Welcome to the community and now family @Roger147 and you are blessed and fortunate to be here.
1 Like
Rubber bullets can still kill you if you get hit in the right place like your temple or center mass. They can cause a lot of pain if they don’t kill you. But you do have a better chance of survival getting shot with them. Go with the real firearm @Roger147.
3 Likes
I have noticed that sometimes Legal Force and Lethal Force gets used synonymously.
1 Like
Depending upon where you live that could be considered “maiming.”
1 Like
But wouldn’t that change the intent and purpose for having a firearm? Hmm, let me clarify. If the whole purpose for the firearm is it’s use as a “last resort,” or “in fear of imminent or grievous bodily harm or death,” less lethal “anything” would change that dynamic, wouldn’t it?
1 Like
I would try to nicely inform people who use those as synonyms that, well, they aren’t.
There are certainly times force could be both legal and lethal, but they aren’t synonymous any more than Glock and Machine Gun are synonymous
4 Likes
Hmm, well that was an extreme example, which I can appreciate because it helps us to regard the subtleties. The genesis of Less Lethal began with the Op., and we chimed right in. If I have to resort to the “use” (not just presentation, because sometimes that can be enough) of a firearm, there will be no consideration for Less Lethal anything. My mission is to stop the threat, period.
1 Like
But we have it on the highest authority that’s what to do.
1 Like
Sure, you can say that. But if a single tool existed with multiple levels of lethality, that might change the dynamic. (To my knowledge, no such tool exists, so I’m just talking hypothetically.)
2 Likes
Set your phasers to stun… 
4 Likes
Hmm, not sure I follow your hypothesis. So, let me ask you:
- What is “your” definition of the word, “Lethal?”
- What is the generally accepted definition of the word, “Lethal?”
Perhaps then I can follow.
2 Likes
I missed something in between, sorry. What was that highest authority, and what did this highest authority actually say? Just trying to catch up here is all.
1 Like
3 Likes
Um, as I asked, what is that highest authority?
4 Likes
4 Likes
You’re already a lot deeper than my comment was ever intended to be. I can’t swim that low, I’ll drown. 
2 Likes
Well, let’s both just sit at the bottom and stare at each other as we do so together. You are, after all, my brother-in-arms.
1 Like
I think what @Ouade5 is trying to say is that if there were a type of firearm, say a pistol that fired ammunition to meet the lethal force, and a non lethal option such as a stun gun, it would change way less-lethal and lethal could be utilized. In that case, a firearm could be drawn and with the same motion present lethal or less-lethal force efficiently, not having to be forced to expend less-lethal before lethal, or just being stuck with less-lethal and hope if the situation escalated.
3 Likes
Duhhh! Thanks. Had a brain fart, my bad.
3 Likes
It [an implement that can be lethal or less-lethal force] kind of does, depending on its use, the user, and the jurisdiction.
The Baton or other approved impact weapon, in law enforcement, depending on the manner in which it is used (and the documented training of the user), may be less-lethal or lethal force.
Example: Generally, a baton strike to the thigh by a trained user within guidelines/SOP/etc is not going to be considered lethal force. But, generally, a baton strike (probably by anybody) to the head or neck is likely to be considered lethal force.
But then, I would tell anybody facing an able bodied close-enough attacker with a baton to consider that attacker as presenting lethal force…and would caution anybody considering using a baton in self defense that it may well be viewed as or considered lethal force when used on another person. So, it’s messy
I am not a lawyer and this is certainly not legal advice. Check your local listings, ask an attorney if you really want to know
3 Likes