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.


RE: Interesting Device
By Lazarus Dark on 8/29/2007 5:09:43 PM , Rating: 2
Um. In my experience it's more like 3 out of four women have been sexually assaulted. I don't know why, but I seem to be surrounded by women who have been sexually assaulted all my life. From my mother and sisters, grandmother, aunt, cousins, most every female friend I've had, and every girlfriend I've had except my current one, which is why the current relationship has lasted so long, she is not screwed up in the head from being assaulted like the others. It's sad to see most all the women I know have terrible relationships with men (not just romantic, but familial too) because of their experiences.

Perhaps these statistics seem skewed to you because you don't know enough women, or because you are not trustworthy enough for them to talk to you about it. I'll bet you do know quite a few, but they don't go around holding up signs and they don't care to talk to you about it. To me, the 1 in 4 sounds about right, if not a bit low.

btw, your comments seemed quite insensitive. Why do you hate women so much?


RE: Interesting Device
By oTAL (blog) on 8/29/2007 9:01:06 AM , Rating: 2
This is a great GREAT post.
I know from experience that the kind of resistance by attrition you mention does work in many situations. You must think as the assailant and measure their goals, risks and state of mind.

A junky attacked me with a knife and he wanted money and my cell phone. While thinking of how not to give him my brand new cell phone, I just quickly mentioned my cell phone was at home while taking out my wallet, and then "resisted" giving him the money.

I did not hand over my wallet. I opened it and took the bills except one and said I needed that one for gasoline or I wouldn't get home. There was a small argument that ended with me giving him the money and he left and forgot about the cell phone.

I saw what he wanted, I measured his fear, and I knew that acting angry, but calm, would not tip him over. An attacker's fear is the best way to get yourself killed. A robber won't kill you because he is evil - not in real life. He will kill you out of fear.

He wanted the money but he was scared of me. I could see it in his eyes. The resistance I was giving him was making him anxious and he just wanted to take the money and leave! He couldn't think straight.

Every situation is a different situation, but the path of compliance is not the best one. You should only comply while assessing the situation and measuring your opponent. You should look for any flaw you can find and exploit it.

Reasoning with him can be a good solution in the rare cases when it is possible... Acting stupid is sometimes good... usually the best resistance is to appear calm and confident. He will fear you because he will not know what is on your mind. Yet, he will not harm you without provocation.

Anyway, that's my humble opinion in my small peaceful country. Not much violence around here, much less gun violence. If you are going to be mugged around here, it will probably be with a knife. Much easier to remain in control when a knife is pointed at you than when a gun is in its place.

In conclusion, I believe your post deserves a mighty six!!


RE: Interesting Device
By masher2 (blog) on 8/29/2007 9:31:08 AM , Rating: 4
> "BTW, 1 in 4 girls will be sexually assaulted in some form by the time they turn 18"

I tried to research this statistic. I found hundreds of sites that claimed it, but few attributed it. Those that did, usually attributed the "American Association of University Women". Going directly to their site, the actual claim was "20-25% of women will be raped while in college". The basis for that claim was a USDOJ study named, "The Sexual Victimization of College Women".

Going to that study, I finally found original source data-- a telephone survey of 4,446 women from 1996. The results? 27.7 per 1000 women reported a "rape or attempted rape". The actual percentage is therefore 2.8%, or nearly 1/10 of the figure being bruited about . Furthermore, the study included "psychological coercion", including such things as "being offered a grade change, getting help with coursework or offered a ride" in exchange for sexual favors. Finally, the study included "verbal threats" in the attempted rape category, which includes such things as "a threat to damage your reputation or exclude you from a [social] group".

So in summary, if someone said to a college student, "have sex with me and I'll do your homework", or "have sex with me or I'll tell everyone did you anyway", she's included in the statistics...even if she refused, and no further action was taken by either party.

Frankly, I'm suprised at the AAUW's manipulation, and outright fabrication of data to fit their ends. One can only assume the number of actual rapes that actually include some use or threat of violence to be far lower than the 2.8% figure.

Actual source data here: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf


RE: Interesting Device
By alifbaa on 8/29/2007 10:25:43 AM , Rating: 3
Very interesting. To be honest, I'm not sure if I'm surprised by the potential manipulation or not. My sense, however, is that their number is closer to reality than the 2.8% figure, although it certainly depends on how you define a sexual assault.

I worked as a sexual assault counselor when I was in college. Every year, we would conduct a survey of all the incoming freshmen and outgoing seniors. We would define sexual assault as "sexual contact without consent absent of threat or coercion," and leave it up to the individual to decide what that meant. The theory behind this was that if it was traumatic enough for them to consider it to be without consent, then it was something we needed to be concerned about. If I'm remembering correctly, our results consistently showed that roughly 1 in 8 freshmen reported being assaulted at some time in their lives prior to attending college and 1 in 5 reported being assaulted by the time they were graduating. On a side note, 1 in 13 men reported being assaulted by the time they graduated, too. You certainly NEVER hear about that.

I'm sure that the vast majority of those cases don't involve a stranger violently attacking a woman at random. The typical number thrown around is that 85% of women knew their attacker prior to the assault, and that matches my experience as a counselor.

The most common thing I saw was women who had little or no familiarity with a person drinking heavily and willingly putting themselves in a place their attacker considered safe (typically alone in a bedroom), never once considering the trust they were placing in a relative stranger or, at best, someone who was clearly "creepy."

No threat of violence was typically involved, but physical control was often employed to gain unrestricted access to the woman. In other words, they would be held down, but not beaten.

What we as counselors were most often left with was a destroyed basket case of a woman with an utterly unprovable legal case and a social network that, at best, tolerated her presence once they found out about her allegations.

My views are not politically correct, nor are they popular amongst the typically female sexual assault counselors that dominate the discussion, but I left that job with the feeling that those who drank heavily in the presence of strangers or creeps were engaging in extremely risky behavior.

Saying this does not imply that I fault the women, but I would compare it to walking down the street with a wad of $100 bills hanging out of your pocket. Everyone should be free to walk down the street with a lot of cash openly visible. Most people will watch you and your money walk by and not do anything. There is, however, a certain percentage of the population that is looking for the opportunity to exploit vulnerabilities they find. Displaying such open vulnerability increases your chances of being attacked. If you go walking down the street, and you get mugged, it's your attacker's fault, plain and simple. Just the same, though, you weren't doing everything you could to ensure your own safety.

Every year, I would try to incorporate this message into the training we gave incoming Freshmen. Every year, the feminist crowd would go nuts and keep this simple message of prevention from getting communicated.


RE: Interesting Device
By Oregonian2 on 8/28/2007 6:03:59 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, if the person thought to be an attacker turned out to be a local policeman, and this thing were pulled out, there's a very good chance that the person pulling this thing out would get dead pretty quickly should they miss or be too slow. Pulling out gun looking things (especially the black model) had better be successful once decided to be used.


RE: Interesting Device
By herrdoktor330 on 8/28/2007 9:35:42 PM , Rating: 2
Well, a solution to prevent that would to put an orange barrel-cap at the end of the weapon to signify that it's not a real gun. You know... in a similar fashion they equip toy guns for kids. I realize this certainly isn't a toy, but if they had a similar association in place it would prevent those kinds of police on civilian fatalities. Then it would be up to the officer and their training to discern that it's a non-lethal gun or not. But it is a vaild concern though.


RE: Interesting Device
By feraltoad on 8/29/2007 12:19:55 AM , Rating: 3
Remember the guy that got shot because he had his wallet out? Well, it did say "Bad Motherf*cker" on it.


RE: Interesting Device
By hobbes7869 on 8/29/2007 8:14:42 AM , Rating: 2
Turns out I use the idea of Deterrence. Get a permit to carry license and pack a colt .50 or a sometype of hand cannon, and while you cant draw as quickly, the sight of something like that carried on your belt, like a cowboy is something to behold. Maybe even pack a smaller hang gun. for quick draw. If someone attacks me, i dont want them temporarily disable, i want them dead. I dont really care about their intentions.


RE: Interesting Device
By UNHchabo on 8/29/2007 11:56:11 AM , Rating: 2
Try growing up, not being 12 years old, and getting some maturity. Outside of the criminal sector, nobody who actually carries a pistol does it for show. People use practical pistols, and conceal them, so criminals don't know they're carrying. (also good so that Jane Soccermom doesn't freak out and think that you are going to shoot up the mall)

Also, Colt does not produce a .50 caliber pistol. If you're thinking of the Desert Eagle, you should do research. It's not practical at all. Hollywood is almost always wrong.

If you're old enough, and interested in carrying a pistol, then I encourage you to do plenty of research first. Find out the local laws, talk to some people about practical firearms, and practical methods of carrying, and for Pete's sake, don't give us a bad name.


RE: Interesting Device
By herrdoktor330 on 8/29/2007 11:59:44 PM , Rating: 2
To interject for a moment; any gun can be lethal assuming the target isn't wearing kevlar, which most aren't.

A headshot achieved with a .22 caliber pistol is just as deadly (if not more for controllable recoil) than other larger caliber weapons. Granted, a .45 and up can take someone's head off, but a .22 will go in one end of the human skull and not go out the other end leaving the bullet to ricochet inside the skull.

But the main idea is you don't want to go to court to argue why you had to shoot someone in the face to kill them. I could get a "conceal and carry" permit and I could, in theory, shoot someone in the front and maybe have a case for Self Defense. But it's much simpler and alot less paperwork to defend yourself with a weapon that isn't going to kill anyone. The worse you would have to worry about with the weapon in this article is taking someone's eye out with a well placed shot to the face. But if you were in any serious danger, I doubt that person would want to take their story to Civil Claims Court... although I'm sure we'd all be surprised about the amount of people who would.

I do like guns, but I don't really like paperwork or explaining to police why I have a firearm. It's easier to tell them I have this "toy gun" and have them not think I'm here to shoot up the neighborhood.


RE: Interesting Device
By exdeath on 8/29/2007 11:37:37 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter.

The person who wrongfully started the conflict is ALWAYS in the legal wrong to escalate.

Bank robbers can't cry self defense when they shot at police... duh.

$299 is too much, I have a hard time paying good money for toys when you can get some nice real guns for that or a little more.


RE: Interesting Device
By TimberJon on 8/29/2007 5:08:22 PM , Rating: 2
Off the non-lethal train, Id still prefer a flechette pistol.


um..
By GhandiInstinct on 8/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: um..
By Warren21 on 8/28/2007 5:05:28 PM , Rating: 2
Uhh... what?

Did you read past the first paragraph? It mentionned previous methods of personal defence and how they were only effective at close range (ie. pepper spray).

The second paragraph goes on to say an effective range of 40 feet on this gun --not exactly 'close range'-- not 20 or 100.

RTFA.


RE: um..
By Samus on 8/28/2007 5:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
yea he lost me too. this seems to be the most practical self defense weapon yet. it's entirely capable of stopping someone with a hang gun, knife, etc.


RE: um..
By Vanilla Thunder on 8/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: um..
By FITCamaro on 8/28/2007 6:56:30 PM , Rating: 2
Yes and most criminals can't hit something 25 feet away much less 100 feet. 100 feet is a long way to shoot a pistol. Granted the same might apply for this thing but at least it won't have the kick of a handgun.


RE: um..
By kyp275 on 8/28/2007 7:04:59 PM , Rating: 2
aye, 100ft pistol is more in the arena of competition type weapons, and those are shot with bi-pods or sandbags support etc.

your normal caliber handguns just don't have a long enough barrel to retain accuracy at that range, esp. when shot by someone with little training in how to fire it correctly


RE: um..
By 91TTZ on 8/28/2007 8:29:51 PM , Rating: 1
100 feet isn't really long range. If you go to an outdoor pistol range, they usually have 25 and 50 yard ranges, meaning 75 feet is the "short range" and 150 feet is the long range. And that's not even for competition, that's for casual shooting of ordinary pistols.


RE: um..
By alifbaa on 8/28/2007 11:04:20 PM , Rating: 2
In a tactical situation, 25 yards is considered the practical range for handguns in all but the most skilled shooters. Talented shooters with lots of practice can approach 50 yards with decent accuracy. There is really no practical use I can think of for developing those kinds of skills with a handgun.

In practice, most defensive handgun shootings occur at ranges of less than 15 feet. In personal defense situations, this range is often more like 5 feet or less. It should also be noted that most police officers fire 4-6 times for every time they hit the suspect. As I said earlier, that's at a typical range of 0-15 feet, not yards.

Also, competition handgun shooting rarely involves distances of more than 25 yards. Instead, it focuses on that 0-25 foot range and tests shooters' abilities to rapidly place accurate shots under stress. Any longer range shots generally occur under slow fire conditions.

Finally, if you ever shoot someone at a range of more than about 40-50 feet, you'll be booking yourself for a long stay at a state institution unless something truly bizarre was taking place at the time. Good luck justifying that shooting to the jury you will undoubtedly face as being required for self defense.


RE: um..
By HrilL on 8/29/2007 12:33:58 AM , Rating: 2
umm a lot of people use handguns for pig hunting and also target shooting just for pain good old fun... And I don't think you have to be the most skilled shooter for 25 yards. I remember my dad once shot a jack n the box ball right between the eyes at 50 yards on his first shot with his colt 44mag. Anyway we know a guy that shoots his colt 45 at 200 yards without a problem as well. So shooting a handgun at longer range can be done easy. But It won't be considered self defense... Shooting to kill in most states you won't off either... Maybe Florida or Texas though.


RE: um..
By alifbaa on 8/29/2007 1:58:37 AM , Rating: 2
If you read my post, my comments were clearly limited to what a handgun is actually intended for -- self defense. Self defense is not shooting things with a scope at 200 yards. Self defense is not shooting a jack in the box. Self defense is accurate, rapid fire under extreme stress. You cannot, repeat, cannot, accomplish self defense with a handgun at distances beyond about 7 feet without training. With training and practice, you can extend that out to 25 yards. With real skill, you can perhaps push that out to 50 yards. Having said that, self defense realistically ends well before the 25 yard limit.

There is a world of difference between shooting a jack in the box once at leisure and shooting a person when your life depends on it or even hitting a target in competition with repeated, accurate shots in rapid succession. As I said, skilled shooters can do it accurately at 50 yards (150 feet) max. That's pretty far for rapid fire. Your pappy hitting something once in the back yard with unlimited time to get the shot off and no pressure other than pride is a long way from rapid fire.


RE: um..
By rdeegvainl on 8/29/2007 6:01:13 AM , Rating: 3
Yes when you clearly limit the scope of your comment, to what you believe a handgun is intended for. But that is where other will differ from you, i think a handgun is meant for having a small easily portable device that sends out a projectile at a high velocity, that can be used in many applications. Most effective at putting a hole in something. And the world of difference between shooting a jack in the box at leisure and shooting a person when your life depends on it, is relative to your training and your will to live, and also your ability to keep cool under stress. You don't fire the weapon using different physics, or different mannerisms, unless you loose your cool. But to your previous post saying there is no practical use for skill using a handgun at long ranges, complete and utter bull. Having more skill at longer range will also make you a better shot at closer range, and what about when your assailant is at a long distance. If you can get a distance from him and he still pursues, it is quite feasible that your skill at long range can save your life, with another large reason being military use. You may have to use a weapon of opportunity, that just happens to be an enemies handgun. You, by only looking at self defense, as the only reason to use a handgun, made yourself ignorant of all other possibilities.


RE: um..
By adam92682 on 8/29/2007 4:13:45 AM , Rating: 3
if im on the jury they will go free


RE: um..
By kyp275 on 8/28/2007 7:01:19 PM , Rating: 2
if you ever had to use a pepper spray or something like this pepper gun, chances are your attackers are well within its 40ft effective range.

On that note, I can't imagine most people will be able to fire this thing accurately at a moving target AT 20 ft, much less 40.

Unless of course they've had prior experience/training with a pistol, in which case they probably don't have any problem packing a .45 instead.


too big (size matters)
By BikeDude on 8/28/2007 5:42:28 PM , Rating: 1
At first I thought "great, I can give one to my gf", but where the h--- is she going to keep this thing? Her handbag is cluttered enough as it is. I think I'll just get her a pepperspray.




RE: too big (size matters)
By alifbaa on 8/28/2007 7:10:03 PM , Rating: 3
I unfortunately have no citation to give you, but it has been related to me by several police officer friends of mine and self defense experts that I know that pepper spray is very often fired either in the wrong direction (back at the victim) or into the wind (leading to incapacitating effects in both the victim and the attacker).

Also, in the event that your girlfriend actually gets her pepper spray out, unsnaps its safety, sprays in the correct direction, hits the attacker, and doesn't get any spray blown back at her, the attacker will already be close enough to do whatever he wants. Having been exposed to cx before, I can tell you that a determined attacker can fight through the pain if he wants too. Against a typical woman, I'd say the average man could do so quite effectively. Pepper spray is a panacea to give the illusion of safety to those too afraid of handguns.

As for this device, having the ability to deliver the pepper spray at greater range is nice, but it is essentially a handgun in terms of its use. Those familiar with handguns know that they are the most difficult of all firearms to fire accurately enough to even hit an attacker. Without regular practice and competent training, I guarantee you your girlfriend or anyone else holding this thing will be unable to hit an attacker at even 15 feet under stress.

Another interesting note, police have a rule called "the rule of 21" which says that a person holding a knife within 21 feet of another person with the intent to use it presents a deadly threat and can be immediately responded to with deadly force. The reason for this is that a person with a knife can cross those 21 feet in less than 2 seconds. 2 seconds is the typical reaction time for a trained police officer to pull the trigger on a weapon already aimed at an attacker. Applying that to this device and your presumably untrained and terrified girlfriend, an attacker within the 40 foot range of this device already needs to be engaged with deadly force. The only device I would trust in this situation is a handgun of suitable caliber in the hands of a trained shooter.

These less than lethal devices are really only useful in the hands of a trained police officer who is actively being backed up by other trained police officers holding real weapons. As for this device, I think the pink color says it all.


RE: too big (size matters)
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 9:35:42 PM , Rating: 2
> "pepper spray is very often fired either in the wrong direction (back at the victim) or into the wind (leading to incapacitating effects in both the victim and the attacker)."

I'm sure any potential rape victims would glady be incapacitated themselves if their attackers were as well. If nothing else, it gives a few additional minutes for help to arrive

And-- once in a while -- very often pepper spray is sprayed in the right direction.

> "[handguns] are the most difficult of all firearms to fire accurately "

Very true. So what's your solution...arm all the ladies with full-length shotguns?

The point is something is better than nothing. Yes, a pepper ball doesn't have the knockdown power of 00 buck. Yes, it might miss the attacker, especially in untrained hands. So? Its a chance at least...and since our modern society doesn't allow people to carry firearms around (even with a permit, they're illegal in too many locations to list here), this is the best thing most people are going to get.


RE: too big (size matters)
By alifbaa on 8/28/2007 10:42:13 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, what I would suggest is that she gets a concealed carry permit, a handgun, training, and practice. Even in untrained hands, the chances of hitting the target are the same as with the pepper gun, but the chances of successfully fending off an attacker are much greater when a firearm of any type is used.

My point wasn't that a handgun was useless, it was that this device would be even more unlikely to be used successfully than a handgun since practice will be both just as essential yet harder to accomplish. A handgun can easily be practiced with by going to your local range. Where are you going to practice with this thing? Is it even designed for repeated use month after month for years on end the same way a handgun is? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

As for the shotguns, yes, I'm in full favor of people using shotguns for home defense. It is a far superior weapon to a handgun. With only rudimentary training, a user can employ a shotgun with decent accuracy and tremendous effectiveness. The drawback, as you alluded to, is that you can't carry it with you. To paraphrase what Col. Jeff Cooper used to say, "the first rule of a handgun fight is to bring something other than a handgun." Any time you can use something other than a handgun, you should use something other than a handgun.

With regards to not being allowed to carry firearms, you're right; bars, schools, churches, government buildings and airports are off limits. There are a few more places, but you're generally legal to carry just about anywhere else, and your training will fill you in on most of the other legal issues inherent to concealed carry. Concealed carry is legal in some form in almost every state (all except 2 states). Where it isn't, the pepper gun would be my next best choice, but it would be a distant second.

I guess my point is that there are far better solutions out there than a pepper gun. Of course, many (if not most) women are unwilling to carry a true defensive weapon. They are generally much more comfortable with this type of device instead. The reason for this is that most women aren't able to contemplate using deadly force or even think in a tactical manner. The trouble is that when trouble comes looking for them, they suddenly find themselves much more comfortable with the idea, yet don't have the strength or tools to act defensively.

You're right, the pepper gun is certainly better than nothing. The trouble is that when you get past the emotion of having "protection without consequences" and start looking at the actual tactical employment of these devices, you realize that it's only barely better than nothing.


RE: too big (size matters)
By masher2 (blog) on 8/28/2007 10:58:45 PM , Rating: 2
> "With regards to not being allowed to carry firearms, you're right; bars, schools, churches, government buildings and airports are off limits"

Depending on the state, it also includes polling places, sporting or athletic events, concerts, banks, hospitals, public parks, amusement parks, daycare centers, trains, public buses, public meetings or demonstrations, rallies, parades, and any place posted as barring firearms. Also remember that "bars" includes any restaurant that serves any sort of alchohol, "schools" includes colleges and universities, and "government buildings" includes courthouses, post offices, and any and all types of federal property.

Sorry, but that doesn't leave a lot of places where one CAN carry a gun. What do you do when you're in one of these areas, just leaving it, or planning on being there soon?

When one considers that a CCW permit is virtually unobtainable in some of our larger cities (NYC, LA, etc), you have to seriously consider the option of nonlethal defense. The "just get a gun and practice with it" isn't always a viable option.


RE: too big (size matters)
By alifbaa on 8/29/2007 12:13:51 AM , Rating: 2
You're absolutely correct on all aspects of your argument. For your question of what to do with the weapon when you are around a prohibited area, you leave it in your car, which is one of the most likely places you'll be attacked. In general, I personally don't like to carry inside of buildings. The likelihood of being attacked in those settings is so remote that the risks involved with concealed carry override the gains. For the most part, I carry when I'm in my car, and only outside of my car when I know I am allowed to and feel like there is a heightened risk.

Perhaps it's a bit far afield from the discussion we've been having, but my opinion is that there is a real need to open up these restricted places to more concealed carry. Whenever a store or government bans concealed carry, all they ban are the law abiding, background checked, trained citizens from protecting themselves. Everyone else is going to carry just like they always have, and the police are just as far away and inherently reactionary as they always are.

Just look at the Virginia Tech shootings if you need an example of this problem. It may not be a comfortable thought to allow guns in public places, but its utility has been proven time and time again.

The fact is that literally everyone else in the restricted area is less of a known quantity than the concealed carriers. That, combined with the stellar safety and appropriate use of force record of concealed carry owners, and you begin to realize that the real threat is far more likely to originate from the unknown masses surrounding the carrier rather than the carrier himself. The result is that, at best, you put potential offenders at ease in restricted areas.


RE: too big (size matters)
By lagomorpha on 8/29/2007 11:25:59 AM , Rating: 2
It looks like like Eric Cartman may have been right about something. Bear mace has an effective range of 30 feet, is much cheaper, and is easier for an untrained person to aim. It seems superior to this new product in all respects.

http://www.botac.com/macebearpepper.html


RE: too big (size matters)
By Misty Dingos on 8/29/2007 12:36:11 PM , Rating: 2
http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayC...

This is how effective pepper spray is when the person it is used on is willing to fight through the pain. How effective do you think it will be on a drug using sociopath?

I prefer Colt 1991A1. Barring that four inches of razor sharp stainless steel. It is very hard to attack someone when you your small intestines are on your feet.

You will have to sign up to see the video but it is truly worth it.


Goodluck using this against someone in the US
By UnFaZeD on 8/29/2007 4:12:29 AM , Rating: 1
"The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070828/us_nm/world_fi...

chances are, your attacker will shoot back...and not with no measly pepper bullet...




By rdeegvainl on 8/29/2007 5:29:52 AM , Rating: 2
Funny though that most people who own a firearm, own multiple firearms, and then there are collectors with hundreds of hand guns, Like my father, who had over 100 handguns, i guess when you don't take into effect the percentage of people that actually own weapons, the facts look different.
And that my friend is a skewed look at the facts.


By UNHchabo on 8/29/2007 11:48:05 AM , Rating: 2
Not just that; also the fact that if you're "using this against someone", then that means either they're a criminal, or you are. If you are, then you deserve to get shot. If they are, then they're actually not that likely to have a firearm, since most are owned by average citizens.

Unless, of course, you're talking about places like New York City, LA, Chicago, or Great Britain, where any weapons (any, let alone firearms) you come across are likely to be criminally-owned.


RE: Goodluck using this against someone in the US
By SmokeRngs on 8/29/2007 3:21:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said"


And I've been thinking the ratio was closer to 2:1 gun:person ratio.

Between me and my dad, we have enough rifles and shotguns to arm our families with at least one shotgun and one rifle each with the ammo to match. My dad is the only one with a handgun and that's just a little .22 pistol. I don't think that thing is accurate farther than 5 feet with no wind, though.


By UNHchabo on 8/29/2007 3:32:32 PM , Rating: 2
Among gun owners the ratio is probably at least 2:1, but think about the number of people who don't own anything. Roughly 1:1 for the whole population sounds about right.


Now the real question...
By Vanilla Thunder on 8/28/2007 5:03:10 PM , Rating: 5
Is this going to be availalble in a specially painted Halo 3 edition?

Vanilla




RE: Now the real question...
By Samus on 8/28/2007 5:13:29 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going to hold out for the QuakeWars model, shaped like a rail gun, of course.


Nice idea, BUT
By qdemn7 on 8/29/2007 2:45:52 AM , Rating: 2
The real problem is the same places like NYC, Chicago, LA, SF, where it's almost impossible to get a CCW permit for handgun unless you're wealthy or a celebrity will prohibit the carrying or even possession of one of these.

The harsh truth is the politicians in these large urban areas, especially Mayors Daley, Newsome and Bloomberg simply do not believe citizens should have any means of self-defense.




RE: Nice idea, BUT
By Oxygenthief on 8/29/2007 5:17:45 AM , Rating: 2
You have to have a permit to cary a paintball gun?


RE: Nice idea, BUT
By UNHchabo on 8/29/2007 11:49:17 AM , Rating: 2
I imagine that laws banning pepper spray would also outlaw pepperballs. Most of the places he named have such laws, meaning that if you have to defend yourself, you're essentially forced to use your bare hands.


Tasters Choice Moment
By SiliconAddict on 8/28/2007 5:50:11 PM , Rating: 5
*Whispers Quietly*
We've secretly replaced Johnny's paint ball ammo with PAVA pepper filled projectiles. Lets watch and see if his opponent Billy can tell the difference.

POOF....SPLAT!

OH GOD THE PAIN! MAKE IT STOP MAKE IT STOP!!

*As Billy rolls in pain in the background*
"So Johnny what do you think?"
"Thanks Bob. This is great. I'm never going back to bland painball again!"
*Shoots Billy again*
ARRRRGGGGHHHH!!
There you have it folks *Poof, poof, poof...Splat splat spat* proof that PAVA pepper filled projectiles are superior to all the rest.




How can I get those Pepper Balls?
By ZimZum on 8/28/2007 5:46:56 PM , Rating: 2
These would make for one hell of a paintball match.




So really...
By Souka on 8/28/2007 7:11:45 PM , Rating: 2
Huh?

so really its a paint ball gun.....




here's how you'd use it
By bigpow on 8/28/2007 9:27:57 PM , Rating: 2
Left-click fires primary fire, for long range
and
Right-click fires secondary fire, for short range

and if the assailant is near by, just use Meelee attack - everyone know that's unbeatable.




By wordsworm on 8/28/2007 11:58:30 PM , Rating: 2
What if one misses? If someone misses the target with a gun, then the other person will feel that their life is in danger and they'd better get their butts out of there. But if someone misses with this thing, I don't think it'll carry the same intimidation. What they need is a semi-automatic pistol that can fire off 50 rounds in about 1 minute. I don't think having a wide spray effect at close range would be so important with such a device.




What about misfires?
By Oxygenthief on 8/29/2007 5:15:33 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone ever have a paintball gun misfire? It happens quite often if you haven't. I am not sure I want to have a paintball gun filled with pepper spay to misfire in my hands. It would probably be the equivalent of shooting yourself with a tazer gun. The only thing you would hear besides your own body convulsing is the laughter of the guy about to beat the living crap out of you for trying to shoot him!




Plastic Pink Gun
By aguilpa1 on 8/29/2007 8:48:40 AM , Rating: 2
oooh, oooh, get away, or I'll shot you with my pretty pink plastic gun...., and the criminal will just run away.... right(sarcasm)




second best pic ever...
By abhaxus on 8/29/2007 3:03:23 AM , Rating: 1
So the 300 reference for the Sparta CPU cores was all time #1... but damn. What a great SP episode.

Woo... wooo.... wooof....




"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki