less than lethel options

[Majer]

No, having been sprayed with pepper spray while getting certified,I know what it is capable of,I also won't be standing there waiting to see if it worked,I'll be moving away from the threat and accessing (have my hand on ready to draw) my hand gun. I will also be calling the Police asap to report the assault in which I had to defend myself with the pepper spray. Now it may not go as smoothly as that (Murphy was an optimist) But if I don't HAVE to kill /shoot someone all the better for me.

[MikeBjerum]

Things aren't always black and white Tom.If I can use a non lethal weapon to get away from a threat then I will do that.If I HAVE to shoot someone to protect myself or a loved one then I am willing and able to do that.

When we start using force of any type to stop the threat it must be black and white.  At the time you act, your actions must be black and white in your mind based on your education, practice and situational awareness.  Any gray area will put your butt in a sling faster than you squeezed the trigger in the first place.

This need for black and white is the exact reason that you wait for the adrenaline rush to subside before you say anything more than "Lawyer - no search!"  I don't care if you slapped with an open hand, punched with a closed fist, punched with reinforcement in your fist, threw a chair, deployed pepper spray, flashed light in their eyes, drew a knife or used a firearm.  Any resistance puts us into the situation of answering to law enforcement, and "lawyer - no search!" is the answer of choice.

[tombogan03884]

Things aren't always black and white Tom.If I can use a non lethal weapon to get away from a threat then I will do that.If I HAVE to shoot someone to protect myself or a loved one then I am willing and able to do that.

When it comes to applied violence it is indeed "black and white".  You are either in danger and justified to use lethal force, or you are not in danger therefore all violence is unjustified.
If you can not accept that then you should not carry any weapon since your indecision makes you more of a danger to those who depend on you than any potential threat.
They think you can use a gun well on a range, and you have one with you so they are safe.
They are wrong, if you do not have the mindset to go all the way you might as well be carrying a bunch of posey's for all the good you will do.

[Majer]

Tom,my mindset is fine,I made the decision many years ago that I will always come home to my family.I feel that having other options available makes that a higher possibility of occurring.

[tombogan03884]

Less than lethal options are a mistake that robs you of reaction time that could have been used effectively if you went straight to lethal means.

[Sponsor]

[Majer]

Tom,That's your opinion and I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree,What works for one person might not be the best course of action for another.

Now,lets get back to the reason for this thread,I was just wondering what(less than lethal) if anything others on this board may carry with them and why.

[tombogan03884]

Tom,That's your opinion and I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree,What works for one person might not be the best course of action for another.

Now,lets get back to the reason for this thread,I was just wondering what(less than lethal) if anything others on this board may carry with them and why.

A 6 shot .32 instead of an 8 shot .45 because winter clothing dictates pocket carry for practical access and a 1911 will not fit in my pocket.

[JLawson]

I can't speak from experience, because I've never been attacked or even threatened, but some of the statements made in this thread just don't seem right to me.

Time, distance, and money have prevented me from attending any of the reputable training schools but, like most of you, I have taken the opportunity to learn as much as possible from watching and listening to Bane, Ayoob, Wilson, Head, Janich, and many others.  I must admit that I have NEVER heard any of them say that a non-lethal response is a waste of time.  I have NEVER heard any of them say that if you're attacked with fists then respond with a Howitzer.  I have NEVER heard any of them say that when you're attacked then your stated intent is to kill.

Far be it from me to judge another's reactions... for you may have indeed caught the glare of an attacker's eye... but some of the opinions given in this thread are counter to all that I've learned and would be legally indefensible in many jurisdictions.

[tombogan03884]

I can't speak from experience, because I've never been attacked or even threatened, but some of the statements made in this thread just don't seem right to me.

Time, distance, and money have prevented me from attending any of the reputable training schools but, like most of you, I have taken the opportunity to learn as much as possible from watching and listening to Bane, Ayoob, Wilson, Head, Janich, and many others.  I must admit that I have NEVER heard any of them say that a non-lethal response is a waste of time.  I have NEVER heard any of them say that if you're attacked with fists then respond with a Howitzer.  I have NEVER heard any of them say that when you're attacked then your stated intent is to kill.

Far be it from me to judge another's reactions... for you may have indeed caught the glare of an attacker's eye... but some of the opinions given in this thread are counter to all that I've learned and would be legally indefensible in many jurisdictions.

My opinions are based on living in bad neighborhoods and knowing people who were robbers and killers.
Everything I have said is based on a conservative interpretation of NH lethal force laws, and nothing I have posted contradicts anything any of those mentioned have said or taught.
Apparently you missed the part when all of them have said that "The purpose of a pistol is to let you get to a rifle".
I have repeated it over and over in this thread  but physical danger is like being pregnant, you either are or you aren't.
If you are the safest , (legally as well as physically ) course is to end the threat as immediately as possible.
If you are not in danger you will go to jail if you so much as shove the other person.

[JLawson]

Apparently you missed the part when all of them have said that "The purpose of a pistol is to let you get to a rifle".

No, I didn't miss that part... and once the decision is made to "go for the gun" I agree that decisive and overwhelming force is both necessary and justified to stop the attack.  Much has been written about the force continuum.  I don't want to speak for the OP, but I think that this discussion was meant to focus on tools and techniques that can be deployed prior to lethal force being justified.  While it is true that one can not be "just a little pregnant", I have a hard time applying this same logic to threat levels.  I can be in danger but the threat level represented by that danger may not justify my application of deadly force in response.  Things may escalate VERY quickly, and I must be able to adjust my response to a dynamic situation.  When deadly force becomes justified, then by all means, go for the gun and end the attack.