The popularity of less lethal pistols has become a bit of a passing interest for me.

All I've said before is that a specific pistol by Bruna looks so much like a Glock 19 that I can see a lot of issues that a person who carries it can run into.

More on that in a moment.

To give the idea its due credit, not everybody is prepared to defend him or herself with a gun. Some people think that they would rather die than take a life. Some people figure possibly correctly that they'll go their whole lives without facing a deadly force threat.

I do think that these tools have a niche purpose; but, I think that it might be more niche than people realize. If people aren't careful about it, they could be a real problem.

As I mentioned before, there's at least one of these pistols that looks just like a Glock. The pistol in this video doesn't look as much like a real gun; but, it looks enough like one that, especially at night, one could be forgiven for seeing it as a real gun.

One of the major problems that I'm seeing with this is that anyone who carries these pistols may unintentionally escalate a non deadly force confrontation into a deadly one. Say an attacker is bearing down on a guy with one of these pistols. The attacker is only showing clenched fists. The guy pulls his Bruna that looks like a Glock. The attacker, who only wanted a fist fight, suddenly sees a deadly force threat posed by the guy, so the attacker pulls a knife or his own gun.

The thing is, in that scenario, the guy with the Bruna became the aggressor. The guy with the Bruna knew it was a less lethal weapon; but, the other guy reasonably thought that it was a real gun being pointed at him. That's all the dude without the Bruna needs to justify resorting to deadly force against the guy with the Bruna.

So, I understand that looks are important. I like my guns to look cool. I also understand that they make real guns in all kinds of colors. Still, it might be a good idea to scale back on the designs that nearly replicate a real gun.

I think that the bigger problem has a lot of components, and it starts with the "less lethal" name. It seems that most state (definitely with the exception of Minnesota) have clear legal distinctions between deadly and non deadly weapons. Less lethal doesn't mean non lethal. It's in the name that these things can kill you.

I'm not pressuring anyone to watch the video below. I'm just using it as a source. What I'll say is that the test at the end, in which the dude takes an impact round to the chest, was clearly effective, and it also clearly didn't kill him.

That said, one should take note of several facts.

One important fact is that the company discouraged the demonstration. They discouraged it knowing that the guy would have a medical team on hand. That tells me that the people at Grimburg know that there was a higher than zero chance that their product would kill him or cause permanent damage.

Another point is that the demonstration shot was taken at ten yards away. They probably chose that distance to decrease the liklihood that the shot wouldn't kill him or shatter his rib cage or whatever.

What would that projectile done if it were a gut shot at point blank range? At least according to the FBI, most self-defense cases happen within three yards.

What's more, particularly Burna has advertised the effective range of their less lethal guns. This is another concern.

Stand Your Ground state or not, the further the person is away from you, the more the element of imminence comes into question.

Granted, if you shoot a guy with a real gun who is still a good distance away, and the jury doesn't buy self-defense, you're probably facing more time than if you use a less lethal pistol (especially if the guy dies).

Still, people with a less lethal pistol might be more trigger happy. They might be more willing to take that shot at a distance when they easily could have fled. That's assault and battery right there if the jury doesn't buy the element of imminence. If you hit the guy in the head and he dies of a brain bleed, that's some degree of manslaughter. In places like New York, where even guys like Daniel Penny are facing murder charges for using non-lethal force, you could be facing murder charges for using your "less lethal" weapon.

Basically, this whole industry seems to be toeing a dangerous line. I understand why it exists while also thinking that it's clouding the self-defense market.

I carry a gun. I also carry a few non-lethal options.

To sum this up, the instrument that you use to defend yourself needs to be responsive and proportional to the kind of threat that you're facing. There are deadly threats and there are non-deadly threats. There are deadly weapons and there are non-deadly weapons. There are no less lethal threats; so...why do we have less lethal weapons?