BroTyler wrote:My point is simply this: I was asking about non-lethal ammunition for previously mentioned reasons. I would still only pull the gun in an event that justified lethal force, I was simply trying to figure out what protects the family and myself from bogus repercussions.
I'm not here to start an argument. I believe firmly that we should be allowed to carry as we do, but I'm disgusted by the after-the-fact suits. As mentioned here previously also, one case in particular for me is that of the pharmacist who finished off (wrongly) a disabled BG. The family was on the media immediately after the fact screaming that their boy, who attempted to rob a pharmacy with a ski mask on, would never have done anything to deserve this, etc.
From what I've gathered here, the forum consensus is that non-lethal carry is not recommended, and again, I respectfully thank you all for your responses.
For what it's worth, anyone who carries without worrying about the repercussions of the use of deadly force is either lying or fool-hardy, I believe. I would hope that all of you, to at least some degree, think about the after-effects of shooting someone. I don't mean in reference to the BG, but in reference to your family and yourself. Frivolous lawsuits can shut down a career and a family.
Of course I understand the point that a bullet from a BG can end your life faster than a lawsuit, but that's not the point I'm arguing. I would much rather be alive to face the suits than dead and out of debt. I would just like to learn as much as I can to ensure that a thug's family doesn't attempt to use me as a cash cow if I ever have to draw.
Does that make sense? I feel like I'm being reasonable.
I understand what you're struggling with, but you're missing something. While it is certainly reasonable to consider consequences, it's equally important to understand the realities involved or you reach conclusions that don't correspond to what happens in the real world. When dealing with self defense issues, that can be fatally disappointing.
As bdickens said, a shoot is either a good one or a bad one based on the specifics of the threat situation you faced, the fact that you shot at all, and when you stopped shooting. The ammo used isn't germane to that determination.
However, it is germane to whether or not you can successfully stop a deadly threat. Contrary to what you see on TV, real people often don't stop what they're doing even when they're shot with full power hollowpoint defense ammunition. Sometimes they don't even notice. I have a picture of one armed suspect who absorbed 39 rounds of full power 9mm police ammunition before he stopped being a threat.
If the situation you're facing doesn't require firing deadly ammunition to stop an immediate deadly threat, you have no legal or moral justification for firing a gun at all.
If the situation does require stopping a deadly threat at short range to save your life right now, less lethal ammunition is highly unlikely to do that in time to be of any use to you. If that's what you load with, there's little point to carrying a gun at all.
I wasn't being critical when I suggested you should sort out these issues in your mind before carrying a loaded firearm. I made that suggestion in the hope of keeping you out of situations with only one very brief opportunity to get it right and heavy irreversible consequences that it looks like you haven't yet fully come to terms with.