Let's Talk Serious Non-Lethal / Less-Lethal Self Defensive Options

Submitted by a_perfect_map in Anarchism

So firearms contribute to suicide risk, escalate arguments to life or death, cause domestic abuse and do not prevent user injury in self defense according to peer reviewed studies. Despite this I see them advocated for a lot on here with no citations as to their efficacy, merely emotional appeal to fear or something. It makes no sense to me that someone would not look to peer reviewed studies for proof of efficacy in a tool that they trust their life on. source: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/

However, the world being what it is I understand completely the need to feel safe and to defend oneself. I have some ideas beyond tasers and bear spray, but I'd also like to note that the best defense really is: avoidance and situational awareness. Now check this:

-Paintball Guns. I can hear you laughing as you shake your head and mutter, bullshit! under your breath. A paintball gun will get you killed right? Just humor me.

Paintball technology has come a ways. Now you can buy a magazine fed paintball gun used by the military for training and for police 'crowd control'. They aren't cheap. It's compatible with AR sights and accessories. It fires a shaped projective, not a sphere, throught a rifled barrel. Not your grandma's paintball gun.

Who cares? I hear you say. Well hold on because you can buy solid 8 gram projectiles for the above platfrom that are made of copper impregnated nylon. Let's get quantitative on this shit:

7.8 grams @ 300 feet per second, that's about 32 joules out of a paintball gun. The manufacturer claims "1 5/8 inches (42mm) of penetration in FBI Spec ballistic gelatin." I don't want to be recieving that, idk about you. And a rifled barrel means you'll hit what you aim at out to a few hundred feet (I'd speculate).

Here is the ammunition manufacturer's site: https://grimburg.me/

Here is the marker manufacturer: https://first-strike.com/shop/guns/paintball-guns/

You can get platforms from First Strike that will fire this round fully auto. You can get a fuckin drum mag. You can get platforms that are carry concealable. This shit is modular and can be customized to your needs. Most of First Strike's stuff is AR compatible. In terms of air you could get a compressor, or stockpile the disposable single use cartridges; what are your thoughts on air?

You do not need a license to own a paintball gun (in most countries?) Consider too if you buy a firearm you must lock it up, and then what good does it do you in home defense? This is a realistic, less lethal "please leave my house now" weapon; in one video it send rounds straight through quarter inch plywood.

Here is one such less lethal platform vs a ham shoulder (apologies vegans, sorry) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygVBNU_ScAI

What are your thought on this? The biggest drawback is cost I think. But these markers are reviewed well and you wouldn't buy something cheap for self defense, right?

7

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ziq wrote

I never went anywhere without my slingshot growing up. It can do a lot of damage with a little practice.

4

a_perfect_map OP wrote (edited )

Good point, emphasis on practice, if you're serious about safety you train regularly

4

a_perfect_map OP wrote

Before anyone says, hey, these paintball guys are selling to the police. Yeah I don't like that either. But so is Glock and AR15 manufacturers, so really shrug

3

a_perfect_map OP wrote

I don't like tasers (the ones that shoot out barbed hooks with wires, not the handheld zap devices) as you really only get one shot. That is simply not enough in a life or death situation, you are going to miss. Try running until you're fatigued and then immediately try to put accurate shots on a target. This is similar to what a self defense situation would be like.

3

polpotisevil2 wrote

If you train enough (like you should with any weapon, lethal or not) you should have no issue with an accurate enough shot while fatigued. Being in shape also helps a bunch if you are really concerned about it

3

a_perfect_map OP wrote (edited )

Yes I know, I didn't say that you can't be accurate under duress, my point is that one shot, i.e. taser, is not enough for peace of mind under pressure.

1

celebratedrecluse wrote

taser guns are also problematic because of the unique identifying confetti that is shot out of the gun when it is used, which is basically impossible to clean up quickly. This confetti is used by law enforcement to identify the exact cartridge and owner who shot at a particular location. This is a problem most other self defense tools don't have, including firearms but not limited to them.

2

celebratedrecluse wrote (edited )

It's an interesting idea, but are you are going to try to conceal a giant automatic paintball gun while going around your daily life? it's just not seeming to me very... practical. even for home defense, if someone is breaking into your house, a cumbersome non lethal option is not really a good idea, and may lead to injury or death depending on the situation.

the cost factor, that you already mention, is another concern, especially in other countries. In USA for example, a handgun may be cheaper in many places than these high powered paintball guns, and much more concealable. In stranger-to-stranger violence, I believe it is much more common to need to call upon a self defense tool outside the home rather than in it. I guess it would depend how common house invasions are in your particular area.

If someone sees you with anything that looks like an automatic firearm, they may use whatever they have at their disposal to retaliate preemptively, not even realizing this is a non lethal paintball gun. The noise is also quite loud of paintball guns, which can be helpful or quite unhelpful given the context.

Legally, the paintball gun would probably be regarded as a deadly weapon, as you can die if you hit someone in the eyes or face. So you would be facing similar legal problems as you would with a regular firearm. The fact that your adversary in court would be more likely to survive, means that the state violence potential of this method is higher. Something to consider.

all this aside, imo your fixation on the need for "peer reviewed studies" for people to prove why they need firearms rights, rather than trusting in people to understand their own self defense needs, is scientist and hierarchical. You've also made a ton of claims at the outset which, ironically, you didn't really back up in this post.

You're entitled to your opinions but I disagree. Anyway I hope you have a nice morning

3

a_perfect_map OP wrote

If someone sees you with anything that looks like an automatic firearm, they may use whatever they have at their disposal to retaliate preemptively, not even realizing this is a non lethal paintball gun.

YES, THIS. Guys, be safe, don't ever brandish something like these paintball guns unless you intend to immediately use it. Yup, you are totally right. Be careful people!

a giant automatic paintball gun while going around your daily life?

No, that is silly, be honest, did you look at the range of markers at all? There are quality ones the size of a conventional automatic pistol. https://first-strike.com/first-strike-fsc-paintball-pistol/ That is easily concealed. Should you though?

all this aside, imo your fixation on the need for "peer reviewed studies" for people to prove why they need firearms rights, rather than trusting in people to understand their own self defense needs, is scientist and hierarchical.

Eh, we don't agree on the data, that's fine. Science is more than just data and experiments; every study and publication is an effort to convince its audience. This is the social construct aspect of science. You are simply unconvinced and that's ok as I want to reduce harm, not be 'right' or 'win' an argument.

For the record I support gun ownership. I just don't think it does much except harm mostly.

You've also made a ton of claims at the outset which, ironically, you didn't really back up in this post.

As to the paintball guns or gun guns? I am unsure of the efficacy of paintball guns as self defense tools really. But interesting stuff, no?

1

[deleted] wrote (edited )

0

a_perfect_map OP wrote

pepper balls

yes! air guns enjoy a lot of flexibility in ammunition

To OP's point, I wonder if .22s might fit the bill. Probably more stopping power than paintballs, but probably not anyone's preferred way out. Wikipedia says they were used by the Israeli military

Let us not emulate those assholes

1

celebratedrecluse wrote

I think lethal firearms make far more sense in a personal self defense setting than in a community defense setting, generally speaking.

In personal self defense, the possibility of lethal harm is usually far more on the table because you or very few others may be a target, it may happen away from surveillance cameras or other bystanders, it may happen unpredictably. This would behoove someone to have the option of lethal force at hand, depending on someone's vulnerability or the likelihood of encountering violence with deadly weapons.

In community defense work, there are usually many more people around and more bystanders, and bringing firearms to a situation may escalate things far more quickly and create the justification for state repression, usually against the most unarmed and vulnerable or otherwise marginalized people who are in the vicinity or associated with the defense providers. For example, at a march, or rally, or occupation, or even if you are patrolling/defending areas known to be targeted late at night by fascists.

For another example, one of my pen pals (keyboard mates? lol) in a major city in USA, they are part of a defense league which patrols the streets near bars late at night to protect from violence queer and trans people, people of colors and women presenting persons while they might be coming home from the bar or otherwise out at late times of night. It is one of the standing principles/oaths of the group that they cannot carry firearms while on the patrol, because their role is to de-escalate and prevent harm for the community rather than exert authority the way the police do in that city. I don't necessarily agree that firearms are never useful in community defense work, but I think the group makes a very good choice in this matter from what my friend tells me about this organization

anyway, generally speaking firearms seem to me far more suited to personal defense than many community defense situations. There are just more applications, and a lot less situations where having the firearm can cause horrible negative consequences for little to no gain. I am curious why you came to the inverse conclusion, i'm not saying you're wrong but i want to hear your perspective on this

1

a_perfect_map OP wrote

For another example, one of my pen pals (keyboard mates? lol) in a major city in USA, they are part of a defense league which patrols the streets near bars late at night to protect from violence queer and trans people, people of colors and women presenting persons while they might be coming home from the bar or otherwise out at late times of night. It is one of the standing principles/oaths of the group that they cannot carry firearms while on the patrol, because their role is to de-escalate and prevent harm for the community rather than exert authority the way the police do in that city.

That's awesome!!!

1

celebratedrecluse wrote (edited )

That's awesome!!!

i totally agree, to an extent though. Because it is part of the protocol for them to call the police if things get "out of hand" rather than handling a situation themselves, which in a very white city with a white queer community overrepresented in the patrol...well, you can see where that is going. It's just outsourcing the issue back to policing as an institution, which is what everything does in USA apparently.

I think it is much better to take more responsibility than less, and if it is a useful tool and you are trained, then better for an actual radical person who is trauma informed to have a weapon than to have that radical person call a fucking cop. But that's just my interpretation, I have a contrarian attitude about this in my country because legal civilian guns are much more limited here than in USA and I believe in building alternatives to the police that have teeth.

2

a_perfect_map OP wrote (edited )

I will argue against myself here:

IMHO Two autonomous zones exist mostly due to a populace armed with firearms, The Zapatistas Autonomous Zone in Mexico and the collective of Kurdish people.

Their existence the best arguement against my points I've heard and certainly gives me pause. Especially since Zapata is an amazing place to live with a quality of life far beyond anywhere in Mexico. Women and LGBTQA+ people in these places generally enjoy equal rights to men and can serve in their militaries.

source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_Zapatista_Autonomous_Municipalities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan

I don't think I'm 100% right, guns are complex but why wouldn't data be part of a decsion you base your life on? Guns feel emotionally charged to me, I think that is a big problem.

I'm fucking scared too

2

polpotisevil2 wrote

Good luck defending against the state with a paintball gun lmao. Anyway before I get worked up, I'll respond to this as kindly as my current self can.

So firearms contribute to suicide risk, escalate arguments to life or death, cause domestic abuse and do not prevent user injury in self defense according to peer reviewed studies.

Alright, there's a lot in this statement alone to dissect. First, the fuck does it matter if they did contribute to suicide risk? You realize you are posting this in /f/anarchism right? You sound just like a liberal making a case for banning firearms. If I want to take my life with a gun you can fuck right off and get over it. If you want to actually prevent suicide you do it by attacking the root cause. To solve a problem you figure out why it exists in the first place. Firearms have shit all to do with the cause of suicide.

In regards to "escalating arguments to life or death" the major problem here lies in people carrying weapons when they can't keep a cool head in stressful situations. Quit listing stats without understanding what makes up a statistic. Your "peer-reviewed studies" are absolutely worthless. You should not ever be escalating, you should always be trying to de-escalate. Education and dedication to training and being logical in stressful situations are time consuming but important and simple solutions to your almighty statistics.

How in the hell do they CAUSE domestic abuse? I can tell from a mile away you are a liberal masquerading as an anarchist.

"do not prevent user injury"....... I'm not even going to bother with what I'm sure is a vague definition by the people who did those studies with an agenda in mind. If it isn't, I can repeat a previous claim that training is an overlooked aspect of carrying what is a LETHAL firearm. The solution is taking what you are holding/carrying seriously.

Now, I'm not saying anything bad about "less-lethal" options, but IF POSSIBLE they should be in ADDITION to and not INSTEAD of a firearm. Like it or not an armed assailant can generally only be stopped cold by a weapon of the same or greater degree, depending on the situation. I'm all for pulling mace on someone when it is appropriate instead of a firearm, but you have to be smart about the situation.

1

[deleted] wrote

3

celebratedrecluse wrote

why are you gendering someone while using trans identity politics to shut this person down.

comes across disingenuous.

2

[deleted] wrote

0

celebratedrecluse wrote

the first example you thought of was clearly an example of trans identity politics. these are not mutually exclusive things.

to gender someone online in order to diminish their point of view in a totally unrelated conversation because "i just couldn't think of a word that conveys my exasperation" is pretty ironic when it's in the same comment as that high-roading stuff. I don't know, it's ridiculous, perhaps you will just not see it my way and that's fine

2

[deleted] wrote

−2

celebratedrecluse wrote

you absolutely know why gendering someone to diminish what they're saying, on the internet where you don't even know their pronouns, isn't kind. don't play around.

It absolutely is high-roading them, you are using the rhetoric to shut someone up while not even respecting the principles yourself. Now you are doubling down. ridiculous

3

a_perfect_map OP wrote

Forgive me if I call the collective 'guys', I really don't mean that in a gendered sense, that goes for 'dude' as well.

1

polpotisevil2 wrote

Why are you invoking trans people in relation to suicide? Anyone can be suicidal and what you said comes off as very offensive. Perhaps I didn't provide enough context for "why the fuck does it matter", I meant more along the lines of what I said afterwards, which is that they are not the cause of suicide. If you personally don't want to buy firearms for whatever reason, mental instability or not enough confidence in on-the-spot-under-stress decision making included, more power to you. When you make a case against all firearms for all people because they are a "perceived safety" and "cause" domestic abuse and suicide, then I have a real issue with that.

I'm aware not everyone can afford range hours. But in a "modern" "first-world" country like many people reading this likely are, there is rarely a sufficient excuse for long-term neglecting of training. I mean, an hour a month for 12 months (doesn't need to be every month either, just providing an example) is a lot of time and you can learn a lot from that time. If you can't do at least that once in your life when you work 50 hours or less a week it's more than likely laziness. Yes, some people can't afford the time or training. I think that being so absurdly busy and unable to afford two hours max to get to and practice at a range every few months or once a year to head to a range is a rare case in the USA though.

1

[deleted] wrote

0

polpotisevil2 wrote

I couldn't care less that you are trans. It has absolutely no relevance to the conversation at hand and you invoking trans people into it is incredibly conceited and pathetic. Describing me as an "obnoxious SRA dude yelling at trans people to get guns" is not at all accurate. I did not yell at anyone, socialist or not, to get guns and I'm sure as hell not a socialist. I was responding to a universal condemnation of guns through harvard statistics.

I fucking didn't. I'm saying they're not an option for everyone.

I know you didn't do that. But you responded to a comment in which I replied to someone who did. So I was explaining that comment further because you almost seem to have missed the point.

Accuracy is a big part of shooting a gun. Other aspects of training (reloading quickly, drawing quickly and smoothly, staying in shape, etc.) can be practiced in anybody's own home. Sure, you may not be able to shoot at a moving target, or shoot while moving, or some other tactical training of the sort, but that isn't as important in most civilian encounters.

A spectre? What in the hell are you saying by that. Laziness is ubiquitous in modern western society

1

[deleted] wrote

1

polpotisevil2 wrote

No, you are conceited and pathetic. Damn, are you only faking being able to read?

I do understand that. What you don't understand is that most civilian enounters do not involve "shooting many times". In fact, playing the pointless statistics game, most civilian encounters are resolved with less than five shots. Really, there isn't any need to shoot someone more than twice unless you missed the target. Using cover is not hard to do and you can easily practice that at most ranges. As I stated, and apparently you didn't feel like reading, there are things you may not be able to practice at a range but most likely they will not make life or death differences and are nuances that, while practice does help, honestly even the most novice shooter could use common sense to deal with on the fly. Nobody is going to be shooting at something moving 50 miles per hour in """""civilian encounters""""""

Keep calling people boomers who don't agree with you. I believe there is a name for this kind of denial, cognitive dissonance, is it?

1

a_perfect_map OP wrote (edited )

Good luck defending against the state with a paintball gun lmao.

Good luck with a firearm!

You sound just like a liberal making a case for banning firearms.

I support anyone's right to own a firearm, I just don't think they protect us, the opposite actually. I'm gonna say whatever the fuck I want on this topic as well. And I don't like liberalism or capitalist economics. You ever consider that firearm ownership might be purchasing percieved safety?

If I want to take my life with a gun you can fuck right off and get over it.

Yes I support you in this. Most suicides are impulse though, so means matter. If you really want to die I will absolutely not stop you. That's not my call.

the fuck does it matter if they did contribute to suicide risk?

No. This matters.

You should not ever be escalating, you should always be trying to de-escalate. Education and dedication to training and being logical in stressful situations are time consuming but important and simple solutions to your almighty statistics.

Yes, we can agree here, statistics are only one part of the picture and training matters. Look how easy it is for stuff to get heated though....

I'm not even going to bother with what I'm sure is a vague definition by the people who did those studies with an agenda in mind.

Does anyone actually read the links?

I can tell from a mile away you are a liberal masquerading as an anarchist.

Hm well luckily I'm not concerned really as to meeting your criteria for anarchism but you hurt my feelings some here.

2

polpotisevil2 wrote

I support anyone's right to own a firearm, I just don't think they protect us, the opposite actually. I'm gonna say whatever the fuck I want on this topic as well. And I don't like liberalism or capitalist economics. You ever consider that firearm ownership might be purchasing percieved safety?

That's fine and dandy I want people to say whatever the fuck they want. I have an issue with you characterizing firearms as an issue for everyone and painting them as a "perceived safety" for everyone. It's the kind of universal, not personal argument and highly ignorant shit that liberals use and it's frustrating. If you didn't mean it that way then cool. Maybe for you, in a low crime upper class city neighborhood who has never experienced an armed robbery (at home or in the streets or the even in woods), or verbal and physical assault, it might seem like a perceived safety. For the rest of us, it is not perceived at all. For us who live where people shoot up street signs for the fun of it and get kicks out of dangerously fucking with people in the middle of nowhere it is important to own a firearm. For those of us who have been stuck up before and kicked out of public areas by groups of people, we want to have that self defense if we need it. What is perceived for you is real for me Mr. Harvard Statistics.

Yes I support you in this. Most suicides are impulse though, so means matter. If you really want to die I will absolutely not stop you. That's not my call.

No. This matters.

Yes, it does matter. My apologies for not providing enough context or saying what I meant clearly. What I meant was that it is a personal decision and that they absolutely do not cause the suicides. If you are in the situation where you want to avoid the means, more power to you.

Look how easy it is for stuff to get heated though....

This is the internet. I'd advise spending more time off it if you think this is an accurate depiction of anybody's character. I let myself rant and vent on here because I enjoy it. I enjoy heated arguments with friends or even strangers but that does not mean that I lack self control or situational awareness. If I wanted to stay cool I absolutely could. When I want to get drunk and let myself vent on the internet and argue with strangers I absolutely could.

Running out of time here. I'll look at the link later and describe why I feel statistics are almost always misleading later.

1

a_perfect_map OP wrote

Maybe for you, in a low crime upper class city neighborhood who has never experienced an armed robbery (at home or in the streets or the even in woods), or verbal and physical assault, it might seem like a perceived safety.

What is perceived for you is real for me Mr. Harvard Statistics.

Ehhh, really my friend? Let not lash out at each other any more. You just made a bunch of assumptions about me that put me in a box. That isn't really cool. I have been through verbal and physical violence, I've seen and had to do violence I still have trauma about. Enough to really make me consider if it has any utility at all, except in self defense.

we want to have that self defense if we need it.

I do too! If it means anything, I'm sorry for what you have lived through, this world is so fucked up.

If we make hierarchies of suffering then we will lost I think. I respect your experience and understand maybe? Everyone should have access to self defense. Statistics and science aren't the only picture, but part of it. Gun violence does seem to depend on culture in complex ways. You make assumpitons and resort to ad hominem, I won't reciprocate that. Yeah, we have differing views. But I'm not trying to disarm anyone, just prevent harm from my viewpoint. And yeah I realize I could be wrong!

1

Huatau wrote

Air gun is a thing. Anything above 500 fps can do some serious damage that could puncture skins and create serious wound. There are electric air guns that's roughly similar price to real rifles.

Or just get a crossbow if you wish to do actual harm.

1

a_perfect_map OP wrote

Yeah there are .357 big bore air guns used to hunt deer, such as the Benjamin Bulldog. Lol @ gun names. They are very reliable and popular with the off grid prepper because they partially solve the problem of running out of ammo in the long term. Unfortunately all air guns are way too expensive.

https://www.airgundepot.com/benjamin-air-rifles.html

Also, these are basically firearms, THEY ARE NOT LESS LETHAL!

2