Bird shot for home defense!!!

[MikeGoob]

Not sure if its been mentioned in here yet, but some glasses--lightweight prescription glasses--use 'bulletproof' plastic. Some 'ski' type glasses (oakleys) use the same thing. Now, not that Id want to be shot in the face with birdshot, but if a criminal is wearing some oakleys or otherwise prescription high density plastic glasses, the first shot wont necessarily blind them.

[PoweredBySoy]

Your last statement about the tazer probably gave a few of us on this site a heart attack just reading that comment. If not a heart attack maybe a few of us passed out after reading it.

Yeeeeah, I know. That was really my wife talking more than anything. She's currently very reluctant about us getting a gun in the house. If it were completely up to me, I would have already applied for the permit. Not because I'm fully convinced I need a shotgun for HD, but also because it would be fun to take it to the range with my Army buddy and shoot it.

[Scorch]

So it seems 99% of everyone out there thinks bird shot to the face won't work. I respect your opinion. Now most people around here seem to think #4 buck shot is also weak and they wouldn't even shoot rabbits with it.

#4 buckshot won't work? Who are you trying to fool?
http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3.htm

[Super-Dave]

Poweredbysoy,

Here is my advise. Buy a 12 gauge mossberg 500 combo with the long 26" barrel and the short 18.5" barrel.

I have seen these combos in the local gun store for $289.00. If you go to dicks sporting goods or gander mountain you might get it even cheaper.

I think there is a maverick 88 combo deal I have seen for $240.00.

Take the gun with the long barrel and you and you wife can go do some trap and skeet shooting for fun. Use the 18.5" barrel for home defense.

Load what you want in it. Anything loaded in that shotgun is better than a stun gun or pepper spray.

If you and your wife are concerned about lethality, go buy those all rubber slugs. They are considered less lethal and can easily put a huge dent in those steel cargo barrels. They even make pepper spray shot for the 12 gauge shotgun. They also make blanks. Anything fired out of that shotgun would be better than using a stun gun in my opinion.

If you wife is reading this stuff she probably has had an anurism and would never let you bring a gun in the house.

I have had girlfriends like this so I understand what you are going through and how she feels.

My wife tolerates my guns. She understands they are neccesary. I want to get her more interested. I have taken her to the range a few times and she did well. She did not enjoy it because she was the only female there and felt intimidated.

This summer I am going to buy her a mossberg pump. I am going to sand down all the wood and paint it pink. I am going to take her skeet and trap shooting where I know she will enjoy it and be around other females as well. I think she will like it and want to go back again and again.

[RsqVet]

Soy --

Before you get a gun, go and get some training in use of force and use of force law. You may find it very educational.

In short :

1. Having a few use of force options is always a good idea but when it comes to a firearm it is always considered to be leathal force in the hands of a civilian no matter how you load it or where you point it. There are no warning shots or any crap like that. Start in on stuff like that and YOU may end up in the pokey.

2. If you pull the trigger it's to stop an imediate threat to your life, or another human life. Some states allow use of force in what would be classed property crimes but personally I can't think of the property worth it from a moral or legal perspective.

3. Stoping the threat might involve inducing death in the agressor but that is not the goal, the goal is for them to cease hostilities, in the dedicated attacker the only way to stop them might be disrupting their brian or cardiovascular system

4. There is NO SUCH THING as "a little bit of deadly force", it's like being a little bit pregnant. Either you are in fear of your life with a non-complying and or armed agressor or you are not. If you are not then you don't shoot, if you are you shoot to stop the threat.

ANY statement on your part that you did not feel threated and in fear of your life, wanted to warn or scare the perp or whatever MAY be used against you in cival and criminal court. yes that is right ciminal court because if you shoot someone and you are NOT in fear of your life then it's not self defense and you have comitted a criminal act.

As to the ideas expressed here in regard to the reliability of stopping a threat, I'm quite confidant no one here WANTS to take another's life. Yet we all live in the real world and know that it might come to that. And the fact of the matter is there are no sure stops, and assuming X, whatever it is will be a sure stop is step one in self delushion that might get you killed. As I ahve said before if we assume x will work why not assume you will have a suspect that complies at the sight of a gun.... that way all you need is a cap gun...




The minor details of all of this differ in regard to diffirent states, and the situation such as in your house vs. not.

[M1911]

If you and your wife are concerned about lethality, go buy those all rubber slugs. They are considered less lethal and can easily put a huge dent in those steel cargo barrels. They even make pepper spray shot for the 12 gauge shotgun. They also make blanks. Anything fired out of that shotgun would be better than using a stun gun in my opinion.

That is just about the worst advice I have ever seen here at TFL.

[Super-Dave]

I would rather have a shotgun loaded with rubber slugs in my hand than a stun gun.

I assume you would rather have the stun gun.

Each his own I guess.

[PoweredBySoy]

If you and your wife are concerned about lethality, go buy those all rubber slugs. They are considered less lethal and can easily put a huge dent in those steel cargo barrels. They even make pepper spray shot for the 12 gauge shotgun. They also make blanks. Anything fired out of that shotgun would be better than using a stun gun in my opinion.

Could you point me to a site that sells options like that? I've never seen those.

Load what you want in it. Anything loaded in that shotgun is better than a stun gun or pepper spray.

Understood.

Before you get a gun, go and get some training in use of force and use of force law. You may find it very educational. ......

Awesome advice. Thank you.

That is just about the worst advice I have ever seen here at TFL.

If options like that ease my wifes' mind and allow me to bring a shotgun into the house, I'm all for it. Again, I'm of the mindset that the mere fact that I have a shotgun, it's goes "cha-chink", and makes a loud boom, will scare away 99.9% of all intruders - which is ultimately my goal.

[MikeGoob]

I remember a story in here about a person who had people break into his house yelling about some big stash of money--they were drugged up and obviously had the wrong house. They tied up the owner and harassed him looking for the loot they thought was supposed to be there.

point is---you wont get rational burglars. You get drugged up thugs who wont be scared off like a person in their right mind would be.

[M1911]

I would rather have a shotgun loaded with rubber slugs in my hand than a stun gun.

I assume you would rather have the stun gun.

You assume wrong. First, the legal implications of using less-lethal projectiles are profound. Second, suggesting to someone who is unwilling to use deadly force that they use a tool that can easily be lethal (rubber slugs at close range) is completely irresponsible. Third, it is highly unlikely that they will be able to find adequate training in the use of less-lethal projectiles.

If someone is not willing to use deadly force, then they have no business using a shotgun for home defense, even if it is loaded with rubber slugs.

[M1911]

Soy:

By using less-lethal projectiles, you open the door for the DA to say that you felt you were not in danger of death or grave bodily injury (because if you really thought you were in danger, then you would have used 00 buck). But if you hit the perp in the head or center of the chest, you can kill him. See the legal jeopardy you can put yourself in with less-lethal projectiles? And since you won't have training in the use of the less-lethal projectiles, how are you going to be able to convince the judge and/or jury that you were using them appropriately?

Use 00 buck or skip the shotgun.

Here's an example of a less-lethal projectile going wrong:

In the wake of the death of a Red Sox fan hit by a police pepper-spray weapon after the team's playoff victory, Boston officials are imposing restrictions on the bars around Fenway Park and are considering discontinuing use of the pepper-spray gun.

The Red Sox' historic victory over the Yankees Wednesday night sent as many as 80,000 people streaming out of bars and homes into the streets around Fenway Park after midnight, many of whom climbed on cars and lampposts and swung from trees.

As the crowd grew unruly, a police officer fired the pepper-spray weapon, striking 21-year-old Victoria Snelgrove, a college student, in the eye, which caused her death several hours later. Police Commissioner Kathleen O'Toole said the department took responsibility for the death, and was investigating the incident.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/23/sp.../23boston.html

A shotgun with rubber slugs is FAR more powerful than the pepper-spray gun used above, and you would likely be at a far closer range indoors than that incident.

Furthermore, by using the same shotgun sometimes with lethal projectiles and sometimes with less-lethal, you can easily screw up and end up with the wrong projectiles in the gun. Police agencies that use less-lethal projectiles have significant training and protocols surrounding their use. There are hard-learned lessons behind the training and protocols.

Take LFI-1 from Ayoob. Then if you still think you want to use rubber slugs, ask him. I strongly suspect he will try to dissuade you from using less-lethal projectiles.

[Boris Bush]

MikeGoob


You make a good point. I was at a pin match a while back (like 10 years ago) when a newbie got on line and fired his shotgun loaded with #6 birdhot. The bird shot bounced off the pins and I was hit in the face and ears. My right eye would have had 3 pellets in it and one in my left if I would not have been wearing eye pro. I do not know how much umph was taken from the pellets but they broke the skin and it hurt like hell. FWIW I stayed and kept on shooting (I always bring extra eye and ear pro). I felt like I was shot in the face but it had little effect on my mental state. A little pain, some ruined eye pro and a story to tell and some cool marks on my face.........

I forgot all about that until you mentioned that............

[Super-Dave]

I disagree with 1911

If you use rubber slugs and have to stand before a jury and tell them that the reason you use rubber slugs is because you and your wife do not believe it is morally or ethically right for you to kill an intruder with buck shot and you were hoping to scare them away you will be fine.

I do not care what mumbo jumbo legal speak anyone on this board has to say. If you attempt to use non lethal means to protect you and your wife when you are afraid for your life ,and you do not feel it is morally right for you to shoot someone with buckshot. No, one and and I mean no one would ever try to legaly to condemn you because you did not use lethal force and kill the perpetrator.

[Super-Dave]

Its strange how rubber slugs are lethal but bird shot to the head isn't

I am not going to argue anymore its pointless.

I guess everyone here would rather you use a baseball bat instead of a shotgun with rubber slugs.

Can someone die from being shot with rubber slugs? Yes

Can someone die from being hit in the head with a baseball bat? yes

Can soneone die from being zapped with a stun gun? yes

My point is if you are morally against killing an intruder, your best chance of surviving the situation might be with a shotgun with rubber slugs.

Stun guns only gives you one shot and you might miss. Also there might be multiple attackers

With the shotgun just the fact that you have one might scare them away.


I would rather attempt to defend my home with an empty shotgun than a stun gun.

Does anyone here really disagree with the above statement?

[PoweredBySoy]

Seriously. If a jury would find me guilty after successfully disabling, and not killing, an intruder in my own house - then I'm moving to Canada.

But I don't think anyone can argue with the pure awesomeness of this product:
XREP

If these are released at $100 a shot, I'd buy 2.

But again, that's why I love the 12 gauge scenario. Non-lethal means can be attempted for the first couple shots. If after that you decide it just isn't working, buckshot is coming up.

[oneounceload]

If you are morally opposed to killing someone, no matter the threat, then make sure you have an exit from each room and simply run away, like they make you do in Kalifornia....do NOT keep a gun in the house, you obviously wouldn't feel comfortable with it....get your bear spray, taser, and bat....and hope you never have to use any of them...

If you're not prepared to kill someone, you should not own a gun for HD or SD...JMO, YMMV

[Scorch]

But I don't think anyone can argue with the pure awesomeness of this product:
XREP

Great, just what we need, a high-cost toy for PDs to deploy at taxpayer expense that allows them to fill more jail cells so lawyers can turn them loose on the street again. Pretty soon, they would be using them for crowd control, just like rubber bullets.

I would rather LEOs use rifled slugs against violent offenders. If the actions of the person it is used against justifies the use of the XREP, why wouldn't they justify the use of lethal force? Death reduces recidivism.

[akr]

M1911
Senior Member

Join Date: 03-28-2000
Posts: 3,547

Quote:
If you and your wife are concerned about lethality, go buy those all rubber slugs. They are considered less lethal and can easily put a huge dent in those steel cargo barrels. They even make pepper spray shot for the 12 gauge shotgun. They also make blanks. Anything fired out of that shotgun would be better than using a stun gun in my opinion.
That is just about the worst advice I have ever seen here at TFL.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...=293121&page=4

http://snipurl.com/27fu0

I agree fully with M1911. That's the WORST advise I have ever heard.

[PoweredBySoy]

By using less-lethal projectiles, you open the door for the DA to say that you felt you were not in danger of death or grave bodily injury (because if you really thought you were in danger, then you would have used 00 buck).

But what about all the people here saying pretty much anything fired from a shotgun is potentially lethal. Couldn't I just argue that, yes, I felt I was in mortal danger and "I thought for sure that bean bag/birdshot/taser would have killed him".

Seems to me that if a guy breaks into my house, no matter what I do to ensure my safety I'll have an uphill battle in court. Of course, I suppose I could just let him steal my TV and rape my wife. I suppose that's what the lawyers would want me to do.

You've definitely given me more to think about though. I'm for sure going to be looking more into my states' laws that pertain to break-in situations.

Great, just what we need, a high-cost toy for PDs to deploy at taxpayer expense that allows them to fill more jail cells so lawyers can turn them loose on the street again.

Yeah, that's kinda what I thought at first too.

[tplumeri]

XREP

Its perfect! you stun them with this thing and then beat em to death with butt of the shotgun.

[MikeGoob]

Tasers and the like dont do so well if your thug attacker is wearing something like this:



Puffy jackets are all the rage.. Electriconic stunners rely on breaking the skin to be really effective. If someones wearing a thick jacket that puffs out, the prongs wont penetrate or stick.

[akr]

Awwwwwwwwwwwww, Heck, I'm plumb tired of birdshot and buckshot and rubber slugs.

[oneounceload]

Mike -

guess that would depend on where you live....here in sunny, warm Florida....not too likely - BG might be wearing a "hoodie"

In any event, neither the puffy or the hoodies going to stop my 357 from getting through

[Super-Dave]

If they are wearing a coat like the puffy coat, just make a head shot.

Seriously, no one here has answered my question.

Would you rather attempt to defend your home with an empty shotgun, or with a stun gun?

I belive I am better off with an empty shotgun than a stun gun.

[M1911]

But what about all the people here saying pretty much anything fired from a shotgun is potentially lethal. Couldn't I just argue that, yes, I felt I was in mortal danger and "I thought for sure that bean bag/birdshot/taser would have killed him".

Sure you could. Of course, the police and the DA would see through your lie in a minute and never believe another word that you said.

Seems to me that if a guy breaks into my house, no matter what I do to ensure my safety I'll have an uphill battle in court.

Not necessarily. It all depends upon what you do, the jurisdiction you are in, and the luck of the draw.

Of course, I suppose I could just let him steal my TV and rape my wife. I suppose that's what the lawyers would want me to do.

The former is very different than the later. You can use force to prevent the former, just not deadly force (in most states). You can use deadly force to prevent the later. If you don't know that, then you are gravely uniformed about the laws regarding use of force.

If you are not willing to use deadly force, then skip the shotgun. Get a dog. Get an alarm system. Get some OC spray.

Get some real training concerning the use of deadly force: http://www.ayoob.com/lfi1.html