Another tale:

Back in the pre-pepper spray days, a coworker took a drunk driver to the local hospital for a BA. Took the cuffs off, and the fight started. Officer ended up emptying a (big) can of Mace on the guy, the lab, the ER, hallways, etc. As usual, the cloud of Mace drifted, made a lot of the elderly patients less than happy...

"...more than just the attacker irritated..."

Yup. They REALLY irritate me...

To the comment above who advocates carrying a gun in one hand and a can of pepper in the other:

I'm sure you already realize this, but just in case someone doesn't have much experience with pepper or guns...

Be aware that if you are caught by any surprise and decide to squeeze the pepper can trigger, you might inadvertently squeeze the gun trigger also.

Regarding the tight stream vs the cone: Your goal is to get product into the nostrils and eyes. Imagine being under tight time and distance constraint under heavy duress. There are pros and cons, but getting some product on is better than none. A tight stream requires time to "walk" the stream onto target, all while under attack.

Yes, pepper causes the eyelids to forcibly shut, but like others mentioned, the bad guys know that all they have to do is take their fingers and force the eyelids of one eye open. Have a plan.

You are referring to "dual force options". The current school of thought is to have a firearm in your strong hand, and the pepper spray in the support hand. Use your THUMB for the pepper spray, and your trigger finger for the firearm. You are less likely to get confused, but a bit of practice is always a good idea.

Thanks for all the input -- lots to consider...another tool in the tool box - I like that.

Teacher

Pepper spray and a gun make a good combo IMHO (never having to have had to use either in a real-life self-protection scenario, I'm only speculating).

If the pepper spray holds off the attacker, that's fantastic. If it doesn't, and you are forced to shoot, your pepper spray attempt may help from a legal standpoint should your actions be questioned in court. You attempted a non-lethal defense, but the attack continued. You were then forced to shoot.

I’m not sure how I feel about dual-wielding both a gun and pepper spray. Having pepper spray come back on you is bad enough on it’s own. Holding a gun while being disabled by your own pepper spray seems like it is just asking for the assailant to take your gun.

Then again, I have never had an experience to aim either a gun or pepper spray at anyone yet, myself.

P.S.: One might also want to consider the legal ramifications of such an action. “So, you had pepper spray in one hand and a gun in the other, and you chose to shoot my client,” says the lawyer. I am not a lawyer, of course, and I have not been through in-depth firearm carry training (including the legal training), but it seems like it might be safer to completely switch from the pepper spray to the firearm once that border of ability, opportunity, and intent is reached.

"...the attack continued. You were then forced to shoot..."

You have to keep in mind that to shoot an unarmed attacker is guaranteed to get you arrested and sued, at the very minumum. Many things will be considered; age (attackers and yours), sizes, abilities, etc etc etc. It WILL get ugly...

It might also be argued that if you shot a person and didn't pepper spray them, you used excessive force as the spray could have been enough to do the job.

Yep… I believe the expression I heard was, “You can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride.”