backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 70 comment(s) - last by herrdoktor330.. on Aug 29 at 11:59 PM

Avurt IM-5 in a non-threatening pink  (Source: Avurt)
Avurt's new self-defense weapon has five shots and a forty foot range

Many want to be able to protect themselves in the event of an attack by an assailant, but don’t want to use a gun or other lethal means to do so. Many options like pepper spray and Taser’s have short ranges so you have to allow would-be attackers to get close to you for them to be effective.

Avurt has a new self-defense weapon called the IM-5 that uses PAVA pepper filled projectiles that have a forty foot range; when the fired projectiles strike an assailant they burst open, similar to paint balls, causing the attacker’s eyes, nose and throat to burn temporarily, effectively immobilizing them.

The launcher is carried in a folded position inside a purse or holster. When unfolded a red laser sight activates to allow you to aim the device. When fired the IM-5 sounds like a pistol, which will theoretically scare the attacker and alert those near-by of trouble.

The PAVA powder used in projectiles sticks to the attacker and Avurt says that one hit is typically enough to stop the attacker. If one shot proves ineffective or the target is missed, the IM-5 holds five rounds total, which can be fired off as fast as you can pull the trigger. Other non-lethal devices like Taser's need time to recharge or reset before the next use. The IM-5 is available for pre-order for $299.99 and comes in black, blue and pink colors.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Interesting Device
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/28/2007 5:03:50 PM , Rating: 5
Interesting device.

Two major problems I see:

First, at close range it would be less effective then pepper spray, which would have a wider radius, directly straight outward, where the pepper ball bullets would spray in all directions, possibly blinding yourself as well.

Second, an "escalation of conflict" sort of principle might apply. If someone pulls one of these things at long range on an attacker and attempts to shoot the assailant, they may think the person is pulling a gun on them. Instead of backing down as the article suggests, they may pull out their own gun and shoot the person with the pepper gun. They might not even have intended to use deadly force in the first place (despicable though their other plans might have been), and the gunlike appearance might have transformed a dangerous encounter, such as a mugging, into a deadly one.

Still, I like the idea of having yet another non lethal alternative. I could see this being used/misused by police forces in the near future!




RE: Interesting Device
By Anh Huynh on 8/28/2007 5:06:51 PM , Rating: 4
At close range you could probably just use it as a club. Although a pink one wouldn't be too threatening...


RE: Interesting Device
By PrinceGaz on 8/28/2007 8:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
I would assume it has a second trigger to activate a conventional pepper-spray from the front of the gun. It goes without saying that in the situations it would be used in, that it may not be possible to draw, aim, and fire in time, and that a second trigger for pepper-spraying when the target is close is available.

If it doesn't have that conventional spraying feature, then the designers should be fired for making a device which is likely to do more harm than good to its users.


RE: Interesting Device
By Polynikes on 8/28/2007 9:24:39 PM , Rating: 3
Well, I assume there is no other short-range mode, as there is none mentioned in the article.


RE: Interesting Device
By omnicronx on 8/29/2007 9:28:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
that it may not be possible to draw, aim, and fire in time,
Very true, I notice that anyone who ever uses pepper spray (weirdly enough I've seen it more than once) the victim usually has the pepper spray concealed in their purse or bag, with their finger on the trigger. When the attacker comes close out comes the spray ready to fire in their face, this device seems like it would be more fitting for a western movie... tick.. tick.. DRAW!!


RE: Interesting Device
By rudy on 8/28/2007 5:10:08 PM , Rating: 4
Police already have this they used it years ago in whatever those protests were in WA they just used normal tippmann paintball guns though. This is just a paintball gun, looking at it I would say it even just has a .68 paintball sized barrel meaning more possible problems with kids buying the balls and loading them in thier paintball guns. So basically it is just a new look for an old product which will see success like the ipod by avoiding the common name it has gone by.


RE: Interesting Device
By Albotron on 8/28/2007 5:11:01 PM , Rating: 2
Police can allready get rounds similar to this to fire from paintball guns.

Having it available for personal self-defense is nice, though I wonder if it is rechargable or reloadable, or do you dispose of the whole device after 5 rounds are fired at 300 dollars?


RE: Interesting Device
By BladeVenom on 8/28/2007 7:14:55 PM , Rating: 2
Just buy the pepper balls, since paintball pistols are less than half that price.


RE: Interesting Device
By Christopher1 on 8/29/2007 12:48:22 AM , Rating: 2
Painball pistols are less expensive. However, they are also bigger than these pepper-ball-only guns, and harder to conceal.

This could actually have a use in police agencies and for self-defense, however I am worried about things like "What if the bad guys get hold of these?" though that is a thought with any newly developed self-defense weapon.


RE: Interesting Device
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 5:49:50 PM , Rating: 5
> "If someone pulls one of these things at long range on an attacker and attempts to shoot the assailant, they may think the person is pulling a gun on them. Instead of backing down as the article suggests, they may pull out their own gun and shoot the person"

FBI crime statistics show, that of the three responses to an attacker (resist, flee, or comply), that resistance is the safest route, and the one that leads to the fewest fatalities for the victim.


RE: Interesting Device
By McTwist on 8/28/2007 6:07:26 PM , Rating: 2
That's really interesting. Do you have a link to the source?


RE: Interesting Device
By PrinceGaz on 8/28/2007 8:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to the the source too as it is goes against what I'd have expected.

I always thought "flee" was the best option for personal safety, with "resist" or "comply" being dependent on the individual situation- and unless you are better armed than your opponent, that makes "comply" the next safest.

The only time "resist" makes sense is if you are confident you can defeat you opponent, which will require you having the weapons available to do so. If you have the weapons available and ready to do that, you would be unlikely to have been attacked in the first place (the exception being advanced martial arts skills where you could quite feasibly disarm an attacker and then take them down, with only your hands). For other people, resisting is most likely to result in a bullet in their head, or a knife in their chest, I'd have thought.


RE: Interesting Device
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 9:27:53 PM , Rating: 2
> "I always thought "flee" was the best option for personal safety, with "resist" or "comply" being dependent on the individual situation"

When I saw the statistics, "flee" came in second, behind "resist with a weapon". "Resist without a weapon was third". Options like "reasoned with offender", "screamed for help", "took no measures", etc, came in lower.

Interestingly enough, its been over 10 years since I looked at the USDOJ NCVS stats. I looked them up in preparation for this post and lo and behold! They no longer cross-tab self-protective measures by crime outcome....quite possibly because they disapproved of all the gun nuts using the statistic to their advantage. Such is life.

If you want to look at the data itself, the link is below. Particularly look at table 71 and 72. While the DOJ does lump all "self-protective" measures together, the stats do show that, for all categories of crime, those measures uniformly were more likely to be helpful than simple compliance;

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus05.pdf


RE: Interesting Device
By alifbaa on 8/28/2007 11:21:51 PM , Rating: 2
The trouble with compliance is that once you start, you only invite your attacker to exploit you further. The theory behind this is that what starts as a robbery can either end there or turn into a trip to the ATM, which turns to a rape, which turns to murder. At each step, the attacker is at least subconsciously testing both your and their limits, waiting for the risk to themselves to outweigh the potential gains.

If a person is left without the flee or fight options, compliance is best employed with a certain amount of resistance mixed in. Basically, you have to always be looking to maximize your advantage wherever you can find the opportunity to do so. It doesn't mean you'll suddenly turn the tables and escape scott-free, but perhaps you will minimize your losses and prevent a bad situation from becoming a complete disaster. The point is that while you may not be able to physically fight or run away, there is always some means of resistance available to you, and it should be employed.


RE: Interesting Device
By Christopher1 on 8/29/07, Rating: -1
RE: Interesting Device
By alifbaa on 8/29/2007 3:34:22 AM , Rating: 5
You're absolutely right. That's the risk of resistance.

Having said that, I would encourage you and your daughters to look at resistance as a continuum rather than a binary decision. Complete compliance places your daughters at the mercy of someone who has already proven themselves merciless. Who knows what they are planning? Who knows what they'll decide to do once they see how easy it will be to do whatever they want?

There is always a means to resist, sometimes you just have to be more subtle than others. If the goal is to rape, stalling for time by squirming, crossing legs, and making specific screams for help that leave out any doubt about what is going on can be very effective. In the rape scenario, the response to such actions will likely be several punches to the face, but the time spent punching your daughter will be time spent not raping them.

The more time it takes, the more likely it will be for intervening factors to take place. Perhaps your daughter will develop a way to flee. Perhaps the attacker will get scared off by the scene she creates. Perhaps a witness will intervene. The point is that any number of things can happen that are far less likely to happen with complete compliance. If the goal is to rape, the actual use of a weapon is not likely to occur so long as the attacker is not physically threatened. If the attacker doesn't have a weapon, your daughters should seek a means of fighting to escape with every ounce of strength they have and anything they can get their hands on.

To mitigate the threat of escalating the attack into something worse, consider teaching your daughters to gauge the responses of the attacker. If their resistance is rewarded with punches to the face, they are succeeding. As painful as it will be and as counterintuitive as it is, they should ratchet up the resistance. As I said earlier, they are successfully stalling the attack. If their resistance causes him to push the knife he likely has harder against their neck while he continues to do his work, then the resistance is making it worse, and they should tone it down or maybe consider stopping their resistance temporarily to deescalate the situation.

With a lot of luck, they'll have to recover from an attempted rape and some bruises as opposed to who knows what. Personally, if I had to recover from a rape, I'd rather recover knowing I did everything I could to prevent it instead of feeling guilty for not resisting. It sounds crazy, but women who are literally paralyzed with fear during rapes very often feel like they are at fault for not resisting. The feeling that they somehow brought all this on themselves eats them up more than anything else and has far more ancillary effects over the long term. They feel like their response was not appropriate, their instincts failed them, and they need to be more defensive from now on in every aspect of their life.

Personally, I feel like my views represent a reasonable approach to a very horrifying possibility. I also think it's a long way from telling someone to defend their "honor" to the death. It's more about managing the situation in a way that is most favorable to your daughter rather than waiting for the situation to (hopefully) resolve itself. You're a perfectly reasonable man if you disagree and continue to teach your daughters what you've already taught them. This is all just my opinion based on a little bit of experience.

BTW, 1 in 4 girls will be sexually assaulted in some form by the time they turn 18. The sad truth is that if you have 2 daughters, you have a 50% chance of one of them needing to follow whatever advice you give them before they turn 18. The numbers only get worse from there. Sexual assault is by far the most likely physical threat they will face in their lives. In my opinion, your greatest duty in this area is to inform them of the harsh facts early on and teach them ways to avoid the situations that most commonly lead to assault (drinking, drugs, being alone with men they don't trust, not communicating clearly, etc.) It's also important to teach them that even if they screw up completely and something bad happens, they can come to you for help without fear of criticism or blame.

Sorry for the long reply. I hope it helps even if it doesn't change your mind. Good luck.


RE: Interesting Device
By Misty Dingos on 8/29/2007 8:19:58 AM , Rating: 2
How many of us know four women? Alright four women that will talk to us about this subject? I have heard this 1 in 4 number run out so many times that I find it not only impossible to believe but leads me to I wonder why we are so willing to accept a statistic that is so out of whack with our own personal experience. It makes me wonder if the statistic is a construct of someone who is bent on proving a problem exists that in reality doesn’t.

Did the person that came up with the one in four statistic actually construct a study that had a reasonable chance of coming up with a credible ratio?

Did they cherry pick their data?

Did they provide an error probability?

Did they define sexual assault? And if they did define it what was the definition? Did they provide the definition along with the conclusion?

Did they word the questionnaire so as not to exclude major segments of the population to be surveyed?

Do they plan to revisit the study so as to measure any changes in the data?

Or did they call a bunch of rape crisis centers and create some BS numbers to throw out in the press?

Rape is a horrible crime. And those that commit should be punished to the fullest extent that the law provides. Caring for the victims of that crime is equally important. And having accurate data about the crime is essential to combating it in an effective manner.

Please read. Damned Lies and Statistics You can get it at Amazon


RE: Interesting Device
By OrSin on 8/29/2007 8:48:12 AM , Rating: 3
Remember no data exsit isn vacuum. I do believe alot of data is fudged to get a point across. I know if my friends and family was ask the numbers would be alot less then 4 to 1. But go to innercity area and the numbers would be 80% with some female have been assulted more then once.

Dont listen to statics for your life is the real piont. Dont what makes you feel comfortable. And for truely if you have no self defense training no small women taking a beefy man. (I'm leaving out black since it was just so racist to start with) Leave to defend yourself or run. Dont think you just can fight and get out. Remember if your attack is stranger is prepared for you to fight so, dont expect to suprise him.


RE: Interesting Device
By timmiser on 8/29/2007 4:50:49 PM , Rating: 1
It is a well known fact that 46.3 percent of all statistics are just made up.