Lethal vs. Less Lethal ammo for self defense


mikehall0995

New member
I am soon going to start carrying a concealed weapon and have been pondering and reading about the numerous methods, theories, tips, etc. I am curious about other opinions on carrying, or using for defense at home, less lethal rounds. I can see two clear sides to the issue and would love others thoughts, particularly on the legal ramifications.

If I could convince myself that a self defense round could fire reliably from my carry gun, I would think it'd be beneficial to say place two less than lethal rounds at the top of the magazine followed by hollow points. This way I could potentially stop a situation without having kill, which seems logical. the intent of concealed carry is stop violence and preserve life. The potential issue I see here is should have to use my weapon and I get sued or have to prove my case, would I be screwing myself by shooting less than lethal ammo? I get it that technically less than lethal ammo could still be lethal, but I can picture a defense attorney saying "Well, if you really thought your life was in imminent danger, why only shoot with less than lethal?" I could see this situation looking worse for an altercation out in public than at home. I guess I would say here, I felt my life was threatened, but my intent was not kill, but rather to stop the altercation. The only drawback would be a very rare situation in which I would have to draw my weapon in a situation where say I was already being shot at, in which case, I could see wanting those hollow points on top.

What are others thoughts on this? How does the law/courts view using less lethal rounds for self defense? Would love others opinions.
 

I am soon going to start carrying a concealed weapon and have been pondering and reading about the numerous methods, theories, tips, etc. I am curious about other opinions on carrying, or using for defense at home, less lethal rounds. I can see two clear sides to the issue and would love others thoughts, particularly on the legal ramifications.

If I could convince myself that a self defense round could fire reliably from my carry gun, I would think it'd be beneficial to say place two less than lethal rounds at the top of the magazine followed by hollow points. This way I could potentially stop a situation without having kill, which seems logical. the intent of concealed carry is stop violence and preserve life. The potential issue I see here is should have to use my weapon and I get sued or have to prove my case, would I be screwing myself by shooting less than lethal ammo? I get it that technically less than lethal ammo could still be lethal, but I can picture a defense attorney saying "Well, if you really thought your life was in imminent danger, why only shoot with less than lethal?" I could see this situation looking worse for an altercation out in public than at home. I guess I would say here, I felt my life was threatened, but my intent was not kill, but rather to stop the altercation. The only drawback would be a very rare situation in which I would have to draw my weapon in a situation where say I was already being shot at, in which case, I could see wanting those hollow points on top.

What are others thoughts on this? How does the law/courts view using less lethal rounds for self defense? Would love others opinions.
From what I've been told from gun stores in gun buddies you do not want to use less than they will say you are looking for trouble loading with self-defense... for one if there armed u want to stop the attack asap....and for two it looks funny to liberal jurors anything other than standard ammo ...carry what ur local cops carry and u will be alot better off if ever u have a issue...

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk
 
As far as "less lethal bullets" goes, I only worry about collateral damage.
People whom you injure or kill collaterally or their estates can sue you for everything you have -- house, car, cash, and garnishment -- if you hurt them in the process of shooting someone else.
Therefore I definitely recommend JHP bullets (jacketed hollow points) because these tend to expand on impact. Thus the injury to anyone else collaterally is less.
Note that you still need to be able to hit your intended target.
And also note that if you are in a crowd at a bar you need to take special action to make sure your bullet does not fly into the crowd. Shooting from low to high or getting down on one knee accomplishes this. Your bullet will still come down eventually but at least not inside the bar or night club.
One of the prime rules of shooting is "always consider your target and everything around your target and behind your target before you put your finger on the trigger to shoot". Ergo sometimes you cannot take the shot, particularly in a crowd.
You can also go with a lighter load in your chosen JHP cartridge as well.
This is why some firearms like 40 cal's and/or 357 magnums are totally inappropriate for self defense (these are police guns -- always have been and always will be).
So in summary, I use JHP's and lighter loads for my 45ACP, so as to minimize collateral damage.
And I always think about who or what is around my intended target before I shoot.
 
Stop overthinking this. Most new carriers come up with some kind of nonsense like this because they have zero training.

Take a defensive handgun training class. I don't mean one of those where they tell you what a bullet, trigger and slide is. I mean an actual self defense class that deals with how to properly use your firearm for self defense.

You shoot to stop an attack! You don't shoot to kill. A person may die as a result of you shooting him/her, but your intent is to stop the attack. If you point your weapon and the attack stops, good! If not, shoot to stop the attack, even if that means killing the person. After all, your life or someone else's life is in danger!

As for carrying less than lethal rounds, why? If your life or someone else's life is in danger then you want to use rounds that actually can stop the attack, even if it means killing the person. If your life or someone else's life is not in danger, then you are not legally allowed to shoot someone anyway.

Realize that shooting someone is not like in the movies, where they just fall over and are dead. In most cases, a shot attacker either runs away or continues his/her attack. Death typically occurs minutes after the attack is over, unless you shoot that person directly in the head.

As for legal issues, ask a qualified lawyer! The usual rule is, a good shot is a good shot and a bad shot is a bad shot. Those in-between are mostly stupidity.
 
This is like the "warning shot" myth. If you introduce a firearm into a fight its deadly force period. If you have time to fire a warming shot or use a "less lethal" round it's a De Facto admission that deadly force wasn't justified.
 
Less than lethal.... mace, pepper spray, taser, baton.

I carry a gun with self-defense ammo, and will shoot to stop the threat if that is how it plays out. If that happens to be lethal... then clearly lethal force was appropriate.
 
As far as "less lethal bullets" goes, I only worry about collateral damage.
People whom you injure or kill collaterally or their estates can sue you for everything you have -- house, car, cash, and garnishment -- if you hurt them in the process of shooting someone else.
Therefore I definitely recommend JHP bullets (jacketed hollow points) because these tend to expand on impact. Thus the injury to anyone else collaterally is less.
Note that you still need to be able to hit your intended target.
And also note that if you are in a crowd at a bar you need to take special action to make sure your bullet does not fly into the crowd. Shooting from low to high or getting down on one knee accomplishes this. Your bullet will still come down eventually but at least not inside the bar or night club.
One of the prime rules of shooting is "always consider your target and everything around your target and behind your target before you put your finger on the trigger to shoot". Ergo sometimes you cannot take the shot, particularly in a crowd.
You can also go with a lighter load in your chosen JHP cartridge as well.
This is why some firearms like 40 cal's and/or 357 magnums are totally inappropriate for self defense (these are police guns -- always have been and always will be).
So in summary, I use JHP's and lighter loads for my 45ACP, so as to minimize collateral damage.
And I always think about who or what is around my intended target before I shoot.
In my state u cannot carry in a bar unless u wanna do ten years..... and hollow points seem to be the way to go... if u can aquire a target on said bad guy ur not shooting thru him like with fmj.
From what I've been told from gun stores in gun buddies you do not want to use less than they will say you are looking for trouble loading with self-defense... for one if there armed u want to stop the attack asap....and for two it looks funny to liberal jurors anything other than standard ammo ...carry what ur local cops carry and u will be alot better off if ever u have a issue...

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk


Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk
 
In my state you can bring your handgun into any bar, you just can't get intoxicated while you are carrying it.

So that implies a 1 to 2 drink limit at most.
 
In my state you can bring your handgun into any bar, you just can't get intoxicated while you are carrying it.

So that implies a 1 to 2 drink limit at most.
Hmm may be the case here also but I don't think so I'm from ohio

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk
 
I am soon going to start carrying a concealed weapon and have been pondering and reading about the numerous methods, theories, tips, etc. I am curious about other opinions on carrying, or using for defence at home, less lethal rounds. I can see two clear sides to the issue and would love others thoughts, particularly on the legal ramifications.

If I could convince myself that a self-defense round could fire reliably from my carry gun, I would think it'd be beneficial to say place two less than lethal rounds at the top of the magazine followed by hollow points. This way I could potentially stop a situation without having a kill, which seems logical. the intent of concealed carry is to stop violence and preserve life. The potential issue I see here is should have to use my weapon and I get sued or have to prove my case, would I be screwing myself by shooting less than lethal ammo? I get it that technically less than lethal ammo could still be lethal, but I can picture a defence attorney saying "Well if you really thought your life was in imminent danger, why only shoot with less than lethal?" I could see this situation looking worse for an altercation out in public than at home. I guess I would say here, I felt my life was threatened, but my intent was not to kill, but rather to stop the altercation. The only drawback would be a very rare situation in which I would have to draw my weapon in a situation where say I was already being shot at, in which case, I could see wanting those hollow points on top.

What are others thoughts on this? How does the law/courts view using less lethal rounds for self-defense? Would love others opinions.
The prosecutor will argue that you're only allowed to draw a firearm if you feel your life is in danger, and that your less-than-lethal ammunition proves you didn't feel your life was in danger thus your drawing a firearm is unlawful. He'd be right, and you'de be convicted.
 
Hmm may be the case here also but I don't think so I'm from ohio

Sent from my SM-G360T1 using Tapatalk

Ohio is a moderate and swing state.

It is not radically far left like California and NYS nor radically far right like Texas and Montana.

All the other states are somewhere in between.
 
The prosecutor will argue that you're only allowed to draw a firearm if you feel your life is in danger, and that your less-than-lethal ammunition proves you didn't feel your life was in danger thus your drawing a firearm is unlawful. He'd be right, and you'de be convicted.

Not really. Carrying less-than-lethal ammunition doesn't mean your life isn't in danger when someone is shooting at you, for example. That prosecutor would make a fool out of himself/herself by using such an argument. If carrying less-than-lethal ammunition comes into play in court at all, it means that it is a borderline case or an outright bad shot.

The actual danger of carrying less-than-lethal ammunition is that the carrier convinces himself that it is OK to shoot someone with it without having the justification for using lethal force in the first place. This is the same problem with warning shots or shooting to wound. Legally you are fine if you can argue the legal justification to shoot and kill the threat anyway.

Another actual danger of carrying less-than-lethal ammunition is that it might not stop a lethal threat, i.e., the carrier dies. This also is is the same problem with warning shots or shooting to wound.
 
I can dispute that statement.

How amusing, Ma'am.

I love the sweet bouquet of alcohol on women's and ladies' breaths.

But one drink cannot possibly affect your aim or your judgment that much.

It would take at least 2 if not 3.

For me it takes 7 -- preferably tequila -- most preferably smoky tequila aka mescal.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,258
Members
74,964
Latest member
BFerguson
Back
Top