Non-Lethal or Less-Than-Lethal Ammunition Effectiveness

[Stephen]

Your answer is not responsive to the question. This actually happened to a guy out in Loudon County, VA: http://www.leesburgtoday.com/news/no...a4bcf887a.html

The guy left his window unlocked. Which is exactly what I was getting at. Your house shouldn't be that easy to accidentally wander into.

Also, it could be a family member. This just happened. New door locks won't fix this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...c1a_story.html

Another reason to consider LTL.
Cody

New locks wouldn't have stopped that, but identifying the target before shooting at it would have. A flashlight an an once of sense would have prevented that.

[cclaxton]

The guy left his window unlocked. Which is exactly what I was getting at. Your house shouldn't be that easy to accidentally wander into.
New locks wouldn't have stopped that, but identifying the target before shooting at it would have. A flashlight an an once of sense would have prevented that.

Stephen, the question is about Less Than Lethal. The kid could have broken in...drunks break in to the wrong house all the time.
Cody

[cclaxton]

You seem to be missing the point: If you don't intend to use lethal force, a shotgun is the wrong tool for the job.

Open to better ideas. I have mace/oc but that can affect my ability to respond and can affect my other housemates. Tasers are expensive and maintenance and training issue. You got something better?
Cody

[Tamara]

How do you tell a belligerent drunk guy who won't obey verbal commands because he thinks he's in his own house from a belligerent drunk guy who won't obey verbal commands because he wants to kill you?

[Aray]

This is an excellent job of trolling by the OP.

[Tamara]

I often hope so.

[Stephen]

Stephen, the question is about Less Than Lethal. The kid could have broken in...drunks break in to the wrong house all the time.
Cody

That's what I'm addressing. What I'm trying to say is that if you follow commonly accepted tactics like having well-secured entries and IDing your target before shooting it, I don't think less-lethal is useful. There is a downside to your plan here. What if the person who breaks in is a violent criminal and you're standing there with rubber bullets against a guy with lead ones?

I don't know how viable your pistol & shotgun approach is. As Tam mentioned, is your sleeping attire equipped for a holstered gun? Mine definitely isn't. The bad guy isn't going to give me a timeout to put on pants, belt, and a holster. I guess you could sleep in basketball shorts and have a paddle holster on the nightstand. However, I've actually experimented with that setup around the house and it doesn't work well with anything but a very light weight gun. If you try to carry a WML-equipped Glock in that rig, you'll be holding your shotgun with one hand and holding your pants up with the other. Even if you work that out with some other rig, you still have to deal with the extra time required to equip two guns and then you might have to deal with transitioning weapons during a violent encounter.

It seems like you started with the conclusion and then found a problem for it to solve. I think it would be better to start with the problem: What steps should I take to ensure I don't shoot a home intruder who doesn't need to be shot? That would be an excellent discussion. I think SMEs like Chuck would have some very good input there, but I don't think less-lethal shotgun rounds would be near the top of their recommendations.

[Mr_White]

I just bought a shotgun from a Marine who shoots on the MarineCorp 3gun team. He has served four combat tours and has a lot of experience training with lethal and less-than-lethal. I asked him about LTL, and he fully endorsed it. His experience is that in most cases it knocks a person down...that is most cases. He said he has been hit with them in training and he was a very muscled guy and it took him to his knees and took his breath away.

I can see the issue is that LTL is not ALWAYS effective, so just use lethal. Sometimes you don't have a person armed with a lethal weapon, such as a drunk who breaks into your house mistakenly. It seems to me one option would be to have a shotgun loaded with LTL, with a side-saddle with lethal rounds in case you need them. I will always have a pistol loaded with lethal ammo, so what would be wrong with that?

Cody

You seem to be missing the point: If you don't intend to use lethal force, a shotgun is the wrong tool for the job.

I could not agree more with TC.

It’s a very unwise idea, and some people have learned this the hard way (one PD local to me, I think the same one that Lester Polfus referred to), that having a tool with a mixed lethal and less-lethal ammo supply, is a recipe for disaster. Lethal and less-lethal ammunition is prone to getting mixed up when it’s customarily used in the same weapon at any time, let alone having both types of ammunition available in the same place and time.

As said by others, the two news stories you posted are problems of home security and threat ID and assessment in low light.

[cclaxton]

This is an excellent job of trolling by the OP.

My questions are as serious as they get. Not trying to rile anybody up.
Just trying to get good answers on Less Than lethal.
Cody

[cclaxton]

That's what I'm addressing. What I'm trying to say is that if you follow commonly accepted tactics like having well-secured entries and IDing your target before shooting it, I don't think less-lethal is useful. There is a downside to your plan here. What if the person who breaks in is a violent criminal and you're standing there with rubber bullets against a guy with lead ones?

I don't know how viable your pistol & shotgun approach is. As Tam mentioned, is your sleeping attire equipped for a holstered gun? Mine definitely isn't. The bad guy isn't going to give me a timeout to put on pants, belt, and a holster. I guess you could sleep in basketball shorts and have a paddle holster on the nightstand. However, I've actually experimented with that setup around the house and it doesn't work well with anything but a very light weight gun. If you try to carry a WML-equipped Glock in that rig, you'll be holding your shotgun with one hand and holding your pants up with the other. Even if you work that out with some other rig, you still have to deal with the extra time required to equip two guns and then you might have to deal with transitioning weapons during a violent encounter.

It seems like you started with the conclusion and then found a problem for it to solve. I think it would be better to start with the problem: What steps should I take to ensure I don't shoot a home intruder who doesn't need to be shot? That would be an excellent discussion. I think SMEs like Chuck would have some very good input there, but I don't think less-lethal shotgun rounds would be near the top of their recommendations.

I am not looking for a solution to a problem, per se. I am looking to learn more about Less Than Lethal and its application. I see LE use a lot of LTL in crowd control, etc. I also hear a lot of people saying it is very effective most of the time. But I also hear a lot of recommendations to avoid its use entirely, which doesn't match with LE and others who have experience with it.

Is any answer here more related to the worry that if LTL becomes an option then legislation will try and restrict the use of lethal?
I am trying to reconcile the diversity of opinion.
Cody