Hmmmm.... I'm confused. Why would a private citizen ever choose a chemical spray over a 9mm or 45 ACP?
If my wife were being attacked and feared imminent death, serious bodily injury, or sexual assault, I would want her to use deadly force.
If I were being attacked and feared imminent death or serious bodily injury I would choose deadly force.
If I were being attacked by a 50-100 pound, cute fuzzy ball of teeth, jaws, muscle, and claws, I would choose deadly force (too bad we can't carry a 12 ga.).
If I were being accosted, harrassed, coerced, or a victim of simple assault, I would use traditional methods of self defense like either overpowering the aggressor or running away. If I were attacked by a small dog I would kick it, of course if it latched its little teeth onto my leg (depending on it's size) I might then have to shoot it.
Seems like if I used a chemical spray, that would be considered escalating the altercation, and at the very least I could expect to be sprayed back; or sued; or attacked with greater vigor creating a more dangerous situation.
I don't see it. I thought I had this CCW thing figured out.
I always see folks walking around with sticks. I wish I could tell them...if you feel like you need a self defense weapon (and I can understand that), you should get a much better one... in a larger caliber... especially since you live in a state that will issue a CCW permit. You should sign up, get on board, support our 2nd amendment rights and carry an effective self defense weapon.
I thought sprays and tazers (sp?) were to assist LE in subduing non-leathal suspects resisting arrest...