Raoul_Duke 113 Posted May 18, 2010 Report Share Posted May 18, 2010 Many people ask me what kind of pistol they should get for home defense, I always say a pump action shotgun. They of course always ask, "Why not a pistol?" To which my response is, "Okay it is 2AM, you wake up to someone routing around your house, you're half asleep, how good is your aim going to be? Crappy. Get a fucking shotgun, if the person doesn't run when you rack the slide, you're going to have to shoot them if they attack you (VA doesn't have a castle law). Which would you rather have a gun which you can point in their general direction or something which you have to take careful aim with?" Pump action shotguns are fairly inexpensive and can be used by anyone with very little training, why wouldn't you use one? I don't want to pop-out of a closet with a super expensive SBS; I want a big black pump gun, which is going to literally scare the shit out of some douche bag and make them run for the hills, because I don't actually want to shoot anyone. Big guns are scary The only thing with me, regarding handgun vs. long gun, is that there are sharp turns in my house and a hand gun is much more maneuverable. I have a son; I have to "go out there" and see what's going on. After he's out of the house I will have no need to do that. But I do completely agree that a long gun would be better than a handgun, given the ideal circumstances. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
stiletto raggio 20 Posted May 25, 2010 Report Share Posted May 25, 2010 I will not use ball ammo, intentionally. Fact is, per the Geneva Convention, ball ammo is a military ordnance. HP is the civilian tool of choice. For the record, the Geneva Convention covers the disposition and treatment of Prisoners of War. The Hague Conventions for the core of what we think of today as the "Law of War." It prohibits, among many other things, any weapons which are designed to cause unnecessary suffering. It is the weenie lawyers on JAG staff that decided hollow point rounds met this criteria, and we are gradually starting to see them in limited distribution for "precision rifle" rounds (Black Hills BTHP) and military law enforcement (9mm HPs). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
crackback 135 Posted May 25, 2010 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2010 (edited) I will not use ball ammo, intentionally. Fact is, per the Geneva Convention, ball ammo is a military ordnance. HP is the civilian tool of choice. For the record, the Geneva Convention covers the disposition and treatment of Prisoners of War. The Hague Conventions for the core of what we think of today as the "Law of War." It prohibits, among many other things, any weapons which are designed to cause unnecessary suffering. It is the weenie lawyers on JAG staff that decided hollow point rounds met this criteria, and we are gradually starting to see them in limited distribution for "precision rifle" rounds (Black Hills BTHP) and military law enforcement (9mm HPs). Funny thing is that an HP round is actually more lethal via larger permanent cavity and potential fragmentation i.e a quicker death so wouldn't the nonfragmenting FMJ round, generally all military rounds save for 5.56mm from a 20" barrel, be considered "less humane"? Edited May 25, 2010 by 690gr Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mgconnor13 206 Posted October 28, 2010 Report Share Posted October 28, 2010 If I have to shoot some one I rather have to turn over my pump gun then an NFA item. They "loose" my 870 I'm out a couple hundred bucks. I spent too much time and money on my SBS to hand that over. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrM4 3 Posted October 31, 2010 Report Share Posted October 31, 2010 Personally Im a fan of the Mossy Cruisers 7+1 or a 37 ithaca that is slam fire capable. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DogMan 2,343 Posted October 31, 2010 Report Share Posted October 31, 2010 I've never spent, nor do I intend to spend one nanosecond worrying about the ramifications and aftermath of defending myself with a particular weapon. All my weapons are legal for me to own and use as I see fit in a self defense situation. My concern in a defensive situation is survival first, and I'm going to use whatever weapon I have access to that I think will give me the best chance of accomplishing that. I would never own a weapon that I was hesitant to use. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ewoketeer 35 Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 FWIW, hollowpoints are issued to PD's, et al., for their reduced overpenetration, as we should be aware of where our rounds are going. HP's also dump more energy in a flesh and blood target (bad guy) than ball. When challenged for ouir use of HP ammo as intending to kill, we need to let the juries know our intent is to stop the assault. If you shoot someone in the abdomen with a .22 short, they may die, but how much damage are they still capable of doing if they are so inclined? In the no-too-distant-past, we had a case where a bad guy gunned down four officers-the last to be shot was able to get in the fight and get lead into the perp. It was a mortal wound, but the perp was able to get away and was finally killed the next dayby another officer in another city that the perp tried to ambush. The projectile was a duty issue, I think a .40. More recently, two of our local deputies were incapacitated by close range fire when a third deputy got lead in the perp. It was a leg wound on the perp, who then committed suicide. Obviously, if words are sufficient, so be it. Otherwise, deal with the assailant decisively. BTW, we practice Failure-to-stop drills regularly--two to the chest, two to the head at close range, three yards. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pony_express1973 183 Posted June 10, 2011 Report Share Posted June 10, 2011 I have a few pistols a AR and an S-12 but for HD I will grab my Mossberg 500 and shoot till the intruder leaves bleeding or is dead.... My best friend always says I'd rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6 and I agree. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scott Kenny 144 Posted June 12, 2011 Report Share Posted June 12, 2011 wouldn't the nonfragmenting FMJ round, generally all military rounds save for 5.56mm from a 20" barrel, be considered "less humane"? Nope, because intentionally killing a *person* is inhumane as far as a war is concerned (don't strain yourself trying to figure out the logic in that). Besides, if you kill a soldier, you only take one guy out of the fight. If you wound a soldier, you take 3 guys out of the fight. That rule does not apply in home-defense scenarios. Personally, I load frangible rounds in the nightstand magazine. They let me say in complete honesty that I wanted to make sure that if/when I missed (even SEALs miss sometimes), I would not place innocent bystanders at risk (more properly, minimize the risk to bystanders). Now, as a side effect, frangible rounds do horrendous things to any meatbag they hit, but the reason I bought them *is* to minimize the risk to bystanders. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
zakmatthews 14 Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 One of my two go-to weapons for home defense is a 14" Mossberg 590 AOW w/ a 600 lumen weaponlight. The reason I went with the AOW is because it fits so perfectly in my top dresser drawer and it is very maneuverable in close quarters. Now I know there are a lot of arguments against stockless shotguns, but I practice with it often and can rapidly hit anything I want with it while still maintaining control. The point in a self-defense weapon is to be able to use it to quickly and reliably stop the threat. As long as you can do that with whatever legal weapon you choose, you are just fine. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kevin.rose0@gmail.com 62 Posted June 25, 2011 Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 Now I know there are a lot of arguments against stockless shotguns, but I practice with it often and can rapidly hit anything I want with it while still maintaining control. The point in a self-defense weapon is to be able to use it to quickly and reliably stop the threat. As long as you can do that with whatever legal weapon you choose, you are just fine. Yeah, I thought they were a joke. And then I read about that store owner in NYC who had a pistol grip shotgun under the counter for years, apparently never shot it. One day 4 guys came in to stick up the place. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/08/16/2009-08-16_gus_was_well_within_the_law_sez_top_cop_kelly.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scott Kenny 144 Posted June 26, 2011 Report Share Posted June 26, 2011 My right hand hurts just thinking about a stockless shotgun, but I've seen lots for sale recently. Shoot, I'm thinking about buying one of the all-stainless Mossberg 'Just in Case' shotguns! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
zakmatthews 14 Posted June 26, 2011 Report Share Posted June 26, 2011 (edited) My right hand hurts just thinking about a stockless shotgun, but I've seen lots for sale recently. Shoot, I'm thinking about buying one of the all-stainless Mossberg 'Just in Case' shotguns! If you're even half-a-man, I really don't think you'll find the recoil on 2-3/4" 00 buck that bad at all. Especially with a quality pistol grip and the right shooting stance/position. Edited June 26, 2011 by zakmatthews Quote Link to post Share on other sites
zaxon_182 44 Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 (edited) My right hand hurts just thinking about a stockless shotgun, but I've seen lots for sale recently. Shoot, I'm thinking about buying one of the all-stainless Mossberg 'Just in Case' shotguns! I own one, it's nice. Good price, handy and light. It's my survival gun when I'm out hiking in AK. 3" magnum slugs for bears do hurt but not too bad. Edited June 29, 2011 by delNbones Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sickness 89 Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 The type of gun you use, IF LEGALLY POSSESSED, will have zero bearing on the legality of the shoot. The parameters of the legalities of self-defense are very well defined. +1! From the standpoint of criminal charges specifically relating to a defensive shooting, the type of gun used to defend yourself or your family is irrelevant. The type of ammunition used would also be irrelevant. No mention of either factor is made in the pertinent criminal statutes. A civil suit may be another matter altogether, though. You never know what is going to happen in those. Completely irrational judgments are not unknown. +100 Everyone talks about the legalities regarding criminal charges - but if the shooting was legally justified, those charges likely wouldn't even come out. It is the civil case brought against you by the perp's family that is the problem. In a civil case, scary exotic guns will almost CERTAINLY work against you. A suppressor, despite the obvious advantages of using one in an indoor shooting situation, would almost certainly be seen as an assassin's weapon of choice, for instance. It will be pointed out that SBS/SBR are "criminals weapons of choice" (hence regulation under NFA). Living in a "gun friendly" area isn't necessarily a protection against this, either -- juries familiar with guns are potentially MORE likely to look at an exotic weapon, and KNOW how exotic it is.. then think "Only a nut would want something like that." If you want to keep an NFA item handy in case a team of ninjas breaks in your house, thats fine. But your goto gun should be an "ordinary" shotgun for the FAR more likely (and yet, in absolute terms - still very UNLIKELY) event that a pair of untrained crackheads break in. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DogMan 2,343 Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 The type of gun you use, IF LEGALLY POSSESSED, will have zero bearing on the legality of the shoot. The parameters of the legalities of self-defense are very well defined. +1! From the standpoint of criminal charges specifically relating to a defensive shooting, the type of gun used to defend yourself or your family is irrelevant. The type of ammunition used would also be irrelevant. No mention of either factor is made in the pertinent criminal statutes. A civil suit may be another matter altogether, though. You never know what is going to happen in those. Completely irrational judgments are not unknown. Everyone talks about the legalities regarding criminal charges - but if the shooting was legally justified, those charges likely wouldn't even come out. I agree with this part of your statement. As for the rest.....not so much. Can you cite any examples of a jury in a civil suit being influenced to find a shooter liable because of a particular type of weapon in a shooting that had been ruled legally justified? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sickness 89 Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) I agree with this part of your statement. As for the rest.....not so much. Can you cite any examples of a jury in a civil suit being influenced to find a shooter liable because of a particular type of weapon in a shooting that had been ruled legally justified? Liable? No I can't say I know of any off-hand where the shooter was found liable, but I have heard of cases where the argument was made. Same goes for "exotic" (read hand-loaded) ammo. But does that really matter? If you live in a state that does not have a definitive law against civil actions in justified self-defense shootings, you're looking at a $100k bill or more just to be found not liable. Your attorney's job is to make a case that you are not liable. The job of the plantiff's attorney is to make an argument to the contrary, naturally. Part of YOUR job is to make it difficult for the plaintiff to make a case, and to make it EASY for your attorney to do his job.. by thinking ahead and figuring out your best moves, and knowing what to say and how to respond. If you don't have Castle Law, you don't go clearing rooms, for starters. It is too easy to claim you went looking for a fight. They'll claim cracked out little Bobby wasn't a violent person.. he was just high as a kite and wandered into the wrong house.. and you ran down the hall with your MP5 playing SWAT for no reason. You were itching to kill someone with your bad-ass gun, blah blah. NFA weapons, exotic stuff, hand loaded ammo, etc, etc all complicate the situation. That is going to be a lot of talking in court = more trial time = lots of money. In short, your job is to give them all very little to talk about. Wait in your bedroom, get 911 on the phone .. tell the intruder to take the TV and go away. When they show up at the bedroom door, let them have it.. and you'll have a beautiful piece of evidence in the 911 call to use in your civil defense. Since you offered the TV even while holding your shotgun, you come out looking like a saint. It becomes DAMN hard for the plantiff's attorney to make you look otherwise = short trial = less money. There are twice as many lawyers in the country than doctors, and there are even more in law school. Most firms will take loser cases in personal injury or wrongful death suits ..the junior attorneys are getting paid by the firm regardless, so you may as well have them in court and take the gamble. Do as you like, but if you think NFA weapons don't have some big drawbacks legally .. well, you just aren't factoring in how the game is actually played. Edited July 6, 2011 by sickness Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DogMan 2,343 Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 I agree with this part of your statement. As for the rest.....not so much. Can you cite any examples of a jury in a civil suit being influenced to find a shooter liable because of a particular type of weapon in a shooting that had been ruled legally justified? Liable? No I can't say I know of any off-hand where the shooter was found liable, but I have heard of cases where the argument was made. Same goes for "exotic" (read hand-loaded) ammo. But does that really matter? If you live in a state that does not have a definitive law against civil actions in justified self-defense shootings, you're looking at a $100k bill or more just to be found not liable. Your attorney's job is to make a case that you are not liable. The job of the plantiff's attorney is to make an argument to the contrary, naturally. Part of YOUR job is to make it difficult for the plaintiff to make a case, and to make it EASY for your attorney to do his job.. by thinking ahead and figuring out your best moves, and knowing what to say and how to respond. If you don't have Castle Law, you don't go clearing rooms, for starters. It is too easy to claim you went looking for a fight. They'll claim cracked out little Bobby wasn't a violent person.. he was just high as a kite and wandered into the wrong house.. and you ran down the hall with your MP5 playing SWAT for no reason. You were itching to kill someone with your bad-ass gun, blah blah. NFA weapons, exotic stuff, hand loaded ammo, etc, etc all complicate the situation. That is going to be a lot of talking in court = more trial time = lots of money. In short, your job is to give them all very little to talk about. Wait in your bedroom, get 911 on the phone .. tell the intruder to take the TV and go away. When they show up at the bedroom door, let them have it.. and you'll have a beautiful piece of evidence in the 911 call to use in your civil defense. Since you offered the TV even while holding your shotgun, you come out looking like a saint. It becomes DAMN hard for the plantiff's attorney to make you look otherwise = short trial = less money. There are twice as many lawyers in the country than doctors, and there are even more in law school. Most firms will take loser cases in personal injury or wrongful death suits ..the junior attorneys are getting paid by the firm regardless, so you may as well have them in court and take the gamble. Do as you like, but if you think NFA weapons don't have some big drawbacks legally .. well, you just aren't factoring in how the game is actually played. I just think there is entirely too much being made of "bad" guns vs "good" guns for lawyers to hold up and show a jury. These are all devices specifically made to kill by firing a projectile. There is no substantive difference in any of them. I am a potential juror, too. If any lawyer tried to bullshit me by these kind of theatrics it would work against him. And BTW, my job is to come out of the initial encounter alive. I can't do that if I'm choosing my weapons and tactics based on what some lawyer in a cheap suit might say about me. Do what you want, we're just going to have a philosophical disagreement on this one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sickness 89 Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 I just think there is entirely too much being made of "bad" guns vs "good" guns for lawyers to hold up and show a jury. These are all devices specifically made to kill by firing a projectile. There is no substantive difference in any of them. I am a potential juror, too. If any lawyer tried to bullshit me by these kind of theatrics it would work against him. And BTW, my job is to come out of the initial encounter alive. I can't do that if I'm choosing my weapons and tactics based on what some lawyer in a cheap suit might say about me. Do what you want, we're just going to have a philosophical disagreement on this one. Hey, I agree with you that it shouldn't matter -- and I whole-heartedly agree that your primary concern should be to come out of the encounter alive. Better to be tried by 12 than buried by 6 and all that. I'm just pointing out that the opinion here that it doesn't matter what gun you use in court is really not the case at all.. it does matter, though not in the way most people consider. The thing is this.. folks who have never been mugged, or raped, or who have never had their home broken into .. these people can easily say to themselves "Bah.. I don't need to worry. I don't need a gun." If you've never been through a lengthy trial, if you've never watched thousands of dollars of debt rack up by the day .. it is easy to say "Bah.. who cares about lawyers in cheap suits. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it." But if you've ever been through either situation, things start looking mighty different when you come out the other side. You'll find that killing a meth head perp can be much more expensive than letting him take the TV and run while you cover a bedroom door and call the cops. Your tactics and strategy should be such that it protects not just your life, but your liberty and property too. If you want to have that MP5 at the ready for use against a team of rogue specops guys, thats fine. But if you're at that level of preparedness, you should have video surveillance already, and you'll be able to see if the threat is a single drugged out perp or a team of mercs. In the former situation, you should grab a Mossberg 500. In the later, you should probably run .. but if you have to fight, then grab the MP5. If you really want to survive a combat scenario, you do it by gathering some intelligence first, and responding to the actual threat.. not by instituting a rote, reactionary plan against the worst imaginable adversary. Just my $0.02.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyE 81 Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DogMan 2,343 Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Again, I'm still waiting to see some real life examples posted here that have actually happened in the real world, and not just in theory. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sickness 89 Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Again, I'm still waiting to see some real life examples posted here that have actually happened in the real world, and not just in theory. Massad Ayoob covered some cases that had arguments about the use of handloaded ammo. I've heard of cases where the type of gun was brought up, but don't remember the names of the litigants involved. I'm certainly not going to spend loads of my free time digging them up, either.. sorry.... I just don't have the time for that. Do as you please - its your life savings, not mine. Hell, maybe I'll be one of the lucky bastards who buys one or two of your NFA goodies real cheap when you're strapped for cash. But seriously, we could turn this around the other way and ask.. does anyone have a real life example of where someone needed, say a FA SBR for HD where a Mossy 500 couldn't have done the job? Anyone know of a case where a team of armored felons with tactical training stacked up to enter a home, etc. ..but that question misses the point. Because we all KNOW that felons do home invasions on rare occasions.. the specifics of how they may try to accomplish that are largely irrelevant.. Similarly, we all know that civil litigation sometimes goes awry, that lawyers make ridiculous arguments, that juries sometimes believe them, and we know that it costs a pretty penny even if one is found not liable. If you keep a FA MP5 by your beside, what you are saying implicitly is something along the lines that "I'm not going to be the unlucky SOB to face a mob of mercs and be outgunned." Fair enough. By choosing to NOT grab said MP5, what I'm implicitly saying is "I'm not going be the unlucky SOB to face a witless jury and an ambitious attorney." My feeling is that greedy lawyers and shitty juries are more common than hordes of thugs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DogMan 2,343 Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Again, I'm still waiting to see some real life examples posted here that have actually happened in the real world, and not just in theory. Massad Ayoob covered some cases that had arguments about the use of handloaded ammo. I've heard of cases where the type of gun was brought up, but don't remember the names of the litigants involved. I'm certainly not going to spend loads of my free time digging them up, either.. sorry.... I just don't have the time for that. Do as you please - its your life savings, not mine. Hell, maybe I'll be one of the lucky bastards who buys one or two of your NFA goodies real cheap when you're strapped for cash. But seriously, we could turn this around the other way and ask.. does anyone have a real life example of where someone needed, say a FA SBR for HD where a Mossy 500 couldn't have done the job? Anyone know of a case where a team of armored felons with tactical training stacked up to enter a home, etc. ..but that question misses the point. Because we all KNOW that felons do home invasions on rare occasions.. the specifics of how they may try to accomplish that are largely irrelevant.. Similarly, we all know that civil litigation sometimes goes awry, that lawyers make ridiculous arguments, that juries sometimes believe them, and we know that it costs a pretty penny even if one is found not liable. If you keep a FA MP5 by your beside, what you are saying implicitly is something along the lines that "I'm not going to be the unlucky SOB to face a mob of mercs and be outgunned." Fair enough. By choosing to NOT grab said MP5, what I'm implicitly saying is "I'm not going be the unlucky SOB to face a witless jury and an ambitious attorney." My feeling is that greedy lawyers and shitty juries are more common than hordes of thugs. OK, so you don't have any actual cases you can cite. You could have just said that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sickness 89 Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 OK, so you don't have any actual cases you can cite. You could have just said that. Read post #14 in this thread. One story supports your position - that the firearms don't matter - and against 7 thugs robbing a gunstore with their arms and cars filled with guns, it apparently doesn't.. in Florida. In 1976. The other supports mine - that there is a legal/political dimension that can screw you all up. If you bother to read Ayoob on this matter, and other matters you'll find similar lines of reasoning in court about handloaded ammo, as I've mentioned before. I don't know what is so difficult for you grasp: the job of an attorney isn't to find truth. The job of an attorney is to make an ARGUMENT. That is what they get paid for. Any extra details, anything out of the ordinary can be talked and argued about - and regardless of the verdict - that is money spent. But you've already stated that you "have never, and will never" consider the legal side of this - that you'll use the guns you like - period. You've stated clearly you won't have an open mind on this matter - and that is your right. But if you somehow expect that - with that attitude in place - that I'm going to spend time digging up resources for you, you're wrong. If you're really interested, you'll dig it up yourself - but we both know you're not. I believe this thread lays out the case against using NFA arms pretty clearly. Most posters agree they add an unneeded legal dimension that isn't favorable to the shooter. I've tried to point out the REAL LIFE way that the legal system works, and the REAL LIFE expenses incurred with being in court in the first place - but to you those notions are "theoretical" because I can't give you a court docket #. That is your prerogative. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DogMan 2,343 Posted July 7, 2011 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 OK, so you don't have any actual cases you can cite. You could have just said that. Read post #14 in this thread. One story supports your position - that the firearms don't matter - and against 7 thugs robbing a gunstore with their arms and cars filled with guns, it apparently doesn't.. in Florida. In 1976. The other supports mine - that there is a legal/political dimension that can screw you all up. If you bother to read Ayoob on this matter, and other matters you'll find similar lines of reasoning in court about handloaded ammo, as I've mentioned before. I don't know what is so difficult for you grasp: the job of an attorney isn't to find truth. The job of an attorney is to make an ARGUMENT. That is what they get paid for. Any extra details, anything out of the ordinary can be talked and argued about - and regardless of the verdict - that is money spent. But you've already stated that you "have never, and will never" consider the legal side of this - that you'll use the guns you like - period. You've stated clearly you won't have an open mind on this matter - and that is your right. But if you somehow expect that - with that attitude in place - that I'm going to spend time digging up resources for you, you're wrong. If you're really interested, you'll dig it up yourself - but we both know you're not. I believe this thread lays out the case against using NFA arms pretty clearly. Most posters agree they add an unneeded legal dimension that isn't favorable to the shooter. I've tried to point out the REAL LIFE way that the legal system works, and the REAL LIFE expenses incurred with being in court in the first place - but to you those notions are "theoretical" because I can't give you a court docket #. That is your prerogative. "Read post #14 in this thread. One story supports your position" Thank you "The other supports mine - that there is a legal/political dimension that can screw you all up." Yep, never said a legal dimension didn't exist, only that it's very inflated in the context of a justified shooting and I'm not going to let that influence my choice in weapons for any particular application. "I don't know what is so difficult for you grasp: the job of an attorney isn't to find truth. The job of an attorney is to make an ARGUMENT." I grasp that perfectly. Attorneys on both sides make all kinds of absurd arguments all the time. Me using a weapon with his good housekeeping seal of approval isn't going to stop that. There are 12 other people there whose job it is to find the truth. Yes, defending yourself can be expensive. Laying down the gun that you believe gives you the best chance to defend yourself (I didn't say "the ones I like") in favor of something "family friendly" can cost you your life. When somebody is trying to kill you, NOTHING is about money. The epitaph on my tombstone will never read "But I saved a bunch in attorney's fees". I wouldn't say that I am totally closed minded about anything. I'm just totally unconvinced at this point. When you are the one making the argument for something it is incumbent on you to substantiate it. I'm not saying you do not make some legitimate points, but the only thing that could sway me is to see specific examples of someone using a legal NFA weapon in a justified shooting, and then had a civil jury come along and award a judgement against him with the type of weapon he used as a significant factor in the judgement. I stand ready to eat my words. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sickness 89 Posted July 8, 2011 Report Share Posted July 8, 2011 I grasp that perfectly. Attorneys on both sides make all kinds of absurd arguments all the time. Me using a weapon with his good housekeeping seal of approval isn't going to stop that. There are 12 other people there whose job it is to find the truth. Yes, defending yourself can be expensive. Laying down the gun that you believe gives you the best chance to defend yourself (I didn't say "the ones I like") in favor of something "family friendly" can cost you your life. When somebody is trying to kill you, NOTHING is about money. The epitaph on my tombstone will never read "But I saved a bunch in attorney's fees". I wouldn't say that I am totally closed minded about anything. I'm just totally unconvinced at this point. When you are the one making the argument for something it is incumbent on you to substantiate it. I'm not saying you do not make some legitimate points, but the only thing that could sway me is to see specific examples of someone using a legal NFA weapon in a justified shooting, and then had a civil jury come along and award a judgement against him with the type of weapon he used as a significant factor in the judgement. I stand ready to eat my words. Hmm, ok - fair enough. I'm sorry if I unfairly portrayed you as close-minded on this. Your previous post sounded to me like you had a very staunch position. But I think it is pretty clear we're not going to get anywhere. You are asking for a definitive case where a person was found liable, and I've never heard of one.. so I don't know if I could even find a reference. I do KNOW that the argument has been made a few times, and the resulting case was lengthy, and costly. To me, it matters little if I'm found liable for $23 million in a wrongful death suit, or whether I get a bill for $230,000 in attorney's fees. Both are going to bankrupt me. Similarly, a 12ga pump is going to kill 'em just as dead as an MP5. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scott Kenny 144 Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 And if you really want to get 'fancy' there is always a Winchester 1897. No trigger interrupter, no safety (it has an external hammer). Mash the trigger and rack the pump, 54 rounds of 00 buck goes downrange fast. You can get a Pedersoli replica for about $850, they're *nice* guns. The Chinese-made ones aren't as nice, and they're the M1917 Trench Gun version (so have a bayonet lug and a overbarrel ventilated handguard), making them look military but with wood stocks. If you can find one, they're about $650. Either way, lots of choices, and the Just in Case keeps moving up on my priority list. It's tough to argue that pricetag and 12 gauge. Still, being able to look the Prosector or the civil attorney square in the face and say "I bought that ammunition strictly because it is designed to not ricochet and not penetrate 2 layers of drywall, minimizing the risks to innocent bystanders" goes a long way towards avoiding problems. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
kevin.rose0@gmail.com 62 Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Everything you can fire from a 12 gauge will go through 2 layers of drywall, including birdshot, at typical house distance. Now the second interior wall, maybe not. But the first wall isn't going to stop even birdshot. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Scott Kenny 144 Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Frangibles like Extreme Shock's 'Shockshot,' not repeat NOT birdshot, but I was referring to Extreme Shock's 'Air Freedom' rounds for my 9mm. Sorry I wasn't clear. The cylindrical pellets in Shockshot are made from tungsten powder that shatters back into dust when it hits something solid enough to cause a ricochet. Very spendy stuff, but designed for minimal overpenetration. Specialized ammo for specialized purposes, the raison d'etre of a shotgun. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.