rubber bullets

C

clochner

Inactive
So here's one.
Yeah , it's "better to be tried by twelve than carried by six" but here in Maryland you should fear the justice system as much as the BG.{ if everyone only knew and ,yes, I am planning to leave.}
So the Q is would it be reasonable or possible to load the first ,say, two shots with rubber bullets, bounce em off BG and get his attention, have the rest of a good load as backup, then CYA with any LEO and the justice system?

CHRIS
 
clochner said:
So the Q is would it be reasonable or possible to load the first ,say, two shots with rubber bullets, bounce em off BG and get his attention, have the rest of a good load as backup
Click to expand...

LOL. More like bounce em off BG and give him time to get some real bullets fired off in your direction. Especially if you hesitate before firing your "backup" load while he realizes he hasn't been fatally wounded.

The rubber bullet tactic might scare off some people, but I wouldn't take the chance. If things are to the point where I have to draw my gun on someone, I don't want anything in my gun but the real deal.
 
Rubber bullets, at typical self-defense ranges, can be lethal. They are intended for use at longer ranges. If I'm not mistaken, they're often aimed to bounce off the ground to further reduce the chances of injury--both by reducing the energy and by making leg hits more probable.

If you don't want to hurt anyone, there are many non-lethal/less-lethal options out there that are less likely to cause injury or death.

Moving to Tactics & Training.
 
sorry for wrong location post. it's NOT about not hurting someone, it's about staying out of jail yourself. :eek:A couple of years ago a kid in a stolen car ran down a cop and killed him. The jury found him only guilty of manslaughter cause he was scared. Jury trial by 12 takes on a new and bad meaning here. I was held up at gunpoint 15 years ago. BG was caught and got 8 years probation. Betcha if I pulled a gun (CCW in MD. is almost impossible) I would have served time. On and on it goes, one of the nations highest murder rates and you try to figure all angles for self defence. Most everyone in the urban area knows someone who's been attacked. A guy in the area was almost beaten to death, was in a coma and is now in a wheelchair. Local newspaper THE SUN thinks gee that's too bad but ownership of a gun IS the problem. Sorry for the rant but Y'all don't realize how screwed up it is here.


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bal-ed.guns30sep30,0,5217918.story

BTW mandatory sentencing only applies if the charge isn' t plea burdened by an overworked state attorney. In my case SA made it into a Q of race:mad:
CHRIS
 
I think you'll find that shooting someone with a rubber bullet is, in itself, a crime. But you won't be able to claim that you are in fear of your life or of grave injury, because if you were, you wouldn't be using rubber bullets to protect yourself.
 
It'd be a great idea I think. Perhaps you could get the jury to think "hmmm he had two rubber bullets, followed by 10 HP live rounds. He clearly doesn't want to kill anyone, but did what he had to do on the 3rd and 4th round."
 
Are civilian "rubber bullets" different than the military ones? If they are than the term rubber bullet is a bit of a misnomer. The ones we use are shot from 40 mm Grenade launchers or 12 gauge shotguns and are pretty large batons, that if shot directly into the target vice skipping can cause blunt force trauma sufficient to be leathal. They are not bullets per say.
 
I disagree with folks who say rubber bullets would show a sense of lessened fear, therefore voiding your feeling of a need to shoot with real bullets.

Well, law dictates that you use a proper amount of force to hault the threat. It does not dictate the idea, method or tools used to present that certain level of force. If the threat is upgraded, so is the level of force you are granted.

Hitting someone with rubber bullets would be the equivalent of punching them in the nose, yet they continue to attack you, so you decide to shoot. It is simply upgrading the level of force. If anything, the way this guy describes it, his lesser use of force would be the rubber bullets, until the threat is upgraded and therefore, force of actual bullets is needed.

Let's say an elderly woman packs just like this guy said. 2-3 rubber bullets, followed by the real thing. Well, an elderly woman does not have the physical strength of a young man or woman. She can not throw a punch or push a guy off of her. So, her less-use of force would be the rubber bullets. Then if the offender continues, she pops him with the real thing.

Personally, I wouldn't want rubber bullets in my gun, just because my last line of defense would be to shoot. When that time comes, I don't want to be shooting off rubber bullets. But, the idea that shooting with rubber bullets nullifies your defense in a court of law is a bit off-base.
 
"Hitting someone with rubber bullets would be the equivalent of punching them in the nose, yet they continue to attack you, so you decide to shoot."

Shooting a gun at someone is using lethal force, rubber bullets or not.
A women was killed in Boston by a pepper ball.

If your are within the law for lethal force, use it.
If you are not find something else to do.
 
And people die from choking on a crouton at the Denny's. Does that mean the waitress used lethal force? :p

For some people, they are not able to do anything less than shoot because of physical ailments, so rubber bullets would be the lesser force.
 
Most states only require that you be in fear of death or serious bodily injury before you use lethal force. They do not require you to conform to the concept of escalation of force.
Rubber bullets are a bad idea for several reasons. They are frequently lethal. They should be used in specific situations in a specific way by individuals trained in their use.
Despite what you might think, it can weaken your position if you use them and then have to resort to lethal force. A situation either calls for lethal force or it does not. In those that do, using less is foolish.
 
Hitting someone with rubber bullets would be the equivalent of punching them in the nose...
Click to expand...
Rubber bullets with direct hits and at close range can be lethal. They are certainly NOT the equivalent of punching someone in the nose.
 
If I pull my weapon and shoot someone I will only do so if I am in fear of death or grave bodily injury. My goal is to STOP the threat RIGHT NOW.

Rubber bullets do not have the stopping potential requred for any situation that I would use my firearm for, so I will not load rubber bullets in any gun that I carry for self defensive reasons.

Biker
 
"For some people, they are not able to do anything less than shoot because of physical ailments, so rubber bullets would be the lesser force."

If you for a 'less lethal' bullet you are obviously not in danger of death or grave bodily harm.

Guns are lethal force. Period.
If you are justified in using a gun you are justified in using lethal force.
 
Guns are lethal force. Period.
If you are justified in using a gun you are justified in using lethal force.
Click to expand...

This theory would then mean that brandishing a firearm is "Use of Lethal Force" because you are technically "using a gun."

A firearm can be used in different ways; not all ways are considered "Use of Lethal Force."
 
So the Q is would it be reasonable or possible to load the first ,say, two shots with rubber bullets, bounce em off BG and get his attention, have the rest of a good load as backup, then CYA with any LEO and the justice system?
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any real "rubber bullets" intended for less lethal work that can be loaded into a handgun magazine. They are usually shot from a grenade launcher, shotgun or a special device attached to a rifle.

X-Ring makes rubber bullets for practice purposes. They are designed to be propelled with a primer only, and will not cycle the slide on semi-automatic pistol. They also penetrate less cardboard than an airsoft gun, so I would suggest filing off the front sight if you choose to shoot a BG with them.
 
Since this is for your house, a 12ga has some less than lethal options. Load up some bean bag loads followed by your choice of shot. If that's the route you want to go.
 
This theory would then mean that brandishing a firearm is "Use of Lethal Force" because you are technically "using a gun."

A firearm can be used in different ways; not all ways are considered "Use of Lethal Force."
Click to expand...

Firing a gun is lethal force. Waving a gun in someone's face is threatenning them with lethal force.

GUN = LETHAL FORCE

I don't care if you have Play Doh coming out of the barrel. The gun is lethal force and should only be used when such is justified. I doubt I will change anyone's mind though so I ask one favor...

If any rubber bullet advocates ever use them in a HD situation please make certain to post the outcome if

1. They are alive to do so.
2. They are not in jail for using lethal force in a situation where they did not believe lethal force was warranted.
 
One may remember the hilarious episode of Law and Order SVU, where the defective detectives were chasing a miscreant for whom they had some sympathy (even though he burned his wife alive). Said looney grabbed his kid and held him at knife point. The defectives talked him out of killing the kid and looney boy decided to commit suicide by cop and charge the detectives.

Lady Detective glocks him good. However, he is suprised to be alive as she tells him that she loaded her gun with rubber bullets such that she could take him in alive.

Now that's the way it should be done in real life for the rubber bullet fans.

:D - My wife had to tell me to shut up as I was trying to explain why did was silly. I was outraged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top