Rubber Buckshot

My primary HD firearm is a bullpup tactical 12 guage. I’m looking for comments regarding using rubber buckshot as a less lethal option for the first round in the tube. Tks!


So, you would rather annoy a threat than eliminate it?


May as well start with a rolled up newspaper. NO!!! BAD!!!


If it’s gotten to a point where you need to bring a firearm into self defense its no longer a less lethal threat. If you want less lethal stick with something like pepper spray. I recommend POM OC spray.


No, but discourage them and makes them run away is better than killing them. That’s why he said in the first round. Because if you shoot them with a rubber bullet and they decide to run off then you are free and clear but if they continue to come at you then you have your lethal round to finish the job.

Yes @CountryBill it is a great idea to have a non-lethal way of defending yourself.

I’m tired of people thinking that killing somebody is the only way to defend themselves. This is the reason why all the 2A Nazis are coming after us gun owners.

We have to be responsible and try every way possible not to have to use lethal Force. if you don’t feel that way then you shouldn’t own a gun.

1 Like

No. Not at all. Never.

My gun is my last resort. It’s not a first choice, it’s not a warning, it’s not a opportunity for the lethal threat to rethink his life choices.

If I ever have to draw my weapon, it’s because everything else has failed.


Thank you @Justin47; you got my point exactly. It’s important to know that modern rubber buckshot at close, home defense range (10 - 20 feet) is not always non-lethal. My thought was that if one winds up in court, the initial use of less-lethal ammo could be in one’s favor.

Even though I mingle with the sheep, make no mistake; I am a sheepdog. :wink:


You discharged a firearm, how can you be free and clear. From legal perspective, rubber bullets may be considered non-lethal when fired by an officer on duty, but a private citizen may not get the exception.


According to law, a firearm is always a lethal weapon. We, as private citizens, do not have the immunity given to LE. Even “rubber” bullets injure and kill. Use a less-lethal tool, if that is what you want, do not use a firearm, as it is never non-lethal, nor considered such by law.

We do not believe that, and neither is that the reason the antis are attacking our RKBA.


Not according to you!!! And I quote

Right there says it all… You have no plans on using other means that annoy your attacker. Your intent is to eliminate, it’s right there in your text.

That bs and you know it. If you take actions to prevent a lethal ending it will always help you in court. When you go above and beyond trying to preserve life, then you have done your duty the right way in the eyes of a court. They will see you tried to prevent death. You have a higher chance of them agreeing it was self-defense.

The courts will completely disagree with you. It’s the attempt that the courts are taking into consideration. The attempt to subdue or scare off the assailant before having to use lethal Force.

1 Like

I’m sorry, I didn’t realize we were playing “Gotcha!”

Look at everything I have written in these forums. I’ll wait…

While you do that, I am confident in saying that neither the above two statements nor anything else I have posted, contradict the idea that a firearm is a weapon of last resort.

In order for me to draw my weapon, it has to be the last option. At the moment I draw my weapon, my intent is to eliminate what I perceive to be a lethal threat. It ain’t to scare it away.


I absolutely agree, using our weapon is a last resort, but we’re taught to use no more force than is justifiable to stop the threat. So if drawing our weapon ends the threat, we’re not obligated to, in fact must not, shoot, just as having shot, we cannot arbitrarily empty the full magazine into the threat.

Consider @layton’s situation in the now closed “YES, this is a concern” topic, about the land owner coming at him. He went to low ready, that didn’t stop the threat, then he aimed with his laser between the eyes, and that did stop the threat. Should he have fired? Absolutely not, because it wasn’t necessary.

There’s obviously a lot of room for interpretation about what was justifiable in any particular situation, the speed or imminence of the attack, for example, but that’s what courts are for.

1 Like

Actually, even firing a warning shot is considered a lethal use of force.

@CountryBill , a less lethal round would be bird shot. Note I said less lethal. At close range, bird shot is still lethal. But, not as much as buckshot, or definitely a slug.

1 Like

The courts will not disagree with me as it is law - a firearm is a lethal weapon, even a fake firearm used in the commission of a crime is charged as use of a firearm, a deadly weapon, in the commission of a crime. Rubber bullets can and do kill. Use of “rubber” bullets in the death of a person you did not intend on killing will not prevent you will being charged for murder. I believe it would be worse to state that you did not intend on killing the person while using a lethal weapon, merely “scare” him/her away.

That is why we are here, to learn methods to avoid conflict and minimize risk. Firearms are always the last resort. Prosecutors that have political motivations to charge innocent victims that used a firearm in self-defense is why we have insurance to aid our defense after our self-defense incident. No one here is seeking to use a firearm; no one wants to kill nor to face life in prison.

I am a pacifist, but that does not mean I will allow harm to come to my wife and child if I have a means to prevent that. It also does not mean that I do not know unarmed defense, it only means that I will never be the aggressor if I ever get involved in a self-defense situation. I will do whatever it takes to defend my family and myself.

If you use the same tactics on the street as you are here, you will find the trouble you are seeking, but you will not find it here.


How does the state of Illinois define deadly force?

Persons are justified in using deadly force – which is is force intended to likely to cause death or great bodily harm – if: the aggressor is attempting to make a violent, riotous, or tumultuous entry or if it is believed such force is necessary to prevent the aggressor from committing a felony in the home.

If confronted with the above situation why take baby steps. To be honest I don’t need a maimed or crippled felon suing me for damages. I believe in the KISS principal.

If that first rubber shot doesn’t work are you always going to have a second chance on the next shot before the perp gets you?


First off I’ve been very vocal about being against warning shots because they go anywhere and hurt anybody. A warning shot is reckless.

Trust me, I’ve read plenty of your comments. I have never gotten the sense that you would use anything other than your gun to defend yourself.

I understand the law. The question is do you understand a panel of your peers? You know, the jury that are there to convict you or release you. 80% of all jury answer with emotion. In their eyes if you haven’t done enough to prevent deaths, you have a higher chance of being convicted.

For me the question is at the end of the day, did I do enough to prevent killing someone that will allow me to sleep at night if I have to kill someone? Yeah a person comes at me with the gun, then I’m going to defend myself with a gun. If they come at me with a bat, and I have the ability to use pepper spray to try to slow them down or make them drop the bat so I can either get away or subdue them. Then it’s my responsibility to do so.

If it’s in a pump action shotgun and you hit the target? Most likely. Not sure about you, but I’ve been shot with a rubber bullet. I took one right to the chest and although I didn’t go down, it did stop me from moving for a few minutes. Took my breathe away.

So I would say you have a 99% chance of having a second shot if you hit them in the chest. If your second shot is a buck or slug then your covered.

Meth heads would laugh


Then you are glossing over every comment I have made regarding my firearm being a last resort, a weapon that I will draw only if I ever have to.

You do me an injustice, sir.


Are you a meth head who has been shot with a rubber bullet? If the answer is no. Then how would you know they would laugh?

I’ve always respected your opinion and do not mean to insult you. This is a thread of opinion. I have never gotten the sense that you were one to carry something other than your gun. Me personally, I carry three items to defend myself and the gun being the third and last item. I’m not saying I’m better then you, nor am I saying your a bad person if you don’t carry anything other then your gun.

I’ll I’m saying is don’t discourage somebody for trying to defend themselves using a non-lethal way.

That is discouraging him from using or attempting to use non lethal Force.