"Less Lethal" ammunition

[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.

[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.