Lethal Weapon vs. Less-Lethal Weapon, Are You Overconfident? ~ VIDEO

Opinion by Alan J. Chwick

• Overconfidence: Less-lethal weapons can make people feel bold enough to start confrontations they’d normally avoid.

• False Security: Believing the risk is low, users may misjudge threats and escalate situations.

• Legal Gray Area: Vague laws may lead users to act carelessly, thinking there won’t be serious consequences.

THE QUESTION: People who carry firearms very strenuously avoid confrontations because they do not wish to draw a weapon and possibly kill somebody unless they really have to.

Would a person who carries a less-lethal weapon, like a Byrna-type device, possibly consider engaging in a confrontation because they carry the less-lethal weapon and won’t kill somebody?

This is a thought-provoking question that touches on the important psychological, social, and legal considerations related to self-defense and the carrying of weapons.

To fully examine whether a person who carries a less-lethal weapon might be more likely to engage in a confrontation, than a person carrying a firearm, we need to break this issue down into several components: The psychological factors, The perceptions of self-defense, The legal considerations, The moral implications, and The deterrent effects of carrying a weapon, whether lethal or less-lethal.

The fundamental question here revolves around the psychology of weapon carrying and the possible effects it has on the bearer’s behavior, especially in confrontation situations. Carrying a firearm, due to its potential for lethal consequences, often leads responsible gun owners to be highly cautious, using it as a last resort to protect themselves or others. The moral and psychological burden of using lethal force typically acts as a significant deterrent to initiating a confrontation, even going very far to AVOID a confrontation. However, when someone carries a less-lethal weapon, which incapacitates rather than kills, the psychological calculus may shift. The question, then, is whether this shift could make an individual more inclined to engage in a confrontation that they might otherwise have avoided. This decision, to use a weapon in self-defense, is deeply influenced by the individual psychology of the person carrying it, and it is well understood that the mere presence of a weapon can alter the way an individual perceives and reacts to threats, often in ways that are not immediately obvious.

A key psychological concept in the decision is escalation of force, which refers to the idea that an individual should only use the minimum amount of force necessary to defend themselves from an imminent threat.

Responsible and law-abiding firearm owners are generally very cautious because the use of a firearm can result in death or serious injury, and this serious potential for harm often serves as a strong psychological barrier, not to mention the devastating legal jeopardy, causing individuals to avoid confrontation and only draw the weapon when absolutely necessary.

False Security

In contrast to this, the less-lethal weapon is designed to incapacitate rather than kill, thus the psychological effect of carrying such a weapon is significantly different. While these could incapacitate a threat, it does not have the same irreversible consequences as a firearm, and this can lead some people to feel that they are in a less dangerous situation and may encourage them to escalate a conflict that they might have otherwise avoided. This psychological phenomenon of weapon-induced overconfidence can play a role where people may feel empowered and more willing to engage in confrontations because they perceive the consequences to be less severe.

A person carrying a firearm may be more likely to assess the risk of a confrontation much more carefully, knowing that the consequences of using deadly force are high, while the person carrying a less-lethal weapon may feel less cautious. The perceived low risk, of using a less-lethal device, could lead them to be more willing to engage or confront a potential threat, even if the situation is not immediately life-threatening.

This phenomenon is related to the concept of risk compensation, also known as the Peltzman effect, where individuals may take on more risk because they believe their level of protection is greater, as carrying a less-lethal weapon, with a reduced risk of a fatal outcome, but the risk of escalation and unintended consequences, like causing serious injury, still exists, is considered lower.

This sense of greater security could lead someone to misjudge the level of threat they are facing and act in a manner that they might not if they did not carry any weapon.

On the flip side, some studies have shown that the very presence of a weapon, lethal or non-lethal, can also lead to a heightened sense of power and control.

This increased confidence can influence decision-making in a way that makes an individual feel less threatened by an encounter and more inclined to act defensively. Still, the moral calculus remains different: with a less-lethal weapon, an individual may feel justified in using force, even in situations where they might have chosen not to act if they carried a firearm.

We know that firearms and less-lethal weapons have very different functions, both in terms of effectiveness and the consequences of their use, and understanding these differences is key to exploring whether someone carrying a less-lethal weapon might engage in more confrontations compared to someone carrying a firearm.

Simply put, a firearm is designed to neutralize a threat through lethal force, and its mere presence often serves as a significant deterrent because of the finality of its potential consequences. If someone brandishes a firearm, the implicit message is that the situation is dangerous enough that lethal force might be used, and because of this risk of death or permanent injury, people who carry firearms are usually very deliberate in their decision-making processes, often leaning heavily toward de-escalation unless their own safety or that of others is at immediate risk.

In contrast to the firearm’s design, the less-lethal weapon is designed to incapacitate a threat temporarily, rather than to cause death or permanent injury. This can give the carrier a strong, yet false, sense of security, knowing that the weapon is unlikely to result in death. As such, the psychological burden associated with using a firearm is absent when carrying this type of weapon, and this might reduce the internal hesitation to use the weapon and cause some individuals to engage in situations they, again, would otherwise avoid.

We also must understand that just because a weapon is “less-lethal” does not mean it is without risks.

These weapons can still cause serious injury, such as fractures, severe bruising, eye damage, etc. Additionally, their use could lead to unintended escalation, particularly if the target of the weapon perceives it as an attack and retaliates. Therefore, while the device may not result in death, it still carries significant risks, both for the person using it and for the person it is used on.

Another aspect to consider is how effective the weapon is in a self-defense situation. Firearms can neutralize a threat almost instantly, making them particularly useful when faced with an immediate threat of serious harm, while a less-lethal weapon is not guaranteed to incapacitate a person quickly. The effectiveness of the less-lethal weapon depends on such factors as distance, aim, and the target’s resilience to pain or discomfort. While this means that the less-lethal weapon may present less of an immediate threat to life, it also means that the user may have to escalate the confrontation by firing more rounds, and getting closer to the target, in order to achieve the desired result.

Thus, the presence of a less-lethal device might actually create the scenario where an individual is more likely to escalate an encounter.

Legal Gray Area

The legal framework surrounding self-defense can have a profound effect on whether an individual chooses to engage in a confrontation, particularly when considering the use of force as in many jurisdictions, self-defense laws are quite clear about when lethal force can be justified. Typically, lethal force is only acceptable when a person reasonably believes that they are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. This high degree of a threshold for justifying deadly force means that people who carry firearms are often very careful about when they decide to use their weapon, knowing that they must be able to prove that the use of force was necessary to protect their life or the lives of others.

Currently, the laws governing the use of less-lethal force are less clear and more variable (read: vague). In some areas, less-lethal weapons are subject to similar regulations as firearms, particularly when they are used to defend oneself against an aggressor, while in other jurisdictions, they may treat them as a “lower-tier” weapon, meaning that their use in self-defense might be subject to a lower threshold of justification. This legal ambiguity could influence an individual to use the weapon more freely, under the assumption that their use of force will not lead to severe legal consequences.

The moral implications of using force also play a critical role in the decision-making. Carrying a firearm often involves a strong sense of responsibility because the user is aware of the life-and-death consequences of their actions. Many firearm owners emphasize the importance of avoiding confrontation and using their weapon only as a last resort. This moral calculus might be different for someone carrying a less-lethal weapon, whose primary concern may not be taking a life, but rather neutralizing a threat without the moral burden of killing. This difference could make the individual more willing to use force in situations that don’t immediately warrant it.

Less-lethal weapons may offer an individual a moral “out” from using lethal force, they can still be seen as a form of aggression, and their use could lead to unintended harm. The moral decision to engage in a confrontation often hinges on one’s perception of the threat and the perceived justification for using force.

While there is very limited empirical research, at this time, specifically examining the behavior of individuals carrying less-lethal weapons, there is relevant literature on firearms and self-defense behavior.

One line of research has focused on the weapons effect, which suggests that the mere presence of a weapon can increase aggression.

This effect has been well-documented in the context of firearms, and similar effects may apply to less-lethal weapons. Even if a weapon is less likely to cause permanent harm, its presence can still increase the likelihood that an individual will engage in conflict. This finding suggests that the mere fact of carrying a less-lethal weapon could make someone more likely to escalate a confrontation that they might have otherwise avoid.

Data on the frequency and outcomes of self-defense incidents involving less-lethal weapons is very scarce, but there is a body of research on defensive gun use. Studies show that most defensive gun uses involve deterring a potential attacker without actually firing the weapon. This suggests that carrying any weapon has a significant deterrent effect in and of itself. However, the effectiveness of less-lethal weapons in deterring or neutralizing threats varies, as their ability to incapacitate is not as instantaneous or reliable as a firearm’s.

Summing it all up, whether an individual is more likely to engage in a confrontation depends on their psychological mindset, their understanding of the legal and moral implications of using force, and their assessment of the threat they face. While less-lethal weapons might make some individuals more willing to act in situations where they might otherwise avoid confrontation, responsible carrying of any weapon requires careful consideration of when and how to use it, in order to ensure that force is used only when absolutely necessary.

“Does the person pull the trigger, or does the trigger pull the person?”
— Line from Pulp Fiction —

“Does the finger pull the trigger or does the trigger pull the finger?”
— Sir Charles Sherrington, Notable British neurophysiologist —

Further research is needed to provide more and better insight into how less-lethal weapons likely influence behavior in real-world situations.

References:

• Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169–217.
• Kleck, G., & Gertz, M. (1995). Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86(1), 150–187.
• Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010). Moral Self-Licensing: When Being Good Frees Us to Be Bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(5), 344–357.
• Pew Research Center. (2017). America’s Complex Relationship with Guns.
• White, M. D., & Ready, J. T. (2007). The Impact of the Taser on Suspect Resistance: Identifying Predictors of Effectiveness. Crime & Delinquency, 53(1), 70–102.
• Model Penal Code § 3.04 (American Law Institute)
• People v. Jackson, 2021 WL 1049873 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021)

Are Gun Permit-to-Purchase Laws Unconstitutional?

Small Pocket Pistols Calibers For Self-Protection 22LR to .32 ACP

About the author:

Alan J. Chwick, A.S., B.S., FL/NY/SC Paralegal is known for his involvement in legal articles usually related to firearm regulations and for his contributions to discussions on gun rights. Retired Managing Coach of the Freeport NY Junior Marksmanship Club (FreeportJuniorClub.org). Escaped New York State to South Carolina and is an SC FFL & Gunsmith (Everything22andMore.com).
[email protected] | TWITTER & TRUTHSOCIAL: @iNCNF