"Less lethal" 12G ammunition.
- Thread starter Doubletap
- Start date
Aim to please shoot to kill. Better to be judged by 12 than carreid by 6. For fun one day I loaded microwaveble popcorn n let one go at a target board. No marks to be found it popped the corn in the barrel.
Those are gorgeous dogs doubletap. I have a bassethound completely useless for protection but he keeps the leather couch warm. I'd love a cane corso or south african keepsafe borboel
Those are gorgeous dogs doubletap. I have a bassethound completely useless for protection but he keeps the leather couch warm. I'd love a cane corso or south african keepsafe borboel
"...in no way do I want it to continue in court..." If you shoot somebody, with any ammo, under any circumstances, you won't get a choice. You'll be arrested, charged, have all your firearms seized and your PAL revoked. You might get it all back upon being acquited, but you might get a prohibition too. In any case, it'll continue in court and cost you in 5 figures.
Fine looking 4-legged eating machines. Those two related? Just curious.
Fine looking 4-legged eating machines. Those two related? Just curious.
Back in South Africa on my step father’s farm one of the farm labourers was having ### with the chickens (I’m not kidding, this is a true story.) He opened up his 12g shells and replaced the shot with rock salt. He then laid in wait one night and when the offender showed up and grabbed one of the chickens he shot him in the buttocks. Problem solved.
Here in Canada though you will be charged. I have some rubber rounds as I have bears on my property and if they get too close I could in theory deter them from the safety of my deck without seriously injuring them. In reality though I would be charged with discharging a weapon so the ammo is mostly just for its novelty value.
Rubber rounds are used allot in SA for crowd control. Mostly they just leave a big bruise but they have been known to kill if someone is hit in a vulnerable place such as the throat. They can also blind someone if hit in the eye so be aware of the risks if using this type of ammunition and don’t assume it’s harmless.
What I would like to see is the Castle Doctrine applied in Canada. That way if you have an intruder on your property you could scare the crap out of them by shooting them with less lethal rounds without killing them and also have the law on your side.
Here in Canada though you will be charged. I have some rubber rounds as I have bears on my property and if they get too close I could in theory deter them from the safety of my deck without seriously injuring them. In reality though I would be charged with discharging a weapon so the ammo is mostly just for its novelty value.
Rubber rounds are used allot in SA for crowd control. Mostly they just leave a big bruise but they have been known to kill if someone is hit in a vulnerable place such as the throat. They can also blind someone if hit in the eye so be aware of the risks if using this type of ammunition and don’t assume it’s harmless.
What I would like to see is the Castle Doctrine applied in Canada. That way if you have an intruder on your property you could scare the crap out of them by shooting them with less lethal rounds without killing them and also have the law on your side.
### with chickens?? ### with CHICKENS?????
What's the matter, no sheep on the farm
???That said, if you have to use a shotgun (or any firearm) in self defence-and really WTF are "less lethal" rounds good for anyway?- you should be shooting to stop the threat-otherwise known as killing your target.
Why? A firearm is the last resort. Your life, or your family's life, is in danger. You have two choices-the options are you, or someone in your family, gets "greviously injured" or is in fear of "grevious bodily harm" - or the attacker is lying on the ground bleeding to death from shotgun wounds.
I know damned well which option I will choose. Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
### with chickens?? ### with CHICKENS?????
Which would account for the high incidence of shotgun weddings and henpecked husbands in South Africa. Many a cute chick has, however, grown into a fat hen who may loose their heads and wind up running around on you.
You wouldn't want this ammo for the same reason that you don't aim for a person's leg or arm when you are shooting them, "to just hurt them".
When I worked at an armored car company we received some ongoing training over the years I was there, and you shoot when:
You are in fear of death, or grievous bodily harm for you, or anyone else,
You shoot to STOP the threat.
If you shoot them in the arm or leg or whatever, then you may hurt them, but if they are still mobile, then the potential is there for them to still harm you. Legally speaking, you are never shooting to "kill" someone, rather to "stop" the threat... Coincidently, the chances of someone dieing form being shot is there.
A dead armed intruder can not testify against you, or sue you. (again, you are not shooting to "kill" just to "stop" them)... Just saying.
We practiced 3 shots at work each time we fired. 2 shots to the body, followed by one to the head. (We never used "less lethal" ammo).
If you are worried about killing someone who wants to rape your wife or hurt your sleeping children, then you should have stayed single.
When I worked at an armored car company we received some ongoing training over the years I was there, and you shoot when:
You are in fear of death, or grievous bodily harm for you, or anyone else,
You shoot to STOP the threat.
If you shoot them in the arm or leg or whatever, then you may hurt them, but if they are still mobile, then the potential is there for them to still harm you. Legally speaking, you are never shooting to "kill" someone, rather to "stop" the threat... Coincidently, the chances of someone dieing form being shot is there.
A dead armed intruder can not testify against you, or sue you. (again, you are not shooting to "kill" just to "stop" them)... Just saying.
We practiced 3 shots at work each time we fired. 2 shots to the body, followed by one to the head. (We never used "less lethal" ammo).
If you are worried about killing someone who wants to rape your wife or hurt your sleeping children, then you should have stayed single.
Thank you for the information and for the opinions - ha ha!
Its funny, when I think about it - when I was 20, I would quote T-shirt slogans like "Its better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" and think it was how the world works.
I'm in my early 40's now - and have a much larger pool of experience to draw from - and realize that things just aren't that simple.
It may be different in larger cities - but in the town I live in, one is far more apt to wake up and find a down on their luck and desperate drug addict in their house at o-dark-thirty trying to haul the flat screen out the door - than they are Ted Bundy.
I don't know what drug addicts are like in the towns some of you live in - but around here they are mostly skinny, covered in pick-sores, and far more likely to cry than to rage.
There has not been one incidence of a home owner being raped or murdered by a home invader or late-night robber in this town in the 10 years I've lived here. Not one.
I find someone in my house in the wee hours and odds are my life is not in danger - and I am not of the opinion that robbery should be a crime punishable by death.
I believe in being prepared - but before I slip that double-ought buck into the chamber - every non-lethal avenue will be explored first.
Whether its the sight and sound of a shotgun which runs them right back out their access point, or the baseball bat hammer of a beanbag which puts the run on them doesn't matter to me - as long as there isn't a corpse on my floor at the end of it all.
And if you think the law doesn't differentiate between killing a man in your house and using a firearm to successfully resolve the situation without blood shed - then you are seriously paranoid about "the man".
Take off the tinfoil because those myths could get you in very serious trouble.
I've read a lot of talk in this thread about killing.
I make a living saving lives - and am asked to put my life in danger to affect rescues on occasion, in the course of a year.
I know the unbelievable sense of accomplishment that comes when a tough save is made - and I know the sadness that follows watching someone die literally in my arms.
So perhaps my perspective of life and death is a little different (and a little more real) than many of yours - but my advice to you who advocate killing as the only smart option in a "home defense" scenario is to hold up a moment if you ever find yourself facing that scenario.
I guarantee the aftermath won't be like the killing you do on the X-Box in your parents basement. The blood and smells will be very real - and you will live with those images (to say nothing of your decisions) for the rest of your life.
And the law will come down hard if you have made even the slightest mistake (and perhaps even if you haven't made one) - and you will need your tin foil helmet long after you are released for good behavior.
Please hold the cold-blooded T-shirt rhetoric - I can smell the bulls**t many tell themselves in an attempt to hearten themselves in the dark of the night from many miles off.
It quit frankly reeks of angsty teenager.
Very good eye - half brother and sister (same sire).
Ha ha - the one on the right is 118lbs and getting a little owly as he grows longer in the tooth! The lady on the left just hit 60 lbs, can outrun most Grayhounds and can clear a 6' fence at full speed.
Seriously - the chances of ever having to wield a firearm inside my house is incredibly slim. These dogs are completely pack oriented, loyal to the extreme, incredibly fast and athletic, brave to the point of foolishness (bred for lion-hunting), and capable of putting a really serious hurt on a person or persons they felt were a threat to their pack.
I would recommend the breed without hesitation for anybody looking for a family oriented (great with kids) companion. But be prepared for daily 10km hikes, and a dog that thinks it will still fit in your lap when they tip the scales at better than 100 pounds!
Its funny, when I think about it - when I was 20, I would quote T-shirt slogans like "Its better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" and think it was how the world works.
I'm in my early 40's now - and have a much larger pool of experience to draw from - and realize that things just aren't that simple.
It may be different in larger cities - but in the town I live in, one is far more apt to wake up and find a down on their luck and desperate drug addict in their house at o-dark-thirty trying to haul the flat screen out the door - than they are Ted Bundy.
I don't know what drug addicts are like in the towns some of you live in - but around here they are mostly skinny, covered in pick-sores, and far more likely to cry than to rage.
There has not been one incidence of a home owner being raped or murdered by a home invader or late-night robber in this town in the 10 years I've lived here. Not one.
I find someone in my house in the wee hours and odds are my life is not in danger - and I am not of the opinion that robbery should be a crime punishable by death.
I believe in being prepared - but before I slip that double-ought buck into the chamber - every non-lethal avenue will be explored first.
Whether its the sight and sound of a shotgun which runs them right back out their access point, or the baseball bat hammer of a beanbag which puts the run on them doesn't matter to me - as long as there isn't a corpse on my floor at the end of it all.
And if you think the law doesn't differentiate between killing a man in your house and using a firearm to successfully resolve the situation without blood shed - then you are seriously paranoid about "the man".
Take off the tinfoil because those myths could get you in very serious trouble.
I've read a lot of talk in this thread about killing.
I make a living saving lives - and am asked to put my life in danger to affect rescues on occasion, in the course of a year.
I know the unbelievable sense of accomplishment that comes when a tough save is made - and I know the sadness that follows watching someone die literally in my arms.
So perhaps my perspective of life and death is a little different (and a little more real) than many of yours - but my advice to you who advocate killing as the only smart option in a "home defense" scenario is to hold up a moment if you ever find yourself facing that scenario.
I guarantee the aftermath won't be like the killing you do on the X-Box in your parents basement. The blood and smells will be very real - and you will live with those images (to say nothing of your decisions) for the rest of your life.
And the law will come down hard if you have made even the slightest mistake (and perhaps even if you haven't made one) - and you will need your tin foil helmet long after you are released for good behavior.
Please hold the cold-blooded T-shirt rhetoric - I can smell the bulls**t many tell themselves in an attempt to hearten themselves in the dark of the night from many miles off.
It quit frankly reeks of angsty teenager.
Very good eye - half brother and sister (same sire).
Ha ha - the one on the right is 118lbs and getting a little owly as he grows longer in the tooth! The lady on the left just hit 60 lbs, can outrun most Grayhounds and can clear a 6' fence at full speed.
Seriously - the chances of ever having to wield a firearm inside my house is incredibly slim. These dogs are completely pack oriented, loyal to the extreme, incredibly fast and athletic, brave to the point of foolishness (bred for lion-hunting), and capable of putting a really serious hurt on a person or persons they felt were a threat to their pack.
I would recommend the breed without hesitation for anybody looking for a family oriented (great with kids) companion. But be prepared for daily 10km hikes, and a dog that thinks it will still fit in your lap when they tip the scales at better than 100 pounds!
frenchyguy
CGN Regular
- Location
- New Brunswick
added to my sig line hahahah. precious!
Farmers have shot ppl on their lands with rock salt before. 0 I got hit with it in the legs, ass and lower back when I was about 12 or 13; Long story short, just a bunch of stupid kids out having fun where we shouldn't have been and 3 of us ended up getting salted. Hurt like a B****!!!
Obviously every avenue should be explored before lethal force. Even while I was working as a guard with a million bucks in my bag I had drunk guys telling me they were going to kill me, or a sleeping vagrant that we just woke up at 3am with a 6 inch blade he keeps in his sleeping bag. We were robbed once with 3 men with rifles and we just locked the door and went back into the bank and called the cops... the robbers took off quickly after they revealed themselves and facing a now locked door. We never shot anyone as we let them escape.
Some fellow employees faced nothing, others had actually been shot at or shot in incidents (agreeably the minority). But all of us were trained for the "just in case", and the law was on our side (as well as company lawyers) should this tragedy occur.
What does that have to do with home defense you may ask?
The argument for home defense is the same for me as an armed guard or any potential threat where the would be attack is from a person (as opposed to animal), that if the law allowed people to defend their family in their home from a would be attacker who entered your home with a weapon, would support our basic right to defend ourselves, and just as importantly would act as a deterrent. Everyone will not shoot people just because they can, but if armored car services operated without guns, there would be more attacks period.
If criminals knew that people had the right to confront an armed intruder with a weapon (be it scare them off, salt, bean bags, or shoot them with ammo), I believe even petty thefts would become less frequent. Thieves wouldn't take the chance.
Another point here is that while maybe things are good in this country now (which I agree, largely they are over all), but what would it be like in 50 years? If we don't fight for laws for home defense now, we shouldn't expect to get them in the future with any expedience should we need them.
We don't want our house to burn down either, but I have fire insurance. Would be too late to get it if I asked for it when my house was already on fire.
Some fellow employees faced nothing, others had actually been shot at or shot in incidents (agreeably the minority). But all of us were trained for the "just in case", and the law was on our side (as well as company lawyers) should this tragedy occur.
What does that have to do with home defense you may ask?
The argument for home defense is the same for me as an armed guard or any potential threat where the would be attack is from a person (as opposed to animal), that if the law allowed people to defend their family in their home from a would be attacker who entered your home with a weapon, would support our basic right to defend ourselves, and just as importantly would act as a deterrent. Everyone will not shoot people just because they can, but if armored car services operated without guns, there would be more attacks period.
If criminals knew that people had the right to confront an armed intruder with a weapon (be it scare them off, salt, bean bags, or shoot them with ammo), I believe even petty thefts would become less frequent. Thieves wouldn't take the chance.
Another point here is that while maybe things are good in this country now (which I agree, largely they are over all), but what would it be like in 50 years? If we don't fight for laws for home defense now, we shouldn't expect to get them in the future with any expedience should we need them.
We don't want our house to burn down either, but I have fire insurance. Would be too late to get it if I asked for it when my house was already on fire.
My nieghbours on both sides, infront and behind our house all have rug rats, I think that Less Leathal ammo might be the way to go in order to keep stray ammunition from going thru my house and into the next. Not only would I not like being put into the situation of confronting and shooting at an intruder, I dont like the idea of my actions wrecking the nieghbours life. Has anyone seen any Less Lethal for a 20 gauge?
TacticallySharp
Member
- Location
- Victoria, BC.
I see a lot of you not wanting to talk about home defense because of the laws, the law states that you are allowed to use equal force if your intent is not to kill but to only do what's necessary to defend yourself. Even if you had to stand in front of a jury because you shot a man who entered your house with a knife or a gun, if you tell them you were using a Less Lethal round that is specificly made to not kill but to defend, you will look way better than using birdshot, buckshot and slugs!.
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
As has been stated previously, less lethal ammunition is not non-lethal. Consider the following pic. This bear was shot at close range with a rubber bullet, and its fair to say that would have been a lethal wound on a human target had the center of the chest or the head been targeted.
I disagree.
Having the less lethal round would show premeditation to the act. Mens rea and actus reus are both there. If your intent was not to harm the intruder, then why did you shoot him?
The questions that will be raised after such an event are going to focus on where the firearm was prior to the intrusion, how the home owner got to it and loaded it prior to discharging it. And these less lethal rounds were set aside just for this purpose? isnt that interesting.....
