LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI do not know if those are existed. Me, curious..... Do they have rubber bullet for any kind of handgun that you can be able to use to prevent BG get killed ?
This is a discussion on Rubber Bullet within the Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I do not know if those are existed. Me, curious..... Do they have rubber bullet for any kind of handgun that you can be able ...
Array
I do not know if those are existed. Me, curious..... Do they have rubber bullet for any kind of handgun that you can be able to use to prevent BG get killed ?
Array
The problem is let's say you don't kill him but rather hit him in the eye and stop him. The next thing you know he has you hauled into court for putting his eye out and believe it or not he could win.
2nd thing is that you don't know his intentions. If he has a gun with REAL bullets and you have a gun with rubber bullets that's worse than bringing a knife to a gun fight.
Just my opinion.
Array
Yeah, I could agree with you, my thoughts maybe put one in chamber and then one more in magazine and the rest will be real bullets. Just a thought.Originally Posted by alelks
Array
What you have to realize that someone on heavy duty drugs may not be phased by the rubber bullet so if you hit them with the rubber bullet you may not get the 2nd shot off before they get a shot off.
Someone on heavy drugs may not be phased by real bullets immediately either. If you must shoot, shoot to stop the threat as effectively as possible. the longer it takes to stop a threat is more time you are likely to be injured as well.
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." Thomas Jefferson
Nemo Me Impune Lacesset
Array
I am curious, what would be the basis for his victory? Assuming he/she is a BG that you would shoot to kill, why would injurying him entitle him to something?
Array
Rubber bullets? Bad idea, IMO.
If you're a LEO, your job is to bring the perpetrator to face justice. Hence, some options for less-than-lethal force make a lot of sense.
If you're not a LEO, your goal is to stop the threat and survive the violence being forced on you. Holding him accountable in front of a judge is a distant second goal, by comparison.
What happens to non-LEO's when using less-than-lethal options in a lethal setting:
- Time is expended appealing to the attacker's better nature (through pain compliance). That time can easily be used by the attacker to ignore the initial surprise and pain, which cannot do you any good.
- Many attackers won't be stopped by less-than-lethal alternatives, given the array of pain-dulling, mood-altering and psycho-enhancing pharma on the streets.
- The attacker is highly likely to still be fully operational ... and, thus, still highly capable of taking your life. You want that? More importantly, do you want your spouse and children to face that reality?
- Probably most heinous of all, zealots in the court system might well see your supposedly-laudable action as proof. Proof of what? Well, if lethal force wasn't actually needed at the moment you used non-lethal force, then what were you doing pulling out a firearm, which everyone knows is a lethal weapon?
What's the goal, again, as an armed citizen? Seems to me that it's to stop the threat. I simply can't see how it's a good choice to used reduced-effectiveness options when a lethal threat is violently attempting to terminate your life.
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
Thoughts: Justifiable self defense.
Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.
Array
Tn texas if it's justified as legal force you cannot be sued by the criminal or his relatives for shooting him during the commission of a crime such as robbery,home invasion,carjacking etc.,bt like others said rubber bullets may be as effective as a paintball gun,I carry to stop the threat not give the BG a chance to shoot me back
"Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
--Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .
Array
FireAir7215
A friend of mine, several years ago, was attacked by a off shift co-worker with a night stick. My friend shot his attacker in the thigh to wound him, but not kill him. After four years of court cost, paying for an attorny, and all the summons issued for each court apperance, my friend quit his job and move to another state. I know of this first hand, as I worked with both of these men, and stood in court on many occasions in this one. Do you really want to go through that? I don't! If I have to shoot, I will shoot till the threat is gone, if I can!
Y'all be safe now, ya hear!
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson
Array
Anytime you shoot someone, with anything, you have the risk of getting "hauled into court." So a rubber bullet gun, a H&K USP, a Taser ... are all pretty much the same in that regard.I am curious, what would be the basis for his victory? Assuming he/she is a BG that you would shoot to kill, why would injurying him entitle him to something?
Rubber bullet guns, if they exist for civilians, would just be another weapon capabable of stopping certain kinds of threats.
Such guns would have a big advantage in that they would generally be non-lethal. They would also have deficiencies in some situations. You don't see LEOs walking around with only a Taser X26...
Non-lethal weapons or self-defense mechanisms are a good thing. Sometimes, people just don't "need killing."
Array
I understand... I get the point what you means. Thanks for input.
Array
At the penitentiary, when inmates get into riot upthere, the officers will grab the shotgun along with rubber ball shell and shot to inmate to stop the riot. Heard that inmate may passed out due to massive pain, some will surrender after get shot. But since I get y'all some point out of it. Now it may be a bad idea. Just to give a thought and see what everybodys opinion will be. Thanks for reply.
Array
If you're justified in using lethal force, you should do just that, use lethal force until the threat has been eliminated.
"In God we trust, as for the rest of you... keep your hands where I can see them" - Unknown
Array
And you should never, NEVER use lethal force when you are not justified in doing so.
You'll be sorry if you do.
Array
Agreed!
"In God we trust, as for the rest of you... keep your hands where I can see them" - Unknown
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
