Are Non-Lethal Means More Suitable For Most Situations?

4

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.
 
Yes, a person dont have to kill someone just cause they can to stop a threat.

When I was a bouncer I couldnt hurt the person I was dealing with, no matter how much Iwanted to. So I learned how to make a person walk with me :) right out the door. Come back tomorrow after you sleep it off, hurt him? Heck no he is a customer and spends a lort of money he just had too much to drink.......
 
Funny you mention that... we were just having a spirited discussion in another thread about whether one should have more than just a gun.

I don't personally carry spray. In some instances, I've been known to pick up the nearest suitable stick.

But I do have a pretty fair level of MA training to fall back on. If I lose my mobility, I might invest in spray, but until that point, I have other options already available to me.

The gun should not be the first resort in most cases.
 
It depends on what exactly you are defending against. I for one, do not plan to use non-lethal force to defend against deadly force. Would I consider using OC against the possibility of getting punched in the mouth? sure. Would I consider using OC against a armed car jacker? Nope.
 
Lesser options are for lesser and grey area threats, which probably outnumber actual threats to life and limb.

For life and limb threats, go ugly early.
 
If a less-lethal (not non-lethal) tool is the appropriate choice based on the threat with which you are presented, then it is more suitable. If however, you're dealing with the threat of death or serious physical injury, it would not be more suitable.

Things like OC and Tasers are not for dealing with people who pose an imminent threat to your safety.
 
A taser or OC is NOT for someone who poses an immediate threat? What's it for then, non-immediate threats? Of course it is for immediate threats. The question for the user is the level of the threat posed by the aggressor. Immediate threat of life and limb permit, but do not require, the level of response to go to deadly. Immediate threats not at that level do not, and could well be dealt with by non or less than lethal means.
 
If you are threatened with death or serious injury ("life and limb" to use your phrase), it would be stupid to use a method that poses a very low probability of causing a rapid cessation of hostility (i.e. something that's not going to STOP them). If someone is trying to kill/seriously injure you, a face full of OC isn't going to do much. Could you opt to do that?...sure...but why would you choose something that has a very low probability of success?

OC is for dealing with belligerent/aggressive people who are encroaching on your space with malicious intent (but who have not yet reached the point where their words or actions justify a higher level of force). It can also be used as a momentary distraction so you can undertake some other action (deploying a better tool, closing the gap to strike, or getting a head start so you can have a better chance of escaping). If the situation has already gone to the point where they are actively attacking you, OC isn't going to keep you from getting your bell rung (or worse).

I'm not saying there's no place for it or that we should automatically jump to deadly force...I'm saying: choose the right tool for the job. In some cases that might be OC, in others it might be empty-hand techniques, and in others it may be deadly force. Just don't try to put "less-lethal" tools into a role they're not capable of fulfilling.

Note: I'm not even talking about tasers since I don't see much point in a private citizen carrying a "control device" that has so many limitations...most only have one shot, the range is limited, and they require good contact (i.e. penetration) with both probes which can be problematic if someone is wearing heavy clothing, is moving, or the probes spread too far to both make contact.
 
I feel safe in saying that the majority of physical confrontations don't warrant deadly force. For a citizen on the street, retreat should always be the first option, if at all possible. OC spray is for finishing a non-armed confrontation that you did not start. Your gun is your last-resort means for saving yourself or a third party from imminent deadly force. As has already been stated, the gun is an equalizer when used against an opponent who is also armed with a deadly weapon. OC spray is for those other, more statistically common assaults that don't involve deadly weapons. Since we don't know what kind of criminal assault may be inflicted upon us [if we knew it was coming, we'd make sure to be someplace else], I say it's best to carry both OC and your firearm.
 
Last edited:
Forum post, legal issue...

The post to me is more of a legal issue that a simple topic question.
You'd need to follow your own state's or juristdiction's legal standard for defense or protection & be within the laws re: weapons/ammunition/licenses-permits/etc.
As posted here & in other forums online, the use of a firearm is considered DEADLY or LETHAL force. Displaying or drawing a firearm may be different for sworn LE officers but unless you fall into that catagory, you must not use a gun unless you or someone near you meets the deadly force standards.
My state's Div of Licensing & AG's office is fairly clear about that point.
Clyde
ps: If you honestly do not feel you can shoot or kill another person, DO NOT carry a firearm!
 
It depends on what we mean by "most situations". If by "most situations", we mean typical confrontations or arguments, then it's safe to say that most situations can be and should be resolved by a cool head, common sense and some very basic people skills. Even stuff like tasers and pepper spray won't be required to resolve most situations like that.

If by "most situations" we mean "armed confrontations with violent criminals" then non-lethal means are absolutely a very poor choice.

Ok, all that aside, here's a fact about armed self-defense that we often forget. Most self-defense scenarios where the defender has a firearm don't involve the attacker being shot, or even shot at. The deterrent value of a firearm is, far more often than not, enough to end the confrontation without bloodshed--typically without a shot being fired.

The point is that the threat of deadly force offers deterrent value that is unmatched by any non-lethal/less-lethal options.

Without trying to construct careful arguments or spending a lot of time researching the issue, it seems reasonable to assume that in most self-defense scenarios the threat of deadly force will be much more effective in ending a situation than any non-lethal/less-lethal option.

For what it's worth, in Texas, the display of a firearm to create the apprehension that it might be used if necessary is legal when force is legal to use. One does not need to meet the criteria for the legal use of deadly force in order to display a firearm--as long as force alone (as opposed to deadly force) is justified then displaying a firearm is also justified.

I have not researched other state laws, but I imagine that many of them have laws that are roughly similar in that respect.

What I'm getting around to is that a firearm (when displayed as opposed to being fired) may be the idea "non-lethal" method for deterring attack. It also has the considerable benefit of enabling the user to immediately switch to the use of deadly force if required.
 
"dangerous game"...

I can understand & even agree with parts of the last post, but I'd add that for many armed citizens, it's a very dangerous game to draw a firearm & not be 100% ready to use it or to fire in a lethal force event.
Now some may say sworn LE officers draw their duty weapons often but not discharge them. That's very true, BUT they are on duty and are SWORN to uphold & enforce the law.
Police officers & state troopers etc have formal training, weapons and a entire agency or government to support them.
A private citizen in a critical incident may not have all of the same resources.
ClydeFrog
 
I thought the same thing. I contacted the Sheriffs Office and it's illegal to carry a dangerous weapon concealed even if you have a CWL. Only the gun.

Outside carry may or may not be permitted. You would draw a lot of unwanted attention, and you'd lose the element of suprise.

So the gun it is.
 
It has been my expirience and training that most problems one confronts in day to day life will not meet the level required to justify deadly force.

The thing is, once lethal force is needed in defense of you and your's, nothing else will suffice in my opinion.

Biker
 
Maybe, but you would have to be able to get into the mind of the bad guy to understand just what it would take to change his mind - that is generally difficult for pyschologists, much less us. Maybe pepper spray would work, maybe a short preaching of the gospel of Jesus. But what if you are wrong?

Maybe you could save the life of the bad guy. Maybe you could lose your own. I have a better idea - rather than risking either, maybe the bad guy should save the lives of both of us and turn his life around while he still has one.
 
The practical problem I have with OC, tasers, etc is carrying them. My belt is already loaded down with a gun, an extra mag, a knife in my pocket and all the other items a guy carries. I don't have room for anything else.
 
I personally wouldn't spray someone with pepper spray or taser someone unless there a friend and we are goofin off...I dnt mind getting into fights..and I dnt mind losing fights...( fist fights that is )...u have cross words with another guy..not girl..and start swinging..so be it..let the fight play out whoever wins wins..and who loses loses..that's the end of it...I wouldn't shoot someone because they wanted to fight me...now saying that..if I had heart trouble or health issues then I wouldn't hesitate to draw and let it be known and then if he persisted I would shoot...but idk...pepper spray and tasers are for people with disabilities ..chicks and cops...if u ain't in one of those categories then start swinging...:)
 
... I'd add that for many armed citizens, it's a very dangerous game to draw a firearm & not be 100% ready to use it or to fire in a lethal force event.
Click to expand...
I agree and I didn't intend to suggest any such thing. The "magic gun" syndrome can be very dangerous. Firearm owners should never consider their gun to be a magic talisman that will ward off danger if it's merely held up/displayed.

The way TX law is stated is actually very educational.

"...a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force."​

So by the time you're reasonably considering using pepper spray, tasers or other non/less-lethal options on an attacker, drawing a firearm is legal in some jurisdictions.

The law also suggests the proper mindset for drawing a firearm in this context. You're not drawing it thinking that you won't have to use it, you're drawing it specifically to create the APPREHENSION in your attacker that you "will use deadly force if necessary". Clearly if you don't have the mindset to follow up on that threat if it becomes unavoidable, you're better off leaving the firearm holstered and out of sight.

Obviously it's not appropriate in every confrontation, just as a taser or pepper spray wouldn't be appropriate in every confrontation, but that doesn't mean it should be dismissed. A firearm can be an excellent non/less-lethal means of ending a criminal attack when it is displayed rather than shot. And unlike other non/less-lethal options, it offers the defender the ability to instantly transition to deadly force if the attacker presses the attack.
...I dnt mind getting into fights..and I dnt mind losing fights...( fist fights that is )...u have cross words with another guy..not girl..and start swinging..
Click to expand...
You should be aware that not everyone thinks this way. You may feel that losing a fist fight is no big deal, but there are a lot of people out there who don't have any experience physically fighting with another adult and will find an encounter like that to be cause for tremendous alarm.

You should also be aware that the courts don't always view fist fights as harmless encounters. The first TX CHL shooting involved a CHL holder shooting an unarmed man who wanted to fight him and began hitting him with his fists while the CHL holder was seat-belted into his vehicle. The unarmed attacker was killed and the CHL holder was acquitted.
 
I personally wouldn't spray someone with pepper spray or taser someone unless there a friend and we are goofin off...I dnt mind getting into fights..and I dnt mind losing fights...( fist fights that is )...u have cross words with another guy..not girl..and start swinging..so be it..let the fight play out whoever wins wins..and who loses loses..that's the end of it...I wouldn't shoot someone because they wanted to fight me...now saying that..if I had heart trouble or health issues then I wouldn't hesitate to draw and let it be known and then if he persisted I would shoot...but idk...pepper spray and tasers are for people with disabilities ..chicks and cops...if u ain't in one of those categories then start swinging...
Click to expand...
If you act that way, you won't have the legal ability to carry for very long.
I wouldn't recommend it anyway, since you would be introducing a gun to a fist fight (and you wouldn't necessarily be the one one using it).

Actually, just skip the fight altogether. Ending up in jail and losing your CCW isn't worth "winning" a scuffle over the local sports team.
 
chadstrickland said:
I personally wouldn't spray someone with pepper spray or taser someone unless there a friend and we are goofin off...I dnt mind getting into fights..and I dnt mind losing fights...( fist fights that is )...u have cross words with another guy..not girl..and start swinging..so be it..let the fight play out whoever wins wins..and who loses loses..that's the end of it...I wouldn't shoot someone because they wanted to fight me...now saying that..if I had heart trouble or health issues then I wouldn't hesitate to draw and let it be known and then if he persisted I would shoot...but idk...pepper spray and tasers are for people with disabilities ..chicks and cops...if u ain't in one of those categories then start swinging...
Click to expand...
What if the fight starts to go bad for you and you feel your life is in danger or you fear great bodily injury? If you pull your gun and shoot the other guy you might find yourself crossways with the law. A number of states have laws dealing with mutual combat and firearms. For example:
A person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the person or a third person as a result of another person's imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in Subsection (1) if the person:
(i) initially provokes the use of force against the person with the intent to use force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; (ii) is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or
(iii) was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so and, notwithstanding, the other person continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top