12 gauge rubber buckshot

[NYY]

OK, you have a PG only shotgun (BTW, that is my last choice in a HD shotgun) instead of an airsoft "shotty". That's a start. Now, to again answer your question, if you feel the need to use lethal force (a firearm regardless of the ammo), you really should USE LEATHAL FORCE. You are not a LEO and have ZERO training on the use of less lethal (rubber buckshot can be lethal) ammo. IF you are in fear of your life, you need to STOP THE THREAT instead of scaring it or just pissing it off. If you are not in immediate fear of your life, you have no bussiness using a firearm in the first place. In Ca, you can't just go around shooting people with rubber bullets because they are stealling something from you. If you do, expect to spend many years in prison and pay your victim somewhere between 6 and 7 digits in compensation for your stupidity.

interesting. i just have this thought of even if this "intruder" is running at you with a knife and you DO kill him, how often does the house owner (shooter) come out of the situation 100% innocent with no baggage or problems..?

[Negligent Discharge]

interesting. i just have this thought of even if this "intruder" is running at you with a knife and you DO kill him, how often does the house ownder (shooter) get away scot-free?

Stop worrying about it and just use buckshot. Shooting someone with rubber pellets isn't going to save you from a civil law suit, let alone if they even work to stop the threat. Other wise know who your DA is and look up their record on whether or not they brought cases against "good shoots" by home owners.

[CSACANNONEER]

interesting. i just have this thought of even if this "intruder" is running at you with a knife and you DO kill him, how often does the house owner (shooter) come out of the situation 100% innocent with no baggage or problems..?

If someone is coming at me with a knife, I don't have time to do anything except stop him as fast as I can. Rubber buckshot is not the way to positively stop the threat. In the end, I'll be alive and the attacker won't be able to tell lies in court. But, this is not the senerio you proposed a couple posts back. It's also not the senerio that ANYONE who is trained in the use of less lethal force would opt to use it if they had a choice. If you shoot someone with rubber buckshot (even if they are coming at you with a knife or gun) and they live, expect to loose the civil case they will bring against you. You might even loose a criminal trial because, it would be easy to argue that you choose to use rubber buckshot because you were PLANNING on shooting someone. So, your actions were premeditated.

[NYY]

Stop worrying about it and just use buckshot. Shooting someone with rubber pellets isn't going to save you from a civil law suit, let alone if they even work to stop the threat. Other wise know who your DA is and look up their record on whether or not they brought cases against "good shoots" by home owners.

yeah yeah i here yea.. fuc* it. I thought I could go somewhere with it and make the situation better. i honestly wouldnt have trouble putting real buckshot in someone if needed, but i thought of the idea of rubber for some reason.

[NYY]

If someone is coming at me with a knife, I don't have time to do anything except stop him as fast as I can. Rubber buckshot is not the way to positively stop the threat. In the end, I'll be alive and the attacker won't be able to tell lies in court. But, this is not the senerio you proposed a couple posts back. It's also not the senerio that ANYONE who is trained in the use of less lethal force would opt to use it if they had a choice. If you shoot someone with rubber buckshot (even if they are coming at you with a knife or gun) and they live, expect to loose the civil case they will bring against you. You might even loose a criminal trial because, it would be easy to argue that you choose to use rubber buckshot because you were PLANNING on shooting someone. So, your actions were premeditated.

yea.. i see. damn. its all fuc*ed up!

[aippi]

Name one case we can look up, just one where a citizen was in their home and attacked by an intruder and the intruder sues the citizen for defending themself and citizen looses the case, just one. Those stories are BS. This mess is often told by Instuctors teach carry courses and other stuff to "Emphisize" the responsibility of deadly force. I have challanged people to name just one case that I can look up or contract the attornies involved for verification and no one has provided such a case. Yet, you guys tell it as if it SOP.

Listen to how silly some of the mess you guys are saying really is. What you call Less then lethal we called "speciality impact mutions" as all they are is taking a rubber, wood or foam object to a threat at a greater distance then you can strike them with it in your hands. GoT that?

Now you guys are saying that in a case where you are defending youself or a third person and with in your rights to shoot a person with a lethal round and kill them, you are not however within your rights to hit them. You will be sued because you hit them with a stick or baton or other object, instead of shot and killed them............ that is a silly statment to make or believe.

Post here would benifit us all if some thought went into what we post. And yes, I was an instuctor for Defense Technologies (def-tech) and have certified hundreds of officer in the use of specialtiy impact munitions so I know the subject.

[Rigmarole]

I have a friend that lives in a very rural area in Idaho. The local game warden hands out 12ga rubber baton rounds to shoot at moose that may be causing damage to a landowner's property (knocking down fences, etc.). The authorities would rather the locals shoot the animals with "less lethal" rounds than other means of making the problem go away.

That is an appropriate civilian use of rubber baton shotgun rounds. Shooting someone with a firearm in your home with rubber rounds is far to shakey ground in my opinion for many reasons already stated in this thread.

[Negligent Discharge]

Name one case we can look up, just one where a citizen was in their home and attacked by an intruder and the intruder sues the citizen for defending themself and citizen looses the case, just one. Those stories are BS. This mess is often told by Instuctors teach carry courses and other stuff to "Emphisize" the responsibility of deadly force. I have challanged people to name just one case that I can look up or contract the attornies involved for verification and no one has provided such a case. Yet, you guys tell it as if it SOP.

Listen to how silly some of the mess you guys are saying really is. What you call Less then lethal we called "speciality impact mutions" as all they are is taking a rubber, wood or foam object to a threat at a greater distance then you can strike them with it in your hands. GoT that?

Now you guys are saying that in a case where you are defending youself or a third person and with in your rights to shoot a person with a lethal round and kill them, you are not however within your rights to hit them. You will be sued because you hit them with a stick or baton or other object, instead of shot and killed them............ that is a silly statment to make or believe.

Post here would benifit us all if some thought went into what we post. And yes, I was an instuctor for Defense Technologies (def-tech) and have certified hundreds of officer in the use of specialtiy impact munitions so I know the subject.

http://www.wisn.com/news/9950016/detail.html

The point is you are not avoiding any potential law suits by using "specialty impact munitions". Just because the civil suit isn't successful doesn't mean it won't cost you time and money. The question is why use a less effective round on a deadly threat?

[-hanko]

http://www.wisn.com/news/9950016/detail.html

The point is you are not avoiding any potential law suits by using "specialty impact munitions". Just because the civil suit isn't successful doesn't mean it won't cost you time and money. The question is why use a less effective round on a deadly threat?

Stopping the threat has a better advantage in stopping a lawsuit, most of the time.

you should have posted the outcome of the case...it wasn't even tried...

http://gazettextra.com/news/2008/mar/06/judge-dismisses-burglars-lawsuit/

-hanko

[Negligent Discharge]

Stopping the threat has a better advantage in stopping a lawsuit, most of the time.

you should have posted the outcome of the case...it wasn't even tried...

http://gazettextra.com/news/2008/mar/06/judge-dismisses-burglars-lawsuit/

-hanko

Never said it went anywhere. But just that they try to do it.

[ham]

to sum it up IMO, if ever have to pull a gun on a person with intent to harm you, make sure the only story the police get is yours...

[Quiet]

Using a firearm with less than lethal ammo requires the same justifications as using a firearm with normal ammo.

If not used properly, less than lethal ammo can kill people. So, a person not trained on it's proper use should not rely on it for non-lethal home defense usage.

[Mesa Tactical]

if putting rubber buckshot into a guy and putting him on the floor without killing him would be a choice by any of you. clearly not... But I still am unsure.

If there was a way to reliably stop an attacker without killing him, I would be all for it and I think so would most of the rest of the firearms industry. But until they come up with a phaser setting for stun, the only reliable way to stop an attacker is with (potentially) deadly force.

So the decision is this: if deadly force is warranted, use it. If it is not, put the gun down.

[voiceofreason]

if you don't want to kill, don't pull the trigger. shooting to wound in a self-defense situation can be prosecuted as attempted murder.

the basic theory is this: if you don't feel that your life is in sufficient danger that you need to kill your attacker, use of a deadly weapon is unwarranted to begin with. shoot to kill or not at all.

+1

as well as what Mesa Tactical said above ^^^^^

I'd recommend sticking with standard 00 buck, #1 buck, or slugs if you require them.

I prefer low recoil personally (and my shotgun loves Federal's Flite control wad).

[JagerDog]

So the decision is this: if deadly force is warranted, use it. If it is not, put the gun down.

FTW!