Replies

This thread is just sooooo very wrong.

THE ONLY time a firearm should be used against another human being is if “deadly force” is justified!

Bringing a firearm into a confrontation of any kind is either an acknowledgment of a deadly force situation or an escalation of a situation into a deadly force encounter. It does not matter what ammunition is contained in the firearm!

One has to understand if deadly force is justified or not, based on the local laws. Any use of a deadly force, when it is not justified is a sever crime. Anyone who has a firearm that they intend to use for self defense needs to understand the above based on the laws of where they live and intend to protect themselves with a firearm.

If deadly force is required, one wants appropriately chosen ammunition that will KILL! Anything else is just plane stupid. In simple language if you are in a life an death situation, then you “shoot to live.” You kill the other person because you had not choice or alternative action to avoid such a situation except to die or be badly injured.

If deadly force is not required, then a firearm in not needed and should not be displayed in any kind of a threatening manner. (If a fire arm is displayed in a non deadly force situation in some places that may called brandishing a weapon and may (or may not) be a crime. ) Even in open carry states, one needs to be careful to stay legal. Many police that oppose open carry have tried to use the brandishing/intimidation argument to prevent open carry with a variety of success.

Therefore, in the logic of our legal system, loading any type of special ammunition such as rock salt, black-eyed peas, rice, or rubber bullets is only likely to get one arrested for using deadly force, when it is OBVIOUSLY not warranted. Consider this a potential catch-22, unless you have a sympathetic investigating police officer or DA.

Rather than trying to figure out “less lethal loads”, people would be better served to learn the specific firearm laws of their jurisdiction.

Shooting for the purpose of revenge is also not usually justified by the courts. Shooting for the purpose of preserving life or preventing grave bodily indjury is often (but not always) justified by juries.