Carry less or non lethal first round

[davidb]

More importantly, the first round now becomes an equivalent of a warning shot. Warning shots are not a good idea and are mostly illegal. The same reasoning applies here.

So a warning shot is an indication that your life really wasn't in danger, but choosing to shoot to injure, or as you guys say "stop" is somehow better?

What do y'all think the DEAD part of deadly force implies? A good shoot is a good shoot, period.

[nick]

Well, stupid as I find this whole concept, for the reasons outlined earlier in this thread, what you're looking for exists in the form of "traumatic weapons" (handguns shooting rubber bullets, and with reduced powder charge), which are used in some countries where governments want to pretend to care about their subjects' lives without actually giving their subjects effective tools for self-defense. You might also want to read up on the effectiveness of these things, and the dangers they bring into a society (hint: the former is less than stellar, the latter is significant), before you seriously consider using one.

[IVC]

A good shoot is a good shoot, period.

Of course it is. What's in dispute is whether a particular shot is a good shot.

Say that you told police on record that you were shooting to kill. A DA can now assert that you kept shooting until the person was dead, not until the person was incapacitated (thus stopped.) If the autopsy shows that it was the last bullet that killed the person while the person was already on the ground, you now have a problem in showing it was a "good shot."

If you think this is far fetched, just look at what the DA tried to do in the Zimmerman case when confronted with unusually conclusive forensic evidence.

[stormvet]

That is pure 'hogwash', IMO, which by the way isn't 'pure'. It exhibits animus, when the proper objective is to stop the threat.

If they ever come out with a round that will incapacitate and stop the fight without it being lethal, why not?

And eventually, they will.

Your statement I believe to be totally irresponsible, and naive as to the possible criminal and probable civil consequences, which can last for years. More directly, my 'friend', think of all the money lost in defending a criminal homicide charge, or civil wrongful death lawsuit, if not covered by your insurance, which is likely if interpreted to be an intentional act.

I will admit that I currently carry 9mm HP ammo in my firearm, but look forward to the future! And if I ever need to use it, will do so to STOP THE THREAT, NOT NECESSARILY DESTROY IT, THOUGH IT MAY HAPPEN!

No, your good. Your already carrying less then lethal ammo.

[kmas]

Practice X 1000

Find a great trainer and learn precision shooting.
Then you can learn how to simply disable the threat.

After hundreds of hours of training, you then kneel and pray:
- that when you are really attacked, you don't panic or have the usual human stress response .... and all your training goes out of the window!!

Hopefully you do manage to hit the perp and stop the attack.

[Citadelgrad87]

Your language would get you convicted in any court.

You went after the perp with intent to kill him?
You shoot to stop the bad guy. That should be your sole intent. If the bad guy dies as a result, well golly, that's terrible. because your intent was to stop him.

No, it wouldn't. Lethal force can be used in self defense.

He came at me with a knife, I drew and ordered him to stop advancing, he laughed and said he was going to skin me and kill my wife, so I dumped 8 .45 slugs into his torso. It was him or me, I killed him.

Went after him? Hardly.

[FromTheGrave]

Don't forget shotshells and other less than lethal shot may not cycle your gun. Not good.

[brohymn]

less lethal! less lethal!

[faris1984]

OP, a blank round is non lethal, then you can use the gun as hammer to stop the thread

I guess you are trying to be funny , I hope you get a better one in the future.

[Click Boom]

That is pure 'hogwash', IMO, which by the way isn't 'pure'. It exhibits animus, when the proper objective is to stop the threat.

If they ever come out with a round that will incapacitate and stop the fight without it being lethal, why not?

And eventually, they will.

Your statement I believe to be totally irresponsible, and naive as to the possible criminal and probable civil consequences, which can last for years. More directly, my 'friend', think of all the money lost in defending a criminal homicide charge, or civil wrongful death lawsuit, if not covered by your insurance, which is likely if interpreted to be an intentional act.

I will admit that I currently carry 9mm HP ammo in my firearm, but look forward to the future! And if I ever need to use it, will do so to STOP THE THREAT, NOT NECESSARILY DESTROY IT, THOUGH IT MAY HAPPEN!

Whoa. Engage Popcorn.

[GW]

No, it wouldn't. Lethal force can be used in self defense.

He came at me with a knife, I drew and ordered him to stop advancing, he laughed and said he was going to skin me and kill my wife, so I dumped 8 .45 slugs into his torso. It was him or me, I killed him.

Went after him? Hardly.

You're missing the point.
Of course lethal force can be used in self-defense

When you draw the gun you presumably are in fear for your life. The use of lethal force would be legal and legitimate. However, when you do a mag dump on that poor kid who was just trying to slice an apple to share with your family before he left for Bible college. that DA with an anti-gun hard-on is going to have a field day with your comments.
I'm talking about the mindset and aftermath of the shooting. If you go John Wayne you can expect to be treated as the criminal.
"Why did you shoot him 8 times?" See what response you get when you say "Because I didn't have 9 rounds."
"Did you want to kill him?"

Just keep it to "I was in fear for my life." and "I want to talk to my lawyer before I say anything further."

[IVC]

"Why did you shoot him 8 times?" See what response you get when you say "Because I didn't have 9 rounds."

Now that's funny. Have to put it on my "do not say list" just next to the "officer, my taxes pay your salary" when pulled over for speeding.

[ElDub1950]

Hi fellow Calgunners ,
Have you ever thought or did put non less or non lethal round in your gun?.
is there any good less lethal 9mm in the market.
Thanks

Yes, but only if you carry a rubber knife as a backup. That proves you didn't want to hurt anyone.

[brian5271]

OP, a blank round is non lethal, then you can use the gun as hammer to stop the thread

I know you are kidding, but don't think that that blanks can't kill people. They Can and have. Back in the 80's an actor was screwing around on set and shot himself in the side of the head with a blank and it ended up killing him. The story is below. Of course I am not saying to use them for defense, just a PSA so people know they can potentially be very dangerous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon-Erik_Hexum

[brian5271]

Again??

Never point your gun at something your not willing to destroy. DESTROY being the keyword.

That is pure 'hogwash', IMO, which by the way isn't 'pure'. It exhibits animus, when the proper objective is to stop the threat.

If they ever come out with a round that will incapacitate and stop the fight without it being lethal, why not?

And eventually, they will.

Your statement I believe to be totally irresponsible, and naive as to the possible criminal and probable civil consequences, which can last for years. More directly, my 'friend', think of all the money lost in defending a criminal homicide charge, or civil wrongful death lawsuit, if not covered by your insurance, which is likely if interpreted to be an intentional act.

I will admit that I currently carry 9mm HP ammo in my firearm, but look forward to the future! And if I ever need to use it, will do so to STOP THE THREAT, NOT NECESSARILY DESTROY IT, THOUGH IT MAY HAPPEN!

Not pointing a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy is one of the universally excepted rules of firearm safety. I am guessing you know this so I am not sure if you are trolling or just did not express you thoughts clearly?