problems with concealed weapons

Status
Not open for further replies.
About three years ago, I was attacked in front of my house. I had a 2 ounce can of Whoop-As(s) (second s in () to prevent [censored] from showing up), and that was enough to put the attacker in the hospital, though I did get one bloody arm from bouncing off of the cement step while falling after being hit.

Over a year later the assault charge against the attacker came to court. He was in jail at the time for a more recent attack, and he had a thick file including robbery, and attacks before and after the incident with me.

Probably some day the person he knocks down and then comes at while they are down is going to defend them-self with a gun, or someone will defend for them with a gun, instead of spray and then no one else will be attacked by this nut.

I have carried Whoop-As(s) spray for many years. I practice with old cans of it against a tree while walking in the woods when I get replacement cans after the old cans get to be 2 years of age.

Usually I carry at least one 3 ounce can. I had purchased the two ounce can because the three and four ounce cans were not available locally. More recently, the last time I replace them I got them directly from the company that makes them, I got two of the 3 oz. cans with the red slide sideways safety, and therefore the manufactures date stamped them is more recent, giving me more use time before they are two years old. I will be purchasing direct from the manufacturer from now on. You pay more because of the shipping, but you get the size you want, and they last longer because they are closer to the manufacturers date when you get them.

BTW, the older wide top button once went off in a jacket pocket when car keys hit it just right. That stuff really stings when it gets on your hand. So if you get some, go with the red slide sideways safety.

The company I purchase Whoop-As(s) spray from is:

W A Wholesale, LLC

10579 Hearth Road
Spring Hill, FL 34608 Phone 352 684 5330 or 1-800-684-5330

though the 800 number is not not showing on their recent web site, so it might be that it is no longer working.

Lately I have been thinking of getting a CCW and a S&W bodyguard 380 and using Remington Golden Sabre 102 gr. as they have a good reputation of feeding with no problems, and show good results in ballistic-gel on Youtube. I would practice regularly and clean it after each use. I grew up with guns but they were all long guns from 22 to 30.06 and 20ga, 12ga, and 10ga. I know that there is a new field of learning regarding handguns, and the laws regarding them. I know that a 380 is a lite round, but the if the gun is so heavy you don't carry it, it makes sense to go with something lite enough to not bother you when you carry it, and the built in laser is a nice feature.

In the past my way of thinking was I don't want a gun because there are too many kids going through the house. I figured a strong mace would ruin someones day if a kid got it an used it, but it would not kill them, and a week later it would be like it never happened.

Now-days I think, hay, if the nut has a knife or a gun, you better be packing something stronger than mace.

The nut that attacked me got about a block and a half away before he collapsed. I called the police and when they came they said he was taken away by ambulance. They wanted to know where I had gotten police mace because citizens were not allowed to have police mace. I told them that it was not police mace, but it was the strongest that is allowed to be sold to citizens. It is called Whoop-As(s).

Hay, you pays your money and you makes your choice. Nothing is 100 percent. A nut hitting you in the back of the head with a red brick, or some idiot behind the wheel loosing control, is still going to get you regardless of what you carry.

There is a lot less legal hassle after using mace, compared to using a gun. Maybe the best thing would be to carry both a gun and Whoop-As(s). That way you could scale the response to the situation.

In the end, all you can do is shift the odds somewhat more to your favor.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
The problem I see here, was that if Canada adopted a similar handgun policy to that of many of the US states, that we'd also end up with more handguns in circulation. And while they may certainly start out in the hands of legal owners, many of them may make their ways into the hands of criminals through theft. That's my fear. And once they are out there, you are pretty much screwed, as there's no taking them back.



How is it you propose to restrict, limit, reduce or remove hand guns from circulation? I ask such I broad question, because I'm not too sure of your goal here...

My response would be that you can't do any of the above without restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. You can try to force them to break down and lock their parts up separately like the Aussies do, but that severely limits their effectiveness when truly needed... You can try and take them away, but we all know that'll never work. The criminals will always have them. You can severely restrict the purchase of them, like in other countries, but that's no guarantee either.

The answer is (As I see it) - that there is no simple way to reduce the number of firearms in the hands of criminals and the crazies who have not yet become criminals. A start would be better mental health care, from treatment to educating the general public on how to recognize some of the "warning signs" and keeping violent offenders locked up where they belong. It would also go a long ways to require owners to have some form of locking storage for when they are not home. Note that I did't say that you had to have them under lock and key at all times or that law abiding citizens couldn't or shouldn't be allowed to carry open or concealed. (Not pointed at you OVERKILL, just to anyone who thought that may be where I was headed).

These suggestions are not the whole answer, because there probably is no surefire means of taking firearms out of the hands of criminals and crazies.

There will however, (As I see it) be a few absolutes.

There will ALWAYS be violent crime, committed with ALL manner of weapons, there will ALWAYS be a will and desire to take that which not theirs and there will ALWAYS be a way for them to do so.

The best we can do is be thankful that our Constitution (for us U.S. citizens), through it's amendments gives us the right to keep and bear arms (which in it's own words "Shall not be infringed"), purchase, use and store them in a responsible way and hope that we are able to grow old safely.



As an addendum: While the Constitution does say "Shall not be infringed", I do believe that there should be at least some bounds to it. A slippery slope, I know, BUT necessary. Starting with violent criminals and those with mental illness and/or severe (mental) disabilities. These people do not possess the ability to own/use a firearm (of any kind) in a safe and responsible manner.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: The_Eric

How is it you propose to restrict, limit, reduce or remove hand guns from circulation? I ask such I broad question, because I'm not too sure of your goal here...


I'm not proposing anything Eric, I'm simply stating my opinion on what I think would happen if Canada adopted a similar handgun policy as some of the US states. Once the guns are in circulation, there is no taking them back, that was my point. Nothing anybody is going to propose is going to work, because the criminals sure as [censored] aren't going to hand in theirs, so then you are just disarming the legal carriers, which makes no sense whatsoever and just puts more people in harm's way.
 
Originally Posted By: JimPghPA
About three years ago, I was attacked in front of my house. I had a 2 ounce can of Whoop-As

Usually I carry at least one 3 ounce can. , I will be purchasing direct from the manufacturer from now on. You pay more because

The company I purchase Whoop-As(s) spray from is:

W A Wholesale, LLC

though the 800 number is not not showing on their recent web site, so it might be that it is no longer working.

I figured a strong mace would ruin someones day if a kid got it an used it, but it would not kill them, and a week later it would be like it never happened.

Now-days I think, hay, if the nut has a knife or a gun, you better be packing something stronger than mace.

hey wanted to know where I had gotten police mace because citizens were not allowed to have police mace. I told them that it was not police mace, but it was the strongest that is allowed to be sold to citizens. It is called Whoop-As(s).



Pepper spray companies make it very confusing and deceive people with hype.
I had the chance to put in about 40 hours writing a story on pepper spray.
Some sprays say they have 5% OC so the other 95% of the spray is inert. A spray that has 10% has more active ingredients and is usually stronger but that is not always true.
A spray that has 10% OC can be much hotter than a spray that has 18% if it has more Capsaicin or CRC in the product.

There is no real law like this:"strongest that is allowed to be sold to citizens"
Bear spray is regulated as to how hot it can be. It can only be 2% MC.

The only number they care about is 2% MC or Capsaicin in the total spray.
They don't care if it is 17% or 50% OC it's meaningless.
That's the 17% you quoted.
The OC percentage only measures the amount of peppers contained in the defense spray, not the strength, pungency or effectiveness of the product.
So the 17% can mean nothing. I can put in 17% of a very weak base spray
The heat units can mean nothing as again I can dilute it

To give an example I can use 15 million heat units base and then only put .001% in the can.
Someone else can use a 5 million heat units and put 2% in. It would be hotter that the first.

The companies leave out the full information you need only showing their best number.

Most police use a 2% MC spray. The most bear spray can be is 2%.

The Whoop [censored] is 17% of 4 million base but the total of that they put in the can is only 1.06%

The udap is 15% of a 3 million base and they put 3% of that in the can.

UDAP the maker of bear spray makes a 15%- 3million heat units- 3% MC self defense spray.
https://store.udap.com/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=4CO&Category_Code=
It's 50% hotter than their bear spray.

The moral is you have to see all 3 numbers.

The UDAP is 50% hotter than anything I have seen so far
 
Okay, I was thinking you had some kind of a proposal by the way you talked. From your prior posts, it seemed to me that you were pretty well against the idea of hand guns in circulation, because you keep citing stats that show Canada as being safer or having less handgun violence due to the lower amount of them to start.
 
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Okay, I was thinking you had some kind of a proposal by the way you talked. From your prior posts, it seemed to me that you were pretty well against the idea of hand guns in circulation, because you keep citing stats that show Canada as being safer or having less handgun violence due to the lower amount of them to start.


I'm against the idea of a similar policy being adopted HERE, as I think the current setup we have works pretty well at this point in time, given the statistics mentioned.

But that doesn't in any way mean I support the idea of working to take those same firearms out of the hands of Americans. I think it would be a disservice to every one of you that carries legally, as there's no way to remove them from the hands of criminals. There is no "solution" to this "problem". Anything proposed by the government is going to be half-baked at best, serve some form of political agenda and ultimately just cost the taxpayers a significant amount of money with no net effect against the criminal use of firearms inside your borders. If anything, restriction, regulation or disarmament would increase the # of gun-related homicides because citizens would be less able to defend themselves against the still-armed criminal populous.

It's the proverbial "cat out of the bag", there's no getting him back in.

The problem is the criminal. But how you go about disarming him, further penalizing him for his behaviour? I don't know.

Canada has some pretty poor youth criminal laws and repeat offenders are a big problem. The "slap on the wrist" doesn't work and many of these PoS's can't be reformed, no matter what the liberals argue. Jail is a cake-walk and you have people re-offending just to get back behind bars. It is disgusting.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

It's the proverbial "cat out of the bag", there's no getting him back in.

The problem is the criminal. But how you go about disarming him, further penalizing him for his behaviour? I don't know.

Canada has some pretty poor youth criminal laws and repeat offenders are a big problem. The "slap on the wrist" doesn't work and many of these PoS's can't be reformed, no matter what the liberals argue. Jail is a cake-walk and you have people re-offending just to get back behind bars. It is disgusting.


One of the more effective programs, proposed and supported by the NRA, and adopted in Richmond, VA was known as Project Exile, which basically stipulated strong (federal, 10 year) penalties for several gun crimes; e.g. use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, providing a firearm to a felon, and thus was adding to the sentence already required by the felony itself.

It was very successful at reducing crime in general, and gun crime in particular, in Richmond. In fact, it was adopted by the State of Virginia, but it's been attacked by the left (as racist, undermining judge's authority, etc.) and by the right (as demonizing firearms)...

I fully support the idea, as well as the PR campaign to get the word out...there is a deterrence effect of the longer, Federal sentencing...and it is effective...so naturally, since it actually works, it's under attack...sigh...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom