"Less Lethal" ammunition

[Aloha_Shooter]

So after watching all the crap Zimmerman had to go through and the way the media jumps on anyone who uses a gun for self-defense these days, I got to thinking about using "less lethal" ammunition for home or self defense. A quick search found 12 GA shotgun ammunition for about $5-6 per shot and pistol ammunition for about $3 per shot (although they say the pistol ammunition will not cycle the action on semi-automatics). At that cost, I can't see doing much practice with the ammunition and I prefer the idea of practicing as you're going to fight but ... the prospect of avoiding the kind of crap Zimmerman went through might be worth 5 or 6 rounds a quarter or even month ...

Not putting the assailant down permanently is possibly an obvious disadvantage -- but legally might be an advantage. I think most of us agree the very act of self-defense is often enough to dissuade many attacks, especially the kind of mall or school assaults we've seen recently.

Any other advantages or disadvantages beyond cost, legal repercussions, or possible follow-up attacks? Is there a potential burgeoning market here for home- and self-defense?

[spqrzilla]

What happens when you kill someone with "less lethal" ammunition? At your trial for murder, the prosecutor points out that you "obviously" were not in fear for your life because you used "less lethal" ammunition, so you have no self defense claim ... Likewise when the family of the 'victim' sues you.

For that matter, when you use the "less lethal" ammunition and the other guy survives, a prosecution for aggravated assault ensues.

And lastly, you must be very careful that you don't mix up, and shoot someone with lethal rounds thinking you had loaded "less lethal".

Over all, I'm not interested.

[BREATHER]

I've been saying this all over and here several times. Hard working, law abiding, tax paying America citizens DO NOT WANT TO KILL anyone, we just want to stop a piece of shit from hurting or killing our family members or ourselves when the said POS is committing a crime.. The Libtard media and all the criminal politicians that want to disarm us don't get it. or they get it but don't want to say it... But they do know it regardless of what diahria comes out of their mouths..

[merl]

The only case where you can use the less lethal stuff you'd also be justified using the lethal stuff. I don't see any advantage other than not killing someone (reliably) and the disadvantage is potentially not stopping the threat immediately (as you pointed out)

Dont think I'd fault you if you wanted to load a beanbag round as the first shot and buck after that but I wouldn't expect it to gain much sympathy from the justice system.

[rbeau30]

I agree with spqrzilla, they are going to say (whether you being charged with murder or afterwards during your civil trial) if you have enough time to choose or utilize less than lethal rounds, you were not in imminent fear for your life.

EDIT to add: Just like when you use a "tactically-modified" firearm for self defense, that will also open up all kinds of cans of worms during the trials afterwards. Then they have a way of painting a picture of you obsessed with evil guns and killing.

[newracer]

Using less lethal ammunition is not going to reduce the amount of crap you will have to go through if you shoot someone in self defense. Especially if it is not in your home.

[MED]

If you have to pull your firearm on an attacker, it will change your life...period. I say buy one of the top 3 self defence loads for your caliber and hope you never need to use them. If you do, have a good attorney; and be damn sure you are justified when using lethal force. Awareness and avoidance are always the best tools as a civilian just going about your business. I put more stock in these skills than what kind of ammunition I use. A controlled pair of whatever I put in my firearm at close range in the thoracic cavity will likely be lethal...lethal or less lethal...doesn't matter; you are discharging your firearm on another human being, and there will be legal, liability, and emotional consequences for all involved.

[kidicarus13]

Have you ever witnessed less-than-lethal not work as designed on someone? Now what? If you don't have option #2 now what? Shoot until you're empty and then die? Premium hollow-points for me. I'll protect me and mine to the best of my ability and then worry about the rest later.

[speedysst]

Yep and dead bad guys don't testify.


Using less lethal ammunition is not going to reduce the amount of crap you will have to go through if you shoot someone in self defense. Especially if it is not in your home.

[spqrzilla]

Never mix "less lethal" and standard ammunition in the same gun. Just never.

[cmailliard]

Have you ever witnessed less-than-lethal not work as designed on someone? Now what? If you don't have option #2 now what? Shoot until you're empty and then die? Premium hollow-points for me. I'll protect me and mine to the best of my ability and then worry about the rest later.

This - this is why LE are not supposed to deploy Less Lethal unless they have lethal cover. You always hear "why did they not use a taser" more often than not it is because there is only one officer on scene, if he/she deploys less lethal and it does not work (quite often) then they are in a world of hurt. The same can be applied to a non-LEO situation.

There was a video out not to long ago where a LEO was in a house with a guy and a knife I think. You hear him ask almost pleading for more officers to arrive and get in here. If I had to guess he did not want to shoot this guy and was hoping a second Officer could arrive and deploy less lethal, but because he was by himself he had his handgun out. If a second Officer were to arrive he/she could have deployed a taser and given them more options. As it stood the guy closed in on the Officer and he shot him.

[HoneyBadger]

I want "less than lethal" actions to be a viable option because I really don't ever want to kill anyone. It's an unfortunate and depressing commentary that the political and moral climate here makes it legally easier to kill someone than to try to defend yourself without killing them.


ETA: Added to the word "actions" to clarify my intent.

[newracer]

I want "less than lethal" to be a viable option because I really don't ever want to kill anyone. It's an unfortunate and depressing commentary that the political and moral climate here makes it legally easier to kill someone than to try to defend yourself without killing them.

I don't think anybody here really wants to kill anyone either. A better option than less lethal ammunition would be shot placement. But really do you think you can shoot someone in the arm or leg under extreme stress? Personally I am going to shoot center of mass until the threat is gone. Maybe they survive maybe they don't.

[Great-Kazoo]

I want "less than lethal" to be a viable option because I really don't ever want to kill anyone. It's an unfortunate and depressing commentary that the political and moral climate here makes it legally easier to kill someone than to try to defend yourself without killing them.

some one mentioned it before, i'll repeat
YOU NEVER WANT TO KILL ANYONE, NEVER You do want to defend yourself when you feel there is an imminent threat, AND flight IS NO AN OPTION. That's when you do what is necessary to stop the threat.
ATTORNEY, ATTORNEY, ATTORNEY.

Nothing personal, however IF you, or anyone else feel's using deadly force to stop a threat , is something you need to think about, Carry a taser or other non-lethal option, NOT LESS THAN LETHAL ROUNDS. You use them on someone and they will be living in your house, for the rest of their lives, any money you make will be given to them.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I don't think anybody here really wants to kill anyone either. A better option than less lethal ammunition would be shot placement. But really do you think you can shoot someone in the arm or leg under extreme stress? Personally I am going to shoot center of mass until the threat is gone. Maybe they survive maybe they don't.

I know I'm not Roy Rogers or Tex Ritter or whatever so I'm aiming at center of mass. I started the thread because I was thinking that the perps in many cases are cowards and just the act of getting return fire seems to stop many acts. I'm well aware that it doesn't always stop lunatics -- the Israelis have had mixed results with using "rubber" bullets for years. There are other obvious problems with "less than lethal" but in my experience, solving problems starts with discussing them.

I find it interesting (and depressing like HoneyBadger) that an attempt to defend oneself with less-than-lethal means could/would be viewed as more aggressive or dangerous than going straight to the baddest hollow-points I can find but it answers my question if that's the case. I'm worried about my fate, not the aggressor's, and the idea of changing ammo was only to make things easier on me if I found it necessary to get him off me.

[spqrzilla]

I want "less than lethal" to be a viable option because I really don't ever want to kill anyone. It's an unfortunate and depressing commentary that the political and moral climate here makes it legally easier to kill someone than to try to defend yourself without killing them.

That's not what I'm saying, actually.

[Limited GM]

I just want a few rds in 12 so the wife can bust a 'yote around the chickenb house without killing the neighbors.

[dan512]

Just my .02... A gun is not the tool for every job. A gun is for killing. That's it. If someone needs to be killed, that is my tool.
That being said, I am a big fan of pepper spray and tend to carry that in addition to the gun. If that will stop a threat, or give me enough time to remove me and mine from the threat, then everyone wins.

[HoneyBadger]

That's not what I'm saying, actually.

Okay. My post was not a response to yours. No connection implied or given. Have a nice day. [Beer]

[hurley842002]

Just my .02... A gun is not the tool for every job. A gun is for killing. That's it. If someone needs to be killed, that is my tool.
That being said, I am a big fan of pepper spray and tend to carry that in addition to the gun. If that will stop a threat, or give me enough time to remove me and mine from the threat, then everyone wins.

Well then I hope you only use your personally owned firearms for hunting, or "killing" paper targets. Where I come from, we only shoot to STOP when referring to humans, not kill.

[275RLTW]

"Are you trained to effectively and safely use less lethal munitions?" There's the court's argument now...

Just traded a bad situation for a much worse one. You're now convicted of assaulting a burglar in your own home and can't own a firearm anymore.

[baglock1]

In my opinion, if you're using less than lethal ammo, you weren't truly in fear for your life.

I'd rather be in my bed thinking, "maybe I could have fought him off and my family would have still been safe..." vs sitting in prison thinking, "I should have placed 18 115 grain samples of JHP in that bastard's head..."

That's just me though.

The bottom line is that squeezing the trigger on a human is NEVER a good situation. If you have to do it however, don't just stop the fight, END it.

[Great-Kazoo]

"Are you trained to effectively and safely use less lethal munitions?" There's the court's argument now...

Just traded a bad situation for a much worse one. You're now convicted of assaulting a burglar in your own home and can't own a firearm anymore.

This


In my opinion, if you're using less than lethal ammo, you weren't truly in fear for your life.

I'd rather be in my bed thinking, "maybe I could have fought him off and my family would have still been safe..." vs sitting in prison thinking, "I should have placed 18 115 grain samples of JHP in that bastard's head..."

That's just me though.

The bottom line is that squeezing the trigger on a human is NEVER a good situation. If you have to do it however, don't just stop the fight, END it.

AND THIS

[Hound]

I have a lot of Non-lethal type ammo. I bought it because I have no wish nor INTENT to kill anybody. That does not mean I wouldn't kill somebody attacking my family or myself but that I don't want to unless it is the last option. My plan was to load the first few rounds with LE and then use lethal rounds. All of it was bought before last year. Then came along HB13-1043, where they redefined 'lethal weapon'. They removed 'intent' legally. Now... Because of this stupid law, my intent to allow myself to escalate proportionate to the threat has been taken away. The law now expects that I will either go full out or nothing. Warning shot... I am in trouble. Less Lethal... I am in trouble. Shot to kill.. Good to go. The same idiots that made the laws then wonder why when we talk or act there is no measured response. I think you are trying to use common sense to how you would like to respond. I also think the powers that be won't let you use common sense and force you to an extreme in the hopes that they can eventually take them away.

Just my .02

[us1911]

Warning shot... I am in trouble. Less Lethal... I am in trouble. Shot to kill.. Good to go.

Is a warning shot still illegal if its with a "Less Lethal" round??
How about loading the tube with a fire-ant rubber round to get attention backed up by 8 buckshot rounds? (OOPS, of course, I meant 4 buckshot....)

[Rabid]

I am not a killer, you are not a killer, we are not killers. The fact of the matter is none of use want to kill someone. However if you need to use force in fear of your life, the time to fire your firearm, used lethal force. If you do not kill the person trying to kill you expect worse then Zimmerman in the court system.

[Great-Kazoo]

Answer this. Why do you CCW, and or have a firearm for home protection, to make noise, show off to friends and family, look cool, boost your ego?
NO it's to have as a deterrent to crime and or an imminent threat to loved one and or friends. be they are home, vacation, at work.
You fire a warning shot, myself....I'll let my attorney answer that one.