Pepper ball launchers work, right?

On August 22 I wrote Less-lethal weapons can replace guns, right? It was a very brief history of the evolution of thought and reality in law enforcement from “non-lethal” weapons—essentially anything other than a firearm—and “less-lethal” weapons, which are potentially less immediately lethal than a gun, but in the right—wrong—circumstances, still deadly. Things like Tasers, batons, pepper sprays, and pepper ball projectors qualify.

A reader/commenter asked about the Byrna HD, a pistol-shaped and sized, CO2 cartridge-powered pepper ball “launcher” which fires capsicum—pepper—balls of about .68 caliber. The balls cost about $5 dollars each and according to the manufacturer range “up to” 60 feet. The commenter observed:

In those cases where Americans use guns in lawful self-defense without firing a shot (which is usually), I see no reason such devices would not work just as well as ‘normal’ firearms.

According to the Byrna website their models cost from $379.99 to $479.99 which is well into good quality firearm territory. While Byrna’s gear apparently works as designed, it has the same problems pepper spray has. But first, a direct answer to Ohio Cyclist’s assumption.

Most defensive handgun uses do not require shots to be fired because predators, confronted by a real handgun backed by the user’s will to use it, choose the King Arthur option: “run away; run away!” That’s a good thing, except the predator is usually not captured. They can try again with someone unarmed and less prepared. One should never expect the mere sight of a firearm, or the sound of a pump shotgun being chambered, to provoke a Monty Python response. A predator may not be impressed, might be too drugged to care, might not recognize that sound or just be stupid.

If a reasonable person is facing an imminent threat of serious injury or death, unless they’re ready to shoot when they draw their handgun they’re as vulnerable as if they’re unarmed. If the bad guy flees, that’s immediately good for them, but probably not so good for someone else in the future.

The manufacturer and self-defense “experts” suggest aiming for the upper chest where the projectile bursts and sprays the pepper powder around. Greater effect would probably come from a facial strike, but they don’t specifically recommend that for liability reasons such as permanent eye damage.

Under ideal conditions, striking an attacker susceptible to pepper sprays, the attacker might be temporarily disabled. “Temporarily” differs from person to person. An attacker might be able to continue their attack while sneezing, coughing and dealing with running eyes. They might be so affected they’re unable to attack for a least a little while, which could be a handful of seconds or more. Or they could decide to attack someone else. Pepper sprays or powders don’t work on everyone, and fail far more often than we’d like.

Pepper sprays are limited in range and effectiveness, and one can’t know how they’ll affect an attacker until that option is used on them. How limited in range? Always less than the manufacturer’s suggested “up to” range. Wind, rain, snow and other conditions are always a limiting factor.

Author” src=”https://images.americanthinker.com/3y/3y1e8w4knvbapkc4fb6s_640.jpg” />

Graphic: Glock 43X, Author

And if the less lethal option doesn’t work, and you have no lethal backup… Why not carry a Byrna and a handgun? One might, but the Byrna is actually substantially larger than a compact 9mm pistol like the Glock 43X or SIG P365, both of which cost about the same as a Bryna. Concealing both would be clumsy and one might accidently grab the wrong weapon under stress. That’s happened with police officers and Tasers.

I’m not suggesting pepper sprays and Byrna launchers have no value, but they do have very real limitations. Handguns too are not Star Trek Phasers that immediately stop any attacker with a single discharge, but they do not have the potential stopping power limitations of less-lethal weapons.

No one should ever carry any weapon with the intention of “just scaring” a violent attacker. Unless one is certain they can use a handgun to employ lawful, deadly force to save their life or the lives of loved ones, they shouldn’t carry one. And again, no one should brandish any weapon in the hope the mere sight of it will frighten a sociopath/psychopath away. It’s the obvious will to use it that matters. The person is the weapon. The gun is a tool.

I’m not giving legal advice, just providing useful information, the best of which is: it’s always best to do whatever is reasonably possible to avoid any confrontation.

Become a subscriber and get our weekly, Friday newsletter with unique content from our editors. These essays alone are worth the cost of the subscription.

Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, life-long athlete, firearm instructor, retired police officer and high school and college English teacher. He is a published author and blogger. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.