Are Non-Lethal Options Effective?
Non-lethal options fall into three categories: Impact (kinetic), Electric, and Chemical. The impact option includes batons, Billy clubs, or even your hands and feet, namely items that you might carry with you in lieu of a firearm. It might also include items that you pick up on an improvised basis, such as a bat, a piece of pipe or rebar, a brick, or a stone.
There are three limitations to impact options. First, and most important, they require you to be within arm's reach of your opponent. Distance is your best friend, and if you are close enough to strike the assailant, you are close enough for the assailant to strike you. Second, the probability of achieving a rapid disablement of the assailant is relatively low, especially if the assailant is armed in some manner. Third, while not zero, there is some probability that these options can be fatal if they strike the head, undermining the rational for carrying a "non-lethal" option.
Electric options fall into two categories; those that can be used at a moderate distance, and those that require direct contact. The Taser common to law enforcement is designed to be used at a distance. It projects two darts with barbed tips that trail two wires. There is a high voltage potential between the two darts, which are designed to penetrate the skin, with the intent that the recipient will be disabled due to neuro-muscular disruption. The Taser is generally not practical for civilian use due to cost, and the size, making it difficult to conceal. Furthermore, even in law enforcement use, the failure rate is about 50%.
To be successful, both darts have to penetrate the skin. If either dart misses, there is no neuro-muscular disruption. Under stress, you are likely to mis-judge distance, and fire the Taser too soon, the result being that the darts diverge too much, causing at least one to miss. Also, one or both darts may fail to penetrate due to heavy clothing or hitting objects like belts, checkbooks or cell phones in breast pockets, etc. Finally, if the assailant is high on methamphetamines, the effect can be minimal.
Contact electric options suffer from the same major liability of kinetic contact options; they require you to give up distance, making yourself vulnerable. Even if you are willing to risk giving up distance, you then have the requirement of being able to make contact. Your hand holding the device can be easily batted away. If you do make contact, that contact has to be maintained for a period of seconds to be effective. The assailant may reflexively jerk away, or you may be unable to accomplish more than a glancing contact. At best, an optimal contact will only inflict pain, and will not result in incapacitation. It may serve only to enrage the assailant, making your situation worse, and as with the Taser, if the assailant is high on methamphetamines, the effect is nil.
Chemical (OC) options are available in several formats. Many are small containers that spray the OC liquid in a narrow stream. Aiming with this option can be problematic, as the gripping of the container and the pressing of the valve button are not well coordinated with your natural pointing ability. A good example is trying to hit a wasp using a can of wasp spray, which projects a similar stream. Some look like miniature guns, which somewhat improve aiming of the discharge.
The first limitation of chemical options again relates to distance. To be effective, since the OC only works if it hits the face, you have to be close enough to have a high probability of hitting the face. That lack of separation puts you at risk. If you miss the face, or if the assailant sees that you have the device and turns his face away, you are close enough that he can be on you in a fraction of a second. The second limitation is shared with the electric options, namely the ineffectiveness if the assailant is high on methamphetamines.
Finally, if you fail to incapacitate an assailant, whether with a kinetic contact option, an electric option, or a chemical option, there is a significant probability that the assailant will take the option from you and then use it on you. Overall, non-lethal options are better than nothing, but not much better, as the probability of a rapid incapacitation of an assailant is extremely low.