Page 3 of 3
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:01 am
by tallmike
I dont think they make any kid safe pepper spray, it would be too difficult to use under pressure if they made it too difficult for a curious kid to use.
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:02 pm
by Paladin
Russell wrote:Okay, that's what I thought. I had read the "It states that OC isn't a chemical for legal purposes." and was extremely confused considering the chemical is sold in pretty much every self defense spray now.
OC is a derivative of HOT CAYENNE PEPPERS
"The term OC (oleoresin capsicum) is a horticultural term which refers to chili peppers. There are many different kinds of chili peppers ranging from jalapenos, chiletpin, and cayenne to habaneros. They all have one thing in common. They all contain a substance that is very powerful -- an alkaloid called capsaicin"
http://www.pepper-spray-store.com/relat ... atis.shtml
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:12 pm
by txinvestigator
Paladin wrote:txinvestigator wrote:
Not really, OC is a Hazardous Material. It has a 3 for health on the MSDS, and a 1 for fire.
Its chemical formula is C18H27NO3.
OC certainly is a substance that is considered a Hazardous Material. And it has a
molecular formula...
Just like water has a molecular formula of H2O.... but we're not banning sprinkler systems are we?
Because I don't know everything I like to read. I've read a
security officer's manual that talk about CN, CS and OC. It states that OC isn't a chemical for legal purposes.
That manual is wrong. The information I obtained for you is Straight from OSHA and ChemTrec. It is a chemical. They don't squeeze the peppers and bottle the juice. A chemical process is used.
What do sprinkler systems have to do with it? That is just an asinine argument. Water does not meet the rest of the statute, nor does a sprinkler system.
Good Grief.
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:18 pm
by casselthief
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm
by Paladin
[quote="txinvestigator]That manual is wrong. [/quote]
Have you read it? It discusses the policy of the FBI on the subject. I guess they're wrong too and you are indisputably right because you say so?
I said you could debate it in court. And that is certainly true.
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:39 pm
by Paladin
txinvestigator wrote:What do sprinkler systems have to do with it? ... Water does not meet the rest of the statute, nor does a sprinkler system.
Statute:
"PC46 WEAPONS
(14) "Chemical dispensing device" means a device,
... that is designed, made, or adapted for the
purpose of dispensing a substance capable of causing an adverse
psychological or physiological effect on a human being. "
If you want to get technical, all matter is a chemical. Including water. Water is a substance that kills thousands of people all over the world every year. So it is known to cause adverse physiological effects on human beings. People also often have adverse psychological reactions to getting wet. A sprinkler is a device that is designed to dispense water.
Therefore, getting technical, the statute could be interpreted as banning water sprinklers. Although it certainly wasn't the orginal intent of the law. It's a bad law in many ways. An it's open to debate on exactly what the law meant by 'chemical'. Which was my point.
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:46 pm
by kauboy
That would only be right if the law was based on statistics. For our sake, its not. The law is based on the popular general beliefs of a society. Since there is no group large enough to voice their opinion that water is dangerous and bad for human beings, then its not considered so. Anything you can drink that doesn't make you ill or kill you, isn't going to be illegal to dispense.
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 8:19 pm
by AV8R
Paladin wrote:txinvestigator wrote:What do sprinkler systems have to do with it? ... Water does not meet the rest of the statute, nor does a sprinkler system.
Statute:
"PC46 WEAPONS
(14) "Chemical dispensing device" means a device,
... that is designed, made, or adapted for the
purpose of dispensing a substance capable of causing an adverse
psychological or physiological effect on a human being. "
If you want to get technical, all matter is a chemical. Including water. Water is a substance that kills thousands of people all over the world every year. So it is known to cause adverse physiological effects on human beings. People also often have adverse psychological reactions to getting wet. A sprinkler is a device that is designed to dispense water.
Therefore, getting technical, the statute could be interpreted as banning water sprinklers. Although it certainly wasn't the orginal intent of the law. It's a bad law in many ways. An it's open to debate on exactly what the law meant by 'chemical'. Which was my point.
Technically, the chemical water is "dihydrogen monoxide", and an exhaustive list of its deleterious properties may be found at
http://www.dhmo.org for those who have an interest, including a reference to a California city council which voted to ban the substance as a danger to health
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 10:07 am
by kauboy
AV8R wrote:Technically, the chemical water is "dihydrogen monoxide", and an exhaustive list of its deleterious properties may be found at
http://www.dhmo.org for those who have an interest, including a reference to a California city council which voted to ban the substance as a danger to health
AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Well there you go TXI, apparently his sprinkler example was spot on! HAHAHA!
P.S. Stupid Kalifornistanians.
