Less leathal rounds

[Sylvain]

Less lethal force is a very bad idea for home defense.
It's used by the police ONLY because they also have a lethal force option.
Also when the police is using a less lethal weapon, like a taser, you usually have a bunch of other cops around with handguns or rifles in their hands.They are also all wearing body armor, so if the less lethal option fails they still have a way to stop the threat very quickly.
If you are at home, alone, not wearing any armor, you cant afford having a less lethal option.
If someone breaks into your home at 3am with an axe you're just going to waste precious seconds if you shoot him with rubber slugs.
(You can find videos of people shooting themselves with rubber slugs and laughing at eachother, not even dropping).
Those things are good when used by the police during riots as a gentle way to keep people back.It's not meant to protect your home against dangerous individuals.

For me is someone breaks in your home that's a serious threat, that person is not here to do any good.
Now the intruder hears noise upstairs, lights going on in the house, alarm going off, he knows the police is probably on their way ... and still decides to go upstair that's a REALLY serious threat.
It clearly means he's here to kill you, not sure look for cash and run away.
Now if he's still coming towards you when he sees you're pointing a shotgun at him and telling him to stop that's a REALLY REALLY serious threat.
In that case you dont want any less lethal ammo in your gun, you want to stop the threat NOW and only a lethal round will do that.

If you dont want to kill people dont shoot them.You can still point a gun at them and tell them to leave.Most people will leave.
If they dont you need a lethal option.

 

[Sylvain]

As far as lethal force, This whole "Shoot to stop" "Stop the threat" etc phrase is nothing but a bunch of verbal BS. Yes thats what most agencies teach but REALLY! I mean how are you stopping them? The suspect gave you reason/justification to engage him with a lethal weapon. So you Shoot them center mass to incapacitate them by damaging vital organs. I mean is there really a POLITE way to shoot someone with a firearm!

That's not 100% true.If the BG is still alive after I shot him he's no longer a threat to me and therefore I dont want to kill him.
I would actually offer first aid to the wounded BG if no member of my family needs medical care first.

If I shoot the BG and he runs away, somehow, that's good too.I stopped the threat.

So to me "shoot to kill" and "shoot to stop the threat" is not the same thing.

 

[in625shooter]

That's not 100% true.If the BG is still alive after I shot him he's no longer a threat to me and therefore I dont want to kill him.
I would actually offer first aid to the wounded BG if no member of my family needs medical care first.

If I shoot the BG and he runs away, somehow, that's good too.I stopped the threat.

So to me "shoot to kill" and "shoot to stop the threat" is not the same thing.

I'm not going to say I know everything but as someone that has been in LE for 26 years, Military, Municipal and Federal. I have responded to more than one shooting so let me tell you this little fact! Just because the bad guy is shot dosen't mean he/she is no longer a threat. I have seen a lot of bad things that should kill people but they are still fighting. Even after laying on the ground for a few momments/minutes'

If you are inclined to "give first aid" is a member of your family going to be covering you? Do you know if they mentally deranged or are on an illicit substance where they have super human strength or could get their second wind etc etc etc.

You can pull whatever scenerio you want. My statement was in the terms used if you used legal force and hit them. What I'm saying is when you "shoot to stop" etc you are inflicting force and as a resonable person you should know it will cause serious bodily injury or death on the suspect/bad guy. In a perfect world you stop him either by seriously injuring the person enough they are incapacitating them or they give up due to injuries or you kill them period.

We can change scenerios all day long. We are talking basics of less lthal rounds and use of force issues.

 

[pokersamurai]

You only shoot if your life is in danger, shoot to kill.

NO, NO, NO, YOU shoot, to STOP the THREAT !!!!!

I don't know if you're aware of this, but killing is the most permanent form of stopping someone.

 

[ClydeB]

What are your thoughts on using less lethal rounds for home defense.

I am a firm believer in less lethal rounds.

I really try to not use any round that has an area of effect greater than the distance between me and the intruder I am shooting to kill. So that rules out things like.

• Nuclear. Both fission and fusion rounds.
• Surface to surface missiles.
• White phosphorous grenades.

I also try to avoid the extra splash factor since I don't want any intruder residue hanging around. So grape shot for the cannon is also out.

 

[eldirector]

If someone is in my home with the intent of visiting harm on me and/or my family (or anyone, for that matter), then I want to STOP them in the most expedient way possible. Period. Not scare them, not deter them, and not hope they change their mind. They've already made their choice.

The only non-standard rounds I would consider would be for limiting risk to my family. So, things like GOOD expandable hollow-points, maybe some frangible rounds (though they aren't really for self-defense), or something to reduce over-penetration.

I can't think of a reason to use bean bags or rubber bullets at home. I'm not playing shotgun tag.

That said, I do have less lethal stuff available, like OC spray.