[xxpaulcpxx]

A guy on another board i frequent was looking for non lethal loads for his shotgun, but was basicly looking for something to stop a home invader without the worry of having to actually kill somebody. He wasn't up for delivering a death sentance for attempted robbery of a $50 VCR, to use an example.

So, since we've got a few creative types who are also weapon enthusiasts - what would you recommend?

My suggestion:
Full auto paintball gun, even better if you could get the pepper ball ammo. Just walk the rounds right up into the face, even a junkie will flinch away from that!

 

[Wasuri]

Also blank firing guns. Some people may be familiar with them but im sure that they can be sold to 18 year olds and they are specialized so it cant be modified in any way shape or form to make a real gun.

Id be running if i heard a gun going off in my direction.

 

[grouch]

It's a sticky question...
I too have moral issues with killing a person when a less lethal method would be effective.
Its not a law issue in Texas...pretty much if someone is in my house and I kill them, I'm in the clear. And if you shoot and cripple someone, there are cases where the thief is sueing the homeowner. So the logic is: make sure they're dead.

There are several non lethal shot gun options: rubber projectiles(both shot balls in a variety of diameters and full missile finned slugs), bean bag shells, fletchettes and pepper shells. Not to mention the classic rock salt option.
Check out:
http://www.deltaforce.com/catalog/12gaugeammo.html
http://www.deltaforce.com/catalog/lesslethalammo.html

 

[SETI20]

a loooooonnnnnggg time ago on the resource there was a similar discussion.
If I recall correctly it was mr.Kwicko's father and himself that had the following discussion;

dad: I have the first three loads of shotgun filled with rock salt
Kwicko: Why only the first three?
dad: If it takes 3 shots of rock salt I wanna shoot it dead!

 

[cbstd]

The best non-lethal home defense... is to make your home look like it is occupied. If buglars wanted to meet people, they would become muggers.

Invest in light bulbs, a lit up home is harder to break into. Darkness is the criminal's friend.

Oh, you wanted something you could point and shoot at a person without killing him? Forget it. Even a "non-lethal" projectile will kill if it hits the right spot with the right velocity. A baseball bat will discourage an unarmed criminal. An armed criminal will shoot you and take your gun with your "non-lethal" projectiles.

Occupied home invasion crimes are generaly committed against people who can not call the cops- drug dealers, illlegal immigrants, etc.

Now, on to the topic of "carry" guns and their load-
A citizen does not need to carry a gun. If you are in a situation where a weapon would save your life, you have made some seriously bad decisions about lifestyle and behavior.

But if you find yourself in the need of a handgun for personal defense, consider that a handgun (ANY handgun) can only buy you enough time to escape. Shock and Awe will stun your assailants long enough for you to RUN AWAY. Real life is not the OK Corral, do not stand your ground and duke it out to the bitter end. Make a loud impression of lethality and then beat feet outta there.

Second factor to consider- The record indicates that people who carry a gun are most likely to be shot by their own gun. The weapon most likey to harm a policeman is his own handgun.

Knowing that your carry gun is mostly to be used on you, it makes the most sense to load the first chamber with a blank round. In the unlikely event that you will need to draw and fire your weapon upon an assailant, the blank round will do the least amount of harm while making a really big noise. In a panic situation, even trained policemen are likely to miss with the first shot so using a blank first round will not lose any potential for you.

The second round should be a "shot" shell commonly sold for killiing snakes. By the second shot you will have gained enough compsure to get the weapon closer to target and if you have multiple assailants a shot shell will scatter enough projectiles to make an impact on at least more than one person. Again, this round is less than totally lethal if oused upon you.

Subsequent rounds will continue to increase in lethality- round nosed bullet, semi-wad cutter, hollow nosed bullet. Presumably, if you need to continue to fire your weapon you will need advancing stopping power.

Finally- If you are invited to a gun fight, take a rifle, then a shotgun and your last choice would be a handgun. Your ability to hit accurately beyond 50 feet with a handgun is almost nil.

Scott

 

[shadowcrx]

on jackass the movie the used beanbag rounds in a shotgun for riot dispersion situatuions i am pretty sure that that would stop a robber in his tracks

 

[poormansporsche]

rock Salt packed shotgun shells.. you would need to be on some serious meth to continue to attack after being shot by one of those.. Salt rounds are the only thing I keep near my shot gun.. the real stuff is under lock and key.

 

[BoostX]

Personally, I dislike guns. I do not hunt (although I LOVE Deer), I am a very practiced shot (go figure :lol: )
One of the best defense against those who burgalrize your home, a canine friend. My personal favorite is my pal. His name is Mojo (or just Mo) He is 110 lbs of snarling (when he chooses to be) Doberman. Nobody likes to bleed, not even crackheads intent on taking your stuff. A barking dog is a great deterent, now if said Cujo is rather BIG and MEAN LOOKING, that's always a plus.

 

[xxpaulcpxx]

Scott, interesting theory about the loads. My concern would be the ability of an automatic firearm to reliably cycle all those different rounds. I'd also be a little worried about some of the earlier rounds leaving residue behind the the bullets might encounter on their way out.

Funny thing about shot shells: At a country range, some knob had a single barrel .45 derringer, with a .410 shotgunn shell loaded. He let me fire it. I stood 3' from the target, squinted my eyes tight behind the shooting glasses, and fired. On a standard 1' round target, I think a single pellet hit the corner of the paper rectangel the round target was printed on. A bunch of pellets bounced off the backstop and peppered me in the face - not stong enough to piece skin, I just felt them. Would have temporarily disabled my vision if I got one bounced into my eye though. That shotgun shell was only usefull in hitting everything besides what it was pointed at!

One of the issues he was having in getting less lethal loads is that they don't sell to civies. A bunch of people were coming up with alternative loads, like superballs, silly putty, parafin wax... crazy stuff.

 

[grouch]

One of the issues he was having in getting less lethal loads is that they don't sell to civies. A bunch of people were coming up with alternative loads, like superballs, silly putty, parafin wax... crazy stuff.

The link I posted sells to civilians, except in a few areas where there are legal issues.

Of the non lethal rounds...I like the cayenne pepper and the "boomer" (enhanced blanks). And yes, I understand that non lethal is the intent, not the guarantee.

Of the lethal rounds...I'm torn between the armor piercing shells (penetrate the thickest car doors, commercial steel doors and most objects up to 1/4" steel plate) and the exploder rounds.

 

[cbstd]

...some knob had a single barrel .45 derringer, with a .410 shotgunn shell loaded. He let me fire it.

Now Paul, I like you. But I have to ask the following question: Who is the knob, the guy who handed you a weapon with an incorrect load in it? Or you for firing that mess?

Derringer. Right off the bat you are in trouble. They were a bad idea back in the Frontier Days and they still are. Putting a .410 shell into a derringer is not very smart. I bet the shell extended beyond the barrel.

Standing three feet from any target is a extra bad idea. Paul, what were you thinking?

A "snake charmer" shell meant for a pistol sends a reasonably grouped pattern at 15 feet.

As for feeding a variety of ammo through a semi auto pistol, you have a right to be concerned. That is why I prefer small frame revolvers for last ditch personal protection. A hammerless airweight Colt snubnose in .38 Special will fit into your front trouser pocket.... not that I would ever do such a thing.

If you need to shoot more than five shots rapidly, then you should not be using a pistol. A revolver will reliably allow you to make a lot of noise, discourage attackers and make your escape as well as a semi auto which can be tricky to operate, not 100% reliable and prone to accidental discharge if not handled correctly.

Scott

 

[shorte]

I agree with Mark completly, and I believe that sheepdog quote was partly responsible for me getting my concealed carry permit.
If something were to happen to either of my daughters or any family or friend with me and there was something I could have done to prevent it, I'd never be able to live with it.

 

[dohcrxl]

Mark, with careful consideration, there hasn't been more than a few things if that, I disagree with you about. I have no "love" for any man who intrudes forcibly into the home of another man. If you ask for my help after knocking on my door, I might be inclinded to do so. If you insist on unlawful entry with ill-intent (what other would there be) then I insist on 3" 12 gauge magnum slugs. I'm not thinking about your mama or you babies or your lost wages; I'm thinking about me and my family's safety via a legal way to take you out of the gene pool.

 

[cbstd]

Responsible, good intentioned citizens should own and carry firearms. I'd rather have them carry than the crack dealer, but since the crack dealer's already packing, it makes sense to at least even the odds.

Mark- Thanks to you and all the other sheepdogs serving America at home and abroad.

But I do not think it is wise to encourage random citizens arming themselves because the "bad guys" are lurking every where. Is it your point that us "good" folks packing heat will be a stop gap until you and the cavalary can come to the rescue?

A 45 year old single woman has a better chance of getting married to sensative millionaire who enjoys long walks on the beach than the average citizen will find himself in a "danger" situation that would require gun play.

I would think that as a law enforcement professional you would prefer that us "sheep" not get in the way of you "sheepdogs" who know what you are doing.

My point of entering this discussion thread is that as a gun owner who actively prctices my shooting skills I know that a weapon is the cause of more problems than solutions when it comes to home or personal protection in the hands of the "average" person.

It is far more productive to keep your home well lit and to avoid places where dangerous people are found, than to load up on 12 guage buckshot and Hypershock loads for your .45 ACP.

Scott

 

[grouch]

Sheep?
That has a mildly derogatory connotation.
Can't I at least be a ram?

 

[SETI20]

I haven't had an accident in years. Perhaps I should just cancle my insurance. What's the worst that can happen...?

 

[ryan_long_01]

Second, this whole "non/less-lethal" thing for home defense is absurd. Why would you want to only wound a criminal who has come into your home to do you harm? Remember, after you shoot him, he's going to sue you in civil court. He might not win, but it will cost you in court. And if he does win, you'll be paying for this guy's medical bills, "lost wages" pain and suffering, etc.

Why? Because there are people out there who would like to protect their family and belongings from intruders without having to KILL SOMEONE. I, for one, would have more than a little trouble sleeping at night if I shot some college guy who drunkenly wandered into my apartment thinking it was his (yes, it has happened to me...and yes, it was resolved peacefully). Moral, reasons, religious reasons, there are plenty of reasons why someone would want to avoid taking the life of another human being. I don't have a problem with someone owning a gun and using it when the time comes to protect their family, but it shouldn't come as a surprise that there are plenty of folks out there who would rather find a solution that didn't involve a body bag.

As for the lawsuit thing, I think those are pretty few and far between...and if it comes down to killing someone to avoid court costs...hmm...are you gonna kill the guy who you've already shot and stopped when he's lying wounded on your living room rug? If you don't, after all, he might sue

Ryan

 

[BoostX]

As for the lawsuit thing, I think those are pretty few and far between...and if it comes down to killing someone to avoid court costs...hmm...are you gonna kill the guy who you've already shot and stopped when he's lying wounded on your living room rug? If you don't, after all, he might sue

Ryan

Actually, there are WAY more civil suits going on than you could imagine for things like that.

 

[ryan_long_01]

Actually, there are WAY more civil suits going on than you could imagine for things like that.

There are also people in criminal court for shooting people in the process of protecting their property...and it seems to me the family of the crook could sue just as easily if you kill the guy, for wrongful death or whatever.

In any case, I just can't see the reasoning for using more lethal force being "avoid a lawsuit"...but that's just me.

 

[xxpaulcpxx]

Actually Scott, I'm a knob for an entirely different reason - I LIKE 1ST GENS :lol:

That pistol wasn't an actual derringer, just that basic layout. The barrel was .25" longer than the shotgun shell. But the premise is the same - I would worry about sending something short range... like a hundred tiny metal balls... that are likely to bounce right back and possibly blind me in the critical moments I need my sight.

Mark I agreed with alot of your repost material, except for the NG guys walking the airports with M16s. That really annoyed me. All it would have take for me to get that weapon and all his ammo is a friend and the decision to do it. Two on one with the element of surprise, especially if coordinated with others in the same airport, could have had devastating consequences. And really, what good is a full/burst auto rifle in a bystander heavy environment. I have ALOT more trust in the shoot/don't shoot skills of a SWAT, or even regular police than I do with combat soldiers. It's just not what they were ment to do. I don't think laying down a covering suppresion fire would be good tactics in a long hall filled with a thousand unarmored bodies with no place to hide.

I do agree on every civie being their own 1st line of defense. Every cop I've ever talked to agrees with you on that. Except for police cheifs and police unions, of course... they actually have different opinions based on alegence to the Democratic party.

I'd love to carry all the time. Unfortunatly, being spouse of clergy makes me target of random huggings. I guess I have to get a crotch carry rig.