[kd7nqb]

So I was looking around online at placed to buy ammo online, and discovered that ammunition to go has less than lethal rounds for handguns. Here is their reasoning,

This is 357 Mag Less Than Lethal Rubber Projectile Ammo. This ammo is manufactured by A.L.S. Technologies, the leader in Less Than Lethal Ammunition. Alot of people ask, Why Carry Less Than Lethal Pistol Ammunition? The answer is simple, When a less Than lethal shell is used as the FIRST round, knowledgeable courts of law and boards recognize this type of round as a legitimate attempt to defend without the intent of causing lethal injury, therefore reducing your risk of a lawsuit. That means that if you attempt to defend yourself with A Less Than Lethal Round as the first shot and then Kill the perpetrator with a real round, you have a defense in court. Unfortunately we have to not only defend our selves from the criminals, but there family as well in civil court. A.L.S Technologies, Inc is pleased and excited to announce a new line of Less Than Lethal Pistol Ammunition for Home/Self Defense and Animal Control. These munitions are often referred to as extended range impact munitions and serve a similar role as a baton, as they are used to control a subjects behavior through pain compliance and the normal strike areas for a baton are often used as target zones. There have been hundreds of uses across the country where these munitions have been used to disarm people armed with knives and clubs, Use this ammo to temporarily disable combative subjects and reduce the risk of unruly death and lawsuits

Does this make sense? The description online says it wont cycle semi-auto's so I see it as useless in that situation. But in a revolver, does this make any sense? If I am forced to pull my weapon I assume I better be damm well ready to use lethal force.

[sarduy]

Does this make sense? it does make sense...and you can always shoot that Less Than Lethal round and scream "STOP"!

[Okiecruffler]

I'll bet their breath stinks, talking out their butt that way. If you shoot someone, it is lethal force, regardless of what comes out the end of the barrel, be it lead, rubber or pixie dust.

[Jim March]

Yeah...see, with handgun ammo, esp. .357 caliber, there is NO WAY you're going to get any sort of "slap effect" off of any projectile that won't penetrate.

You can sorta get there with a 12ga rubber slug as it's both fat enough not to penetrate while still being heavy enough to deliver a wallop about on par with a decent fist.

With a 357? Color me WAY skeptical.

Now, in my 357 sixgun, the first two rounds are decent quality 38+Ps. The next four are monsters, Doubletap 125s, among the most deadly things you can send downrange out of a 357, period. BUT those first two aren't "warning shots". They'll kill. But they're unlikely to go through-and-through and hence for CCW carry in urban areas, are a bit more bystander friendly. If those two don't solve the problem, then with luck bystanders have ducked or split and I can now start flinging the "good stuff" at whatever problems are left :).

As a bonus, multiple goblins might decide a second gun has joined in on my side due to the serious change in sound between the 2nd and 3rd shots.

It's not that the gun is changing from "stun" to "kill". It's more like a change from "kill" to "extra crispy".

[Dksimon]

If you are in a situation where you need to shoot someone you need to hit them hard.

I think that in some cases a less than lethal round may just tick the BG off more and thats not what you want.

Live ammo all the time.

[Monkeybear]

I figure if I don't need to use lethal force, i.e. using "less-than-lethal" ammo, then I have no business shooting someone. Consider that this might occur to any decent prosecutor as well.

[Harvster]

That first rubber bullet may give an evil doer just enough time to get off a shot at you. And, I bet s/he won't be shooting rubber bullets.

[jgo296]

yes i think dumb

[HM2PAC]

The way I see it is this....the other guy does not know you are sporting LTL as a 1st round. Drawing a pistol ups the ante, and if he has already drawn he may fire. If he has not drawn he will. I can assure you, he won't be packing LTL rounds.

I would say go with live ammo. You may only get one good shot, make it count.

[Revolver Ocelot]

it shouldn't be called "less than lethal", its more like "less lethal" those bullets still have a strong probability that they will kill the person you shoot with them, I can see where they may think that using them would give a court the idea that you did not intend to kill the person but at the same time who is to say that they wouldn't claim you just put that rubber bullet in their so you could use it as an excuse, when it comes down to it any time you fire a gun its considered lethal force.

[Huckle2]

When/if my life or my families is truly in jeopardy, I'm fairly certain I'm not thinking about what is going to happen in civil court. Mentally I train, weapon stays holstered until/unless I am justified to use deadly force. I'm not willing to sacrifice a single round. I may wish I had it back, it may be the only shot I get. My training insists on two shot minimum anyway. You know where, and you know where the third shot goes until the attacker is stopped. So, that said, LTL first round makes no sense to me. JMO. Like everyone else, you hope and pray circumstances NEVER call for it.

[Murdock]

The perfect self defense weapon would be non-lethal (as differentiated from less-than-lethal) but still stop a BG in his tracks 100% of the time.

That ain't gonna happen with a rubber bullet from a .357. GSG-9, the German anti-terror unit, used rubber bullets from handguns in airliner hijack takedowns in the 1970's with poor effect, IIRC.

Consider that you have already drawn your gun and fired, thinking that was "more justified" than outright lethal force because the first round was "less than lethal." You knew that, but nobody else did. And when that didn't work, there you are with a gun already in your hand, and what options do you have left?

If this magic round is supposed to replicate the effect of a baton, why not just carry a baton, or nun chukus, or some other proven contact weapon? Much less hassle and exposure to legal grief, I would think.

[nalioth]

It is my opinion that if you carry a firearm, you need to carry pepper spray or something else that is 'less lethal'.

If you draw your weapon, you are committed to shooting (whether you end up pulling the trigger or not)

[Ltlabner]

I see the "less than leathal" conecpt as a glorified warning shot.

Warning shots are for TV shows and movies.

If you are justified to use leathal force, draw your weapon, allign sights, press trigger and re-acquire the target. Repeat until bad guy is stopped.

Once I've made the decision to shoot it's full steam ahead. The less than leathal round just gives the badguy a little more time to do you harm.

[benEzra]

If the situation is such that less-than-lethal force is a reasonable alternative, then you legally cannot use the firearm. Have a pepper spray for that.

If you are in such imminent danger that lethal force is a legal option, then you are in sufficient danger that shooting a blank would be foolhardy.

[gopguy]

If you are justified in shooting, you are justified in killing. I would not mess with this...

[XDKingslayer]

A less than lethal round has a greater then normal chance of not stopping the fight.

[The Lone Haranguer]

If the situation is such that less-than-lethal force is a reasonable alternative, then you legally cannot use the firearm.
http://www.dotbingo.com/images/bingo-card.jpg

[Linda]

I equate this to posturing. Those who say "I will carry a gun, but could never shoot someone". :banghead: If someone is saying that to themselves, they have ZERO business carrying a gun....period! So they miss with the first shoot. Does that mean they'll freeze on the second?

For those who carry a firearm, plus a tazer and/or pepper spray, you are leaving yourself open to liability. If you shoot the criminal who is set on doing you bodily harm or death, and then you go to trial, the prosecutor is going to rake you over the coals with "why is it you felt you had to SHOOT the criminal, when you could have just tazered or pepper sprayed him, to get away?". As a victim, we are to neutralize the threat.

[mbt2001]

THEY ARE TRYING TO SELL YOU A PRODUCT. SO THEY ARE SAYING WHAT A GOOD IDEA IT IS TO USE THEIR PRODUCT.

I agree with the benEzra and others who advise that if you are in a situation that requires the use of a gun, no matter what you shoot, you are using "deadly force" in the eyes of the law. Not only that, but the very idea of a gun and the reason many perps run from armed citizens is because guns are deadly and most folks don't WANT to die. They may die, but had they KNOWN they were going to, they most likely would have called in sick.

[Old Fuff]

Using Less-Than-Lethal as first round is an idea only a left-wing liberal could love. They of course never want to hurt any criminal, as they see them as being the true victim.

In a real-life confrontation, if deadly force is justified at all you will be under lethal attack. If your first "I really don't want to hurt him" shot doesn't stop the action - which is highly probable - you may not live long enough to get a second one.

[GEM]

Don't train to double tap?

Carry a taser or OC. It's an application for LEOs who have a need for a longer range less than lethal. I doubt it for civilians as a mixed load.

[Vern Humphrey]

It does not make sense.

When you fire a shot, you are using lethal force -- it doesn't matter if you hit, miss, use a rubber bullet, or a hollow point. It's lethal force. And you must meet the standard for lethal force.

However, if you use a "non-lethal" bullet you are admitting at the outset you did not have justification for using lethal force.

[rogerxd45]

it seems it would make a good arguement in cort that you werent out to kill someone. but like has been said if you cant legally shoot them with deadly bullets then less then lethal bullets might not be ok either. and plus if you use them at really close range they become more deadly.
and i wouldnt want to loose even more space in a revolver that is allready short on capacity

[foghornl]

If I am sending anything but lead alloys downrange, it is only because I am using ammo that is all steel, like some of the 7.62x54 rifle ammo.

Using a Less-Than-Lethal round or 2 first might well be less-than-lethal for the Bad Guys, but MORE than Lethal for you....



As in your L-T-L rounds failed to stop the threat.

[alsaqr]

"In a real-life confrontation, if deadly force is justified at all you will be under lethal attack."


+1

[Vern Humphrey]

Amen.

[RustyShackelford]

As a armed security officer, I looked into some "less lethal" type loads for my duty .38spl revolver and decided not to use them.
When you use a firearm to protect yourself or others in a critical incident, you will need to justify your actions to the local law enforcement and/or legal system. The use of firearms is considered to be "deadly force" and you will still be held to that standard by the criminal justice system.

These new loads may work well but for firearms, I'd stick with normal ammo.

[sarge83]

They can keep their less than lethal rounds. If the situation reaches the point where I have to fire to protect my life or families I want the threat stopped ASAP and completely dead in it's tracks.

Further, I don't want some slick trashing talking trial lawyer to show up for a wounded piece of human debry and file a law suit on me because I shot and wounded him while he was attempting a home invasion. It's hard to file a law suit when your worm food. Of course the dearly departed may have family who files but those are hard to win when it's my word against a dead person-who usually has a long rap sheet and who was committing a violent crime at the time of his death.

[Confederate]

I'd call these things LESS THAN USEFUL. The drawbacks are numerous:

1) In situations where you need to stop someone instantly, this takes precious time that could otherwise be used in actually stopping the perp;

2) Unscrupulous lawyers (sorry for being redundant) may portray you as someone more willing to shoot in any given situation than those with lethal rounds;

3) The rounds could still blind or disable a criminal, setting yourself up for a lawsuit;

4) When criminals start using less than lethal weapons, then I'll consider using them. Until then, I'm not going to risk going up against a thug who doesn't care about my life with a round that may only enrage him and not stop him. Finally,

5) This type of ammunition will only encourage idiot lawmakers in banning the more efficient "lethal" rounds available to us now.

Again, the whole idea is not to kill someone, but to stop him. It makes much more sense to use it in crowd control and animal control. But just as you wouldn't use this kind of a round in combat, it doesn't make sense for good self defense.

[kd7nqb]

It's an application for LEOs who have a need for a longer range less than lethal. I doubt it for civilians as a mixed load.

FROM THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION:

"When a less Than lethal shell is used as the FIRST round, knowledgeable courts of law and boards recognize this type of round as a legitimate attempt to defend without the intent of causing lethal injury, therefore reducing your risk of a lawsuit."


glad we are all on the same page.

[Sato Ord]

"When a less Than lethal shell is used as the FIRST round, knowledgeable courts of law and boards recognize this type of round as a legitimate attempt to defend without the intent of causing lethal injury, therefore reducing your risk of a lawsuit."

I'd say they got stuck with a load of crap rubber bullets they had planned on selling to LE, so they told their marketing people to come up with a scheme that sounds good and sell them.

If you are justified in using a handgun, you are justified in using it. Worry about your life first. As far as a law suit goes, they can't get blood out of a rock. A judgment can screw up your credit, but in most states it isn't worth the paper it's printed on if you don't pay it.

[ninja45]

What are they coming up with next? fur lined hand-cuffs.....Oh.

[Zach S]

If the situation is such that less-than-lethal force is a reasonable alternative, then you legally cannot use the firearm. Have a pepper spray for that.

If you are in such imminent danger that lethal force is a legal option, then you are in sufficient danger that shooting a blank would be foolhardy.
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up for me.

[Phil DeGraves]

If you are legally using a firearm to defend yourself, it is because lethal force is morally and legally justifiable. If I am in a situation where it is justifiable, then my safety is at extreme risk. Most people here would not even consider a .22 or .32 adequate for home defense because they aren't reliable or powerful enough to stop a determined attacker. So why on earth would I think that something LESS powerful than a .22 would be a good idea?

[Phil DeGraves]

Do you think a bad guy using a revolver loaded with LTL rounds will have a civil case when his intended victim shoots him with real bullets, just because they were LTL rounds? Does a bad guy have a case against excessive force when he points a BB gun or Airsoft gun at someone and they respond with deadly force? Do you think that they won't charge a bad guy so equipped with Assault with a Deadly Weapon?

[spyderdude]

The way I see it, if a guy is trying to kill me or seriously hurt me, he deserves no less lethal treatment than he's giving me. The first round that is coming out of my gun will be potentially lethal, and it won't be made of rubber.

[Virginian]

I say if you get a chance to improve the gene pool, use it.

[FranklyTodd]

If you are justified in using a handgun, you are justified in using it. Worry about your life first. As far as a law suit goes, they can't get blood out of a rock. A judgment can screw up your credit, but in most states it isn't worth the paper it's printed on if you don't pay it.

Ok, I have to chime in here. I'm not interested in using these loads either - .357 Gold Dots in a j-frame for me, but I think many are missing the point. Some folks actually value human life. I know, people paint bad guys as faceless, 100% evil zombies, but what if some pathetic, desparate-for-drugs 15yr old tries to rob you with a pocketknife from 10 feet away. Legally justified to cap him? Sure. Do I want to pull the trigger? Not if I can help it.

Most people say they just want to "stop" an attacker, not "kill" them. The original poster is exploring whether product might help with that. Many armed encounters involve pulling the gun, and the BG running away. This is one step further than that. Not for me, but not absurd. Call me a bleeding heart, but if I were convinced it would work as advertised, I'd be interested. Those that want to kill a BG so they don't get sued are, to be polite, misguided. Trust me you will get sued just as quickly by next-of-kin for wrongful death as you will by an injured attacker.

And lastly, I have to comment on the poster who is bragging that they are so poor they are judgment-proof. Do you realize that's not a good thing? Perhaps rather than worrying about guns and internet forums, you should look into some job training, schooling, a GED, getting some overtime, something in order to better your financial situation, provide for yourself, family, and perhaps current/future children. Guess what? In the mean time you will build up what are called assets (cars, real estate, money, stocks), assets people will take away if you do bad things.

Sorry to be so touchy, I'm currently suing a smug deadbeat right now that stiffed me in a business deal. This poster is unfortunately right, some losers are totally judgment proof - I just didn't like that it was portrayed as a good thing to have so little. Capitalism, baby - give it a shot!

[EDIT] I re-read the original post - I stand by what I said above, but the ad copy bs for these rounds is absolutely laughable. It does explain why so many addressed how these rounds might impact a lawsuit - I didn't get that at first

[Treo]

QUOTE: "Further, I don't want some slick trashing talking trial lawyer to show up for a wounded piece of human debry and file a law suit on me because I shot and wounded him while he was attempting a home invasion. It's hard to file a law suit when your worm food. Of course the dearly departed may have family who files...."

This post is a perfect example of the type of post that anti D.A.s luuuuv to find on peoples computer after an S.D. shooting. It's so perfect I actually thought it was a troll when I first read it.

[Geezer59]

The only LTL round I might consider is something along the lines of this (http://www.taser.com/products/law/Pages/XREP.aspx). Of course they're currently not available, probably will be Law Enforcement only when they are, cost estimated at $1000 ea., and have a muzzle velocity lower than a paintball (so trajectory might be a real factor in even hitting the target).

Not sounding that good ... :scrutiny:

[Sato Ord]

Ok, I have to chime in here. I'm not interested in using these loads either - .357 Gold Dots in a j-frame for me, but I think many are missing the point. Some folks actually value human life. I know, people paint bad guys as faceless, 100% evil zombies, but what if some pathetic, desparate-for-drugs 15yr old tries to rob you with a pocketknife from 10 feet away. Legally justified to cap him? Sure. Do I want to pull the trigger? Not if I can help it.


If the little twerp is threatening my life I am going to do what is necessary to make sure that I don't get dead. I have a good, real grasp of threat level. some strung out 15 year old with a pocket knife will more likely get a broken arm, and never know I'm carrying.

Most people say they just want to "stop" an attacker, not "kill" them. The original poster is exploring whether product might help with that. Many armed encounters involve pulling the gun, and the BG running away. This is one step further than that. Not for me, but not absurd. Call me a bleeding heart, but if I were convinced it would work as advertised, I'd be interested. Those that want to kill a BG so they don't get sued are, to be polite, misguided. Trust me you will get sued just as quickly by next-of-kin for wrongful death as you will by an injured attacker.

That's what pepper spray and stun guns are for. If I feel the need to pull the real thing, I'm ready and willing to pull the trigger.

And lastly, I have to comment on the poster who is bragging that they are so poor they are judgment-proof. Do you realize that's not a good thing? Perhaps rather than worrying about guns and internet forums, you should look into some job training, schooling, a GED, getting some overtime, something in order to better your financial situation, provide for yourself, family, and perhaps current/future children. Guess what? In the mean time you will build up what are called assets (cars, real estate, money, stocks), assets people will take away if you do bad things.

And I have a couple of comments for you.

First, I have been raising a child who is the daughter of my dead-beat brother-in-law for years. Why, because I promised her grandmother that I would take care of her before the grandmother died. I get no help from either the dead-beat dad, or the state. We get a small SS check for her upkeep, it covers about half of the expenses.

I pay two mortgages, and own a third piece of property as well. I pay all of the taxes on those three properties. One of them we only own one third of because it is split between our niece, her dead-beat father, and my wife. When we finally sell that white elephant we will probably end up with about thirty-five k in it, and only get about thirty k back. Why do I do this, especially since my no-good, drug adicted brother-in-law will get one third of the proceeds. Because of the promise I made to my mother-in-law. I keep my word!

My wife and I also pay for two offices and drive over 500 miles a week so that she can maintain practices in two different cities.

I've worked to help support my family since my father died when I was thirteen. Now, on top of everything else, I'm the only one in my extensive family who is stepping up to the plate and taking care of my 91 year old mother. Add to all of that the fact that in the last three years I have averaged losing one family member or close friend to either disease, old age, or the war in the middle east, every six weeks. Despite this I pay my bills and support myself while raising two children, one of whom has extensive learning disabilities. We also homeschool.

So don't lecture me about responsibility there, Sparky.

Sorry to be so touchy, I'm currently suing a smug deadbeat right now that stiffed me in a business deal. This poster is unfortunately right, some losers are totally judgment proof - I just didn't like that it was portrayed as a good thing to have so little. Capitalism, baby - give it a shot!

Getting stiffed in a business deal is a hell of lot different than having some jackass who tried to rob you sue you for his injuries. If you had been in business with someone like me you wouldn't have gotten stiffed. I pay my rightful debts, but I don't consider paying some idiot scum bag, or his surviving family members, to be a rightful debt, and I won't let it take food off my family's table.

As for lawsuits where I live though, ain't likely. Florida law prohibits someone who is injured by a potential victim, or their surviving family members, from suing if the person was injured or killed while committing a felony.

[FranklyTodd]

And I have a couple of comments for you.


Thanks for sharing. I meant no offense toward you personally, but I maintain that being judgment proof because you don't have any assets, whether by one's own laziness, or circumstances beyond one's control, is nothing to brag about. Of course, if your judgment-proofness (made up word ;)) is due to the circumstances you say, it's nothing to be ashamed of, either.

[Sato Ord]

No problem.

What I mean when I say they can't get blood out of a rock is simply that the BG has no right, after doing so much damage in your life already, to further rape you in the courtroom

I see it more as civil disobedience and an obligation to society to not pay for such a law suit. We, as a nation need to start sending a real message to these morons that committing crimes is not a profitable business in any way.

I would personally give away everything I own and live in a cardboard box before I let my assets be taken away by a liberal court and given to some scumbag.

I started with nothing at the age of thirteen. I have built a nice little nest. If I lost it tomorrow, it's just things. I can rebuild it.

[BikerRN]

Does this make sense?

Why would I want to use a "non-lethal" option when lethal force is warranted?

Granted, there are times to use non-lethal force, but if I'm pulling my weapon it is because I have determined that lethal force is warranted. In short, I'm crapping myself and saying OH F..K and shaking like a leaf.


BikerRN

[packnrat]

strange??? i always belived if i need / must pull out a pistol then it must be life or death.

a less than lethal round sounds more like a good cause to get sued.:eek:


why do the police need machine guns that are only good for killing?
when they are to arrest not exacute??


:uhoh:

.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

AFAIK, only police officers really have reason to "shoot" someone, and have it be less than lethal. Except they already have much more effective means, like beanbag shotguns and tasers. Unless you're a cop, you're not really going to be arresting someone, or shooting them for minor non-life-threatening things, which are the only reasons less than lethal force would be prudent. As every day joe civilian, the only time when we even draw is the time when less than lethal wouldn't be prudent to anyone, cop or not.

[Chrome]

Anyone worth shooting is worth killing. Keep in mind rule #2:

2. Never let the muzzle of a firearm point at anything you are not willing to destroy

Later,
Chrome...

[Steve C]

There's nothing wrong and everything right with using less than lethal force if it will result in the elimination of the threat to your self or family. Rather than a less than lethal bullet though, I'd suggest carrying another less than lethal weapon, some mace or pepper spray or Taser. While most handgun shootings are normally lethal only 25% or less, shooting someone is inflicting serious harm to them and can result in serious legal consequences for the shooter.

A less than lethal weapon gives your the option to escalate the use of force to lethal if warranted. An example where a less than lethal option along with an escalation of force could be applied would be when assaulted (threatened) by multiple unarmed assailants in a situation outside of your home.

[ftierson]

Originally posted by Monkeybear
I figure if I don't need to use lethal force, i.e. using "less-than-lethal" ammo, then I have no business shooting someone. Consider that this might occur to any decent prosecutor as well.

Exactly...

Forrest

[The Bushmaster]

In days of old the Japanese samori felt that if they drew their sword and didn't use it they would have to cut themselves with the edge. Another words, if they drew their sword it had to taste blood...I'll be damed if I'll shoot myself. If I draw my concealed carry weapon it's because I intend to use it for deadly force...

[FranklyTodd]

Everyone is focused on what they can prove, and whether they'll be sued, and well, samurai. The advice to also carry a taser and pepper spray has two problems - first where are you going to keep all that stuff?? second - now you have REALLY helped future litigants against you - so, you have pepper spray, a taser, and a gun. First of all, you will be painted as paranoid for carrying all three, and second, you will be questioned why you didn't USE the pepper spray or taser first before escalating, whether or not you are required to by law.

If you will, let me recharacterize the question (forget non-lethal ammo for a sec). Hypo: BG, definitely coming, say with a baseball bat, but far enough away you will for SURE have time to get off 3+ shots. You have time, but nowhere to run. Do any of you CONSIDER shooting him in the leg, or some such thing? Forget all external ramifications (100% legal shoot if you put 5 in his chest) - do you really want to be responsible for the taking of a human life if you know in your heart you could have done something to prevent the death?

I don't even care if anyone answers - I know many will say - he's a worthless blah, blah, blah. But take a second and really think about it... Take one warning/wounding shot, at no real risk to yourself? Or kill because you legally can?? I know it's contrived, and you very often will not have the luxury, but it could happen. It's tangentially related to the discussion of whether you would ever brandish in order to de-escalate a situation (and hopefully avoid violence altogether) or instead would never disclose the weapon until you are pulling the trigger (better tactically without question, but how many encounters involve drawing, and the BG fleeing - that's the best CCW encounter, if there has to be one).

As a related side note / example, a friend of my dad has carried bird shot as the first shot in his carry 38 for years. His rationale is that with the wide scatter the first shot can be a face shot - which should end most attacks with nobody dead - if not, 4 or 5 more of the good stuff to follow (forget what model gun). He's a smart guy, retired LEO - it's just the way he chooses to do it. I don't but I thought I'd share...

[Green Lantern]

I'm not so much concerned about the lack of effectiveness of the rounds (though that could be a factor) as much as the LEGAL problems! Even if it was a good shoot, a ruthless prosecutor could likely use your use of a "LTL" round against you in court...

It does not make sense.

When you fire a shot, you are using lethal force -- it doesn't matter if you hit, miss, use a rubber bullet, or a hollow point. It's lethal force. And you must meet the standard for lethal force.

However, if you use a "non-lethal" bullet you are admitting at the outset you did not have justification for using lethal force.

^^^ What HE said!

I for one felt a little sickened, and MORE than a little PO'd at the people that market these things** when I came to learn this (thankfully before ever USING one in a violent encounter...!)

**It's even worse than when people in the gun industry use the term the antis stole, "assault weapon" in literature or ads, IMO...

They DO have their uses, I suppose - if you're an LEO/soldier *trying* to quell a riot without killing someone...or if you somehow foresee a need to do so yourself in the future.

Otherwise, I'd stay away.

ETA - I skipped page two, where did Pepper Spray and Tasers come into this?

I will NEVER rely on a Taser until the day the bad guys sign a binding agreement to make all attacks on good guys "one on one." IE, a good option if you somehow KNOW you won't be up against more than one aggressor.

I carry pepper spray daily, largely because I can't carry at work. Pepper spray, unlike LTL rounds, ARE classified as "not deadly force." Don't see any problem there - use it for situations that don't call for deadly force, use the gun for ones that DO.

FranklyTodd - OK, I guess that COULD be a good argument for LTL rounds, provided they have enough "oomph" to actually STOP someone attacking you...just so long as you only use them in situations where you WOULD be justified in killing someone in defense...

Still, the possibility of it coming back to haunt you in court is there. Then again, I suppose there HAVE been cases where they actually HELPED a case...

Anyway, the only "fake" ammo I'll be using are my snap caps for dry fire practice and storage...

[Sato Ord]

If you will, let me recharacterize the question (forget non-lethal ammo for a sec). Hypo: BG, definitely coming, say with a baseball bat, but far enough away you will for SURE have time to get off 3+ shots. You have time, but nowhere to run. Do any of you CONSIDER shooting him in the leg, or some such thing?

No, I do not try to put one in his leg, or any other type of "wing shooting". If I pull the trigger I'm going to do my best to make sure that I hit my target with lethal force.

If I have to pull my weapon in such a situation I will brandish it, tell him to stop once, and then fire. First shot is going center mass, if that doesn't do it I'll put the second in his head.

Forget all external ramifications (100% legal shoot if you put 5 in his chest) - do you really want to be responsible for the taking of a human life if you know in your heart you could have done something to prevent the death?

Unlike many people who carry a gun, I've been there and done that. It's not something I'm proud of, it's just what had to be done at the time. Interesting that you put this they way you did. This morning I woke up at about four-thirty after running through the faces of men who I either killed or helped to kill: hell of a way to end a poor night's sleep, but at least I finally sat bolt upright fully awake. Kind of glad I didn't feel like going back to sleep at that point.

Doesn't matter that it was justified (former Ranger), you still go through this if you're human. However, you get used to it. For me it's worse at this time of the year.

As often as I am "visited" by those I killed, I'm am more often "visited" by those comrades I couldn't save, and sometimes I can even hear their voices. Of the two I can live more easily with the memories of my enemies than the others. So yes, I will shoot to protect myself, my family, my friends, and innocent bystanders if, God forbid, the need arises.

As I have said before, I have thought this through and I will do what needs to be done. I know the ramifications of that decision and I can live with them.

[Murdock]

Here' to a good night's sleep, Ranger. You've earned it. Airborne!

[enfield]

NOT a good idea -- you may only get 1 shot.

[FranklyTodd]

A sincere thanks for your service, Sato. The experience you've shared confirms what I already believed, even though I haven't been there, or done that (and hope not to!). There's murder, there's legally-justified homocide that could have been avoided, and there's unavoidable homicide.

Ignoring murder, both the second or third type of justified killing will mess with one's head to some degree. I suspect the second (where it could have been avoided) would be much worse than the third.

If I have to pull my weapon in such a situation I will brandish it, tell him to stop once, and then fire. First shot is going center mass, if that doesn't do it I'll put the second in his head.

I have always believed that this would be my response as well (well, I'm a lousy shot, so the second third and fourth would be at COM too ;)). I don't do LTL rounds, and would think if I had the time and ability to wing the guy, I could probably get away altogether.

[Frank Ettin]

Various kinds of "less than lethal" ammunition have been around for some time and are in common use by police, among others. This includes various kinds of rubber bullets, beanbag projectiles and the like. However, AFAIK current police practice is to deploy such "less than lethal" ammunition only when there are other officers present who will be able to immediately deploy more traditional ammunition should the kinder and gentler stuff fail to bring a stop to the hostilities.

I’ve been taught that there were four ways in which shooting an assailant would stop the fight:

[1] psychological -- "I'm shot, it hurts, I don't want to get shot any more."

[2] massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen and thus significantly impairing their ability to function

[3] breaking major skeletal support structures

[4] damaging the central nervous system.

Of those, damage to the central nervous system is the quickest, surest and most likely to be fatal. And hoping the guy will stop because it hurts is the least sure and most likely to be hazardous to your own health. People, both good and bad, have fought long and hard with serious, and often ultimately fatal wounds. And someone who has massive amounts of adrenalin in his system, like a bad guy under the stress of committing a violent crime might, may not feel much pain from even a serious wound.

A gun is lethal force and a last resort. One would properly use a gun only when defending himself or someone else from an immediate attack likely to cause grievous injury or death. Under such circumstances, the most important thing is stopping the attack.

The bottom line is really that to effectively stop someone who is attacking you, you will need to hurt him badly enough to do some damage. And if you do enough damage to effectively stop him, he might in fact not survive. That is the reality of using force to defend yourself or someone else. There are moral, ethical and legal issues, but one should, perhaps, not resort to lethal force in self defense unless he is prepared to deal with those issues.

[Coronach]

knowledgeable courts of law and boards recognize this type of round as a legitimate attempt to defend without the intent of causing lethal injury, therefore reducing your risk of a lawsuit.I'm curious what courts these are, because apparently the courts around here aren't clued in. ;)

Seriously? This is a massively stupid idea. Don't do it.

Mike

[Green Lantern]

I guess in a way, their sales pitch DOES make sense....

But if the world had any sense, people wouldn't be being hauled in to criminal or civil court after a justifiable shooting anyhow. :(

Sato - thank you for your service! :)

[RickH]

I don't think a non lethal first round is necessary. Instead of firing the non lethal round just yell "I am about to shoot you dead". If you don't have time to yell just shoot if it is your life on the line.

[Sato Ord]

I'm not going to beat a dead horse here.

I just want to acknowledge all of those who said thank you for the service I've done.

I did my job in jungles where we weren't even supposed to be, and to this day our government doesn't acknowledge we were ever there. Of course the other guys acknowledge it, and still use our former presence as a local political football, but that's a rant for a different forum.

Just wanted to say, You're Welcome to all. Thanks for the good words.

[BuntlineSpecial]

pardon if I repeat anyone
Whatever comes out of the barrel of your weapon, you are responsible for. Even "less lethal" munitions can kill, and in court, the opposing council will use the face that you used less lethal ammo to 1) make you look negligent in the taking of that life and 2) "prove" you were not in fear for your life, took his client's life/well-being without provocation
I knew a man at one point who kept a blank in the first chamber of his HD revolver. He did this so if someone snagged the gun, he would "know" the first shot wouldn't do anything, and could react accordingly.
That said, I did not agree with his view. If you point a weapon at someone, you must have legal right to use lethal force. leave the less lethal stuff to the movies

[ARTiger]

Less lethal . . . BS. This round can be lethal . . . to anyone silly enough to carry it in a SD weapon.

[koja48]

If someone made "more than lethal," I'd carry that . . . protecting my life & the lives of those I love is paramount.

[SCKimberFan]

SATO - Thank you Ranger and God bless.

I would think that his post is the most logical. I hope that I never have to pull the trigger, but if it comes down to him or me, I want to be able to stop the threat. If that means COM, that is where it goes. I don't know that I would be able to "wing" him in an extremely high stress situation. I would do what is necessary to protect myself. LTL bullets might be good to quell a disturbance (where there is plenty of back-up), but I can't see any useful purpose in SD.

[koja48]

Amen. Given a situation that would allow time for a warning, I'd offer 1 chance to "stop'" If a BG fails to heed that command, I'd defend myself. I carry a 1911 for a reason . . . it's a stopper & I've used mine enough to know it's reliable. I'll reserve anything to do with pepper for a rare steak . . .

[Supertac45]

A slingshot might work also.

[jaholder1971]

In the words of an Irish Folk group: No Nay Never, No more!

[retgarr]

Seems to me that less than lethal is only an option where the BG has an esacpe option. You upon drawing your gun force a fight or flight reaction and unless you can guarantee an easy flight option LTL is a very bad choice. And if you can guarantee a flight option, LTL in a defensive situation is just a bad option.

[koja48]

Wrong! If a dirtbag confronts me or mine threatening bodily harm, said dirtbag forces a "fight and survive" reaction, period. I force nothing.

[Erik]

The company's claims are suspect at best, to phrase it politely.

"The answer is simple, When a less Than lethal shell is used as the FIRST round, knowledgeable courts of law and boards recognize this type of round as a legitimate attempt to defend without the intent of causing lethal injury, therefore reducing your risk of a lawsuit."

Beginning here. Can anyone cite case law supporting this claim? I imagine, at best, they are extrapolating upon case law concerning law enforcement's use of less than lethal munitions.

Anyone want the door to litigation to be opened wider a la standards that law enforcement officers are held to? Having to instead of proving "just" your use of lethal force in a given situation, having to prove your failing to use less than lethal force in that situation first?

Anti-gun legislators would have a field day with it, and if they failed it would be a judicial ruling away as the law of the land. You don't want that.

[koja48]

I can cite that I'm still alive after using "lethal" rounds & I'm quite happy with that. Didn't get arrested, sued, or chastised. I don't have guilty feelings, bad dreams, or bills from a shrink. I was without that particular firearm for a very short time, but it was returned in a timely manner. The situation was not the result of MY attempt to rob another person. As the old saying goes, "If you wanna dance, ya gotta pay the fiddler." Working for a living beats dieing to support a drug habit during an attempted mugging hands-down, every time. When a dirtbag pulls a gun, sometimes the intended victim pulls one too, and is more proficient. Not all potential victims are easy . . .

On another note, I wonder how much time asshats spend at the range improving their proficiency . . . "

[Odd Job]

BenEzra has it exactly right.

Warning shot: I've been there and done that. I fired a warning shot in an incident that resulted in a foot chase and a citizen's arrest of a man.
I know now that I shouldn't have done it, and all sorts of unfortunate things could have happened to me or the person I was trying to defend.

If you clear leather and shoot, you do so with the acknowledgement that any shot/s fired may be fatal to the target.

[koja48]

Any shot/shots fired in a "them or me/mine" situation SHOULD be fatal to the target, period! Yell to warn (circumstances & distance permitting), but shoot to eliminate the threat. As stated in one of the spaghetti westerns: "When it's time to shoot, shoot . . . don't talk."

[DarkSoldier]

I haven't checked the site but I'd guess that this ammo is waaayyy expensive. My thought would be save your money and buy more live practice ammo and good quality (real-deal) carry ammo.

I can't wrap my head around pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger and not expecting them to be instanly killed or seriously injured. Good way to develop some bad gunhandling habits. Bad juju, man!

I think it's a bad idea all around.

And just as a side note, when LEOs use less lethal options, they pretty much have the bad guy covered with a few conventional guns just to be safe.

Respectfully,

DarkSoldier