Rubber buckshot or bean bag on top of #4 buckshot

[AA&E]

One or the other. I would not mix the two. Also, I see no need for non-lethal ammo for home defense.

My thought too. If someone is inside your home they have lost the right of a warning/less than lethal shot.

 

[AA&E]

But in the off chance they are actually there to share their cookies...I bet you would want a bean bag round?

Nope, because in my scenario I end up with all the cookies.

 

[output]

I'm not an expert by any means.

Here is my question/scenario. If someone has broken into your home with a firearm and they get the first shot(s) off and you are hit first. What good will that less than lethal round do for you?

The good guy never get's to pick the fight. When and if someone breaks into your home. You should plan on that occuring at the most inconvenient time of your life...because criminals don't want to make it easy on.

If you can't justify lethal force than you will not be able to justify less than lethal either.

I'm not willing to shoot anyone, with anything unless they have earned it by threatening lethal or grave bodily harm. If that happens (and i hope it never does) I won't be playing games... I will bring as much force and violence as it takes to stop the threat.

 

[Yup!]

You should load it with a lethal round, but yell BANG, BANG, before actually firing. If they don't run away first....

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I don't. I don't want to do anyone any harm but that changes when me or my family are put in danger of death or great bodily harm.

Not everyone is you. Some people have a moral code that dictates they allow more risk to themselves before they'd kill someone else, or they'd never kill someone else. I've talked to victims that I *know* missed on purpose, they've either admitted it outright or they've danced around it. As such, while I personally would not choose to use less lethal, I understand the drive. Pain compliance isn't ideal, but its better than not shooting or intentionally missing. As long as the person makes an informed decision based on the trade offs, they have my respect for taking the decision seriously, honoring their own moral code, and taking personal responsibility within the parameters of that code.

Everyone reacts differently, and no one really knows how they'll react before the fact. Even the same person may react very differently to two different shootings. If you haven't read "On Killing", its worth reading.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'm not an expert by any means.

Here is my question/scenario. If someone has broken into your home with a firearm and they get the first shot(s) off and you are hit first. What good will that less than lethal round do for you?

The good guy never get's to pick the fight. When and if someone breaks into your home. You should plan on that occuring at the most inconvenient time of your life...because criminals don't want to make it easy on.

If you can't justify lethal force than you will not be able to justify less than lethal either.

I'm not willing to shoot anyone, with anything unless they have earned it by threatening lethal or grave bodily harm. If that happens (and i hope it never does) I won't be playing games... I will bring as much force and violence as it takes to stop the threat.

Depends on who they are and what they want. The problem is you don't get to choose either one of those.

One of the arguments we see made in the threads against gun free zones is the notion that most active shooters stop being a threat and often kill themselves when confronted with any resistance resulting in injury. The argument is that anyone could be the one to end the threat, no training minimums should be required, because even a marginal hit may end the encounter. Here the argument is being made that anything other than a lethal hit will result in your death. Both arguments are true in some scenarios and false in others.

 

[johnwhite]

if someone breaks into your home you have to think about afterward. less than lethal leaves your attacker alive and able to come back maybe armed himself next time. also it is sorry to have to say, but if you leave your attacker alive you open yourself up to a lawsuit. and yes there have been several instances in the last 20 years were an attacker has come back on the victim and sued them successfully in civil court

 

[BehindBlueI's]

if someone breaks into your home you have to think about afterward. less than lethal leaves your attacker alive and able to come back maybe armed himself next time. also it is sorry to have to say, but if you leave your attacker alive you open yourself up to a lawsuit. and yes there have been several instances in the last 20 years were an attacker has come back on the victim and sued them successfully in civil court

If you think leaving the attacker alive solves either of those issues, you're not thinking it through. Estates sue, too, and just as successfully. Thugs have friends who can seek retribution.

 

[output]

Depends on who they are and what they want. The problem is you don't get to choose either one of those.

One of the arguments we see made in the threads against gun free zones is the notion that most active shooters stop being a threat and often kill themselves when confronted with any resistance resulting in injury. The argument is that anyone could be the one to end the threat, no training minimums should be required, because even a marginal hit may end the encounter. Here the argument is being made that anything other than a lethal hit will result in your death. Both arguments are true in some scenarios and false in others.

Depends on what they want? My argument was not, "anything other than a lethal hit will result in certain death", those are your words. First of all, there is no none lethal use of a firearm that I am aware of. You are still firing a projectile out of a firearm. If you are doing that...the "depends on what they want" no longer applies. That is because you are or should be trying to make the threat of bodily harm or death stop.

Are you saying you would shoot someone with a bead bag over them mistakenly walking into your garage, because they had a little too much to drink? When you aim a firearm at someone and shoot, it had better be because they were threatening grave bodily harm etc.

Also, there is another side to this...If you are firing less than lethal it can be argued that they was no threat orginally and here in-lies the legality issues.

My point was less-than lethal is not a good choice for stopping a thread. I am assuming we are talking about shotguns of course. A hit with a bean bag "if made" will not yield the same as "00 buck." If I am shooting someone it is because they are doing/trying to do something to me or my family that is very bad. If they are not how can I justify shooting them to begin with?

 

[daddyusmaximus]

Cops use less than lethal force when they have armed back-up covering them. By myself, in my own home... I don't even mess with that crap. I either use deadly force, or I do not.

 

[johnwhite]

If you think leaving the attacker alive solves either of those issues, you're not thinking it through. Estates sue, too, and just as successfully. Thugs have friends who can seek retribution.

your right too these days if you have to pull a trigger your pretty much screwed, but at least your still alive

 

[drop45]

Beanie Babies out of a 2 gauge ??