Senior Medical Alert System

A Guide To Medical Alert Systems For Seniors


Guns, Knives, Peppersprays or Tasers?

There are actually ‘eternal questions’ and then there are just things that will never go away. A very important factor that never generally seems to leave is a few people’s need for a simplistic solution to extremely complex subjects.

And after that comes exactly the same people’s tendency to argue over what flawed and simplistic answer is the ‘right one.’ Just after ‘what is the ideal martial art for self-defense’ comes the question ‘what’s the very best self defense weapons? ”

Guns? Knives? Peppersprays? Tasers? Strike enhancers?

If you have time to waste you can enjoy further arguments over which version of your preferred simplistic answer is the greatest. Guns? Colt? Bereta? Knives? Cold Steel? Emerson? Non lethal? Taser? Stun gun? OC spray? Mace? Gear geeks can micro-argue the topic into obsession and insanity. But when it finally is dependant on while using item in the live-fire situation, Many of these items have strengths, consequences, most, limitations and weaknesses of all the failure.

‘ but also that they won’t work in time to keep you from getting injured, by the last I not only mean ‘failure is always an option. Something diffrent we can easily add into the ‘fail’ category happens when they generally do work … except that their use was inappropriate. Let me categorically state that IF you choose to carry an item for ’self-defense,’ you WILL be held to a higher standard. If you you ever use it, your actions during, after and before will be reviewed, in fact. Actually i want to rephrase that, think crawl, anus, up and microscope. If not outright bad, wrong and evil, and I should warn you, this will be done by people who are intent on proving that your use of force was unjustified –.

And that’s above and over the problem of your item may not work in time. That is why this subject is a LOT more complicated than merely what item you choose to carry.Below is my response to someone who asked the ‘what’s the best’ question. In it I lay out the three primary explanations why there is absolutely no simplistic answer


Here’s will be the three fundamental problems

a) is the use of the piece appropriate?

b) could it work on that specific individual?

c) does it work fast enough to maintain him from killing you?

Point A: You are unable to unmake a corpse. While less-than-lethal items tend to avert this problem, lethal force instruments tend to make corpses. As such, the ‘terms and conditions’ of when using a lethal force instrument is ethically and legally allowed are a LOT higher. Unlike martial arts, when you are discussing by using a weapon in self-defense, you should consider success. And that includes coping with the aftermath and consequences of your respective decision to deploy and use said weapon. If you use a tool ANY KIND of tool for self-defense, you damned well be able to articulate and explain — to a lot of people — why that was a justifiable and reasonable decision given the circumstances.

Simply stated I will quicker explain and justify using a taser/pepperspray since they are non-lethal (although being technically accurate they can be usually less-than-lethal). While these materials inflict pain, they seldom injure. You will find you will discover a BIG difference. While inflicting unwarranted pain on someone can get you into trouble, it’s inflicting injury which will really enable you to get into warm water. So, if you use these, but there is more tolerance about their use because you were ’scared’ That is to say you ‘thought’ you were about to be attacked, yeah, you’ll still have some explaining to do.

When it comes to shooting or stabbing someone I’d better have had a DAMNED good reason, however. And also that we mean Not only that you were scared as to what he might do. There has to be articulatable facts (that one could explain and identify) that

A) cause you to the final outcome that you simply were in immediate danger to be seriously injured.


B) other individuals can understand and agree with your conclusion

Putting that into simple terms: You need to be able to explain to people — most of whom REALLY dislike the idea that you killed someone — why it wasn’t you freaking out and overreacting if you use a lethal force instrument on someone. Or if the situation didn’t warrant it … you’re going to get hosed if you can’t do that.

Furthermore, if I am carrying only a pistol, then I not only have to accept the reality that I will be held to a higher standard, but that in most conflicts and even physical violence, its use is inappropriate.

Again, putting this into simple terms, 99% of times you are not legally justified to pull a knife and stab someone simply because he punched you (this despite what some so-called knife fighting expert told you). If they don’t kill, cause injury, remember lethal force instruments, even. With that said, there are occasions and circumstances where pulling that trigger May be the correct and best answer. When those times come, a less-than-lethal tool is inappropriate and ineffective.

Point B, everyone is different — especially when it comes to pain. A few things can cause a selected attacker to scream in pain, break off the attack and fall down. Other attackers will just smile at you while keeping on coming. This will depend ENTIRELY around the attacker and how committed he or she is to hurting you (i.e. just how much pain is he willing to endure to get you). The two points are what turn this subject like attempting to nail Jell-O to some tree — and why there is no one, easy answer.

Someone who sorta kinda wants something, but doesn’t want to suffer to get it, will fold like a cheap suit when you pepperspray them. Someone who would like to kill you together with doesn’t mind dying to do this goal will eat multiple bullets and maintain on coming. He is able to be dead on his feet and still be attacking. Conversely, there are many many people which will turn and flee in the very sight of the stuff you are asking about. They may want something, but not bad enough to risk pain, injury or death.

The important points from the circumstances and the degree of commitment you will be facing cannot be predicted before hand. You won’t have the ability to determine these before you have been in the situation. The situation, not you, will dictate what exactly is the ‘best’ item for the position

There’s a saying I’m keen on: You can’t get an accurate answer if you don’t ask an accurate question. The reason why there is not any simple answer to ‘what is most beneficial? ‘ is that it has to be qualified with ‘under what circumstances? ‘ The important points from the answer will determine just what is the best fitting tool. Point C I have a friend who enjoys to say “Distance overcomes skill.” My parallel is ‘the greater the distance the less you have to worry about defense.’

But let’s take a look at my friend’s point first. Distance overcomes skill. This is a two way street. Going one of many ways, someone that is a skilled martial artist has minimal chance against someone using a rifle. The shooter can riddle him with bullets, by the time he can close the distance to use his skills. Thereby rendering the MAer’s skills invalid in those circumstances.

In the other direction, when the MAer is close enough to seize the shooter’s weapon then all the shooter’s skills (and equipment) are rendered null and void. If the martial artist allows himself to be rushed upon and tackled, in the same manner that someone who is stronger and bigger can overwhelm a trained martial artist. Keep this ‘neutralization of skills’ in your mind because it’s important. My prallel of ‘the greater the space the less you have to bother about defense’ carries a subclause. That is ‘the closer the distance, the better you need to bother about defense.”

And also by defense, I do mean defense. Distance weapons depend on distance for your safety. There is absolutely nothing to prevent him from shooting back if you shoot someone across the room. Your safety is dependant upon your bullets, his excitement, etc., screwing up his aim. You are going to eat lead too if it hasn’t.

What’s more, is ‘distance equals time.’ If the guy has a knife and you’ve shot him from a distance, you’re relying on the time that it take for him to cover the distance to you for that bullet to take effect. BEFORE he can effectively counter attack, in both cases your safety is entirely dependant in what you did effecting your attacker. That be it shoot back with accuracy or close the space to injure you.

I cannot stress the value of this enough. Simply stated, most so-called self-defense items do not have defensive capabilities at all. By this I mean while they may stop an attacker from continuing with more attacks, they can NOT protect you from an attack in progress. A taser, spray or a bullet will NOT stop his forward momentum, if a guy is charging you. He will still reach you and go to do injury to you (e.g. should you taser someone and that he slams into you, there’s a good chance you’ll lose your triggering.) Now you have a man in close proximity and eating your facial skin.

That’s the fundamental weakness for any distance weapon. They are useless to prevent damage to you if the guy gets close enough to negate the advantage of range. From your defensive standpoint, you can not block an incoming attack with these items. Your only hope is always to create enough damage and pain for the individual that he is overcome BEFORE the damage he does for you overwhelms you.

The bottomline is definitely the closer an attacker will be the less you need to be worrying about what you are likely to do to him and more about keeping him from doing for your needs. Don’t fall for that old lie how the ‘best defense is a superb offense.’ For the reason that closer you will be to a attacker the more likely that attitude will change it into trading damage contest. Actual defense against a closing attacker is THE most overlooked part of this entire business. Individuals are too fixated about what they are likely to do today to their attacker to produce him stop attacking as an alternative to what they desire to do to maintain his attack from landing. Gee, both of you go to the hospital or even the morgue, that ain’t things i call a win.

Take these three points and apply them to what you really are asking. Because these elements would be the realities surrounding this topic. To inform the truth, it is definitely less about just what is the ‘best’ item than knowing after it is time and energy to use each.


Spread The Love, Share Our Article

Related Posts

There are no related posts on this entry.


There are no comments on this entry.


There are no trackbacks on this entry.

Add a Comment




Ask A Question

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)


Your Question

Our Sponsors

MedFirst Alert