45ACPShooter
New member
In part because of all the legal repercussions in using a firearm and various other reasons I've begin thinking that for most situations especially when your outside your home some kind of nonlethal weapon (pepper spray, taser, kubotan, etc) would be preferable to a firearm. Granted it'd be best to have a nonlethal weapon and a firearm but I figure that in most cases a nonlethal weapon would be more suitable.
Obviously, sometimes nonlethal weapons can kill but I believe a court would be more understanding if you used say pepper spray and inadvertently killed someone attacking you who happened to have a respiratory condition vs you shot and killed them with a handgun. Another advantage that comes to mind regarding nonlethal weapons is that you don't have to worry about over-penetration or the possibility of a stray round hitting an innocent person.
Being that nonlethal means aren't always effective, I don't think that should be your sole defense but for the vast majority of the time I think that would be sufficient for most people. However, there are cases where bullets failed to stop an attacker immediately, so sometimes no self-defense weapon is full proof.
Obviously, sometimes nonlethal weapons can kill but I believe a court would be more understanding if you used say pepper spray and inadvertently killed someone attacking you who happened to have a respiratory condition vs you shot and killed them with a handgun. Another advantage that comes to mind regarding nonlethal weapons is that you don't have to worry about over-penetration or the possibility of a stray round hitting an innocent person.
Being that nonlethal means aren't always effective, I don't think that should be your sole defense but for the vast majority of the time I think that would be sufficient for most people. However, there are cases where bullets failed to stop an attacker immediately, so sometimes no self-defense weapon is full proof.