re non lethal alternatives to handguns in article apr watson ibm com mjp vnet ibm com michael j phelps writes in article shepardc ftls netcom com shepard netcom com mark shepard writes how effective are personal defense products like mace pepper spray tasers and other non lethal stun devices compared to handguns any statistics on s and types in use these products seem very attractive compared to handguns because being non lethal they are more forgiving of accident or mistakes wrongful shooting such as the yoshi hattori case and allow the justice system to deal with the criminal rather than criminals simply being dead which has a certain vigilante feel which seems to bother anti gun people the more forgiving nature also has its down side it allows a criminal to use them w o the adw assault with a deadly weapon charge they also can have lethal or dangerous side effects some people have violent reactions to mace pepper sprays stun guns can harm people with weak hearts people have suffered eye damage from mace the stuff that is available now is less concentrated than it used to be some of the spray propellents are flammable the arguments i see against these non lethal weapons compared to handguns are lack of range lack of stopping power or effectiveness and limited ammo true how about cost sprays using any of the spray based eg mace pepper indoors is bound to affect anyone else in the room like the victim due to the nature of the stuff using the sprays outdoors in any sort of breeze mitigates its effectiveness from reading various articles it appears that mace especially the mace available to citizens is pretty ineffective on people under the influence of drugs or alcohol pepper spray appears to be more effective but has the inherent spray delivery problem it still does not appear to be anything better than a distraction that might buy you time to run like hell if you can consider that running like hell isn t always a viable solution for example if you are dressed in boots and the assailent is dressed in sneakers you might have a tough time outrunning them tasars and stun guns require contact with skin for max effectiveness a jacket like a leather one will mitigate its effectiveness the user must be extremely close to the assailent that puts them at a considerable risk of injury the user must keep the stun gun in contact with the assailent for some non negligible period of time tasar darts can be pulled out consider the problem a small women would have keeping a stun gun in contact with a average size man for any length of time w o sustaining serious injury have any anti gun groups suggested non lethal weapons to counter the pro gun argument that people will be left defenseless i haven t heard of any generally they contend that people don t need to or aren t able to defend themselves and what legal restrictions licensing apply to non lethal devices civilian ownership of stun guns is frequently illegal ny the sprays are also illegal in some states believe it or not they are still illegal in ny although about half the state thinks they are legal i believe that ny almost legalized them i have heard that the reason they didn t was due to their ineffectiveness i feel that the sprays are better than nothing but only if the user does not believe the hype this ll drop em in their tracks stuff and uses it as a diversion o n l y marks mark shepard shepard netcom com portola valley ca michael phelps external mjp vnet ibm com internal mjp bwa kgn ibm com mjp at kgnvmy and last but not least a disclaimer these opinions are mine what about guns with non lethal bullets like rubber or plastic bullets would those work very well in stopping an attack doug holland
