From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Store bought brew
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<ATAYLOR.92Aug25170322@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Aug25.233835.9695@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:26:34 GMT

<In article <1992Aug25.233835.9695@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
<   In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug25170322@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
<   > <In article <1992Aug21.085329.9621@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
<   > 
<   > <   Regarding the debate over mace v. home brews, why not just get a 
<   > <   49 cent trial sie of WD-40 or similar product and carry that?
<   > 
<   > <   It's the same size as a mace canister, and is more effective.
<   > 
<   > 	Please provide some support for this assertion. 
<   > 	
<   > 

[shopping details deleted]

<Effective can be split into two categories, range and deterrence in eyes.
<Range is about 8-10 feet. Some mace sprays in a better aimable stream, other
<brands go for the 'shotgun' approach.

	Cosgrove must have a unique can of WD-40. I've never seen
	any spray lubricant that could direct a stream of liquid
	8 to 10 feet away; most have nozzles that create a "fog"
	with a "range" of about 2 feet.

	Thus, the range would appear to be deficient.

<Deterrence is based upon the fact it uses petrolium distillates for
<it's active ingredient. In brief, it is like getting gasoline in the eyes.

	Assuming, of course, that one can GET it into an attackers 
	eyes. 

<Becuase the general consensus is that mace is nto strong enough all of the
<time, but gasoline is, this would appear to indicate that the WD-40 is better.

	Mace(tm) indeed comes in differing strengths. However,
	it is not nearly as easy to spray someone's eyes as you
	appear to believe, which is why Mace(tm) also attacks the
	respiratory system.

	For example, if one's attacker is wearing glasses, goggles
	or a transparent mask, it will be difficult to impossible
	to succeed in spraying any substance into the eyes.

	Perhaps the makers of chemical tools for personal defence
	know more about their business than D. C. Cosgrove?


<Speaking from personal experience, during tear gas training, not only was I
<able to give my name, rank, and duty section in a room full of tear gas, I was
<actually arrogant enough to ask the instructor if he was sure that was all he
<wanted after he told me I could leave. (Yes, I regreted it for a full twenty
<minutes after I got out, as it felt like my lungs were coming out, but overall,
 <it was worth it.)

	Since tear gas is neither Mace(tm) nor WD-40, this
	anecdote isn't particularly useful, to the discussion at 
	hand anyway.

	It *does* provide Cosgrove's ego with more stroking and
	indirectly provides readers with some information about
	just how accurate Cosgrove is on the subject....

<Converesely, I once wiped my eyes with a hand that I had spilled gas
<on an hour earlier.

	Ah, I see; spray the WD-40 on your hand and rub it into
	the eyes of an attacker. 

	What's wrong with this picture?

<I'll take the tear gas (Mace) in my face any day of the week, because I know I
<can still operate under its effects.

	Mace(tm) is not tear gas.
	Sorry to introduce cruel reality into this discussion.

<Petrolium or distillates thereof? Not a prayer.

	Cosgrove appears to be suggesting that vapors of gasoline
	would also make an appropriate self-defense tool....can
	anyone see a problem with this?


Newsgroups: talk.rape