No, no and fuck no. Rigorous testing or not, no.Doctorr Fabulous wrote:So I jsut saw this three times on three different social media sites: http://gizmodo.com/this-clip-on-handgun ... 1730039256
Work with me under the assumption that this device is rigorously tested and shown not to cause or increase the rate of failure or pose any additional danger. Assume that the law evolves to understand that it's employed under the assumption of lethal force and treated as such, despite being intended to be less lethal, and assume that it's cheap enough that you can use a trainer version to learn the POA difference, if any. Would you use it? Why or why not?
Assuming, then, that the law evolved to protect those using LTLs in place of lethal force, would you consider other LTL alternatives as a "first strike" in HD or carry scenarios? Why or why not?
This right here. Escalation is bad in the eyes of lawyers, mmmkay?and the next repetition of the same action becomes lethal force.
There's so much nope in my mind over that device it's actually kind of soothing, like a tidal wave of NOPES rolling serenely over the island of my mind, covering everything in NOPEs as far as the eye can see.
Things I'd rather have than that gimmick, in order of range:
Beanbag rounds for 12g
SAP gloves (check your local laws)
Hard armor MX gloves
Things I'd rather have as a concealed carrier for LTL:
Large metal flashlight
Hard armor MX gloves when situationally appropriate (ride bikes a lot, myself)
In other news, that moment when a friend of yours who wants to get into the ZS spirit, says basically "I'm going to go shopping to the tune of about $2k soon. What do you recommend for guns and a laptop?" I'm honored, and so, SO excited.