Let me explain myself a little further...
The reason I was stumped by those who spend a lot of money on a flashlight is because I use mine simply as an illumination tool, not a possible defensive weapon. That's what my knife and/or gun is for. I also have two good fists to use if it's a non-lethal confrontation (I have considered getting some OC, but I'm somewhat worried about entering the "Bat-Belt Syndrome"
). That's not to say I wouldn't use it to identify my target in low-light/no-light conditions, because simply put, you don't shoot at a target you cannot see.
It almost seems to me that everytime the technology advances, whether it be computers, cars, or even flashlights, that what was there before becomes obsolete and therefore "not good enough". When the smallest "bright" mini-light that everyone carried was the AA Mini-MagLite, it was the thing to have. Now that we have the multiplt Stinger and SureFire selections available to us, the Mini-Maglite is no longer good enough for a self-defense light. If it was good enough then, why isn't it good enough now?
I consider this: In a situation where I need to temporarily blind an attacker/BG to gain some type of "tactical advantage", the BG is probably going to be VERY close to me. The SureFire and Stinger does a damn good job (I carry a Stinger on my duty belt at work - it also makes a damn good strike device if need be!) but I feel my inexpensive Garrity does just as well at that close a range; I don't need to blind the guy from 20 feet away when I can just as easily retreat or take cover and shoot. I've "jokingly" tried this out on a couple friends with the Garrity, and they'll tell you they've been blinded for more than just a couple of seconds too!
To each their own I'll admit. It just seems that some people tend to spend so much money on this "über-tactical" equipment that they tend to remind me of the "Mall Ninja" stories I've read in these forums (which, yes, I've laughed my a** off to).
Why buy a $400 Smith & Wesson when a $125 High Point pistol will do?
Because the High-Point would be more accurate if you threw it at the BG! Not to say that there's not some good guns out there that ARE inexpensive (I own a Bersa Thunder .45 and a EAA Windicator .38 snubbie), but that's a whole other thread that I'm not going to start on here.
Why pay $60K for a Mercedes, when you can spend $8K on a Kia.... Because the quality is THAT much better....
You've reminded me of a Ron White skit I watched on DVD recently. He was showing off his new conversion van (with the power-sofa feature) to his too-rich-for-his-own-good brother-in-law (you guys probably have already watched this and know exactly what I'm talking about).
Brother-in-law: I'm suprised you didn't get a Mercedes, Ron. Apparently you don't understand the intracies of Mercedes-Benz technology. I've got the 4-inch windshield wipers that keep your headlights clean in a rainstorm!
Ron: I've got a place to f*** your sister!
Oh yeah, a child could spill food or a drink in the backseat of a Kia and I wouldn't be NEARLY as upset as if he did it in a Mercedes!
Sorry to rant on, it just seems these kind of subjects get blown WAY to far out of proportion.
-38SnubFan