Lethal vs. Less Lethal ammo for self defense

Sorry to know, choosing a instructor is like hiring a employee. You don't know what your getting. And it's going to cost you like it or not. Maybe the local departments can possibly recommend a knowledgeable, reputable instructor in your area.


Sent from my iPhone using USA Carry
 
Summary findings

Between 2004 and 2008 --
About 1 in 3 violent crimes occurred in or near the victim’s own home.
During this time period almost 1 in 5 violent crimes took place in open areas such as yards, playgrounds, fields, on the street or in other similar locations.
Almost two thirds of all property crimes took place in or near the home of the household members.
More than 1 in 10 property crimes occurred in parking lots or garages.
Purse snatchings and pocket pickings typically occur away from home. The most common places of occurrence were in commercial places such as restaurants, bars and other commercial buildings (39.1%) and open areas such as the street or on public transportation (28.2%). About 10% of personal thefts occurred in or near the victim’s home or the home of a friend or neighbor.

Source?

Also, we are talking about self defense with a firearm here and not burglary while nobody is home (which is a significant amount of crime being reported) or purse snatchings and pocket pickings that do not involve the use of lethal force. Try to stay on topic!
 
Sorry to know, choosing a instructor is like hiring a employee. You don't know what your getting. And it's going to cost you like it or not. Maybe the local departments can possibly recommend a knowledgeable, reputable instructor in your area.

May be asking for a reputable firearms training school at a local gun store would be a better idea. People usually don't walk into their local PD or call them up on the non-emergency number and ask for a reputable firearms training school. While a local gun store may want to steer customers to train with their buddy that runs some firearms training, there is also the Internet and reviews. Also, the local gun store relies on repeat customers.

PS: When I say local gun store, I mean local gun store and not chain.
 
Wow , local law enforcement in my county very happy to help. First desk you walk to is loaded with gun locks from NRA . Must be a difference in our local law enforcement.


Sent from my iPhone using USA Carry
 
May be asking for a reputable firearms training school at a local gun store would be a better idea. People usually don't walk into their local PD or call them up on the non-emergency number and ask for a reputable firearms training school. While a local gun store may want to steer customers to train with their buddy that runs some firearms training, there is also the Internet and reviews. Also, the local gun store relies on repeat customers.

PS: When I say local gun store, I mean local gun store and not chain.
Exactly. Our local, family-owned gun store/range, conducts shooting classes for the general public and for the military and for LEO's (at different times and days).
 
Just saying my local agency very happy to help with CC permits, training etc. and maybe not all agencies are that way. Closest local gun smith to me is 60 miles away. Nothing said was attended to be against local gun shops.


Sent from my iPhone using USA Carry
 
Just saying my local agency very happy to help with CC permits, training etc. and maybe not all agencies are that way. Closest local gun smith to me is 60 miles away. Nothing said was attended to be against local gun shops.
The gun shop we use the most (one of several local ones available), has a retail shop, shooting ranges, classrooms, instructors and gunsmiths all under one roof. They conduct CC classes, and the whole process can be done one site with one visit. That includes filling out the form, getting fingerprinted and photographed, getting the classroom instruction, testing, and range portion of the training and test. They send in all necessary documentation to SLED for processing. No need to involve other LEO's. It's none of their business.
 
The gun shop we use the most (one of several local ones available), has a retail shop, shooting ranges, classrooms, instructors and gunsmiths all under one roof. They conduct CC classes, and the whole process can be done one site with one visit. That includes filling out the form, getting fingerprinted and photographed, getting the classroom instruction, testing, and range portion of the training and test. They send in all necessary documentation to SLED for processing. No need to involve other LEO's. It's none of their business.

Same here. My favorite gun shop does the same, also having in indoor range, a slew of instructors, ammo, guns, etc.
 
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.
Do what you want, then, it's your prison sentence.
 
Do what you want, then, it's your prison sentence.

You may actually read my other posts in this thread, specifically post #4 and post #38. I personally think that carrying less-than-lethal ammunition is outright stupid. However, your legal argument is outright stupid as well.

If I am in fear of my life, I can defend myself with whatever I want, even with less-than-lethal or non lethal weapons. The failure to use a lethal weapon or lethal force does negate lawful self defense.

By your argument, one could also argue that if I pull my firearm but don't shoot the attacker, I may be in legal trouble as well. Therefore I better shoot when I pull. This is also outright stupid.

One might also notice that the other person does not know that the weapon is loaded with less-than-lethal ammunition. The general legal standard is that if you point or shoot a firearm at someone, it is considered lethal force independent from the type of firearm and ammunition. Pointing a pellet gun at someone is using lethal force. Pointing a replica gun at someone is using lethal force.

Edit: Note that this post contains a typo. It should obviously be: The failure to use a lethal weapon or lethal force doesn't negate lawful self defense.
 
The gun shop we use the most (one of several local ones available), has a retail shop, shooting ranges, classrooms, instructors and gunsmiths all under one roof. They conduct CC classes, and the whole process can be done one site with one visit. That includes filling out the form, getting fingerprinted and photographed, getting the classroom instruction, testing, and range portion of the training and test. They send in all necessary documentation to SLED for processing. No need to involve other LEO's. It's none of their business.

A place like that would be pretty handy. If there is one anywhere near me I have yet to hear of it.

Our state does not require training to get your permit, that might be part of it as well.
 
You may actually read my other posts in this thread...
Those posts are not germane to my statements.

However, your legal argument is outright stupid as well.
Since my argument is true, any "stupidity" you find must be in the law; and I'm sure we'll find plenty of stupidity in the law.

If I am in fear of my life, I can defend myself with whatever I want, even with less-than-lethal or nonlethal weapons.
I never claimed otherwise. You wasted your time typing this.

The failure to use a lethal weapon or lethal force does negate lawful self-defense.
No, it doesn't. You're free to use a less than lethal weapon to counter lethal force against you.

By your argument, one could also argue that if I pull my firearm but don't shoot the attacker, I may be in legal trouble as well. Therefore I better shoot when I pull. This is also outright stupid.
It's stupid and it's also true. The prosecutor just needs to show that your actions were some shade less than perfect. You don't need to be guilty of unlawful use to be found guilty of a lesser crime and, at the very least, be found civilly liable. We live in a world where you could be convicted simply for using a single-action trigger. Your use of a firearm could in all ways be legal, but you can still be found guilty of a lesser crime simply for using the single-action function of a pistol or an SAO trigger. Yes, it's stupid, but my reporting it to you does not make my arguments stupid, it makes the law stupid.

If you draw a taser, you draw a less-than-lethal weapon. If you draw an firearm, you draw a lethal weapon even if it's loaded with less-than-lethal ammunition. A firearm is always a lethal weapon in the eyes of the law. Your choice of ammunition does not change a firearm's legal definition.

Even if the firearm is empty and you know it's unloaded, the firearm is still a deadly weapon in the eyes of the law, and you pointing an unloaded firearm at someone is still use of lethal force in the eyes of the law.
 
Those posts are not germane to my statements.


Since my argument is true, any "stupidity" you find must be in the law; and I'm sure we'll find plenty of stupidity in the law.


I never claimed otherwise. You wasted your time typing this.


No, it doesn't. You're free to use a less than lethal weapon to counter lethal force against you.


It's stupid and it's also true. The prosecutor just needs to show that your actions were some shade less than perfect. You don't need to be guilty of unlawful use to be found guilty of a lesser crime and, at the very least, be found civilly liable. We live in a world where you could be convicted simply for using a single-action trigger. Your use of a firearm could in all ways be legal, but you can still be found guilty of a lesser crime simply for using the single-action function of a pistol or an SAO trigger. Yes, it's stupid, but my reporting it to you does not make my arguments stupid, it makes the law stupid.

If you draw a taser, you draw a less-than-lethal weapon. If you draw an firearm, you draw a lethal weapon even if it's loaded with less-than-lethal ammunition. A firearm is always a lethal weapon in the eyes of the law. Your choice of ammunition does not change a firearm's legal definition.

Even if the firearm is empty and you know it's unloaded, the firearm is still a deadly weapon in the eyes of the law, and you pointing an unloaded firearm at someone is still use of lethal force in the eyes of the law.

BOFH is on my ignore list because he is overtly rude and verbose and argumentative. Be advised. It's not you -- it's he.

FYI.
 
Since my argument is true, any "stupidity" you find must be in the law; and I'm sure we'll find plenty of stupidity in the law.

Then you should have no problem backing up your statement made in post #10 with citations of the law and/or actual cases, right.

No, it doesn't. You're free to use a less than lethal weapon to counter lethal force against you.

Interestingly, my post #54 obviously contains a typo. I actually meant to say: "The failure to use a lethal weapon or lethal force doesn't negate lawful self-defense.", which is in line with the rest of my argument in that post. I amended the post to note the typo.

Your post #10 argues otherwise and now you are contradicting yourself.

It's stupid and it's also true. The prosecutor just needs to show that your actions were some shade less than perfect. You don't need to be guilty of unlawful use to be found guilty of a lesser crime and, at the very least, be found civilly liable. We live in a world where you could be convicted simply for using a single-action trigger. Your use of a firearm could in all ways be legal, but you can still be found guilty of a lesser crime simply for using the single-action function of a pistol or an SAO trigger. Yes, it's stupid, but my reporting it to you does not make my arguments stupid, it makes the law stupid.

Sorry, but that is pure "Stupid Internet Gun Stuff". If it is not, then you should have no problem to cite laws or cases to support your claim.

If you draw a taser, you draw a less-than-lethal weapon. If you draw an firearm, you draw a lethal weapon even if it's loaded with less-than-lethal ammunition. A firearm is always a lethal weapon in the eyes of the law. Your choice of ammunition does not change a firearm's legal definition.

Exactly! You are contradicting your own statement made in post #10, where you said: "your less-than-lethal ammunition proves you didn't feel your life was in danger thus your drawing a firearm is unlawful."

Even if the firearm is empty and you know it's unloaded, the firearm is still a deadly weapon in the eyes of the law, and you pointing an unloaded firearm at someone is still use of lethal force in the eyes of the law.

Exactly! You are contradicting your own statement made in post #10, where you said: "your less-than-lethal ammunition proves you didn't feel your life was in danger thus your drawing a firearm is unlawful."
 
BOFH is on my ignore list because he is overtly rude and verbose and argumentative. Be advised. It's not you -- it's he.

FYI.

Says the guy who posts outright made up stuff (repeatedly) about Justice Scalia's interpretation and Massad Ayoob's view of the 2nd Amendment.

The fact that I am on your ignore list just proves that you do not wish to argue about facts. You just plaster this forum with your opinion whether it is right or wrong and ignore anyone calling you out on your BS.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,521
Messages
610,658
Members
74,992
Latest member
RedDotArmsTraining
Back
Top