mistaken.
 
Aragon said:
Your first response was devoid of any facts
Click to expand...

My first response was a direct response to an incredibly naive, foolish, and pompous statement from you:
Aragorn said:
I'm aware that some cannot comprehend why and that's squarely on them. I question if such people should ever be licensed to carry a firearm.
Click to expand...
John Shirley said:
Maybe I should suggest no-one should carry pepper spray until they've had several hundred hours of hand-to-hand training. If you don't comprehend why, that's squarely on you. I question why such people should be allowed to carry OC spray
Click to expand...

See the similarity?

Aragorn said:
Your second posting was a personal attack.

Your offered neither facts nor logic
Click to expand...

That's so weird, because I said
John Shirley said:
Defensive tool use will often be dictated by distance and constraints.
Click to expand...
- but maybe "logic" and "facts" mean different things to the two of us.

Aragorn said:
You don't want honest discourse, you want to get over on others.
Click to expand...

Since you don't seem to understand the difference, this is what is known as an "ad hominem attack". When, however, you offer an unsubstantiated, foolish opinion (and, incidentally, insult everyone who doesn't agree with you), it is reasonable and in keeping with your best interests to suggest you go get some good training.
 
Back on topic.
I suggest the OP get some training or at least research the topic.
Since he hasnt been here since yesterday at 8am we really can know what he thinks.
 
JShirley said:
My first response was a direct response to an incredibly naive, foolish, and pompous statement from you:



See the similarity?



That's so weird, because I said
- but maybe "logic" and "facts" mean different things to the two of us.



Since you don't seem to understand the difference, this is what is known as an "ad hominem attack". When, however, you offer an unsubstantiated, foolish opinion (and, incidentally, insult everyone who doesn't agree with you), it is reasonable and in keeping with your best interests to suggest you go get some good training.
Click to expand...

Keep going. You lost this discussion many posting ago when you started with the sarcasm and the personal attacks. Your "incredibly naive, foolish, and pompous (and unsubstantiated) statements" fool no one.

Finally you're clearly confused about what an ad hominem is. From Wikipedia:

ad ho·mi·nemˌ
ad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem

1. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. "vicious ad hominem attacks"

2. relating to or associated with a particular person."the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"
 
Last edited:
It's interesting how some get revved-up when anyone suggests that those who carry firearms also have a moral obligation to carry a less-than-lethal (eg. pepper spray) weapon in tandem with their firearms. The excuses offered range from ridiculous to the offensive.

Spin it any way you want, struggle to obfuscate as much as you like, there are times (based on timing, the attacker, physical placements, surroundings, etc., etc.) when potential victims do have the opportunity to choose which sort of weapon to employ. It's precisely at these times where they must have a choice, hence my earlier comment.

This bullying/getting over on others through personal attacks and sarcasm is truly LowRoad bunkum.
 
it may or may not work , and yes you will most likely get yourself too depending on wind,
will not effect everyone and if they are under the influence of something you may just piss
them off even more !!
I would not trust it but better then nothing !!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

U
  • Locked
New Home Defense Pepper Spray Gun - Paintball gun for home defense
Replies
8
Views
1K
HGM22
H
S
  • Locked
71 yo, unarmed blind woman hit with tazer, pepper spray-said to be "reasonable force"
2 3 4 5
Replies
106
Views
4K
Art Eatman
A
1
  • Locked
12 gauge better than AR for home defense
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
Robert
Robert
G
  • Locked
Anti Gun Editorial in the VA Pilot.
Replies
8
Views
645
Monkeyleg
M
D
  • Locked
Anti-gun article in "Super Lawyers"
2
Replies
26
Views
520
DickP
D
Back
Top