Lets take an extreme hypothetical situation:
1. Subject exits his car and proceeds to cross the parking lot to enter a grocery store.
2. Subject is attacked by a known, violent, felon in a manner that clearly poses a lethal threat.
3. Subject responds appropriately with deadly force, shooting the attacker with his licensed, concealed, handgun (this is clearly a “good shoot”, with lots of witnesses.)
4. Police respond and investigate.

So taken at face value this is triumph for law abiding citizens, concealed carry, and the 2nd amendment. Now let me start adding a bunch of strange equipment and behavior to our hero:
- His (primary) handgun is Desert Eagle .50AE with a laser and a flashlight.
- He has 5 magazines for his primary handgun.
- All of his ammunition is hand loaded and he made his own jacketed bullets to some exotic specification.
- He is carrying secondary and tertiary handguns, with reloads for each of them.
- He is carrying 4 folding knives (of legal length in the jurisdiction), of a type originally designed for sentry removal and issued to the navy SEAL teams.
- He is wearing hard body with rifle plates and a ballistic helmet.
- “Born to Kill” and “I am justice” are written on his helmet.

Admittedly, this is hyperbolically weird, but all of this gear is legal (at least for the sake of this argument.) In the eyes of the extremely paranoid he is “well prepared” to buy a pack of hot dogs at the grocery store, but a lot of people would say he is “looking for trouble.” Some of the people in the “too much gear for a shopping trip” camp are very likely to be the witnesses, responding officers, prosecutor, the jury, the media, and the general population.

I know that this is kind of old news, but I am adding for completeness. I cannot fathom the purpose of this device. From the manufacturers website:

A LaserLyte original, the Pistol Bayonet is ready for any situation – or just looking cool on your favorite gun.

I can’t think of a situation where I need this, nor one where it would look cool. Some people have made the “weapons retention” argument, but I remain unconvinced. This is about as useful as a fish bicycle.

The reason they are useful for the police is because they are an effective low level of force. If you make the case that they are too dangerous for regular people to use then doesn’t that make them a higher level of force? I can see the defense attorney already:

“…the police then used a weapon on my client that is so dangerous, private citizens aren’t even allowed to possess it…”

High Output vs. Size Everyone wants more and more powerful lights. Unfortunately this usually comes with an increase in size of the light. I believe that the reason more people are not carrying flashlights is because the powerful flashlight they want is too big to fit into their lives, or that they don’t fully understand the role of the flashlight.

The old Surefire 6P was revolutionary about 10 years ago, because of it’s high light output (approximately 80 lumens) in a relatively small package compared to the full size Mag lite. Xenon bulbs, a better reflector, and a better battery (SF123A) were a major breakthroughs at the time. Now LED technology has improved to the point where flashlights like the Fenix LD10 (pictured) can get 120 lumens out of a single AA battery.

Enter the pocket clip. Ten years ago, I was carrying a 6P on my belt in a kydex holster, but I never really liked that system. Now we can get flashlights with greater light output than the old 6P that are small enough to use with pocket clips (I wish Fenix would start putting pocket clips on their smaller lights.)

I don’t really foresee a situation where I am going to need to quick draw my flashlight. If my flashlight is going to be part of a self defense scenario it needs to be already in my hand otherwise it’s probably not going to be a factor. I generally get by right now with just dropping my light in my pocket because it is small enough to do that.

Making do with less. If you look at a larger flashlight like the SureFire M6-CB (pictured) it has some impressive light output (250-500 lumens) that totally surpasses a small pocket light, but it wasn’t designed with private citizens in mind and it wasn’t designed to be a personal everyday carry light.

If I can’t get 500 lumens in a pocket size flashlight then I will have to make do with less light output. If I can’t fit a normal pocket-size light into my life then I will have to make do with an even smaller light and less light output. Whatever flashlight I end up with is going to increase my capabilities in the dark. I am not arguing between the merits of different flashlights, I am arguing against the idea that because you can’t have the perfect flashlight you go without one entirely.

Redundancy vs. capability. We carry a primary firearm to engage deadly force threats at distance, this is a capability we wouldn’t have without a firearm. Adding a backup firearm doesn’t increase this capability, but it adds a level of redundancy that should something happen to the primary handgun (malfunction, disarm, etc.) so that we will still have a deadly force capability at distance.

Magazines add redundancy, but not capability. Having an extra magazine is the same as having a redundant ammunition supply and feeding mechanism for the firearm. The extra magazine doesn’t increase our capabilities, it preserves the deadly force at distance capability under a certain set of conditions: shooting the gun empty, dropping the primary magazine, or a failure of the primary magazine.

Back up guns add redundancy, but not capability. Having an extra firearm has pretty much the same benefits as having a spare magazine and will maintain the deadly force at distance capability in the event that the primary gun should break, or get lost in the scuffle.

Back up gun deployment speed. There is a lot of conventional wisdom that a second gun is the fastest reload or that transitioning to another firearm is faster than clearing a malfunction. A lot of this is dependent upon the operator, the firearms involved, and where they are positioned. Drawing a second gun might be faster than reloading a revolver, but is it faster than reloading a semi-auto assuming some reasonably ergonomic placement of the reload?

Ammunition capacity. There is a balance between how much ammunition we can carry versus the nature of the threat we believe that we will reasonably face. We can invent scenarios where no practical amount of ammunition will be sufficient, but in reality a gunfight that goes to even a single reload is a pretty rare occurrence for private citizens, especially with the prevalence of handguns with more than ten round capacities. Two reloads is almost unheard of in self defense shootings by private citizens.

Extreme circumstances. There are extreme circumstances where simply having a gun and a reload is not going to be enough to solve the whole problem. Putting effective fire on an assailant and/or securing an escape route is a pretty good (if not complete) solution to active shooters or similar situations. Considering that the role of the private citizen is self defense (or protecting a third party) we cannot really expect to stop a Mumbai style attack, but we might be able to mitigate the damage in our immediate area.

Conclusions. Balancing the need for redundancy against all of the other things I need to carry I don’t feel that I have a use for more than one reload on my body. That reload is really not for the extra ammunition as it is for having a redundant feeding system for the gun. I believe that the most likely case for needing a spare magazine would be a fumbled remedial action clearance.

If you believe that you need more than a reload or two as private citizen, I question what other pieces of useful, capability enhancing, equipment are you sacrificing to make room for extra magazines and/or back up guns.

While the use of force (UOF) by Law Enforcement Officers (LEO) is different from UOF by citizens in terms of goals, there are also a lot of similarities. This document is well worth reading to gain further understanding of UOF issues, particularly regarding less lethal weapons. I will point out a few items from Scott’s post that are relevant to the ongoing Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) discussion here at Brillianter.

The ability to end a confrontation between officers and suspects is the measure of the effectiveness of a force level or weapon. This report lists the success rate of weapons and control techniques that were attempted at the beginning of a confrontation:
Taser – 69%
Police K9 – 69%
Chemical agents – 65%
Impact Weapons – 45%
Takedowns – 41%
Compliance Holds – 16%

The authors point out that previous research looks at the highest levels of suspect resistance and police force as the only factor of a confrontation. This study looks at the whole event and examines each point where officers used force to overcome the suspect’s resistance. It then studies the cumulative effect of all those points and finds that both officers and suspects are more likely to sustain injuries the longer the confrontations go on.

[emphasis mine]

As Mostly Genius has mentioned, stopping a confrontation in its earliest stages can be critical in avoiding serious injury or death.

The authors coin a term, “force deficit”, which describes when officers consistently use less force than may be justifiable or necessary to subdue the suspect and end the confrontation. A force deficit causes the incident to drag out longer and raise the cumulative amount of force used. They point out that decisive force early on appears to be the solution and reduces the likelihood of additional injuries caused by the subsequent applications of force.

[emphasis mine]

Using the appropriate amount of force at the earliest stages not only resolves the confrontation quickly and therefore reduces injuries on both sides, but also shields the defender from legal liability for inappropriate (excessive) use of force. As mentioned previously, the lack of alternatives to deadly force can create a situation where someone can be seriously injured or killed simply because the defender doesn’t know what else to do. Ideally, we want to avoid having to kill anyone.

The authors recommend that officers should be prepared to use decisive force when verbal techniques of de-escalation fail. When a suspect engages in active physical resistance, the authors show that immediately using a TASER, Police K9, or chemical agent is the most reasonable method to quickly end the confrontation.

[emphasis mine]

A few bloggers have stated that they have been sprayed with OC and were less than impressed with the results. I also have been sprayed and sprayed others. I have seen the gamut of reactions exhibited by people who have been sprayed, ranging from panic to indifference. Basically, I have a good idea of what to expect when I spray someone, and I think it is worth carrying.

Some things to keep in mind when using OC is that it is a very low level of force, less force than grabbing or punching someone. Also, the element of surprise is a significant factor in making it effective. Warning someone before you spray them allows them to prepare themselves both physically and psychologically. Resolute, goal oriented people, whether they are protesters passively resisting police, law enforcement or military personnel completing a training event or aggressive assailants firmly intent on committing acts of violence will not be effected by OC the same way a less committed aggressor will be. This does not mean it is worthless.

Those people who dismiss OC as worthless for self defense are missing a valuable capability. The overwhelming majority of confrontations in your lifetime will not be deadly force encounters. Carrying a firearm for defense is certainly useful, and when deadly force is called for, OC is clearly not appropriate. This is not an either/or decision, since they are on opposite sides of the force continuum and are not a substitute for each other. OC is not a deadly force tool, and a firearm obviously cannot be considered less lethal. In between these two ends of the continuum, there are numerous other force options, but deadly force, which so many people seem obsessed with, is only justifiable under a very specific set of circumstances, extreme situations where all other means of defense have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. Contrast this with OC, which can be employed quite freely with little worry about liability. Determining what type of situation you are facing and choosing the appropriate course of action (OODA loop) is a matter of experience and training.

There are also some people who recommend martial arts or less lethal techniques only, as a catch all solution to all confrontations; they are also wrong. Martial arts, combatives, defensive tactics or whatever you want to call them are certainly a valuable component of a well prepared person’s self defense plan, but they fall somewhere on the lower side of the middle in terms of the force continuum. They are valuable techniques and like OC, they are more broadly useful than deadly force options like knives and firearms, but they don’t replace them, either. All of these methods have an appropriate place and they are generally poor substitutes for one another.

Some people complain that carrying all these tools and learning all these techniques is a burden. Presumably, they would rather carry only handguns and knives and call it a day. They have very good and redundant deadly force capability, but ignoring the remaining five or six levels of the force continuum does not actually prepare someone for most defensive situations.

While yes, pepper spray does have its place in the self-defense arena, it would not be my first choice.

Until we have a scenario we can’t make any judgements about what our choices should be. Leaving is generally my first choice, but even that isn’t always viable. There is no “pepper spray or gun” argument, because they fill different roles.

Yet, Mostly Genius believes that pepper spray can fulfill the non-deadly force niche.

There isn’t a “non-deadly force niche”, there are several. Pepper spray fills the niche right before we start striking people because if we can solve the problem at that level we will not have any need to escalate further.

Thing is, criminals are not going to tell you if their intent is deadly, or if they just want your watch. Therefor, you must treat all incidents with bad guys as possibly life-threatening to you. Sorry, but not a mind reader.

(Emphasis mine)
All incidents are potentially life threatening, but the law requires that we have an immediate and credible threat to our lives (or a third party) before we can apply deadly force. Again there is no “pepper spray or gun” argument. Deadly force is the correct response to lethal threats, but we can’t pretend that all threats are lethal or that “potential” is the same as “actual.”

However, I will admit there are times pepper spray comes with me. Those are the times when I cannot carry a gun,due to silly rules, or Byzantine rules. Otherwise, I carry a gun, and with the full intent of using it to STOP the bad guys from victimizing me or my family.

Keeping in mind that pepper spray is basically a step above strong language, it is not a suitable handgun replacement. Pepper spray fills an entirely different role than firearms do. The perfect role for pepper spray is reinforcing a verbal command. We can pepper spray belligerents for continuing to approach when told to stop, it would be very hard to justify shooting them.

For while pepper spray may work a certain percentage, guns, when used properly, work 100% of the time.

Without quibbling about proper use, guns certainly do not work 100% of the time or anything approaching it. Most criminals do quit without any shots being fired, but some require multiple good hits to be put down and those criminals sometimes inflict a lot of injury and trauma before they finally do stop. I certainly agree that handguns are better fight stoppers than pepper spray, but we can’t use handguns in the same situations where we could use pepper spray.

Using less lethal in deadly force scenarios. Nobody would choose to fight a knife wielding attacker with their fists if they had anything else available. Seeing as how fist fighting is more force than pepper spray, clearly pepper spray is not the answer to deadly force attacks.

Bypassing less lethal tools in deadly force scenarios. There is a lot of confusion about the use of force continuum. Law enforcement has been addressing this in their training for at least a decade: it’s not a ladder and you don’t have to touch every rung. A lethal threat warrants a lethal response. An escalating situation (as most are) provides room for stopping the fight before it becomes a deadly force encounter.

Liability of not using less lethal in deadly force scenarios. This theory that having pepper spray and not using it in a deadly force situation is going to somehow expose you to more legal liability is totally spurious. This is like saying you better not take a martial art, because you will be expected to use some ninja move instead of your firearm. I don’t shoot because I don’t know how to do anything else, I shoot because my training has told me that this is only appropriate response to the circumstance.

Pepper spraying people is trivial. Especially in comparison to shooting people. If you can effect a stop with pepper spray then you aren’t going to be justifying your shooting in court. This is the most likely case: bad guy gets sprayed and quits. Some people are trying to optimize their equipment selection for defending themselves against manslaughter charges: “I carry nothing but deadly force tools”. I would recommend optimizing for winning the fight in a way that gets you the least involvement with the legal system.

I’d just run away. So would I, if I could. This stops being the perfect answer as soon as you are a better runner than your significant other or children. If they aren’t within arms reach it could very well turn into you needing to stand and fight while they get away.

I’d just shoot them. Ultimately I see a lot of people painting themselves into a corner where they are going to have to pull the trigger in order to have any self defense response. I hear a lot of talk in training circles about “lethal force options.” Lethal force is not optional, it’s mandatory. If I had a choice to make I would choose something other than shooting. Lethal force is what happens when all those options are taken away. If I am not facing a deadly force threat then shooting isn’t even an option.