TexasCHLforum.com

While perusing the latest CheaperThanDirt catalog, I noticed that they now have a couple of brands of "less lethal" ammunition marketed for home defense. I think this is a horrible idea. It's called "less lethal" because it can still be lethal. As such, it seems like using it is still using deadly force. And if you are justified and need to use deadly force, do you really want to use something that might let the bad guy get up and fight back? Plus, if you have it and don't use it, I can just see some prosecutor and the media finding out and making a big deal of how even though you had non-lethal ammo available, you chose to use ammo that was designed to kill.

brainman wrote:While perusing the latest CheaperThanDirt catalog, I noticed that they now have a couple of brands of "less lethal" ammunition marketed for home defense. I think this is a horrible idea. It's called "less lethal" because it can still be lethal. As such, it seems like using it is still using deadly force. And if you are justified and need to use deadly force, do you really want to use something that might let the bad guy get up and fight back? Plus, if you have it and don't use it, I can just see some prosecutor and the media finding out and making a big deal of how even though you had non-lethal ammo available, you chose to use ammo that was designed to kill.

i saw that too, bad idea

IMHO, it's one of those wacko ideas like have an alligator moat and dogs with metal teeth and a sign and say it was less lethal ... assuming they were really fast swimmers and runners


for home defense I want something that will stop the threat, or else I'd use a .25.acp or BB gun and itching powder to irritate the bad guy enough so he'd go away ... and that might irritate him enough to eat my face sooo ... I want something that will stop the threat, sure, if throwing a bag of flour at the guy stopped him and his knife/gun ... that's all I'd need but ... I assume he's bigger/faster/armed/not elderly with osteoporosis/more awake than I am, though not real bright, to break into my home. And if he is armed and in better shape than I, I at least want to be armed with something which will stop him from harming me as fast as possible. If I had a pellet gun that shot PEZ candies fast enough and each candy had been doctored with a sleep aid and all went into his mouth ... it'd still have to work faster than I think it would, so I'll stick with what works historically.

I don't completely agree with using "less lethal" ammunition in my firearm to protect my home. If someone breaks into my home (with cars parked in front) its safe to assume that they are there to do me harm.

However, I think that everyone should carry a defensive weapon that is not lethal such as pepper spray for use outside of your home. If you use the AOJ method of determining the threat level of a situation... you will understand why I feel this way.

[quote="RPB And if he is armed and in better shape than I, I at least want to be armed with something which will stop him from harming me as fast as possible. If I had a pellet gun that shot PEZ candies fast enough and each candy had been doctored with a sleep aid and all went into his mouth ...[/quote]



That is the funniest thing I've seen all day. Thanks. Seriously.

I've seen stats that show people survive the majority of handgun wounds.

1-2 center mass shots can easily stop a threat and be survivable in the city/suburbs where the perpetrator is likely to get swift medical attention.

All I'm saying is that there's a Venn diagram overlap here. . . people can die from "less lethal" ammo and survive hollow points. . . so you might as well use the one with the best chance of stopping the threat the first time.

In fact, going out on a limb here, the more devastating round (to a point. . . rifles and shotguns change this line of reasoning) might be more survivable for the BG because the GG is likely to need fewer shots.

If the BG really wanted to increase his chances of survival, he wouldn't be in my house.

fickman wrote:I've seen stats that show people survive the majority of handgun wounds.

That's really interesting... Do you have a direct link to this study? I would would like to read up on this.

GunNewb wrote:

fickman wrote:I've seen stats that show people survive the majority of handgun wounds.

That's really interesting... Do you have a direct link to this study? I would would like to read up on this.

I knew somebody would ask that - yet I still tried to slip it in there under the radar. hahaha. Let me poke around and see if I can come up with it.

fickman wrote:If the BG really wanted to increase his chances of survival, he wouldn't be in my house.

Exactly.

GunNewb wrote:

fickman wrote:I've seen stats that show people survive the majority of handgun wounds.

That's really interesting... Do you have a direct link to this study? I would would like to read up on this.

I just did a quick search ... I know that people survive the majority of handgun wounds is true, but bullets make small holes and it's like most people survive most things which make small holes in them if they get medical attention quickly ... so living in big cities with Trauma Centers helps.

Hospital stats
http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/vumcpub/in ... icleID=192" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Patients treated at VUMC for gunshot wounds have an average survival rate of about 80 percent. About 60 percent of these patients of all ages, the lucky ones, are treated and discharged directly to home. Two percent of VUMC’s gunshot victims are discharged directly to jail.

old 1989 FBI study thingy
http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wound Ballistics: Analysis of Blunt and Penetrating Trauma
Mechanisms
http://www.hsj.gr/volume4/issue4/445.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

doctor on shot placement/survivability
http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-survivor ... 05175.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

brainman wrote:While perusing the latest CheaperThanDirt catalog, I noticed that they now have a couple of brands of "less lethal" ammunition marketed for home defense.

If you want "less lethal" ammo, why not just use a .25 or .32ACP?

Here's a couple of quick sources. These aren't the ones I used when I made my statement; I think these stats have been around and referenced and end up entering the general consciousness of the gun community. . . that is to say, I probably picked it up in a post I read here.

This is a blog type article which references an actual study. I wonder if the medical advances in the last 15 years might even improve some people's chances of survivability from what's reported here:
http://www.shootingvoodoo.com/index.php ... s_and_you/

Lethality of Firearm-Related Injuries in the United States Population Beaman, et al, Annals of Emergency Medicine 35:3 March 2000

This is a nation-wide analysis based on 132k individual patients with gunshot wounds (GSWs).

• Of those who died from their wounds, only 30% made it to the ER for treatment, the other 70% were not alive long enough to be transported.
• Of the total number of patients with GSWs who survived, 43% were treated in the ER and then released, 52% were treated and held at the hospital, and 6% were treated and transferred to an acute care facility.
• Of those shot in an assault, the overall mortality rate was 20%
• Of those shot in the head in an assault, the mortality rate was 40%.
• Of those shot anywhere other than the head in an assault, the mortality rate was 16%.

What these data points mean to me:

a. If you are shot you have an 80% chance to survive.
b. If you are going to die, you are probably going to die on-scene.
c. If you make it to the ER alive there is a good chance (43%) you'll even sleep in your own bed that night.
d. Head shots appear to have more than twice the lethality of non-head shots.

Here's an older article (stats are for one hospital from 1997 to 2001, but they seem to mirror the facts in the above article):

Artile wrote:Patients treated at VUMC for gunshot wounds have an average survival rate of about 80 percent. About 60 percent of these patients of all ages, the lucky ones, are treated and discharged directly to home. Two percent of VUMC’s gunshot victims are discharged directly to jail.

http://www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/vumcpub/in ... icleID=192

@fickman

That is very interesting... 80% is a pretty good number.

Stopping a BG and killing a BG are obviously two comepletly different things... I would much rather stop the BG.

fickman wrote:This is a blog type article which references an actual study. I wonder if the medical advances in the last 15 years might even improve some people's chances of survivability from what's reported here:
http://www.shootingvoodoo.com/index.php ... s_and_you/

Interesting study. In my experience (I was a paramedic for almost 25 years, and working on an MICU in the metropex for about 15 of those years) if you're alive once EMS gets there (in an urban setting), the chances are good that you're going to be alive when you get to the ER. The ones who are D-R-T (dead right there) from trauma (car accident, GSW, hit in the head with a salami, etc.) are almost never (something like 0.08%) resuscitated effectively (meaning, they were discharged from the hospital). And, most of the in-hospital deaths that occur AFTER surgical intervention are usually tied to secondary health problems (heart disease / high blood pressure / diabetes ) or in-hospital infections.

So, unless you can find a way to keep all of the infections away (and, hospitals are trying to minimize such things, but being human beings, we'll find some way to upset the applecart!) I don't know that you're going to improve those stats much. Bringing all EMS in the country up to an ALS (advanced life support - paramedic or what we used to call EMT-Special Skills) level would help, but that is so expensive and depends too much on volunteers who, if they don't get a chance to exercise their skills every now and then, tend to either get too rusty to use them or decide the extra time and money to achieve that level of expertise wasn't really worth it. Helicopters aren't the answer, either. Again, once EMS gets there to a live patient, they're usually alive when they hit the ER unless they have a cardiac event enroute (and that HAS happened to one of my trauma patients - he didn't survive the sudden heart attack, but probably would have survived the small-calibre GSW to his arm).

GunNewb wrote: Stopping a BG and killing a BG are obviously two comepletly different things... I would much rather stop the BG.

You'd rather just stop the BG so that later, when you least expect it, he is back to kill you?

AEA wrote:

GunNewb wrote: Stopping a BG and killing a BG are obviously two comepletly different things... I would much rather stop the BG.

You'd rather just stop the BG so that later, when you least expect it, he is back to kill you?

Well, it just depends on the situation. If someone beats my door down and breaks into my home in the middle of the day while my car is parked in the driveway, they're in my home to do more than steal from me.

On the other hand, if it's 3 am and a burglar is trying to steal from me, killing that individual would def. violate my moral code. My property is not worth shedding blood over...and I don't believe in killing anyone who isn't interested in killing me. If someone breaks into my home to steal...legally speaking...I think that I would be better off threatening that individual and making them aware of the fact that me using deadly force depends on their actions.

Let's be honest here... people get serious prison time for breaking and entering. The BG is going away for a long time.