One or the other. I would not mix the two. Also, I see no need for non-lethal ammo for home defense.
My thought too. If someone is inside your home they have lost the right of a warning/less than lethal shot.
One or the other. I would not mix the two. Also, I see no need for non-lethal ammo for home defense.
But in the off chance they are actually there to share their cookies...I bet you would want a bean bag round?
I don't. I don't want to do anyone any harm but that changes when me or my family are put in danger of death or great bodily harm.
I'm not an expert by any means.
Here is my question/scenario. If someone has broken into your home with a firearm and they get the first shot(s) off and you are hit first. What good will that less than lethal round do for you?
The good guy never get's to pick the fight. When and if someone breaks into your home. You should plan on that occuring at the most inconvenient time of your life...because criminals don't want to make it easy on.
If you can't justify lethal force than you will not be able to justify less than lethal either.
I'm not willing to shoot anyone, with anything unless they have earned it by threatening lethal or grave bodily harm. If that happens (and i hope it never does) I won't be playing games... I will bring as much force and violence as it takes to stop the threat.
if someone breaks into your home you have to think about afterward. less than lethal leaves your attacker alive and able to come back maybe armed himself next time. also it is sorry to have to say, but if you leave your attacker alive you open yourself up to a lawsuit. and yes there have been several instances in the last 20 years were an attacker has come back on the victim and sued them successfully in civil court
Depends on who they are and what they want. The problem is you don't get to choose either one of those.
One of the arguments we see made in the threads against gun free zones is the notion that most active shooters stop being a threat and often kill themselves when confronted with any resistance resulting in injury. The argument is that anyone could be the one to end the threat, no training minimums should be required, because even a marginal hit may end the encounter. Here the argument is being made that anything other than a lethal hit will result in your death. Both arguments are true in some scenarios and false in others.
If you think leaving the attacker alive solves either of those issues, you're not thinking it through. Estates sue, too, and just as successfully. Thugs have friends who can seek retribution.