Axman wrote:Dmytry wrote:...It does raise a question if it is, as a personal choice, much safer to carry gun with blanks, or especially, rubber bullets. Utility of hollow point or offset centre of mass bullets seems especially dubious.
I've been lurking this thread for a while, I told myself I'd read and enjoy, and not participate because this is my field, but this idea needs to be nipped in the bud, because it's the sort of thing that can lead a person to prison.
Less-than-lethal munitions aren't; they all have mortality rates, even pepper spray, which kills about 1 person for each 600 it's used on. Blanks can easily kill someone at close range and have a long track record of doing just that. The idea of shooting to disable or shooting to dissuade is not legally justifiable.
You only have the right to shoot if you are in fear for your life, or for the life of someone you are directly related to by blood or by law.
If you shoot someone as a warning, you are not in fear for your life, you will go to prison for assault with a deadly weapon.
If you shoot someone to disable them, you are not in fear for your life, you will go to prison for assault with a deadly weapon.
If you shoot someone with ball ammunition because you believe it is less lethal, you are not in fear for your life, you will go to prison for assault with a deadly weapon. If it's what you got, it's what you got.
If you shoot someone with any non-factory-loaded ammunition, and the coroner or medical examiner can't replicate the evidence and corroborate your testimony, you will go to prison for murder.
You only have the right to shoot to kill if and only if it would prevent death. Outside of training/target shooting/hunting, use commercial ammunition in your firearms, use full-house loads, and use purposely-loaded defensive cartridges.
While I'm here, though, that CDC data indicates that a person is several orders of magnitude more likely to be a victim of violent crime or forcible rape than of a negligently discharged firearm.
Some incoherent disjointed legal and pseudolegal rambling i see here.
Trying to kill the guy for any reason what so ever other than his death being the only way you could ensure your (or blood relative's) survival - including the reasoning that you outlined here (misunderstanding of the legal practice and a belief that more deadly actions would make it easier to demonstrate necessity of defence) - is homicide, and is likely to be prosecuted.
Generally, use of more lethal weapon won't make it easier to show in court that you were in fact acting in self defence, and I am fairly sure that this is true for the US too. Less lethal weapons kill. But rarely. You'll be (most of the time) defending yourself against less serious charge, and you didn't in the heat of the moment have any choice between different ammo types; it's well before anything happened that you believed that when one is in fear for his life, one still should try not to take a life because 'don't kill', and take his chances with less effective weapon, and so you carried less lethal weapon. Then, when you were threatened and feared for your life you used whatever you had available; lower lethality doesn't disprove the notion that you very seriously feared for your life at that time, unless you carried both normal and less lethal ammunition and made choice to use latter. It's if you carry a normal firearm, and then end up shooting less than lethally due to being a crap shot under stress (most people are this way), that it may seem you were only trying to disable, and didn't really believe your defence was justified.
There's 254 'justifiable homicides' by private citizens in US a year. In a country with population of 300 millions and over 16 000 murders a year and very lax firearm laws. If anything, it looks like US is a very self defence unfriendly country, which is also business-friendly, and firearms are a business. In any case, at rate of less than 1 per million people per year, the chance that you'll have to use deadly force lethally AND won't go to prison for homicide, seem absolutely negligible, and it is not worth the risk of carrying non-blank ammunition. Yes the blanks might kill. Very rarely and in quite special circumstances.
And yes, I do realize that you, in self interest, would be inclined to try and convince other people to carry the most deadly ammunition, and try to encourage them to shoot to kill, using all sorts of pseudolegal nonsense in combination with a few correct legal things.
It is, however, a fact of criminology that vast majority of defensive firearm use - as recognized by law - doesn't involve shooting, vast majority of times that rounds are fired defensively, the rounds miss the intended target, and a big fraction of time that rounds hit the attacker (majority) do not result in attacker's death. The worst you can do is to keep shooting after you disabled the attacker with your first most likely highly inaccurate shot, or made him run with your shots that missed him. People tend to do this a fair lot when scared.