Bean bag or rubber bullet shell?

[PsychGuy274]

#4 buck is good for home defense in my opinion

[BANG BANG]

We never "shoot to kill"
We shoot to stop the threat
We must be prepared to accept the fact that doing so may result in the death of one or more human beings or animals.

+1 I agree this is the mind set you're supposed to have

[Killawhale415]

And now for the obligatory

[Mikeb]

I meant a minority or a few think you don't point unless you are going to shoot. .

I think I said "are willing to destroy" A gun is not an instructional tool. In a situation in your home you are either justified in pointing and shooting or you shouldn't point the gun at all. Someone comes to a BBQ and says the steaks are over cooked , don't point a shotgun at him or shoot him. Someone kicks in the front door? Then you're justified.
take care
Mike

[TheKlawMan]

I think I said "are willing to destroy" A gun is not an instructional tool. In a situation in your home you are either justified in pointing and shooting or you shouldn't point the gun at all. Someone comes to a BBQ and says the steaks are over cooked , don't point a shotgun at him or shoot him. Someone kicks in the front door? Then you're justified.
take care
Mike

I disagree. I point but don't shoot unless I must and in the past that seems to have done the trick as far as instruction. What woul d you do, blast away without an warning. I believe in one warning, which I will give if circumstances allow but I don't even want the intruder to realize I am present until I have a bead on them. Even then, I would remain silent while awaitng the PD, if possible.

[Mikeb]

I disagree. I point but don't shoot unless I must and in the past that seems to have done the trick as far as instruction. What woul d you do, blast away without an warning. I believe in one warning, which I will give if circumstances allow but I don't even want the intruder to realize I am present until I have a bead on them. Even then, I would remain silent while awaitng the PD, if possible.

No I don't agree. The second rule is "don't point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy". If you can discourage the threat by saying boo or what ever fine. But the whole "wing 'em, fire a warning shot" I'm not buying it. The only time one has the right to use deadly force is to defend life or great bodily harm.
I wish you luck
Mike

[aippi]

The entire point of having this as a first round is missed on these guys. There are multiple advantages to you to use this as a first round. Think about it and the answers will come to you.

[pyromensch]

Don't use less-lethal ammo. It's for trained professionals in very specific environments.

Frist of all, the ammo CAN kill, and at the ranges inside your home with a torso shot, those chances are not impossible.

Secondly, the flip side is that the ammo is simply unpredictable, and may not even phase some perps, particularly if they have a lot of clothes on.

More importantly though, you'll still be charged with use of deadly force, as California doesn't distinguish less-lethal (NOT less-than-lethal) ammo from any other kind of projectile you could shoot. In other words, buck, slug, birdshot or beanbag, you have to make the same decisions before you can shoot. It's not worth it.

just going to play "devil's advocate". given the above statement is true, what would a jury of your peers, think, if you used "less than lethal" ammo, in a situation, and the intruder died?

and remember, all the "simple" rules go out the window, in california

[NeoWeird]

Talking with several criminal defense lawyers and LEOs on the subject, it's pretty cut and dry. There is a VERY fine line in the law - self defense as per evidence goes is not an absolute right. In fact, self defense that results in the death of another person is still a homicide - you are just commiting the act under circumstances that the law allows. It's more like an "allowed" rather than a "legal". Doing or saying one thing wrong can tilt your position and make you fall into a whole nother world of trouble.

As a general rule of thumb, a firearm SHOULD never be drawn unless you yourself (and the average person as the law will test) would feel that it is the only means neccessary to stop the threat of great bodily injury or death. If less lethal options will suffice then the threat has not escalated to the point that a firearm is needed, or wise, and bringing a weapon into the mix is actually a crime on your part. Not to mention the other legal ramifications that come along with the use of that weapon. Two guys break in, you get a snap shot off and one attacker ends up dying while the other runs away - you've now brandished and have a manslaughter charge (you intended to incapacitate and death resulted - that's manslaughter), not to mention any emotional or psycological and criminal charges the fleeing attacker may push against you. I guantee you will be in the wrong 99 times out of 100.

By all means, stop the threat. If punching the ****wad in the back of his skull is what it takes to get the guy of your spouse/daughter/mother than do it. If great bodily harm (Rape, Mayhem, etc) or death is emminent, than you use whatever force neccessary to stop it. Unfortunately in most cases that means speed of a bullet lethal force to stop the threat NOW.

You can buy a new TV, you can't bring back your loved ones. Let them take the Sony, drop them if they go after family.

ETA: Oh yeah, a shotgun is a poor home defense weapon as is a handgun. Better than nothing, but a 5.56 is still a far superior cartridge for home defense in ALL fields - inclduing preventing over penetration.

[Reductio]

just going to play "devil's advocate". given the above statement is true, what would a jury of your peers, think, if you used "less than lethal" ammo, in a situation, and the intruder died?

and remember, all the "simple" rules go out the window, in california

There's no such thing as less-than-lethal ammo: it's less-lethal ammo because it CAN kill, hence why discharging a firearm in self-defense needs to meet reasonable fear regardless of what ammo is in the gun.

That said, it may buy you brownie points with a civil jury, though I wouldn't bet on it.

[Cokebottle]

The entire point of having this as a first round is missed on these guys. There are multiple advantages to you to use this as a first round. Think about it and the answers will come to you.

All I see is disadvantages.
If it does not incapacitate the intruder/assailant, or "encourage" them to leave, it then gives them time to kill you while you are assessing the situation and preparing for a followup shot.

This is not TV. It's not about a "fair" fight. It is about preserving the life of those within the walls of your home. A "fair" fight in that situation is a fight that has ever card in the deck stacked in my favor.

That includes only ONE shot being fired during the encounter.... MY shot.

[aippi]

I am sure you don't see anything but your narrow point of view. And I don't need schooled on what this is about. I advised the OP to think about it and if he is an intelligent person he can find some very good reasons on his own. I did not invite a debate with you are anyone else on here as I gave no input other then to the OP. So sad you can't come up with one advantage of this munition when there are so many. Says much about the way you think.

To the OP. Call me at 231-690-0954 and I will give you multiple advantages of this munition as a first round in HD. You can then make the decision that best suites you and your situation.

[shellslinger]

you may as well assume so - not taking the threat seriously is not something you want to live with the rest of your life.

well said! take this man's word. Anyone who is desperate enough to break into your home is desperate enough to do harm to anyone else in the home!

[Steve1968LS2]

We never "shoot to kill"
We shoot to stop the threat
We must be prepared to accept the fact that doing so may result in the death of one or more human beings or animals.

Wow.. let's play the semantics game... weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[Reductio]

Wow.. let's play the semantics game... weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

It's not semantics when the district attorney plays back the recording of you telling the cops "I was trying to kill him."