less lethal

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dayman

New member
So I've been posting/reading a lot the past week - I've found myself with a lot of free time to sped on the interweb - but I've come up with what I think is an interesting question. I've looked around a bit, but I don't think it's come up here - at least not any time recently.
I've been reading a lot of posts about HD, and wondered how many people have opted for less lethal (beanbags/rocksalt/rubber etc) loads, particularly those that use a shotgun for HD.
I don't really have any experience with the options out there, but it seems that a beanbag or 2 loaded on top of the 00 might allow you to effectively stop an intruder without having to kill them. And, on a psychological level, it might make it easier to pull the trigger.
I'm aware that in many states you're within your rights to use deadly force in the case of a break in, but I imagine most of us would still rather not. Anyway, it seemed like it might make for an interesting conversation.
 
i just got some beanbags for my 12 gauge but probably wont use them for HD. although they can be effective im not takin the chance of losin my family members. if your not supposed to be in my house and have to break a lock to get in, be prepared to have some 00buck comin at ya. i pray it doesnt come down to that. i dont ever wanna take someones life but dont endanger my family or else i will.
 
I can see the point you make, but I still think it's a bad idea. Generally speaking, if you are legally and morally free to pull the trigger on a firearm, then you are in fear for your life or the lives of the people around you. In such a scenario, trying for a less-lethal alternative may be noble at first glance, but is undeniably less practical, and more likely to result in an undesirable outcome. If you want to handicap yourself in a life/death situation, by all means go ahead, but I won't be joining you.
 
Well, I see a couple of problems with less lethal.

1. Less lethal can still be lethal on occasion, this means you typically can't use it unless you already meet all the criteria for using lethal force. So now you are in a situation with an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury; but you are using a load that depends mostly on the psychological choice of the attacker.

2. Police who use less lethal are wearing body armor, have training in its use, and are backed up by a another police officer in body armor who has lethal force ready. Most homeowners don't have that level of preparedness.
 
I dont believe that I would like to use less lethal ammunitions for HD, I personally dont want an intruder to possibly get up and do harm to stuff in my house.
 
Generally speaking, I am always for the less than lethal option. However, I find myself on the other side of the fence in your scenario. If someone is in my home and is both dangerous and unknown and my family is in the house, there is no question. Less than lethal is for crowd/riot control, not home invasion.
 
I don't see the point of less lethal for HD, police sure, but not HD. I imagine most non lethal rounds will just anger a determined criminal.

I shoot to stop the threat, if they die then that is their loss. If I shoot a non lethal projectile it likely won't stop anything. If I shoot a bullet (or several bullets) and even if it (they) does not kill right away the BG is severely injured and bleeding profusely. They will likely stop what they are doing and begin worrying about their own life.
 
Nocturnus31 I don't see the point of less lethal for HD, police sure, but not HD. I imagine most non lethal rounds will just anger a determined criminal.

I shoot to stop the threat, if they die then that is their loss. If I shoot a non lethal projectile it likely won't stop anything. If I shoot a bullet (or several bullets) and even if it (they) does not kill right away the BG is severely injured and bleeding profusely. They will likely stop what they are doing and begin worrying about their own life.
Click to expand...


I agree with this.
 
Firing a shotgun at someone is deadly force. It doesn't matter if it's loaded with confetti. You don't shoot a shotgun at someone unless you mean it. And if you mean it, you had better really mean it.

There's two big problems with "less lethal" ammo.

The first problem is if you shoot someone and kill them when you didn't intend to. A lot of "less lethal" ammo is fairly specialized and requires training. For example, rubber buckshot tends to be designed to be bounced off the street into rioter's legs. It wasn't designed to be fired into someones face across the room. Or, a lot of beanbag rounds tend to be lethal if used within 30 feet. How large is your house?

The second is if the beanbag only gives PCP Pete a nasty bruise before he's on top of you beating you to death with your own shotgun.

You may only have time for one shot. There's no "First I cycle the shotgun to scare him. If that doesn't work, then I fire a blank, then a warning shot into the floor nearby, then rubber buckshot, then a beanbag, then birdshot, then buckshot, then larger buckshot, and then a slug." That isn't how it works. The first shot needs to count since it might be the only shot you get.
 
I am not up for that but it is just my opinion. I agree w/Austin and pretty much if I need to defend myself, my family, etc, I am using the heavy hitters
 
Cool, a lot of good points.
My own HD loads are +P .45 JHP's, which probably fall on the lethal side of the fence, but one of the shops I frequent has started carrying some less lethal loads, so I was wondering if it was a thing. I remember my grandfather used to keep his shotgun loaded with rocksalt, but I think that was for 4 legged intruders.
 
"Less lethal" is for Cops and the like who are protected by sovereign immunity. That way if they accidentally kill someone, brain damage them, or cause any other permanent injury there's not a darn thing the public or lawyers can do to them.
 
Less lethal munitions can be less likely to stop a lethal threat. When the police deploy less lethal munitions against a lethal threat, it's SOP to do so only in a group with back-up able to immediately deploy lethal force.
 
Might stop ??? and if it doesn't ? If someone breakes into your home that shows he is a criminal. However you don't know if he is a psychopath, high on drugs or alchohol, mentaly ill , etc.
To assume that he 'might' stop is a very poor assumption and may cost you your life. A person breaking in is there to do you harm -respond intelligently- The rule is to shoot and continue to shoot until he is no longer a threat.
Take the best course in defensive shooting that you can find !!!
 
As others have mentioned, the less-lethal option leaves you with a criminal inside your home who is still alive and well.

If he is armed, you're going to lose that fight.
 
I put my familys safety above the well being of a criminal trying to do god knows what in my house.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If there was a non-lethal way of neutralizing a threat that was 100% guaranteed I would chose that way, however there is not, and that is why I use bullets.
 
I don't understand the point. If I'm firing a gun at someone I'm trying to kill them. My less lethal option is to not shoot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top