Using Less-Than-Lethal as first round

[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]

Not a good idea

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.

 

[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.