Gun thread: Using birdshot for home defense shotgun?

[NutBucket]

If you're "untrained" (which I read as "unpracticed") then you should really rethink the gun ownership thing. If you've practiced, then you don't even notice pumping the shotgun - it's an automatic muscle reflex.

This is an important point. One should be very comfortable with their weapon of choice or it will probably do more harm than good should you ever need to use it.

 

[BladeVenom]

Bare gelatin test. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIfilArIHlY It would have even less penetration if it had to go through a coat or jacket first.

 

[Vic Vega]

Typical libtard roboresponse. See irishscott's post if you need to enlighten yourself on penetration. Additionally, if you don't know where the perp is pinned down in your own house then you're a moron.

Not big on thinking or reading if you're calling me a liberal.

 

[phucheneh]

You are wrong. Shooting to stop is not shooting to kill. Shooting to stop is exactly what it means, to stop whether the person drops to the floor or turns and runs. Never say the word 'kill' after a self defence shooting.

If they turn and run, yea, you're not going to want to shoot them in the back.

But if someone is facing you and threatening you with a weapon, you bet your ass you want the highest probability of killing them. You guys do realize people have successfully sued homeowners for shooting them, right?

Yeah, the family can sue, too. But the events are going to be a bit...one-sided. A 'he said; he's dead' argument, if you will.

I wouldn't recommend slugs because of massive overpenetration and requirement for both precise center mass shots and luck.

To the guy asking about a HD shotgun: Maverick 88 is cheap, lightweight, and reliable. Personally, I think the 500 is a waste of money for a 'closet gun.' The 870 is probably the better pump, but it's the most expensive. And heavy.

As someone else said, though, best not to put a pump shotgun in the hands of a novice. It's a good reliable weapon, yes. But it takes practice to be able to maneuver in tighter spaces and reflexively rack the pump quickly and efficiently after every shot.

For a single home defense weapon, for someone who's not a regular shooter- large .38 revolver with non-cowboy grips. Colt Official Police size or similar, but with a molded grip with finger grooves.

Full-size 9mm auto works well, too, but you need a little more practice and the gun needs more maintenance. A good DA revolver can go in a drawer for a few years, and as long as it went in working, that's how it's going to come out.

 

[Vic Vega]

I don't know any practical shooting school for civilians (that includes police, they're civilians too) that advocates a shoot to kill policy because, honestly, you don't know WHAT will kill them and what won't and realistically you shouldn't care. You're shooting to stop plain and simple.

You need to put GOOD rounds on target and keep shooting until they stop attacking you. End of story. They may die, but that is not our intent - our intent is for them to stop. And you would be lucky to remember that if you are ever in a shooting.

 

[OverVolt]

Like was said earlier, it would stop some attacks but not all. If the wound is superficial they have the capability to keep coming at you.

 

[Vic Vega]

Jeff Cooper, Clint Smith, Massad Ayoob. Google those names. Do some reading. Get some training. Quit making the firearm owners look bad.

 

[drebo]

I hope no one takes this seriously. You shoot to STOP, period. If the bad guy dies as a result that's the risk he took but you shoot to STOP. If you hit a guy twice in the chest and he goes down and is clearly out of the fight but not dead you don't finish him off. The law does not allow for this and you will go to jail.

Shoot to STOP. You don't shoot to wound, to kill, to stun, etc. You put GOOD shots on target and keep shooting until they STOP attacking you. Until they STOP shooting at you, running at you with the knife, until they stop bludgeoning you with the tire iron.

Grand Jury: Why did you shoot poor Johnny?

You: I wanted to kill him, he was attacking me. I shoot to kill. <---------- You're going to jail.

You: I wanted him to stop hacking me up with that butcher knife, I had no choice, I had to STOP him. <--------- You're justified.

You'll be civilly liable, though.

General rule for home defense: empty the magazine, make sure the guy is dead, and don't remember how many times you pulled the trigger.

That way, there's only your side, there's not chance for civil liability, and it's clear cut self defense ("I saw him come at me, pulled the trigger, and then saw red").

You may be proud of your firearm knowledge and skill and aim, but a judge/jury won't be. And when the perp you shot in the knees, deftly stopping him, sues the shit out of you, you'll probably lose. And when he claims excessive force and the liberal DA decides to make an example of you, your life is fucked anyway. If he can't tell those stories and make shit up, then there's no possibility of it.

He surrendered his right to life the moment he became a criminal and entered my home. My right to life (the same life I've been living) takes precedence. That means that I can and should do everything possible to make sure that I don't run into a situation where I'm financially or criminally responsible for his breaking into my home and my shooting him.

 

[highland145]

Not liable in SC....castle law, FTW.

 

[Vic Vega]

You'll be civilly liable, though.

General rule for home defense: empty the magazine, make sure the guy is dead, and don't remember how many times you pulled the trigger.

That way, there's only your side, there's not chance for civil liability, and it's clear cut self defense ("I saw him come at me, pulled the trigger, and then saw red").

You may be proud of your firearm knowledge and skill and aim, but a judge/jury won't be. And when the perp you shot in the knees, deftly stopping him, sues the shit out of you, you'll probably lose. And when he claims excessive force and the liberal DA decides to make an example of you, your life is fucked anyway. If he can't tell those stories and make shit up, then there's no possibility of it.

He surrendered his right to life the moment he became a criminal and entered my home. My right to life (the same life I've been living) takes precedence. That means that I can and should do everything possible to make sure that I don't run into a situation where I'm financially or criminally responsible for his breaking into my home and my shooting him.

You have no idea what you're talking about and are hardly worth responding to but I will because people will read this and believe what you say.

Read about Massad Ayoob, this guy is an expert witness and firearms expert. He has sat on thousands of self defence shooting trials and has written many books about it.

Yes, the judge and jury absolutely do care about your intent and your action in a shooting. They absolutely care about your level of training, seriousness and your decision to STOP an attack rather than KILL a person. It does matter. And, as you will find if you actually READ about this subject from people with loads of experience like Ayoob plenty of people are in jail because of James Bond 007 shoot to kill nonsense who were arrogant and extreme in their actions.

To others reading this thread, I would encourage you to educate yourself and don't listen to some of the dingbats posting here. ME INCLUDED. Please read, educate yourself and verify my statements. I gave some names in a previous post. Jeff Cooper, Clint Smith, Massad Ayoob. Google those names. Do some reading. Get some training. Become competent and responsible.

 

[drebo]

lol. Right.

I'd rather take the sure-fire path that doesn't require me to hire a lawyer and spend possibly years of my life fighting criminally and civilly against a worthless human being.

Sorry, my time and money are much more valuable than a criminal's life.

 

[phucheneh]

Jeff Cooper, Clint Smith, Massad Ayoob. Google those names. Do some reading. Get some training. Quit making the firearm owners look bad.

Are you addressing me or people with my general attitude? 'Cause I think we agree, we're just putting it in different terms.

I am of the 'reasonable caliber, proper round, center mass' school of thought. Not the dumbass 'deer slug or .44mag through the skull' one.

It really is splitting hairs if you're saying that I'm advocating something different from you: Keep shooting them, center mass, with the quickest fire you can accurately sustain, until they fall.

And if you're doing it right, that should be their only option. If they run or surrender, you missed (...or tried shooting them with birdshot).

 

[TheNinja]

If you're "untrained" (which I read as "unpracticed") then you should really rethink the gun ownership thing. If you've practiced, then you don't even notice pumping the shotgun - it's an automatic muscle reflex.

This is an important point. One should be very comfortable with their weapon of choice or it will probably do more harm than good should you ever need to use it.

Ya, I am absolutely all for becoming trained on your weapon before you use it in a life or death situation. My original point was that for the longest time everyone used to say "get a pump, they never fail"....implying that an auto might jam on you in your time of need. I'm saying that today's auto shotguns are probably less likely to fail on the 2nd shot than a normal human on a pump in that situation. 99% of people don't spend everyone other weekend at the range. They might train once and sort of forget it. Also, you cannot simulate the stress of a home invasion, which does speak to your point or muscle reflex.

I went with a pump for $$ reasons and the fact that I feel very comfortable on my Mossberg (have always hunted with them growing up). I would not hesitate to recommend an auto though, but I'd always suggest a pump just for ease of cleaning and $$. Let's face it, 99.99% (however man 9s you want to add) will never be used in a home invasion scenario. But you want one there if you need it.

 

[phucheneh]

Okay, nevermind, Vic...we're definitely not on the same page. You've made up some other position where 'shooting to stop' in an effective manner does not kill someone.

You responded to a guy that specifically said 'I wouldn't say I intended to kill him' with 'you're going to go to jail for saying you intended to kill him.'

edit to clarify: not to imply you'd be claiming 'shooting to wound' either. You don't say either. He came at you; you fired. Period. Claiming to 'shoot to incapacitate' is arguably more damaging that outright stating 'shoot to kill.'

It's a gun. You point it at things you intend to kill. Period. What you say to satisfy our idiotic legal system is a different story. Which is why it's best to initially just be vague, especially since you're going to be shaken up, anyway.

 

[Vic Vega]

Okay, nevermind, Vic...we're definitely not on the same page. You've made up some other position where 'shooting to stop' in an effective manner does not kill someone.

You responded to a guy that specifically said 'I wouldn't say I intended to kill him' with 'you're going to go to jail for saying you intended to kill him.'

No, I never said that. Read. Read. Read. Read.

Let me quote myself.

You need to put GOOD rounds on target and keep shooting until they stop attacking you. End of story. They may die, but that is not our intent - our intent is for them to stop. And you would be lucky to remember that if you are ever in a shooting.

 

[TheNinja]

Okay, nevermind, Vic...we're definitely not on the same page. You've made up some other position where 'shooting to stop' in an effective manner does not kill someone.

You responded to a guy that specifically said 'I wouldn't say I intended to kill him' with 'you're going to go to jail for saying you intended to kill him.'

I don't think he's saying that. I think he's saying "I shoot to stop him and if he dies, then so be it, I don't care.....in fact it is likely that he will die but I'm not purposely shooting for the sole reason of killing".

 

[Vic Vega]

I don't think he's saying that. I think he's saying "I shoot to stop him and if he dies, then so be it, I don't care.....in fact it is likely that he will die but I'm not purposely shooting for the sole reason of killing".

This is correct.

 

[drebo]

Not liable in SC....castle law, FTW.

Castle doctrine provides you with criminal protection, but not civil protection.

The criminal could (and probably will) sue you for medical bills and damages.

He'll probably also claim excessive force was used and depending on the DA in your area, he may try to bring criminal charges before you even despite established castle doctrine.

The point is that my time and money is more important than that, so I will not take the chance by allowing him to live.

 

[Vic Vega]

It's a gun. You point it at things you intend to kill. Period. What you say to satisfy our idiotic legal system is a different story. Which is why it's best to initially just be vague, especially since you're going to be shaken up, anyway.

This should not be your intent in a self defence shooting and no firearms school is teaching this, no leading experts in firearms for defensive purposes are teaching this.

Military in combat? Sure. Self defence in your house, in your yard, in Walmart parking lot? No. MOST handgun shootings (over 80% if you believe the FBI) do not result in death which brings up a point I made before, you don't know what will kill someone. You need to shoot them until they STOP. You need to make GOOD shots and keep shooting until they stop. Statistics tell us that probably WON'T die, but if they do, that's a risk they rook by attacking you.

 

[phucheneh]

This is correct.

Okay...then we're saying the same thing. And so is drebo.

We all know guns are not for wounding. You are firing lethal ammunition from a lethal weapon.

We also know that responding to a cop's initial questioning with "YEE-HAW PARDNER I KILLT HIM GOOD AND I'D DO IT AGAIN!" is not recommended.

Get what I'm saying? You're using lethal force. You don't need to invent an argument that doesn't exist by specifying that you'd inform someone of your 'intent to stop by being as effective as possible with my lethal weapon but it totally wan't my intent to kill him.'

 

[Vic Vega]

Castle doctrine provides you with criminal protection, but not civil protection.

The criminal could (and probably will) sue you for medical bills and damages.

He'll probably also claim excessive force was used and depending on the DA in your area, he may try to bring criminal charges before you even despite established castle doctrine.

The point is that my time and money is more important than that, so I will not take the chance by allowing him to live.

Well then enjoy prison. I can tell you DIDN'T do any research on Mr. Ayoob someone with far more practical knowledge than you.

So you shoot him once in the chest and he's standing, shoot him a second time and down he goes. He isn't dead but clearly his guts are all over your floor and he's out of the fight, are you going to execute him? That's what you're saying because you CAN'T know the circumstance. You can't DECIDE a specific action will result in a SPECIFIC result. Using your logic of "I will not take the chance by allowing him to live." means if the shot you fire that puts him out of the fight DOES NOT kill him outright you're going to have to execute him, the evidence WILL show that and you WILL go to jail.

 

[highland145]

Castle doctrine provides you with criminal protection, but not civil protection.

The criminal could (and probably will) sue you for medical bills and damages.

He'll probably also claim excessive force was used and depending on the DA in your area, he may try to bring criminal charges before you even despite established castle doctrine.

The point is that my time and money is more important than that, so I will not take the chance by allowing him to live.

S.C. law clearly states that you, the home owner, can not be prosecuted criminally or sued civilly by the intruder or his family. Want a link?

 

[Vic Vega]

S.C. law clearly states that you, the home owner, can not be prosecuted criminally or sued civilly by the intruder or his family. Want a link?

These guys have all the education they need apparently. :whiste:

 

[phucheneh]

I am military trained. And military or not, statistics are not the issue.

A firearm is a lethal weapon that is intended to be used to stop someone with deadly force.

Saying you 'didn't intend to kill someone' it outright negligent.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Doesn't matter. You'll probably never have to use it for that purpose anyway.