Hi LTInvestor,No I am not a lawyer, I am a serviceman. I take no...

Hi LTInvestor,

No I am not a lawyer, I am a serviceman. I take no exception to your post and actually identify with your sentiment at face value. The detail does seem trivial to you and I for something we would consider pretty straight forward. However, put yourselves in the shoes of the manufacturers of this ammunition.

If you market something as 'non-lethal', and then for whatever reason, somebody dies as a result of being engaged with it no matter how unlikely, there are enormous legal repercussions. This would remain true even if that person died of secondary consequences of that ammunition. A secondary consequence may be bleeding that is particularly dangerous to a hemophiliac or shock that is particularly dangerous to those targets with pre-existing heart conditions. Indeed, would you be willing to market your ammunition as 'non-lethal' if there was a chance a Taser round fired from a MAUL could target someone with a pacemaker?

'Less-lethal' is an escape clause, and yes, it is about probability. Because the manufactures of the ammunition have no control over who is targeted, their pre-dispositions or other factors in the environment they can make no absolute guarantees the ammunition will indeed be 'non-lethal'.

Without the 'less-lethal' distinction in lieu of 'non-lethal', a company such as MST leaves itself wide open for legal recourse. This would see your investment and mine put into further jeopardy and I guess, in this context, its pretty plain to see how the term actually does make sense.

Dave