Am I the only one here who hates the concept of "Less than lethal&

[GREYLUPO 358]

All I know is all those future less than lethal super weapons being made for the military are really for YOU and ME.

 

Do you really think Marines or the Army will be jumping out of helicopters overseas to fight with super sticky goop or seizure lights?

[t3mac21 1]

Look at the post above yours. That is (one of) the reasons they AREN'T used. Next up would be that anesthesia takes longer to go into effect than a Hot Lead Injection. Finally the subjectivity of any "chemical." Consider that not everyone reacts the same.

 

So no, I can't give you an example of a tranquilizer gun killing an intruder, but I can provide you with a metric shitton of examples of professional, certified anesthesiologists doing so in perfectly controlled situations.

 

 

Now I'm fairly knowledgeable about the subject, and I pointed out that some "less than lethal" weapons are actually more likely to kill your target than popping 'em with a handgun (Tranq guns are notorious for this.)

It's in your own post. You say some less than lethal weapons are more likely to kill and in the same sentance you use tranq guns as the example, stating that they're "notorious" for this.

 

 

maybe you should have used a better example than "tranq gun" or maybe you shouldn't have made up that they're "notorious for accidently killing intruders"

Edited June 20, 2011 by t3mac21

[Cryogaijin 33]

And maybe you need to get your head out of your ass and read what I actually wrote rather than claiming words I did not actually type. "Targets" and "Intruders" are different. The area where tranq guns are used (mostly by naturalists) they rightfully have a bad reputation for EXACTLY THE REASONS LISTED. WHICH IS WHY THEY ARE NOT USED ON HUMANS.

 

maybe you should have used a better example than "tranq gun"

That was my coworker's idea of an ideal home defense weapon, not mine.

 

or maybe you shouldn't have made up that they're "notorious for accidently killing intruders"

I made up nothing. Again, get your head out of your ass. I never said they were used in self-defense situations, merely that they tended to kill their targets often. They're finicky even in areas where the target's weight can be reasonably guessed, are not quick, and do not act the same on every target. Are you a vetrinarian that has experience using them? Game warden? Anesthesiologist? Do you in fact have ANYTHING to refute that using a tranquilizer gun as a defensive arm is a bad idea? No? Well, your hat is getting your hair brown and stinky.

[t3mac21 1]

Now I'm fairly knowledgeable about the subject, and I pointed out that some "less than lethal" weapons are actually more likely to kill your target than popping 'em with a handgun (Tranq guns are notorious for this.) I further explain that in a defensive situation where a civil suit crops up against the defensive shooter, they are generally in for MUCH larger liability if the person survives than if they are killed in the commission of their crime.

 

 

So now you were talking about animals? Then why do you end this paragraph by explaining the legal ramifications of using less than lethal weapons on people?

 

 

Why would the reader assume that for 1 sentance, you're refering to animals when the the whole subject of your post is less than lethal means of home defense, and how you don't care for them?

 

 

Also, the only less than lethal weapon you even mentioned in your thread about less than lethal weapons was the "tranq gun", why would I assume that you suddenly changed the topic to animals for that 1 sentance?

 

 

 

You started back-peddling so fast I'm surprised you didn't fly over the handle-bars.

 

 

 

 

Also, ad hominem arguments and name calling don't make your points any clearer.

[t3mac21 1]

And just to be clear, I agree with you OP. Less than lethal is stupid, unless you're a LEO doing crowd control or something. If someone breaks into your home, IMO, they're there to do harm. You can't be sure what they're capable of, and I wouldn't risk my family by shooting some criminal with rubber balls or anything like that. Break into my home and you're getting 00 buck from my 870.

[Cryogaijin 33]

You started back-peddling so fast I'm surprised you didn't fly over the handle-bars.

No backpedaling. It is a response to you completely missing the point, which you still are. Tranq darts, as seen in numerous naturalist shows, were brought up BY MY COWORKER as the ideal self defense weapon.

 

They aren't. They take too long to go into effect, there are large percentages of people with allergies/adverse reactions to whatever aneshtesia is in them, large percentages of people with tolerances toward them, plus the issue with dosing.

 

Any dose that is likely to bring ANY intruder down quick enough to be useful, is likely to be over the LD50 for most of the population. I don't understand why you are even arguing about this, other than an attempt to make you look clever.

[magsite20 1,664]

[Scott Kenny 144]

My 'less-lethal' weapon is the sound of Mr. Mossberg (well, Mr. CZ) clearing his throat (shortly before he blows a hole through the intruder), although a bright-ass Surefire flashlight has it's uses, too (like making the intruder unable to see to shoot back!).

 

Less-lethal force is for trained professionals, not Joe six-pack.

 

Note that I said 'less-lethal', not NONlethal or less-than-lethal. You can still kill someone with a beanbag or a wooden baton round out of a shotgun, but it's a freak accident, not an intentional act. Again, something for the law enforcement professionals to have in their toolbox for apprehending suspects of dispersing riots, not for Joe six-pack to defend his home.

 

*I* am not trained in less-lethal force other than warning shots, and before they authorized warning shots I told the Weapons Officer that anyone I shot at would end up getting a warning shot as I walked a burst of 7.62NATO into their boat.

[BronCobraJet 80]

How does that saying go? "Kill 'Em all let God sort them out" You are going to be in jail anyway, don't want them coming for you when you get out. Seriously, why would you want to wound someone that wants to do you harm? "I was in fear for my life" STOP. I like my dogs. I don't like people (strangers) as much. People hurt you. dogs don't.

[zenman223 460]

People seemed to miss my point, I didnt say anything about home defense. I will shoot to kill without hesitation if Im defending my home or if im in public and in fear for my life. BUT I stand by my statement that I plan on adding a taser to my vehicle as a FORCE MULTIPLIER for the occasion I may need to defend myself against an aggressor but it does not rise to the threat level that requires DEADLY force.

 

Not every situation is cut and dry, kill em and say you feared for your life.

 

I dont see how you guys dont think a tazer CAN BE a beneficial tool to defend yourself in a NON life threatening situation. Sure I can fight and even enjoy it to some extent but maybe I dont feel like fighting one day some asshole starts threatening me or takes a swing at me, ZAP his ass and be done with it?? is this really that bad of an idea??

[RobRez 1,895]

People seemed to miss my point, I didnt say anything about home defense. I will shoot to kill without hesitation if Im defending my home or if im in public and in fear for my life. BUT I stand by my statement that I plan on adding a taser to my vehicle as a FORCE MULTIPLIER for the occasion I may need to defend myself against an aggressor but it does not rise to the threat level that requires DEADLY force.

 

Not every situation is cut and dry, kill em and say you feared for your life.

 

I dont see how you guys dont think a tazer CAN BE a beneficial tool to defend yourself in a NON life threatening situation. Sure I can fight and even enjoy it to some extent but maybe I dont feel like fighting one day some asshole starts threatening me or takes a swing at me, ZAP his ass and be done with it?? is this really that bad of an idea??

 

Sounds great, I just wonder about the legality of it. If it is legal to use then why not. Using it as more of a "Knuckle-Saver" is a good idea as long as the police don't throw you in the Klink!

[zenman223 460]

True but I probably wouldnt hang around for the police to show up. Also ive noticed that if you Fight somebody rather than determine who started what they just take BOTH people to jail.

Its legal for the police to taze me for just about anything, why cant I taze somebody?? Dont know the legality but I'll damn sure zap somebody if I feel the need. What other options do you have really?? In a situation you CANT shoot, and you cant walk away from??

[RobRez 1,895]

True, if you picked up a stick to defend yourself they would probably call it a "Assault with a Deadly weapon".

[Deaden 30]

This thread has convinced me (rather quickly) to stay away from LTLs. I was planning on buying a pump shotgun and using them in the case of a burglary to gain the upper hand in the law. Guess it wouldn't have, really.

 

I am curious, though. What if a burglar is shot and is unarmed? Would using this argument: "I wasn't sure if he was, and I wasn't going to take any chances," work in most cases?

[GREYLUPO 358]

BETTER TO BE JUDGED BY 12 THAN CARRIED BY 6!!

 

 

[DogMan 2,343]

I am curious, though. What if a burglar is shot and is unarmed? Would using this argument: "I wasn't sure if he was, and I wasn't going to take any chances," work in most cases?

 

Regardless of whether he was armed or not, you "feared for your life". Those are the key words and that is ALL you say until you talk to your lawyer.

Edited June 22, 2011 by DogMan

[storm6490 2,768]

in montana, you shoot them dead. armed or not. they can't argue with you when properly dead. no weapon needed on the robber. they were intruding and have the natural capacity to harm you and your family. drop them like a bag of bricks. you will not spend any time in jail but will be questioned for the report. " i feared for my life and the security of my family and lawfully defended myself." clean and simple.

 

back to the OP, i wouldn't waste my time on your co-workers. my assumption, which may be wrong, is that they are a bunch of bleeding heart liberals who would probably do more harm with a weapon than good. let natural selection take place.

[fauxknight 30]

True, if you picked up a stick to defend yourself they would probably call it a "Assault with a Deadly weapon".

 

Its a bit of a subjective call, but lawyers around here like to keep the easy line between non-lethal and lethal force as bare fists vs eveything else. So, if you can't defend yourself with your bare hands, you might as well pull out a shotgun, though I imagine in some cases using less lethal might get you some of leeway. Generally though beating back and attacker with a stick is the same as kneecapping him with a 50bmg, in both cases pleading self defense is admitting to assault with a deadly weapon, and now you have to prove that you don't deserve a sentence under the states self defense or castle doctrine laws.

[kevin.rose0@gmail.com 62]

True but I probably wouldnt hang around for the police to show up. Also ive noticed that if you Fight somebody rather than determine who started what they just take BOTH people to jail.

Its legal for the police to taze me for just about anything, why cant I taze somebody?? Dont know the legality but I'll damn sure zap somebody if I feel the need. What other options do you have really?? In a situation you CANT shoot, and you cant walk away from??

Winner gets a ride in a squad car, loser gets a ride in an ambulance. That's because the winner is typically the guy who punched the loser while the loser was still jacking their jaw.

 

Taser isn't the lowest level of force, it's a ways up the continuum, about 2 steps below shooting you.

[Koliadko 207]

Replying as a woman here. I think there are uses for less than lethal. I know the distance I am comfortable with being from a perp from me with a loaded firearm. If they are close, and I have pepper spray, I think my chances of survival are better. Now...if the shit is far enough away, no way he will get close enough to do me harm w/o a body bag being involved....

[DogMan 2,343]

[zenman223 460]

Hope it was an honest accident

[yooper14.5 84]

Oops, I'm sorry mr. robber, I think I gave you a 250 pound dose, and you look like you weigh 135 pounds...........

 

That's how a tranquilizer gun could kill a burglar.

[kevin.rose0@gmail.com 62]

Replying as a woman here. I think there are uses for less than lethal. I know the distance I am comfortable with being from a perp from me with a loaded firearm. If they are close, and I have pepper spray, I think my chances of survival are better. Now...if the shit is far enough away, no way he will get close enough to do me harm w/o a body bag being involved....

Unless you have it your hand that seems like a strange choice. My sister used to walk around parking lots with a key fob that was a can of OC, so people can do do this. If that's you that's good. If you have time to pull out a can of OC, you have time to draw a gun if you have one.

 

One of the training exercises that the local cops go through in the academy is to get sprayed with OC and then fight for a minute. So OC isn't going to shut down motivated people. Its certainly better than nothing, but don't trust it. Be prepared to end up in hand-to-hand with anyone close enough to spray. And that person is likely to be really angry at you. Very few women do well in a wrestling match with an OC covered angry thug unless they have some formal training, and even then it's not a good situation. I really don't want to end up in that situation.

[theorangeplanet 968]

If you're uncomfortable carrying a gun, or don't think you could pull the trigger on someone... by all means something like OC/pepper spray or stun gun/taser will increase your chances of survival versus slinging fists and feet dramatically. BUT... if you are someone that has firearms and plan to use them in defense... and are thinking that less lethal devices will be just another 'play in the book'??? Well, seems like to me you might be unsure of pulling that trigger and should rethink your attitude.

 

To me, lethal force applications aren't hard to figure out.... there's a big red line one has to jump across to meet it and when they do, you shoot to kill and stop (only) when the threat no longer exists. If you're worried about making mistakes, then practice more. If you're worried about regrets, then mentally prepare. If you can't do either, then just put the guns away.

[sickness 89]

LTL has a place.

 

Primarily, it is important for police to have options for escalation of force against non-compliant offenders, crowd/riot control, etc.

 

For ordinary citizens - LTL is not very useful. For starters, there is the litigation aspect as others have mentioned. Additionally, there is the other side that if a person breaks into your home, and you hit him with a beanbag or rubber buckshot - maybe they turn and run away. Now... from that point, that offender will either decide to find a new career or, and this is more likely given how criminals think.. they will make sure they are well ARMED the next time they break into a home.

 

Just put them down like you would a rabid dog and be done with it.

 

That said.. for citizens LTL ammo does have a place. OC rounds make decent bear protection (better than lead, actually - bears have sensitive noses. They HATE OC. Lead can just end up pissing them off).

[MT Predator 2,294]

Like I told one female after she doubted being capable of shooting someone with a firearm, instead wanted a taser. "You are just giving a would be attacker a means of incapacitating you. Might as well wear crotchless panties for him too". As far as OC on a bear, I know a couple of instances personally where it worked. One instance where it didn't and the bear was killed by two shooters in the aftermath. Even in LEO applications, sometimes LTL is effective, sometimes not so effective.

[BuffetDestroyer 969]

Regarding home defense, your typical robbers are going to be tweakers or gang bangers. Psychopath rapists and serial killers are not the majority. Typically, professional robbers will be unarmed as the charges are much greater if they have weapons on them when apprehended.

 

If they are gang bangers, you run the risk of retaliation from the rest of the gang if you kill their little brother that was on his initiation test.

 

I think having pepper spray or a taser and handcuffs are definitely an option for home defense if you know how to properly use them and have a firearm as backup.

 

I personally have both lethal and less lethal means to defend my property and family because I don't know that I ever want to have killing some punk 15 year old (seeking street cred from his brothers) on my conscience. Until I can determine the level of force I need, I don't want to limit my options to only "threaten" or "kill". Pepper spray or a taser will make a robber attempting to flee become at minimum disoriented and easier to subdue so the police can take care of it instead of me spending the next 3 years in court trying to prove I was in fear of my life.

[SOPMOD 254]

I've been using "Less Than Lethal" for years, it's called a Tire Thumper.I like the idea of not having to kill someone if I can handle their mitigated threat but having watched the IDF use tear gas and rubber bullets only to have their quarry escalate with molotovs and AKs I gotta wonder who comes up with these theories. The only "Less Than Lethal" projectile weapon that I thought was 100% was the 40mm Bean Bag out of the M203 grenade Launcher.That would be illegal under our Police State legal system so you might as well take the preservation of your own life seriously and get a CCW and pistol and do what you have to do.

[Arik 565]

I am curious, though. What if a burglar is shot and is unarmed? Would using this argument: "I wasn't sure if he was, and I wasn't going to take any chances," work in most cases?

 

Here is what happened in suburban Philly around 2000. Home owner (former Vietnam green berret) wakes up in middle of the night to the sound of his door being kicked in. Grabs his gun and goes to confront the intruder. Sees the intruder (who is naked) and instantly puts 3 in his chest. As the intruder stumbled outside the home owner puts 3 more in his back killing the intruder.

 

When police arrived he tells them that he was afraid for his wifes and his life and he did what he was trained to do. "Stop the enemy "

 

Turns out it was his neighbors drunk kid who was so loaded he mistakes the houses. Being naked and having no keys he kicked what he thought was his door. Of course this is all speculative since dead man can't tell their side of the story. But by all accounts he was never violent, no criminal record, no keys on him....

 

The home owner faced 10 years in prison for excessive force.