Lethal vs. Less Lethal ammo for self defense - Page 6
Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 117

Thread: Lethal vs. Less Lethal ammo for self defense

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    SC Lowcountry
    Posts
    1,550
    Quote Originally Posted by Kennyh302 View Post
    Just saying my local agency very happy to help with CC permits, training etc. and maybe not all agencies are that way. Closest local gun smith to me is 60 miles away. Nothing said was attended to be against local gun shops.
    The gun shop we use the most (one of several local ones available), has a retail shop, shooting ranges, classrooms, instructors and gunsmiths all under one roof. They conduct CC classes, and the whole process can be done one site with one visit. That includes filling out the form, getting fingerprinted and photographed, getting the classroom instruction, testing, and range portion of the training and test. They send in all necessary documentation to SLED for processing. No need to involve other LEO's. It's none of their business.

  2.   
  3. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Reba View Post
    The gun shop we use the most (one of several local ones available), has a retail shop, shooting ranges, classrooms, instructors and gunsmiths all under one roof. They conduct CC classes, and the whole process can be done one site with one visit. That includes filling out the form, getting fingerprinted and photographed, getting the classroom instruction, testing, and range portion of the training and test. They send in all necessary documentation to SLED for processing. No need to involve other LEO's. It's none of their business.
    Same here. My favorite gun shop does the same, also having in indoor range, a slew of instructors, ammo, guns, etc.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    Not really. Carrying less-than-lethal ammunition doesn't mean your life isn't in danger when someone is shooting at you, for example. That prosecutor would make a fool out of himself/herself by using such an argument. If carrying less-than-lethal ammunition comes into play in court at all, it means that it is a borderline case or an outright bad shot.

    The actual danger of carrying less-than-lethal ammunition is that the carrier convinces himself that it is OK to shoot someone with it without having the justification for using lethal force in the first place. This is the same problem with warning shots or shooting to wound. Legally you are fine if you can argue the legal justification to shoot and kill the threat anyway.

    Another actual danger of carrying less-than-lethal ammunition is that it might not stop a lethal threat, i.e., the carrier dies. This also is is the same problem with warning shots or shooting to wound.
    Do what you want, then, it's your prison sentence.

  5. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackBook View Post
    Do what you want, then, it's your prison sentence.
    You may actually read my other posts in this thread, specifically post #4 and post #38. I personally think that carrying less-than-lethal ammunition is outright stupid. However, your legal argument is outright stupid as well.

    If I am in fear of my life, I can defend myself with whatever I want, even with less-than-lethal or non lethal weapons. The failure to use a lethal weapon or lethal force does negate lawful self defense.

    By your argument, one could also argue that if I pull my firearm but don't shoot the attacker, I may be in legal trouble as well. Therefore I better shoot when I pull. This is also outright stupid.

    One might also notice that the other person does not know that the weapon is loaded with less-than-lethal ammunition. The general legal standard is that if you point or shoot a firearm at someone, it is considered lethal force independent from the type of firearm and ammunition. Pointing a pellet gun at someone is using lethal force. Pointing a replica gun at someone is using lethal force.

    Edit: Note that this post contains a typo. It should obviously be: The failure to use a lethal weapon or lethal force doesn't negate lawful self defense.

  6. Quote Originally Posted by Reba View Post
    The gun shop we use the most (one of several local ones available), has a retail shop, shooting ranges, classrooms, instructors and gunsmiths all under one roof. They conduct CC classes, and the whole process can be done one site with one visit. That includes filling out the form, getting fingerprinted and photographed, getting the classroom instruction, testing, and range portion of the training and test. They send in all necessary documentation to SLED for processing. No need to involve other LEO's. It's none of their business.
    A place like that would be pretty handy. If there is one anywhere near me I have yet to hear of it.

    Our state does not require training to get your permit, that might be part of it as well.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    You may actually read my other posts in this thread...
    Those posts are not germane to my statements.

    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    However, your legal argument is outright stupid as well.
    Since my argument is true, any "stupidity" you find must be in the law; and I'm sure we'll find plenty of stupidity in the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    If I am in fear of my life, I can defend myself with whatever I want, even with less-than-lethal or nonlethal weapons.
    I never claimed otherwise. You wasted your time typing this.

    Quote Originally Posted by bofh View Post
    The failure to use a lethal weapon or lethal force does negate lawful self-defense.
    No, it doesn't. You're free to use a less than lethal weapon to counter lethal force against you.

    By your argument, one could also argue that if I pull my firearm but don't shoot the attacker, I may be in legal trouble as well. Therefore I better shoot when I pull. This is also outright stupid.
    It's stupid and it's also true. The prosecutor just needs to show that your actions were some shade less than perfect. You don't need to be guilty of unlawful use to be found guilty of a lesser crime and, at the very least, be found civilly liable. We live in a world where you could be convicted simply for using a single-action trigger. Your use of a firearm could in all ways be legal, but you can still be found guilty of a lesser crime simply for using the single-action function of a pistol or an SAO trigger. Yes, it's stupid, but my reporting it to you does not make my arguments stupid, it makes the law stupid.

    If you draw a taser, you draw a less-than-lethal weapon. If you draw an firearm, you draw a lethal weapon even if it's loaded with less-than-lethal ammunition. A firearm is always a lethal weapon in the eyes of the law. Your choice of ammunition does not change a firearm's legal definition.

    Even if the firearm is empty and you know it's unloaded, the firearm is still a deadly weapon in the eyes of the law, and you pointing an unloaded firearm at someone is still use of lethal force in the eyes of the law.

  8. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackBook View Post
    Those posts are not germane to my statements.


    Since my argument is true, any "stupidity" you find must be in the law; and I'm sure we'll find plenty of stupidity in the law.


    I never claimed otherwise. You wasted your time typing this.


    No, it doesn't. You're free to use a less than lethal weapon to counter lethal force against you.


    It's stupid and it's also true. The prosecutor just needs to show that your actions were some shade less than perfect. You don't need to be guilty of unlawful use to be found guilty of a lesser crime and, at the very least, be found civilly liable. We live in a world where you could be convicted simply for using a single-action trigger. Your use of a firearm could in all ways be legal, but you can still be found guilty of a lesser crime simply for using the single-action function of a pistol or an SAO trigger. Yes, it's stupid, but my reporting it to you does not make my arguments stupid, it makes the law stupid.

    If you draw a taser, you draw a less-than-lethal weapon. If you draw an firearm, you draw a lethal weapon even if it's loaded with less-than-lethal ammunition. A firearm is always a lethal weapon in the eyes of the law. Your choice of ammunition does not change a firearm's legal definition.

    Even if the firearm is empty and you know it's unloaded, the firearm is still a deadly weapon in the eyes of the law, and you pointing an unloaded firearm at someone is still use of lethal force in the eyes of the law.
    BOFH is on my ignore list because he is overtly rude and verbose and argumentative. Be advised. It's not you -- it's he.

    FYI.

  9. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackBook View Post
    Since my argument is true, any "stupidity" you find must be in the law; and I'm sure we'll find plenty of stupidity in the law.
    Then you should have no problem backing up your statement made in post #10 with citations of the law and/or actual cases, right.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackBook View Post
    No, it doesn't. You're free to use a less than lethal weapon to counter lethal force against you.
    Interestingly, my post #54 obviously contains a typo. I actually meant to say: "The failure to use a lethal weapon or lethal force doesn't negate lawful self-defense.", which is in line with the rest of my argument in that post. I amended the post to note the typo.

    Your post #10 argues otherwise and now you are contradicting yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackBook View Post
    It's stupid and it's also true. The prosecutor just needs to show that your actions were some shade less than perfect. You don't need to be guilty of unlawful use to be found guilty of a lesser crime and, at the very least, be found civilly liable. We live in a world where you could be convicted simply for using a single-action trigger. Your use of a firearm could in all ways be legal, but you can still be found guilty of a lesser crime simply for using the single-action function of a pistol or an SAO trigger. Yes, it's stupid, but my reporting it to you does not make my arguments stupid, it makes the law stupid.
    Sorry, but that is pure "Stupid Internet Gun Stuff". If it is not, then you should have no problem to cite laws or cases to support your claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackBook View Post
    If you draw a taser, you draw a less-than-lethal weapon. If you draw an firearm, you draw a lethal weapon even if it's loaded with less-than-lethal ammunition. A firearm is always a lethal weapon in the eyes of the law. Your choice of ammunition does not change a firearm's legal definition.
    Exactly! You are contradicting your own statement made in post #10, where you said: "your less-than-lethal ammunition proves you didn't feel your life was in danger thus your drawing a firearm is unlawful."

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackBook View Post
    Even if the firearm is empty and you know it's unloaded, the firearm is still a deadly weapon in the eyes of the law, and you pointing an unloaded firearm at someone is still use of lethal force in the eyes of the law.
    Exactly! You are contradicting your own statement made in post #10, where you said: "your less-than-lethal ammunition proves you didn't feel your life was in danger thus your drawing a firearm is unlawful."

  10. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Quote Originally Posted by HKS View Post
    BOFH is on my ignore list because he is overtly rude and verbose and argumentative. Be advised. It's not you -- it's he.

    FYI.
    Says the guy who posts outright made up stuff (repeatedly) about Justice Scalia's interpretation and Massad Ayoob's view of the 2nd Amendment.

    The fact that I am on your ignore list just proves that you do not wish to argue about facts. You just plaster this forum with your opinion whether it is right or wrong and ignore anyone calling you out on your BS.

  11. #60
    This message is hidden because bofh is on your ignore list.

Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast