Quote:
Originally Posted by Laser Jock
Well spoken.
This is precisely my reasoning even though I consider the right to weaponry to be even more fundamental than the right to free speech.
Pepper spray while it has its limitations is a very reasonable compromise.
Pepper Spray can confer a substantial advantage even in the case of multiple adversaries or blunt or edged weapons. (carry a big can and be ready to spray and run)
Fox Labs makes the best hottest stuff available.
|
I think this is another wind up, but in case it is a practical though:
Pepper spray (and Tazer before anyone else suggests the things) is an offensive weapon in most of the world. You go to prison for owning it, you go to prison for assault if you use it, you go to prison for murder if you spray someone who's body can't handle it and they die. You also have the same issue you'd have with a small gun; injured/sprayed/fried people scream for their mates, call the police and go get their own weapons to look for the bloke who did it and stands out like a sore thumb even if he has made it thirty miles down the road.
Without getting into political debate (we'd no doubt disagree) which is for another site, the practicalities say no to any weapon, especially anything that has no other purpose.
If people really are that insecure, maybe do a self defense course or take up boxing or something? The men with guns can't confiscate your hands or head at the first border post.
Andy
|