"Less Lethal" ammunition

[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.

[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.