carrying pepper spray around

how many people here carry around pepper spray?

is it less manly for a man to carry pepper spray?

Its not about it being less manly. Pepper spray does not work for several reasons. (I am assuming you mean to use it against a trained person, otherwise there would be no point, you could just hit them.)

1. By the time you take it out of your pocket, bag, whatever it would be too late against someone trained.

2. They can shield their eyes, its not that hard to avoid it, just close your eyes and turn away.

3. You might cause no damage, or you can burn their eyes off. Not very consistent in intensity.

4. Why are you(general you not a personal you) learning MAs if you are planning on carrying something which was designed for people who cant defend themselves?

5. I would rather invest in a short blabe then pepper spray if i were to carry a weapon.

[This message has been edited by MAGr (edited 04-20-2005).]

I carry a little kobotan like device with a pepper spray. i think that it is a pretty good, legal, edge for personal security. my wife has one, I have another device in the car, and 2 big blowers in the house.

it might not be manly, so what? that is totally irrelevant. it can solve my problem, and keep a situation from escalating into lethal violence.

i get ur points magr

i know pepper spray wont get me out of everyhting, but i think it can be quite effective in most basic situations.

i saw a vid once where cops were getting beaten, they were both saved when one of the cops came back with pepper spray, so its not entirely useless

Forget about silly concepts like whether you are acting in a "manly" way or not. Forget about machismo. Use whatever is useful and necessary(and legal) for defending yourself. You should not exclude any potential method simply because your adversary is or is not trained.

1. By the time you take it out of your pocket, bag, whatever it would be too late against someone trained.

maybe, maybe not, I carry mine on my keys, and I find it hard to believe that somebody could get next to me faster than I could use it.

2. They can shield their eyes, its not that hard to avoid it, just close your eyes and turn away.

the trick is to use a mist - a product that puts out a cloud. you aren't only aiming for the eyes you are creating a cloud that, espectially when they are breathing hard, with burn when inhaled.

3. You might cause no damage, or you can burn their eyes off. Not very consistent in intensity.

go for quality and freshness

4. Why are you(general you not a personal you) learning MAs if you are planning on carrying something which was designed for people who cant defend themselves?

life isn't a game, what every gives you an edge, use.


5. I would rather invest in a short blabe then pepper spray if i were to carry a weapon.

that is smart, kill somebody, that is always a great way to start the week. a knife brings the conflict to a lethal stage. don't touch a knife unless you are ready to kill or be killed. all of these idiots who teach and train for non-lethal knfe techniques are just setting themselves up for disaster. don't use a knife, unless you are ready to kill or be killed, and all that entails.

[This message has been edited by MAGr (edited 04-20-2005).][/QUOTE]

If someone is carrying a gun there is the 21 feet rule (i am not making it up) that i can reach you before you can shoot me from anywhere within that distance. So if i am 5 feet away i can hit a few times before you can withdraw your spray.

I only fight in self defence, therefore if i judged that the situation was serious enough that i would need to use a weapon, whether it be pepper spray or a knife, then i would use a knife because it is more effective and because i would not care about jail as long as i am alive.

The law in the UK is you are not allowed to carry a blade that is longer than 3 inches. So if i defended myself with a short blade i would stand a good chance in the fight and in the court.

I take your point though.
I dont carry any sort of weapon anyway.
Just my opinion on if i was going to.
I agree that if you bring aknife to a fight you are making it very serious, but i would only bring one if it was that serious in the first place.
Actually, no, i would probably run if i could.

1. By the time you take it out of your pocket, bag, whatever it would be too late against someone trained.

If you're in an area where you feel you might need it you should already have it out.

2. They can shield their eyes, its not that hard to avoid it, just close your eyes and turn away.

Pepper spray doesn't just affect the eyes it affects breathing as well.Turning away doesn't work in a cloud of mist.

3. You might cause no damage, or you can burn their eyes off. Not very consistent in intensity.

I covered the eyes thing already. As far as intensity you're not looking to end a fight with it you just need he advantage to get out of the situation,pepper spray will allow you to do this.

4. Why are you(general you not a personal you) learning MAs if you are planning on carrying something which was designed for people who cant defend themselves?

I learn ma for self defense,not for the attitude that I don't need an edge cause of all my cool techniques.If they can't defend themselves,why are they robbing/attacking me??

5. I would rather invest in a short blabe then pepper spray if i were to carry a weapon.

This is just bad advice alltogether!!

Pepper Spray or not to Pepper Spray?

Whatever you choose to do, have a plan and practice it. Also make sure that what if you do use it, you can deal with the affects yourself. OC powder/mist/foam has a nasty habit of cross contaminating. If you can't handle the stuff yourself, you might want to know that before using it in the street.

Also, timeliness is the most important factor in proper application. The best time to spray is often before the fight becomes physical (which may create some confusion and some legal concerns later, check your local statutes and ordinances on Use of Force & Self Defense). This is because a goal oriented attacker can and often will fight through the affects of OC. He might have trouble seeing clearly but will not likely be incapacitated.

I was going to bring up the same thing Fletch1 did. Make sure you can handle what carrying for cross contamination and check your local statues, because one of you said you would rather invest in a good blade not smart thinking. That could send you jail faster then your attacker if they don’t any weapons on them other than fist. But that is just Nevada law, I don’t know about yours.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SANCHIN31:

This is just bad advice alltogether!![/QUOTE]

Its not advice, its my opinion.

And anyway, just because i am walking at night, i m not going to be walking around with my pepper spray in hand.
Most people (ladies) have it in their hand bag, and if i was a thief i would get there before they would.

I was just saying that faced with the choice of carrying a defensive weapon, I could use the short blade more effectively than pepper spray.

Let me ask you a question SANCHIN,
Do you think that as a defensive weapon, what would be more effective in a fight (not multiple opponents) your MA skills or pepper spray.
I am sure that with your experience as a martial artist, you could take someone out faster and more effectively than pepper spray.
Thats what i was trying to say. Not "that my techniques are cool and the best" just that they are better than a pepper spray.

Of course i am assuming that the guy is untrained and that he is not carrying a weapon himself.
If he was carrying a weapon i would use the ultra-secret flying-stool-to-the-head technique.
Or the deadly run-till-my-legs-drop technique

And anyway, just because i am walking at night, i m not going to be walking around with my pepper spray in hand.

Why not? You should.


I was just saying that faced with the choice of carrying a defensive weapon, I could use the short blade more effectively than pepper spray.

If you're already involved in the fight yes.
I am opposed to stabbing unarmed people.


Let me ask you a question SANCHIN,
Do you think that as a defensive weapon, what would be more effective in a fight (not multiple opponents) your MA skills or pepper spray.

In a fight my skills,before the fight pepper spray.

I am sure that with your experience as a martial artist, you could take someone out faster and more effectively than pepper spray.

Yes


Thats what i was trying to say. Not that my techniques are cool and the best just that they are better than a pepper spray.

It's just an alternative not a replacement.


Of course i am assuming that the guy is untrained and that he is not carrying a weapon himself.
If he was carrying a weapon i would use the ultra-secret flying-stool-to-the-head technique.
Or the deadly run-till-my-legs-drop technique

Now that's a good strategy!! [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif[/IMG]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SANCHIN31:

"Let me ask you a question SANCHIN,
Do you think that as a defensive weapon, what would be more effective in a fight (not multiple opponents) your MA skills or pepper spray."

In a fight my skills,before the fight pepper spray.

[/QUOTE]

Point taken.
I would have to agree there

Damn that hurt! [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif[/IMG]

Everything weapon-wise has it's pros and cons. Pepper spray can take some time before the effects are felt. This delayed response is something that many average people won't be prepared for.

That said, police USE pepper spray for a reason. Many of them find that it can and does work. Some people have died after having been sprayed with it.


-John

unfortunarely pepper spray is illegal where i come from as ive just found it [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/frown.gif[/IMG]

If pepper spray is illegal in your country, a good substitute is lemon juice (the one that comes in the squeezy plastic lemon shaped container). It won't affect breathing like pepper sprray, but it stings the eyes, the attacker won't know what it is and it COULD buy you a nanosecond or two.

It was suggested by Mark the Brit (love that handle) from these forums. Brilliant idea!
Sharon

[QUOTE]Originally posted by still wadowoman:
If pepper spray is illegal in your country, a good substitute is lemon juice (Sharon[/QUOTE]

If we are going for homegrown stuff then the possibilities are endless.

Bleach,
Acid,
Chilli spray...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MAGr:
If we are going for homegrown stuff then the possibilities are endless.

Bleach,
Acid,
Chilli spray...

[/QUOTE]

I can see, chili spray, but bleach and acid would be crosing the line. Those can cause serious permanent injuries, whereas pepper spray or lemon juice would not. Carry around a vial of bleach to use and you'll be going to court in no time, no matter what they tried on you.

What about grapefruit juice, that stuff sucks in the eyes.

Joel

Well I gota say that pepper spray (not always affective) is good if you want to still talk to the guy and ask them why is it that you had to spray them. But to tell you the truth is that if you are in the possision to use pepper spray it can be a bigger mistake taking it out and trying to use it (As seen in the previous replies) most people who are attacking you these days on the street have either received some or alot of training in combat. The best thing that can stop a trained attacked with nothing but causing serious bodily harm nothing come near my sig sauer p239. Two taps to the chest and one to the head will stop any confrintation. But im sure there are some of you out there that will say that I should stand and fight but if the situation calls for you to defend your life then legaly shooting them is your best option. And this is coming from a trained martial artist that enjoys nothing more than a good fight.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rougewarrior:
to defend your life then legaly shooting them is your best option. And this is coming from a trained martial artist that enjoys nothing more than a good fight.[/QUOTE]

I dont know where you are from, but in our part of the world carrying a gun is illegal, even for self defence.
And if it was legal then you would be damn sure that the attacker has one too.
Guns are not the answer, look at the state of the US (no offence to americans) but gun crime is off the scales!
Last week another shooting in school.
And you are supporting carrying guns?
Listen, i dont mean to be rude, but
you are absolutely, 100%, positively wrong about this.

Magr, dissing our god-given right to carry guns violates the 11th commandment. J/K.

Most people are not highly-skilled ninja attackers. Pepper spray will deter most people. As a martial artist, pepper spray is a good opener for a self defence scenario. Even if that opener is spray and run.

Most conflict scenarios have a buildup or prelude. If someone is following you, pull out your pepper spray. Keep it in your hand. It makes you feel better. Kinda like a security blanket.

A knife is a skillful weapon. Using it will get you thrown in jail. Truthfully, you'll get in less trouble in the US using a gun than a knife. A gun is more socially accepted as a tool for self defence. Why is this? Well, it's a question of cowardice. A complete coward can use a gun. I guess the law favors the defender if he/she is a complete coward. It takes more guts to use a knife so it is assumed that a knife wielder is not a defender, but an aggressor.

To answer the initial question: It's very manly to carry pepper spray. If you feel you are in danger and need something to protect yourself, why not? The bottom line is, if a situation goes down and your need to seem manly got you injured/killed, you lost.

I will merely state that you are buying into a myth MAGR.
UK violent crime is just as bad if not worse than the US.

Think for yourself-do not buy the lies sold to you as the truth.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nekogami13 V2.0:
I will merely state that you are buying into a myth MAGR.
UK violent crime is just as bad if not worse than the US.

Think for yourself-do not buy the lies sold to you as the truth.[/QUOTE]


I am not buying into anything.
But I know that waht the figures say.
Thousands of gun related deaths each year in the US,
Not more than 100 or so in the UK,
and in other EU countries even less.
And in Canada 24!
So think about it.
You can not tell when you sell a gun to someone if they are going to use it for defence or for offence, so they should not be sold at all.
All guns should be banned for private use.
And dont give my that constitution crap, just because its written on a piece of paper does not make it right.
In the constitution of country X it gives the right for the man to kill his wife if caught cheating, that does not mean that its right.
Fact is that in countries that guns are banned, gun related crime is lower.
I am not talking about violent crime , i am talking about gun crime.
Its easy to shoot someone, you pull the trigger and thats it.
But you try putting a blade into someone and then we ll talk about the nightmares you are going to have.

I dont even want to hear about it.
If ANYONE supports being allowed to have guns then you are bloody stupid, and ignorant.

"Its written in my constitution that i have the right to defend my home and bla bla bla"
What a load of manure.

In my opinion, guns and anything more advanced than that should be destroyed. Wars should be fought with swords, not buttons. Its easy to press a button and kill 30 000 people. Its not as easy on your conscience when you have to put your sword through someones chest whilst they are looking at you in the eyes.
There would be a lot less deaths, and wars would last a shorter period.
I know that is not going to happen, but the least that the governments can do is ban that crap from our streets!

I feel very strongly about this, and i am sorry if i come across as a stubborn git, but its a non debatable issue

I also want to add something.

Are the majority of gun related deaths due to people defending themselves with a gun, or attacker killing someone with a gun?

I would think about 90% the dead person is the defender, not the attacker.
Or are you saying that they should both have had guns? In that case they could both be dead.
How about neither of them carrying guns, wouldnt that be better? Giving both the attacker and the defender the chance to live!
THE PRICE OF LIFE IS NOT A 50 CENT BULLET!!!

Well let me clarify what I was trying to get across. I live in the state of UTAH so that will answer alot of questions. Our crime rate has actually gone down in the last 5 years. The reason why is that there civlians are armed. Now I know from what I said it came across as I was promoting killing any of the (skilled ninja attackers good one LOL) as the final solution. But knowing the laws it is better to shoot the attacker than trying to stop them in a less lethal way. That does sound messed up but it leaves little holes and not multiable jagged lacerations. I too am skilled in using a knife and very interested in the sayoc kali knife fighting system (check it out at www.sayoc.com) a very practical and violent way to use multiable blades at the same time. But I think that using the knife would be better than shooting a man but its just less messy that way.

Oh! and to the anti american's in here. I dont think that any american should have the right to carry a weapon. I have also been in the military and I am a very skilled in using my weapon and im not always out there looking for the next gun battle in the scary streets of the US. Yes gun have killed many people over the last 400 years. That is true. But they are here to stay. And I know that in come contries guns have been taken out of the hands of their civilans but think about all of the malitias here in the US. Trying to take their guns is a big mistake and will end in a big bloody mess. Just keep the masses informed on the use a guns and turn off the MTV that shows 50 cent taking about shooting someone for looking as his woman. [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif[/IMG]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rougewarrior:
Oh! and to the anti american's in here. I dont think that any american should have the right to carry a weapon. im not always out there looking for the next gun battle in the scary streets of the US. And I know that in come contries guns have been taken out of the hands of their civilans but think about all of the malitias here in the US. Trying to take their guns is a big mistake and will end in a big bloody mess. [/QUOTE]

I sincerely apologise if what i said seemed anti american.
I think all countries have their faults.
I am from greece, and god knows we have a lot of shortcomings as well.

But it was those militias that you mentioned that i am refering to.
The thing is, in switserland every other house has an uzi, and their gun crime is minimal.
You are right, it is about education and about informing the public.
But if education fails to reach those parts do you just raise your hands and say "oh well"?

I live in England now, and i used to be the proud owner of a S&W hand cannon, with ivory handle, and a carved barrel. When the hand gun law passed here a few years ago, bailifs came to my door and just took the gun, no compensation or anything (it was a really expensive gun).
Now i was annoyed to say the least!
But a few years later and gun circulation in the UK has gone down.
So I guess in the end, it was probably a good thing!

Also how can you guarantee yourself that if you have a gun lying around and something happens that yoy are not going to use it in the heat of the moment? (i ve seen brothers pull guns at each other)
A knife is a different matter, you would not use a knife against someone unless your life depended on it!
Or you are a gangster

Moderators.
I know this is off topic, buts its an interesting conversation, and i would like the opportunity to discuss it, with MA because they are people who would have a more informed opinion on self defence and weapons.
Please dont lock it.

The US has a much higher population density than Canada and European countries. We have over 300 million people. That makes us the third most populous country in the world. We have extreme racial diversity and extreme poverty. 1 in 3 people are in poverty(however defined).

You may know of supply and demand. Where there's a demand, there will be a supply. There is a demand for guns in the criminal underworld. Criminals will get guns. By restricting gun use, the non-criminals will no longer have them. The real question is: Is the majority of gun deaths preventable ones?

Further leaping into the laws of supply and demand: There is a demand for killing in our dense populace of diverse peoples. The poverty further spreads us apart. Where there's a demand, there's a supply. People want to kill each other so they'll use any means possible.

Now, I completely agree that using a knife is more personal. Using a gun is too easy. It allows someone to kill another person without truly considering the consequences.

As a martial artist, you learn to equate violence with consequence. When sparring, you realize that you can get hit back. So as good as you become, you develope a calm, non-violent seeking mindset.

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited 04-22-2005).]

Sorry about that got a head of myself and I will keep the conversation in MA more.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jay:
Further leaping into the laws of supply and demand: There is a demand for killing in our dense populace of diverse peoples. The poverty further spreads us apart. Where there's a demand, there's a supply. People want to kill each other so they'll use any means possible.
[This message has been edited by Jay (edited 04-22-2005).][/QUOTE]

I am an economist, so i know one or two things about supply and demand, the GDP per capita in the US is $ 37,800
So 1 in 3 people are in poverty? I dont thinks so!
It may be that you have a highly skewed economy, but people in Africa are in poverty, not truck driving texans.

Also, lets talk about supply and demand.
If there is a demand for something and the market is left to its own devices, then (living in a capitalist system) there will be a supply.
But, there are things called negative externalities, such as factories polluting the water and we pay to clean the water.
In other words there are certain products which require some sort of intervention from the government so that the rights of every citizen are protected and so that there will be increased welfare.
Free education, unemployment benefits etc etc.
Withtin this in my opinion, lies public safety.
And i believe that it is in the interest of public safety that guns are banned from civilian use.
Of course like you said there is no point in having such a law, if gangsters can still get a hold of guns and people cant, because that works to the disadvantage of the civilian.
But if the law is enforced correctly then gun related deaths would go down.
And crime related deaths would also go down.

In my opinion and i am sure you agree with me.
The best option would be to educate people to a standard that they would not use guns by their own accord. That is highly unrealistic because like you said there is not enough money for that to go around.

Its a very tricky situation,
but you are right, it comes down to education, not the law,
If people want to do it they will do it.

This thread is about pepper spray.Not the right to have guns,why weshould have guns,etc...
Talking about guns as a means of self-defense is fine,but stay on the topic of the original question or start a new thread.
Thanks.

how old do you need to be to get a pepper spray
n do they sell it in alot of places

The statistic I read could have easily been wrong. The definition of poverty in that case may have been skewed. Enough about that though.

As a martial artist, I do not agree with people being allowed to carry guns for self defence. An untrained person would take a feeble attempt at aiming and then shoot, taking a huge chance that he may shoot a vital organ, innocent pedestrians, etc. Something like mace is a good tool to even the score. It's non-lethal and gives a good opportunity for escape. Besides, guns are dangerous to own. Children may get a hold of them or they could go off accidentally.

what is a mace n where can i get pepper spray

Sorry to hijack the thread, response to MAGR who lives in fantasy land:

The irony is that after gun laws are passed and crime rises, no one asks whether the original laws actually accomplished their purpose. Instead, it is automatically assumed that the only "problem" with past laws was they didn't go far enough. But now what is there left to do? Perhaps the country can follow Australia's recent lead and ban ceremonial swords.

Despite the attention that imitation weapons are getting, they account for a miniscule fraction of all violent crime (0.02%) and in recent years only about 6% of firearms offenses. But with crime so serious, Labor needs to be seen as doing something. The government recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.

Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.

The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S.

Britain is not alone in its experience with banning guns. Australia has also seen its violent crime rates soar to rates similar to Britain's after its 1996 Port Arthur gun control measures. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed (from 1997 to 2002) than they did the year before the law in 1995. The same comparisons for armed robbery rates showed increases of 74%.

During the 1990s, just as Britain and Australia were more severely regulating guns, the U.S. was greatly liberalizing individuals' abilities to carry guns. Thirty-seven of the 50 states now have so-called right-to-carry laws that let law-abiding adults carry concealed handguns once they pass a criminal background check and pay a fee. Only half the states require some training, usually around three to five hours' worth. Yet crime has fallen even faster in these states than the national average. Overall, the states in the U.S. that have experienced the fastest growth rates in gun ownership during the 1990s have experienced the biggest drops in murder rates and other violent crimes.