rottkeeper

(The only Less Lethal force you need is a closed door.)


Well stated Musketeer

__________________
For as the lighting comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the son of man be. Mathew 24:27

NRA Member

ssssthesnake

Imho i would think that less than lethal would mean two folks testifying in court.when one is better.
if you have to draw sight and sqweez the trigger of you home defense weapon then you might want to be lethal and why would some dirt bag be in your house forcing you to point a fire arm at them ect...

WhatGun

I think when it got down to the court time, all anyone would hear is that you shot him with your shotgun and thought it wouldnt kill him.....

Superman

My "less lethal" rounds are my #9 and #10 rounds in the bottom of the magazine, and that's just because I ran out of hollow points. :)

Of course, if I get to 9 and 10 on you then you probably won't even notice enough to say "Thanks for the break, boss" when they hit.
LOL!

__________________
[I]They make a desert and call it peace - Calgacus
We're all just a bunch of Right Wing Racist Republican Homophobes - Rush L.
___________________________________

digitalexplr

If you think non/less than lethal force will stop the attacker, why are you using a lethal (shotgun) weapon?

Missouri has the Castle Doctrine also. Anyone finding their way into my home, other than being invited in by me, will be met by lethal force. I have no desire to shoot anyone. But I also have no desire for my family and I do be crime statistics either.

ccw9mm

If you had to answer to a jury as to why you shot an alleged attacker with two rounds from your shotgun, would it make any real difference that you claim the first was a less-than-lethal shot, when in reality you're legally barred from using lethal force in a situation unless fully justified in the first place?

In other words, since your shotgun is a defensive weapon and considered lethal force if used, you're going to be using it when your life is on the line and directly being threatened. Do you think that's a smart time to be screwing around with anything that will be less effective at stopping the threat, given the risks?

Beyond that, consider what you will have just given the prosecution. If, as you claim, that first shot was intended to be less than lethal, than what are you doing pulling a shotgun on a person, let alone shooting a second time ... if (obviously) lethal force wasn't yet justified? Think about it.

To my way of thinking, load it up with whatever will best stop the threat, given what threat you might face. That's the whole point.

__________________
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?
Deal with evil through strength. Affirm the good in Man through trust.
NRA. GOA. OFF.

tns0038

I'm going to I have to agree with others.

Thanks God I've never had to shoot anyone, but in those few times, when I've had to draw my weapon, I was glad to know the first round was or should be lethal.

Less than lethal rounds are for bounty hunters, and Leo's trying to apprehend unarmed BG's.

Cuda66

One more on the "Bad Idea" bandwagon.

The lethal force side of my arguement has been covered well in previous posts.

Personally, I think that using rubber slug/buckshot/beanbag/fluffy teddy bear rounds for home defense (or ANY defense) are about as stupid as those occasional wack jobs who pop up saying they want to use rock salt.

__________________
One man's theology is another man's belly laugh. --RAH

Bark'n

I am kind of tired so this may not come out exactly right, but hopefully the point will come home.

As several other have said, Less Lethal is not Non Lethal...

If you were to shoot a less lethal round at a suspect and you kill him, the liability goes up dramatically.

I can venture to say that a whole lot of prosecutors can and will try to make a case that whole reason you were attempting to use a "Less Lethal" round in the first place is because you felt that the situation, at that moment Did Not Warrant Deadly Force. What does that leave you with? Negligent Homicide.

If you think an unscrupulous prosecutor can not skew the facts and twist things around to crucify you in that case, I suggest you go visit Border Agents Ramos and Compean.

As others have said... LEO's use less lethal rounds in very controlled situations, with a covering officer with lethal force at the ready to employ. They also usually have to attend a certifying course in order to learn the limits and correct uses of the rounds.

Why do they have to become certified in using Less than Lethal rounds? Because of the liability associated with them.

Just throwing that scenario out cause I didn't see it mentioned earlier.

I may be way off base, but I don't think so...

If you have an aversion to using lethal force and your thoughts of using a less lethal round in your weapon is to "give the BG one last chance..." Maybe you should do some more soul searching whether a firearm is for you or not.

There's no shame in choosing not to use a deadly weapon in your defensive tool box.

But if you are going to have a firearm as part of your defensive tool box... Don't Mess Around With It! Use it, and get the job done... You may not get a second opportunity to stop the person before he kills you.

__________________
-Bark'n
Semper Fi

"The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, will prey on those of us who without one, would surely perish."

J Bowen

Right idea to have less lethal rounds
available but not loaded in a gun for
defense. I keep a few rubber buckshot
on my shotguns attached sidesaddle
shell carrier.