9MM "SMG" for Home Defense?

[Skribs]

If you are ever subject to a house invasion and must use your firearm, make sure there is only one side of the story to tell. Just saying...

1) The family can still sue
2) The prosecution can make it look like you could have just incapacitated the guy, but instead chose to execute him, especially if that is what you did. If you had no choice but to use lethal force to stop the attack that's one thing, but once it's stopped you no longer have the need to defend yourself.

 

[Vonderek]

Cool idea. But if you've ever had to clear a dark house in the middle of the night with a flashlight you will wish you had a handgun instead of a rifle/shotgun. I agree that a shotgun or carbine is a good idea but only if you are going to stay in place and defend a room while you wait for the cavalry to arrive.

 

[Vonderek]

Cool idea. But if you've ever had to clear a dark house in the middle of the night with a flashlight you will wish you had a handgun instead of a rifle/shotgun. I agree that a shotgun is a good idea but only if you are going to stay in place and defend a room while you wait for the cavalry to arrive.

 

[jmorris]

My sub machine gun is well a machine gun that's only semiauto when the selector is in that position. It's hearing safe with the suppressor on but there are a bunch of other guns I would use before my NFA firearms.

 

[CoRoMo]

...you will wish you had a handgun instead of a rifle/shotgun.

No I will not. Ever.

 

[TITAN308]

If this were my board I would ban you for suggesting that people commit murder. Just saying...

Talk about over blown liberal retort. (Edit: I just realized how your statement puts fault with the victim of a home invasion and pity on the lunatic who broke in. Are you sure you are not an undercover liberal spy trying to scoop stories and ideas?)

Its not murder if you break into my house (or worse have a weapon).

You don't shoot to wound. You shoot to kill.

1) The family can still sue
2) The prosecution can make it look like you could have just incapacitated the guy, but instead chose to execute him, especially if that is what you did. If you had no choice but to use lethal force to stop the attack that's one thing, but once it's stopped you no longer have the need to defend yourself.

I can only assume you are speaking from a state that treats you like a second rate citizen (obviously not of your choice, so don't get offended).

I'm not going to debate #2 as it would be pretty irrelevant anyhow, but I think you've been watching to much CSI.

 

[CoRoMo]

Well... your intent is not supposed to be to kill. It should be to stop the attack/threat. That can certainly result in the attacker's death, but it isn't the primary goal. Otherwise, if you shoot the BG, he falls down and seems to be unconscious but still breathing, you wouldn't stand over him and put one in his head. That's an execution and yes, murder. If you hit him with a round and he flees, you wouldn't pursue him down the sidewalk and continue to fire.

 

[Skribs]

Titan, the goal is to shoot to stop. Not wound or kill. Wounding and killing happens, but the goal is to stop the attack. If he has given up and is leaving, or he is unconcious, you can get in legal trouble for shooting him in the back or executing him. Also, saying "you shoot to kill" on a public forum can be ammunition for a prosecutor against you.

I am not putting fault on the homeowner or pitying the victim. I am saying that up until the attacker stops, you are acting in self defense. After he stops, it is either vigilantiism, vengeance, or sadism, none of which are a good defense.

As to #2, there was a story in WA a while back where someone shot two home invaders, killed one and wounded the other. He was praised as a hero, but once the coroner realized that the bullet wound in the dead BG was fired at an angle that suggested he was turning around to run away, the man got arrested for murder. Not CSI, real life. And that was with a split second. If you know the attacker stopped, and you still fire, you have no defense.

 

[oneounceload]

If you come on my property and as soon as you break, kick, tear into something in an attempt to gain entry I can mow you down through the wall and its an open and shut case.

You might want to reread your CD regs =- mowing down through a wall is murder as there is no threat yet to you when they are outside - but you do as you wish

 

[TITAN308]

I don't recall mentioning shooting someone in the back (outside of my home) or executing anyone.

The point that was missed that when confronted with something like a home invasion one magazine on average carries 10-20 rounds it would not be all that hard to empty all, if not close to all before the guy hits the ground.

I'll share the flip side of your argument;

- guy lives and then gets his homies to kill or rape your wife/daughter

- guy lives and then gets his homies to wack you while you are at McDonalds

- guy lives and sues you (remember story of the home invader falling through a skylight on a knife set, sued and won)

- guy lives, serves jail time, has a change of heart, gets a bunch of liberals and their politicians to feel sorry for him and then tries to pass laws to further hamper your right to self defense

In the end one saying comes to mind; Better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6.

"Shoot to stop" is just a politically correct way of saying "Shoot to kill". I can only imagine the slop police departments would get in if it was leaked their training taught them to "Shoot to Kill".

Whats one of the main rules of firearms? Don't point it at anything you are not willing to utterly and completely destroy.

You might want to reread your CD regs =- mowing down through a wall is murder as there is no threat yet to you when they are outside - but you do as you wish

You should re-read. Standing outside and doing nothing you are absolutely correct.

Once you try to physically gain entry all bets are off. Your regs may vary by state of course.

 

[benEzra]

I think many underestimate the flash and sound of a rifle cartridge in a confined space. Assuming your ears still work after firing a 5.56 inside a house you might then get to listen to the smoke detectors going off. Pistol caliber carbines have a very distinct advantage in this regard. .45 out of a 16" barrel is incredibly quiet as would be subsonic 9mm. As far as i'm concerned a 5.56 should be used with a can if fired indoors. The primary danger of using NFA items for HD is mandatory sentencing if somehow your actions are found to be illegal.

True, .223 out of a 16" to 18" barrel is going to be louder than 9mm out of a 16" to 18" barrel, but .223 isn't any louder in terms of peak dBA than most defensive-caliber handguns or 18" barreled shotguns, and is considerably less loud than a .357 revolver.

http://www.freehearingtest.com/hia_gunfirenoise.shtml

 

[TITAN308]

As far as Georgia goes;

There are 3 code sections that govern when lethal or deadly force may lawfully be used.

Defense from a forcible felony; A person is justified in using threats or force to the degree they reasonably believe it is necessary to stop another person's imminent use of unlawful force. A person is justified in using deadly force which may harm or kill only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony (unless it is regarding defense of habitation, which has it's own requirements below). You are not justified if you were the aggressor or you are/were/on-the-way-to committing a felony. (The state has pre-empted local cities and counties from further restricting this defense.)(16-3-21)

Defense of habitation; (here habitation means dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business) A person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

1. A person is breaking\has broken into your home in a violent and tumultuous manner, and you think that the intruder is going to assault you or someone else living there.
2. A person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters the residence and you know it is an unlawful entry.
3. The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

Check and mate.

If your state does not afford you this inalienable right, then work on getting it or move. Anything else is unacceptable.

And just the icing on the cake to squash the "getting sued" after the fact:

(Stand Your Ground/Shoot First/License To Murder - went into effect July 1st, 2006) If you have determined you need to use lethal force (as stated in one of the underlined "Defense" sections immediately above) you do not have to try to retreat before using that force. If your defense is valid, you are immune from criminal prosecution (unless it is illegal to carry that weapon where you used it) and civil liability actions.(16-3-23.1, 16-3-24.2, 51-11-9)

 

[Warp]

You don't shoot to wound. You shoot to kill.

No. You do neither of the above.

You shoot to stop the threat.

I don't recall mentioning shooting someone in the back (outside of my home) or executing anyone.

You, you did not specifically mention execution. You only hinted at it because you know it would be wrong to actually say that.


I truly hope that, despite what you are typing here, you realize there IS A DIFFERENCE between using lethal force and shooting to kill, or making sure there is "only one side to the story".

What you are suggesting is illegal and, to most people, immoral. (which is why it is illegal, malum in se)

 

[CoRoMo]

I don't recall mentioning shooting someone in the back (outside of my home) or executing anyone.

Sure you do. See here:

Originally Posted by TITAN308
You don't shoot to wound. You shoot to kill.

You're saying that if the threat is stopped, but very much alive, you still have work to do. Otherwise, clarify it for us, if the threat is stopped, but very much alive, then what?

 

[Skribs]

Titan, I wasn't saying shoot once, pause to see if he stopped, and repeat. What I am saying is that if you realize the target has stopped attacking, your job in self defense is done. This isn't a jurisdictional thing, it's a transition from self defense to killer, for whatever motivation you have to kill him.

- guy lives and then gets his homies to kill or rape your wife/daughter

Or his homies do it in retaliation for his death.

- guy lives and then gets his homies to wack you while you are at McDonalds

Or they do it in retaliation for his death.

- guy lives and sues you (remember story of the home invader falling through a skylight on a knife set, sued and won)

Or he dies, and either you get charged, or his family sues you.

- guy lives, serves jail time, has a change of heart, gets a bunch of liberals and their politicians to feel sorry for him and then tries to pass laws to further hamper your right to self defense

Or he dies, and media/politicians try to pass such laws.

Both cases can happen whether he lives or dies. If he has stopped the attack, then the only difference between "shoot to kill" and "shoot to stop" is whether or not you kill him. Anything that he can have people do in retaliation, they can do of their own free will if he dies. Therefore, all you're doing is following the principle of "the best defense is a good offense" and getting revenge for his potential future crimes by killing him on the spot.

You didn't mention shooting someone in the back, but your attitude, as was said by Coro and Warp, is that you're not done until they're dead. If they're walking away, that would mean shooting them in the back.

Unless you were just trying to be macho and say that you take him down instead of just wounding him, in which case you're missing the point. Self defense isn't about being macho, its about survival.

 

[CoRoMo]

...one magazine on average carries 10-20 rounds it would not be all that hard to empty all, if not close to all before the guy hits the ground.

Good to know.

So the question is this, you do your best and the guy hits the ground hard... the threat is stopped... but the guy is actually still alive there... he's sort of moaning a bit, but he ain't moving. You definitely hit him in just enough places to put him down, but not in enough vital places to end him for good.

That's the situation I'd ask you to speak towards. So tell us, what's your next move there?

 

[TITAN308]

What I see are assumptions, not proof of what you claim I said.

Very liberal mindsets in some of these comments, which is a shame.

I'm sorry some real talk got some people all on edge - because we both know its the same type of talks that happen with your buddies around the camp fire.

I find it more offensive you pretend to take offense to something that is openly talked about outside of a recordable media.

You guys crack me up.

Good to know.

So the question is this, you do your best and the guy hits the ground hard... the threat is stopped... but the guy is actually still alive there... he's sort of moaning a bit, but he ain't moving. You definitely hit him in just enough places to put him down, but not in enough vital places to end him for good.

That's the situation I'd ask you to speak towards. So tell us, what's your next move there?

Call the cops.

If he so much as makes any movement to any pockets or other areas that could carry an item I will assume he is still an active threat and respond accordingly. Just so we are absolutely clear, my main concern is the safety of my daughter and wife, then myself, then my dogs, then my hardwood floors. If you expecting any mercy on the criminal look elsewhere.

Hopefully the guy isn't bleeding on my furniture, cause I'll have to drag him to a different spot and that will have them asking some questions.

(PS that last part was a joke)

 

[Skribs]

From a post count over 100, I wouldn't have assumed troll, but instead of answering our question you are baiting us, calling us liberals, and insulting us.

What would you do? Home invasion, you hit the target a few times and put him down. He isn't moving, but is alive, and you have a phone handy. Do you "shoot to kill" so he can't have his homies whack you or your family, or do you call the cops and let them take him in to custody?

As an aside, we have literal proof that you said "shoot to kill" and made very clear you would not want him alive. You never said anything about letting him go. So our assumptions are safe to make. What people talk about on unrecorded media is different, but when I am talking to people about my self defense strategy, it isn't about a kill fantasy, it is about the mindset to stop the attack.

 

[TITAN308]

From a post count over 100, I wouldn't have assumed troll, but instead of answering our question you are baiting us, calling us liberals, and insulting us.

What are you trying to say? Being a liberal is insulting? lol

What would you do? Home invasion, you hit the target a few times and put him down. He isn't moving, but is alive, and you have a phone handy. Do you "shoot to kill" so he can't have his homies whack you or your family, or do you call the cops and let them take him in to custody?

Already answered.

As an aside, we have literal proof that you said "shoot to kill" and made very clear you would not want him alive.

Yes if I ever have to use my firearm on a home invader I am going to ponder, "Gee I hope he doesn't die, shoot to stop! shoot to stop! Oh man, did I fire to many shot?" Pretty sure if I am using a tool meant to destroy things I am thinking "holy %^& die die die!"

You never said anything about letting him go.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? (and before you get all in a tizzy, this isn't meant in a literal sense)

So our assumptions are safe to make.

Assumptions are not facts. You are free to put stock in whichever you want however.

What people talk about on unrecorded media is different, but when I am talking to people about my self defense strategy, it isn't about a kill fantasy, it is about the mindset to stop the attack.

Ah, the good ol' fall-back of the exaggeration method. Now its a "kill fantasy". I see the media has taught you well. Even though you "admit" (using your terms) you probably speak the same way outside of recordable media, I'm the one with a "kill fantasy".

Stay classy.

 

[SabbathWolf]

*16" barrel= more velocity and accuracy than pistol barrels.
*Overall total length=30 1/4" (depending on stock spacers...can still be shorter or longer)
*Adjustable length of pull by addition and subtraction of stock spacers.
*Light weight.
*Fast handling.
*Accurate as hell.
*30-round factory 9mm magazines.
*No tax stamp necessary for still such a short package.
*Light and optics mounting friendly.
*Functions superbly with both ball & HP ammo.
*Excellent for HD as well as the occasional coyotes harassing my horses.
*Cheaper to shoot than my other rifle calibers and shotguns.
*A bazillion after-market accessories available to customize to your hearts content.
*And can be set up for both left & right handed users too.

What's not to love?

 

[TITAN308]

I've been considering a the Beretta PX, but I just can't bring myself to like thumb hole stock (or style) weapons.

Hell I just recently decided to get an Accuracy International stock for one of my R700's cause they are finally making them with standard pistol grips.

Has anyone made any kits for the PX like the 10/22?

Edit: Although you know - cutting the extra plastic off the stock could be completely doable... lol

 

[Skribs]

You edited the post after I made mine. I do agree, if he makes a move for what could be a weapon, I wouldn't hesitate to put another round into him.

Yes if I ever have to use my firearm on a home invader I am going to ponder, "Gee I hope he doesn't die, shoot to stop! shoot to stop! Oh man, did I fire to many shot?" Pretty sure if I am using a tool meant to destroy things I am thinking "holy %^& die die die!"

The difference here is that you're too focused on the difference between a wound and a kill, when the goal is to stop the attacker. I don't care if he dies. Which means, I don't care if I kill him or not. I want to stop him from attacking either way. But I'm not set on killing him - that's just a likely course of me stopping him.

I did not admit to speaking that way out of recorded media, and in fact said that my unrecorded rhetoric is always on the mindset of stopping the attack, not killing the attacker. You can kill without stopping, if he dies two days later due to complications with fine birdshot.

Assumptions are not facts. You are free to put stock in whichever you want however.

You originally said to make sure there was no witness. Then you said if he survives, he can do a number of things, so its better if he doesn't. You never even alluded to the fact that you might let him go until after we asked you directly. So yes, you seem to have a macho attitude towards self defense. "Kill fantasy" wasn't an exageration. You have said that in order to prevent retaliation or having another side to the story, you would finish him off.

Your later posts change that viewpoint, and then attack us for "assuming" based on your earlier posts.

 

[TITAN308]

You originally said to make sure there was no witness. Then you said if he survives, he can do a number of things, so its better if he doesn't. You never even alluded to the fact that you might let him go until after we asked you directly.

In this day in age, a tongue in cheek comment can still get people riled up.

Also you keep referencing "letting him go" and I'm not quite sure I understand this line of wording. I would assume you mean "let him live".

So yes, you seem to have a macho attitude towards self defense.

Your perceptions don't equal fact. I think this is the major disconnect. You 'assume' that what you think is ultimately correct or fact.

"Kill fantasy" wasn't an exageration.

Considering I've never had such a thing, I'm pretty sure it is. Just because you say something, doesn't mean its true.

You have said that in order to prevent retaliation or having another side to the story, you would finish him off.

Please quote me (and listen carefully...) where I said "I will kill him so I don't get retaliated upon".

If you can't provide that quote without the use of fractured sentences and quotes you should really back off on your whole agenda.

Your later posts change that viewpoint, and then attack us for "assuming" based on your earlier posts.

I did not change anything, I still stand behind everything I said.

I mean is this all the conversation is going to be? You stating assumptions and opinion and trying to pass them off as fact? I would have assumed you would have got bored of being repeatedly told the same thing over and over a few posts back.

 

[SabbathWolf]

No I will not. Ever.

Me neither!

 

[Skribs]

Yes. Let him live. I also didn't take it for tongue-in-cheek when you spent a few posts defending the position of "shoot-to-kill".

- guy lives and then gets his homies to kill or rape your wife/daughter

- guy lives and then gets his homies to wack you while you are at McDonalds

- guy lives and sues you (remember story of the home invader falling through a skylight on a knife set, sued and won)

- guy lives, serves jail time, has a change of heart, gets a bunch of liberals and their politicians to feel sorry for him and then tries to pass laws to further hamper your right to self defense

In the end one saying comes to mind; Better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6.

"Shoot to stop" is just a politically correct way of saying "Shoot to kill". I can only imagine the slop police departments would get in if it was leaked their training taught them to "Shoot to Kill".

Whats one of the main rules of firearms? Don't point it at anything you are not willing to utterly and completely destroy.

Here you are defending "shoot to kill" and nowhere did you make any comments that you would let the person live. Your attitude seemed to be such, based off of the information you provided, to be that based on the possibility of the man retaliating out of anger and either sending homies after you or seeking to have the law punish you, you give him no chance to do so and kill him.

I am not sure if you made a tongue-in-cheek response, defended it, and are now backpedaling and saying you're just not trying to be PC about everything; or if you purposefully baited us. Either way, the information you presented made a very clear case that your goal is to kill anyone who attacks, not just to stop the attack, but to prevent retaliation for your use of self defense. You can say "you only assume" but you made it very clear that your position was as such in the earlier posts in this thread.

Saying I'm a second-rate citizen, calling me liberal when you have no idea what my politics are outside of guns (and when I'm very conservative when it comes to guns), and saying I'm making assumptions when they were assumptions your post seems to want people to jump to, that is what made me think "troll."

Considering I've never had such a thing, I'm pretty sure it is. Just because you say something, doesn't mean its true.

Maybe not a kill fantasy per se, but at the very least you have advocated killing beyond what is legally acceptable for a civilian. At least with your previous anti-retaliation posts.

In this day in age, a tongue in cheek comment can still get people riled up.

Some things just aren't good to go tongue-in-cheek about.