FYI: Beretta USA and PepperBall Technologies, Inc Form Strategic Alliance...

[BeaverEater]

Why complain about less than lethal force?? Only a couple years ago it would have been lethal force since they didnt have the technology yet. Granted one person died, but think about how many were saved.

[Lohman446]

Why complain about less than lethal force?? Only a couple years ago it would have been lethal force since they didnt have the technology yet. Granted one person died, but think about how many were saved.

I am not complaining about less-lethal forms of crowd control, or police use. I strongly oppose however, giving private civilians this form of defense. For one it will make them beleive they have a defense that is of questionable value in small numbers. Two... I do not see any position where a citizen has the duty to use less-lethal force, or where it would be tactically intelligent.

[hitech]

... I do not see any position where a citizen has the duty to use less-lethal force, or where it would be tactically intelligent.

But what if "we" do? Can't I make that decision for myself?

[Lohman446]

But what if "we" do? Can't I make that decision for myself?

Ouch... that was a point. I don't mean for this to represent a radical position and I know that the position steps on toes. I understand your point, why should you not choose, why does everyone have to do things my way?

The thing is... many people who are shot, even with relativly "hot" rounds in a 9MM continue there attack. People are killed all the time because they do not beleive they jsut shot someone and they are still aggressive. I see this being a problem with these. The "I just shot you with a pepperball, why are you still coming" thing. With a gun, in civilian defense, it is taught to shoot until the threat stops... proper training overcomes the shooting someone, then stopping and seeing what happened. What do you do if your pepperballs have no effect... in 21 feet a man with a knife will likely do serious damage to you before you can draw a holstered gun if you don't have a way of stopping it. WIll you have time, after you tried this, to drop it and escalate? I think it creates a dangerous, false sense of safety.

If you are shooting someone with these you must justify it with a reasonable threat of serious and imminent danger - the same justification for deadly force. As such, I don't see the legal or tactical position for a civilian to use these when seriously considered. There use in the civilan market has no real place for protection, but for malicious use.. these things could be a problem. Imagine robbers getting them, or just vandals firing into a crowd...

[Evil Bob]

This might make a viable option for a parolee or someone on probation who is barred from owning a firearm in their lifetime, this at least gives them a better option then the ole Louiville Slugger for home defense.

Cait wait for the first pepperball driveby.

-Evil Bob

[Lohman446]

I don't mean to sound to be a jerk on this.

The thing is I hear it all the time.
"I'm just goign to use my gun to scare someone and make them stop"
"I'm going to shoot them in a leg and they'll stop"
etc.. and this thing is just one more thing like that.

You want something less lethal, learn Ju-jitsu... but if you are shooting at someone.... well shoot to stop the attack in the most effective way possible

[Conversekidz]

I want the glass breaking balls

[Alpha]

I play some outlawball wiith proper safety gear in a place where veryone is wearing safety gear or they're not around. I get in trouble with the law.

A cop shoots harder projectiles out of the same gun but at higher velocities against people not wearing proper protection in an uncontrollable enviornment.. and that's legal?

[Lohman446]

I play some outlawball wiith proper safety gear in a place where veryone is wearing safety gear or they're not around. I get in trouble with the law.

A cop shoots harder projectiles out of the same gun but at higher velocities against people not wearing proper protection in an uncontrollable enviornment.. and that's legal?

Yes.. its a question of legal duties. Except in my house if I can reasonably escape the imminent threat of great bodily harm (the requirement for me to draw a pistol) I am required, by law, to do that. A police officer has a legal duty to control that I do not have, nor do I have the right to. As such the law allows them broader discretion.

PS - this is nto legal advice, and is not true in 100% of situations. The fleeing felon law for isntance, if I have placed someone under citizens arrest my duties, responsibilities, and ways of enforcing control broaden - however I better be very technically right and have a good lawyer.

[hitech]

Ouch... that was a point.

No need to apologize. Your opinion is always welcome.

Yes, that could be a big problem. These weapons should NOT be available at wal-mart. Registration should be required. They should be an option for those of us who want it.

[Lohman446]

Im stuck not knowing all the studies. According to the NRA (gasp.. think there biased?) people who fight back against there attacker with a firearm are less likely to be seriously injured than someone who does not fight back. However, the standing theory is to "go with it" to a point. I worry about the point where one would decide fighting back with pepperballs would be the right choice. I am not sure it is better than nothing. To me better than nothing has to have a strong probability of stopping an agressor and not just upsetting them. Hence my choice of a .45 for personal carry and a 12 gauge for home defense. And I have a black belt in Kenpo, the point is if I fight back it is going to be in the most effective way I possibly can, regardless of less effective ways available. I am not going to engage in hand to hand combat if there is any question.

I am concerned with a "civilian" grade pepperball being less effective. We have seen cases where the police and military grade have been less than effective against a determined individual. I am concerned that people who have no understanding of firearms, won't own one, don't like it, etc (I understand your knowledge of paintball gives you a decent knowledge of this system, I would think) will buy something like this, throw it in there closet, and think it will be useful when they need it.

I fire 100 rounds a month through my .45, and even that is bottom end of what i would call acceptable training to be ready to use it. I am concerned with the people who have never used one of these, throw it in there closet... feel a need to use it.. and break a pepperball in there own face. I am also very concerned wtih the people who buy a pistol, throw it in there drawer, and expect to be able to use it when they need it.

I don't like things that people are going to think "ohh.. this is as good as a gun, but not as deadly". A gun is effective because it is deadly... the less deadly, the less effective (not that I don't particularly like some of the ineffective cartridged handguns too).

My concern is this being a "golden gun" to some people. We already have "golden guns" sitting in closets, drawers, under mattresses. Far too many, and far too many people are hurt because of them.

I have a clear understanding in my mind of the points that I will use deadly force, why, how... and what the line is. Unfortunately, most people don't know where there line is for any level of force... and deciding all of it at time of need is a poor plan.

[Alpha]

They shouldn't be .68 caliber. I'd be okay with that.

A smaller caliber would make for better range (theoreticly... less surface area means less drag right?)

And then it would mean jimmy couldn't steal some pepperballs from his dad put them in his brass eagle and do a driveby.

[maglover728]

[Lohman446]

The statute is slightly different from Michigans, but the same point comes across. Under Michigan law, using that pepperball gun would very likely be considered using deadly force - as the law stands if I pull the trigger on a firearm... even wth a warning shot, I have, under the law, employed deadly force whether I intend to or succeed at killing anyone or not. The outcome is not important to the law, it is the use of a firearm.

Michigan statue is basically deadly force may be used when there is a reasonable and imminent threat of serious bodily harm. Uner the law if a lesser use of force is reasonable I may not use deadly force - if brandishment of a firearm ends the conflict I may not escalate it, etc. However, it does not require me to try every other thing once that threat is imminent and reasonable.

[maglover728]

I am not telling you that you are mistaken. I am just happy that I can still recite that from memory after being on shore duty for 3 years.