Possible self defense tool for use in no carry zones? - WaltherForums
WaltherForums
 

Go Back   WaltherForums > General Interest > General Discussion

Like Tree10Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-11-2019, 09:44 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
surrealone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,685
surrealone .38
Possible self defense tool for use in no carry zones?

Gents (and those few ladies we have here),
I've been wrestling with the idea of how to provide myself with self defense capabilities while within no carry zones -- to avoid being completely defenseless. Key to this is that, sadly, as much as I avoid no gun zones, there are some that I am forced to enter -- like the post office, the occasional visit to the sherrif's office, the occasional visit to K-12 schools for functions, and the like.

So, here goes -- because I want any/all feedback (pro or con):
-----
There are, today, CO2-powered pellet guns in pistol form factor capable of 400+ fps using .177 caliber lead or steel pellets. While nowhere near the effectiveness of a firearm, these will typically achieve 3-4" penetration in ballistic gel … which is certainly harmful enough for a well-placed headshot to cause significant injury to an attacker.


More interesting, still, these aren't classified as firearms … and certain nanny states aside, they're largely unregulated in most states except for minimum age requirements to buy/own … and the occasional state law that precludes carrying them at schools. The best part is that because they aren't firearms, firearm-specific laws just don't apply. Don't get me wrong, they're still weapons ... so weapon-specific laws -may- apply, but firearm-specific laws only apply to firearms ... or things states have elected to treat as firearms even if they aren't (like CA has done to air guns).

Obviously one must check local laws before considering this aproach. I've done so for NC ... as well as checked some NC case law to see whether a .177 caliber pellet gun would or could be considered a 'deadly weapon' (despite not being a firearm). The answer here is, "it depends". In most NC cases, I've found that such a weapon is only considered 'deadly' by the courts at close range, when pointed at a vital organ, etc. -- and in all NC cases I took a look at, it was when aggravated assault/battery had been committed (meaning I found zero cases of this coming up in a defensive context).

This has had me thinking that while crappy for defensive uses, a 400+ fps pellet gun firing .177 caliber pellets is still better than a rock (something even more crappy) … or hiding and praying (the most crappy) … should one find oneself in a no-carry zone where an incident is taking place. Its range and accuracy are superior to those of pepper spray, and all of my current gun skills are largely applicable (unlike pepper spray). The usual defensive tactics would/should apply, of course -- mindful of the fact that effective shot placement is paramount if one is to try to defend with such a weak tool ... but some tool seems better than no tool, even if one doesn't use it. (i.e. Nice to have the option.)


On the flip side, I can see a few no carry zones resulting in a big stink when some officer who is just trying to do his/her job X-rays the pellet gun (or it goes off on a metal detector), searches and finds it, assumes it is a firearm ... resulting in me having to explain that it isn't AND explain the law to enforcement people who know it less well than I do. But you know what, I take my own self defense seriously enough that it might be worth going through that from time to time .. to avoid being toally defenseless. Besides, it's a chance to educate some of our less diligent LEOs, right?

Certainly I DO NOT see such a tool as a substitue for a firearm. Rather, I see it as potentially the best option amid a host of really crappy ones ... for those times when I'm forced to be disarmed because of where I must go to accomplish something I'm obligated to accomplish and can't do anywhere else.

I'd love some feedback on this ... because when I step outside myself and look at it from afar, the other side of me thinks it's totally ridiculous. Is it?
__________________
Gun Safety Rule #1: Carry one.
Pump actions speak louder than words.
NRA Certified Instructor, Range Safety Officer, & Benefactor Member

Last edited by surrealone; 09-13-2019 at 07:00 AM.
surrealone is offline   Reply With Quote
Register
Old 09-11-2019, 10:09 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Kar98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: DFW
Posts: 2,513
Kar98 .22
Glock 7. You know what that is? It's a porcelain gun made in Germany. It doesn't show up on your airport X-ray machines here and it costs more than what you make in a month!
Kar98 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2019, 10:18 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
surrealone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,685
surrealone .38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kar98 View Post
Glock 7. You know what that is? It's a porcelain gun made in Germany. It doesn't show up on your airport X-ray machines here and it costs more than what you make in a month!
Not legal here... and I'm the law-abiding type.
__________________
Gun Safety Rule #1: Carry one.
Pump actions speak louder than words.
NRA Certified Instructor, Range Safety Officer, & Benefactor Member
surrealone is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Old 09-12-2019, 12:14 AM   #4
Super Moderator
 
UniversalExports's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: El Paso, Texas
Posts: 9,887
UniversalExports .38
Quote:
Originally Posted by surrealone View Post
Not legal here... and I'm the law-abiding type.

And it doesn't exist anyway. Kar98 is pulling your leg. The 'Glock 7' was a plot device in Die Hard 2: Die Harder, and a Glock 17 stood in the fictitious weapon.
Kar98 likes this.
__________________
Universal Exports

The Globe is a ship that has everything—
Including a serial killer with a large knife
and a penchant for the rich and beautiful.

Visit me at my Blog and on Facebook
UniversalExports is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2019, 06:56 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
surrealone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,685
surrealone .38
Quote:
Originally Posted by UniversalExports View Post
And it doesn't exist anyway. Kar98 is pulling your leg. The 'Glock 7' was a plot device in Die Hard 2: Die Harder, and a Glock 17 stood in the fictitious weapon.
Heh. I only saw the first Die Hard movie, so I missed the reference. But I remember the whole tuppergun debate and the resulting law requiring a certain amount of metal to be present in legal firearms, here...

Sorry to spoil a chuckle. I clearly live in a tree(stand). But while you're here, I'd love to know your thoughts on this thread's topic. Doug. Brutal, well-considered honesty appreciated; it's why I asked for input.
__________________
Gun Safety Rule #1: Carry one.
Pump actions speak louder than words.
NRA Certified Instructor, Range Safety Officer, & Benefactor Member

Last edited by surrealone; 09-13-2019 at 07:02 AM.
surrealone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2019, 07:54 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
1942bull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: SE PA
Posts: 141
1942bull .22
I do not think a CO2 powered pellet gun would be a suitable choice for several reasons.

1. The gun can be mistaken for a firearm, S we know because LEOs have shot people including children who had them in hand. In an active shooter situation you could be exposed to danger from both the shooter and the police.
2. The gun would very likely be ineffective since its penetration is bare gel is so minimal that even thin clothing is going to reduce the penetration further. Penetration is a critical factor of incapacitating a person. It would take an incredibly lucky shot to hit an area that would allow enough penetration to stop an attacker. More on that follows.
3. The ballistics of a CO2 driven pellet are far inferior to even a 22 short caliber bullet. The velocity decreases quickly with a corresponding loss of energy. That not only affects penetration but also affects accuracy, which would be critical in choosing a CO2 gun.
4. If you are detected carrying it the assumption will be it is a firearm until the gun is examined closely. That will result in a dynamic response, and that could endanger you more that being in a gun free zone.
5. A shooter who saw you with a gun is likely going to focus his fire on you, and being outgunned you are more endangered than others. Also if you shoot the absence of a BANG is going to tell the shooter that he has you outgunned. Never give an enemy confidence.
surrealone, 71B20 and brianb like this.
__________________
USMC 9/59 through 9/69
Vietnam June ‘66 to February ‘68
MOS: 4641, Combat Photographer

Memberships:
Gun Owners of America
Second Amendment Foundation
Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Against Crime
1942bull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2019, 02:22 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 462
sunny08 .22
Surrealone, I appreciate your concern. But as things go, I would say the pellet gun would not be adequate. Considering what happens during an armed confrontation, I don't believe a pellet gun would help one bit. You might have one or even more bad guys hell bent on inflicting injury/death and carnage. With the adrenalin pumping and possibly narcotics in the system, the bad guy might not even notice. Now it's possible the bad guy might see the pellet gun and flee, but what are the chances of that. Options are limited. Bear spray comes to mind.
surrealone likes this.
sunny08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2019, 03:31 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Kar98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: DFW
Posts: 2,513
Kar98 .22
Kimber is selling these under their name in the US:


https://www.amazon.com/Kimber-Pepper...dp/B013INC6M0/
Kar98 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2019, 05:06 PM   #9
Super Moderator
 
UniversalExports's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: El Paso, Texas
Posts: 9,887
UniversalExports .38
Quote:
Originally Posted by surrealone View Post
But while you're here, I'd love to know your thoughts on this thread's topic. Doug. Brutal, well-considered honesty appreciated; it's why I asked for input.

I'm inclined to think that in an active shooter situation, the perp will be so adrenaline-hyped that he wouldn't even feel it save for perhaps a really lucky shot to one of the eyes. And in an armed confrontation, I believe that pulling a pellet gun is more likely to get me shot just because the perp doesn't want to deal with the skin welt and a bit of pain it might cause. About the only situation I can think of where it might defuse things is a perp who doesn't intend to actually shoot anyone going into the situation, and I'd hate to risk my life on that assumption.

Is it better than nothing? Perhaps. But, then again, perhaps not in that it might escalate a situation that wouldn't have escalated otherwise. I think pepper spray is the better alternative, or one of those projectile weapons that shoots a frangible pepperball. That would both smart and potentially incapacitate, or at least distract, an attacker.

As for Die Hard II: Die Harder, don't waste your time. You didn't miss anything, Amigo. Absolutely pathetic film.
Zebra likes this.
__________________
Universal Exports

The Globe is a ship that has everything—
Including a serial killer with a large knife
and a penchant for the rich and beautiful.

Visit me at my Blog and on Facebook
UniversalExports is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2019, 05:11 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
surrealone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,685
surrealone .38
All valid concerns raised, so far -- none of which are surprising -- and many of which can be offset by not drawing unless I'm 100% sure I have an opening/shot from a position of cover, wherein the lack of bang becomes an asset, not a drawback. The chief concern I had of first responders being an issue when coming through detectors and the like is still, to date, the biggest reason I see for not carrying something better than a rock with me.

Kar98,
I've seen live pepperball tests -- they're woefully ineffective unless you are quite close AND score a shot within mere inches of the eyes -- which is hard to do with pepperball guns given the craptastic ballistics/trajectory of the pepperballs, themselves. Those things make pellets look downright aerodynamic and effective, IMHO.
__________________
Gun Safety Rule #1: Carry one.
Pump actions speak louder than words.
NRA Certified Instructor, Range Safety Officer, & Benefactor Member
surrealone is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   WaltherForums > General Interest > General Discussion

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.