Making bullets 'less than lethal'

You've got to be kidding . . . what's next, a book with a binding on both edges so you can't open it up and read what's on the inside . . because it might be offensive or contain information that someone else might not agree with? Just another example of how far things have gone and the total lack of common sense there is out there . . . :rolleyes:
 
If it works as intended, it goes to show how surface area of projectiles are inversely proportional to energy and sectional density.

The larger the surface area is, the more magnified the energy and sectional density of a projectile has to be in order to overcome the large surface area.

This is why these retarded 9mm vs 45acp discussions make no sense, because there is no practical difference in millimeters when energy and sectional density are similar.

A 8.5in bowling ball weighing 13lbs and traveling at 45fps creates 556joules of energy with a sectional density of 0.18.

A 45acp ball round weighing 230gr and traveling at 850fps creates 502joules of energy with a sectional density of 0.162.

Which is more lethal?;)
 
If I could throw a bowling ball 30 mph, and could carry 10 or 15 of them concealed, it might be an option. It is still very deadly.
 
For some time there has been a movement in the U.S. to disarm the police, either completely, or at least to prohibit use of lethal weapons. IMHO, this is just another part of that idea. The argument goes that as soon as non-lethal weapons are available for medium distance use, police will be required to give up their conventional firearms.

Some folks urge total disarmament of the police, arguing that gentle persuasion and the majesty of the law are sufficient to stop criminals and prevent crime.

Jim
 
They already have bean bag rounds for shotguns,tasers,pepper spray and ASPs to be "less than lethal" If they're drawing their sidearm it's not a "less than lethal" situation.
 
The first time one of these is used and the inaccurate ball strikes a suspect in the throat, eye, sternum, and causes death or serious bodily injury, or worse, does same to a person not the target, will likely be the end of the company. I wonder if they have their "exit strategy" mapped out yet.
 
Trying to use tech to solve a social problem usually don't work. And it being badly thought out tech don't help.

tipoc
 
Given the primacy of shot placement in any serious discussion of a bullet's lethality, I would guess that most bullets are not lethal. Why? Because, physiological reactions to a life-threatening confrontation make proper shot placement very difficult to achieve. You know, vasoconstriction and all...

Interesting implication, then, for justification of a self-defense shooting. "No, I did not intend to kill that thug. I intended only to stop him from coming at me. But, given my adrenaline rush, I could not guarantee my best shot would not kill him..."
 
Given the primacy of shot placement in any serious discussion of a bullet's lethality, I would guess that most bullets are not lethal.
Click to expand...

You would be correct since most bullets fired by law enforcement officers miss their targets entirely. Missing is always a way to guarantee a bullet is "less-than-lethal" at least to what your aiming at.

tipoc
 
Given the primacy of shot placement in any serious discussion of a bullet's lethality, I would guess that most bullets are not lethal.
Click to expand...

I think your guess would be wrong. Do not confuse the lethality of a projectile with the ability of an individual to place it in a lethal spot. They are TOTALLY different matters.

One could say the majority of bullets fired do not result in fatalities, and that would be correct. But the bullets themselves have lethal capability regardless of whether or not you can use it.

ALso, I'd like to point out that there are no "less lethal" projectiles. I think you are "drinking the Kool Aid" if you use the term "less lethal". Its just BS.

Less LIKELY to be lethal, I get that. It's actually true. But remember, people have been killed with every kind of "less likely" round too. People have been killed by BLANKS! People have been killed with BB guns. TASERS can kill people (with heart conditions). There is no 'safe" non-lethal weapon, including hands, & feet.

All there are, are weapons that are less likely to cause death when used correctly. And this ball on the end of your pistol gadget seems like a cartoon made real. And when the ball caves in somebody's skull, when used in the intended manner, the maker better have some good insurance and good lawyers.

I'd like to point out another couple issues, particularly when considering private citizens using this device, or any other less likely to be lethal ammo...

First, in many jurisdictions, using a firearm, no matter WHAT you put in it, is legally using deadly force.

Second, using "less lethal" ammo, can be inferred that you did NOT feel deadly force was justified, and therefore, you are not justified in shooting.

For the police, it's a different legal matter, but for the private citizen, in a self defense situation, "less lethal" (correctly, "less likely to be lethal") does not seem to me to be a wise choice. Neither legally nor practically.
 
There is no such thing as non-lethal weapons, but less-than-lethal is appropriate when the item in question is used within policy and law. That, at least, is from our Use of Force classes we take every year prior to qualification with lethal and less than lethal weapons. For instance, a 37mm baton round, (AKA "kneeknockers), are less than lethal delivered to lower extremities, but delivered to head area jump up into the definition of "deadly physical force" as in AZ law.
44AMP is 100% right about misusing deadly physical force, AKA lethal force - if you shoot someone in the leg intentionally, it shows the jury that you yourself didn't believe you had the right to use deadly physical force at that time. This "Alternative" blurs the line between too far, and may result in that exact situation in court. For civilians, the LTL weapons you should stick to is OC and taser.
 
The bullet hits the ball and the muzzle blows off from the obstruction. This Elliot guy is nuts if he thinks a slow bullet won't kill. Apparently there is no physics where he is.
 
Search on cnn.com for a demo. It is ridiculous to think you would try this on a charging BG.

It is strictly a moral panic driven device. After Ferguson - we must do something!!

The town is also trying to head off the DOJ coming out with a report that they stink.
 
If one has time to snap on some attachment to a deadly weapon that is loaded with deadly ammo, then they have time to just pull a Taser or pepper spray from their belt, right?

So all I see is one day that attachment is not attached so well and when they fire it flies off and the bullet, still having enough velocity to be deadly, makes someone dead.

Deaf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"...Public Radio". That's all I needed to hear. NPR is largely funded by one of the most anti-gun foundations around: Annenberg Foundation. According to FactCheck Annenberg is a primary fund source and large contributor to gun control lobby.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top