AK versus Shotgun versus 45ACP Carbine

[Fletchette]

Aside from gun selection, what is your plan if a hurricane or other shtf scenario? Hole up or bug out? Plan accordingly.

In either scenario, I am inclined towards adding a shotgun to your handgun, since you will most likely need close up power for defensive situations. Out here in Wyoming things may be different, but if you have neighbors within spitting distance you will not be worried as much about 300 yard performance. You will be worried about being jumped at close range.

There will be less of a chance of an accidental injury to over penetration (a rifle may penetrate several walls).

Shotguns are also very versitile; you can easily hunt birds and other game for food.

 

[ROMAK IV]

Just how are you going to know that the SUV 900 feet away is coming to ram you? I think you are going to be lucky to have 50 feet of warning, if you even see it coming.

And to see it coming means I guess that you are just sitting around, on guard 24 hours a day. Um ok, if the above situations describe a defensive play you can make, keep your 308 at the ready. Frankly if an SUV was bearing down at my house and I had 50 feet of notice, I would want my 30 rounds of 45ACP.

Even then, your 45 ACP will likely bounce off the windshield. Besides! You're not at least going to set up a perimeter? What will you do? Let every Tom, Dick, and Looter, calmly stroll up to you after a disaster? I bought several perimeter alarms some years ago. You should at least block in some way the ends of your street, and the noise should alert you. A dog is helpful as well. That's what makes disasters disasters, the forgotten, the uncertain, and the surprises. During Rita, many people came up here from the Texas coast. I didn't think anything about it until suddenly, the southern interstates were chocked, even though they had opened up both sets of lanes going north. Most filling stations were out of everything, and I had difficulty getting to my job, which was even blocked by the Bus fire. Simple power outages around here have gone on for days, creating their own problems. If you can believe it, it's true, after one bad stormand extended power outage, every single D, C, and AA battery was sold out in the entire DFW area. So, what would it hurt to have a 308 and a decent sized stock of ammunition "just in case" something happens that your 45 won't solve? If you don't need it, good! If you do need it and you don't have it, it may cost your life. Sometimes you need to shoot at things beyond 300 yards, or behind heavy cover. Let your budget and preferences decide. Some people don't like the recoil and noise of a full powered rifle, fine! They don't have to buy it and shouldn't if they aren't going to use it. If you feel comfortable with your 45, it's potentially your hide, not mine. The most guns you are likely to personally use during a disaster is likely two. Does it make sense to have a pistol and shotgun? I think not, both are short range weapons, and if you have a shotgun, it's the better choice. Multiple weapons are good for friends or family mambers.

 

[Gord]

Sometimes you need to shoot at things beyond 300 yards

Like when?

Been wracking my brain about this for about a half-hour now - still can't think of any legally sound shooting scenario involving rifle-range fire. Even being as much of a gun guy/heartless libertarian/conservative hate-monger/death penalty proponent as I am, were I put on a jury for a case involving some guy drilling people at 300 yards, I can only see myself coming to the conclusion that said guy was just really, really looking for an excuse to shoot somebody.

Feel free to do whatever makes you happy - I'm just looking for the logic.

 

[Soybomb]

I think an ar15 would be a great choice to add to the list to consider.

Rifles aren't necessarily about being able to shoot out to 600 yards, but also that the amount of tissue destoyed per shot is just much much greater than that from a handgun. They're better stoppers of people in the same room as you as well as being able to shoot great distances.

 

[Gord]

but also that the amount of tissue destoyed per shot is just much much greater

In which case the shotgun still has the rifle beat (and I'd worry less about penetration/miss issues) unless your designated home-defense rifle is Grampaw's elephant gun...

I'm not trying to say that a rifle's range spectrum doesn't make it a great, versatile tool - I just can't fathom why it would matter in any self-defense scenario that's grounded in reality.

I can think of plenty of situations where I'd take an AR, a Mosin or a .22 over anything else, hands down - but this isn't one of 'em.

 

[bsf]

I do not mean to be a contrarian. Still, depending on your skill level, the best bang for the buck may be another 2k of practice ammo for your PD handguns. Then burn em. Truth be told, I myself would be much off if I had fewer guns but had completed more focused practice/training. Just food for thought.

 

[Joshua C]

n which case the shotgun still has the rifle beat (and I'd worry less about penetration/miss issues) unless your designated home-defense rifle is Grampaw's elephant gun...

Or a .308 or higher powered. Even the humble 7.62X39 softpoint can do the damage of a load of 00 buck... provided it has enough velocity to expand/fragment.

 

[Gord]

Even with expansion, it seems a bit of a stretch that one .30-cal projectile would be able to do more total damage than 3-9 (depending on how well the shot is placed) .30-cal projectiles, even at much lower velocity.

Then again, I have nothing to back this assumption up with, so providing you do, I'll yield you that.

A .308 does, however, still raise much more serious overpenetration concerns than buckshot - I wouldn't trust a round of buck to go through exterior stucco and still retain sufficient velocity to significantly harm anyone more than a room away inside; a .308 would likely zip right through.

 

[Soybomb]

In which case the shotgun still has the rifle beat (and I'd worry less about penetration/miss issues) unless your designated home-defense rifle is Grampaw's elephant gun...

That sounds good, but its also unjustified. 5.56 is probably safer a couple rooms over than 00 buck or pistol rounds. There's absolutely no reason to use "grampaw's elephant gun" because the excess energy would put a round through someone with plenty left over.

Even with expansion, it seems a bit of a stretch that one .30-cal projectile would be able to do more total damage than 3-9 (depending on how well the shot is placed) .30-cal projectiles, even at much lower velocity.

There's a lot more to it than that, you're missing out on the rifle round yawing, fragmenting, fragments crushing more tissue during cavitation, etc. If you want to do some reading on it, I think this http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=78&submit=Go is a great place to go packed with some really knowledgable people.

The myth of the shotgun being the most amazing man stopper ever and being the smallest overpenetration hazard needs to die.

 

[Gord]

I consider it neither - and am aware of the 5.56's lack of overpenetration in wallboard as tested on the Box o' Truth. An AR wouldn't be my first choice, but I could certainly do worse for defensive shooting.

.308 is a whole 'nother story, though.

Speaking of which -

you're missing out on the rifle round yawing, fragmenting, fragments crushing more tissue during cavitation, etc.

Will the bullet do this at close ranges, though - from point-blank to fifty yards? It's the close-in effects I'm after, as no one seems to be able to provide a plausible (and legal) scenario for making a 100+ yard shot with a rifle in self-defense. I assume a hollow- or softpoint would expand as designed, but I've no idea if a bullet still traveling at significant velocity will tumble or if that's something that comes into play when the round has shed some speed and energy in flight.

My base reasoning is still that 1 - nine .30 projectiles should hurt more than one .30 projectile, assuming the latter performs in a similar fashion to the former; and that 2 - nine projectiles, each with a portion of a shotgun's comparatively low pressures behind it, should penetrate less and have a shorter maximum effective range than a single projectile fired from a high-pressure rifle.

Anyhoo, it's far too late and I should be copping some Zs - goodnight all.

 

[JWarren]

I think it is good that so many people are considering planning for SHTF events such as natural disasters. It is both the rugged individualism of Teddy Rosevelt and self-reliance that is (I feel) sorely lacking in society today.



Fletchette wrote:

Aside from gun selection, what is your plan if a hurricane or other shtf scenario? Hole up or bug out? Plan accordingly.

That is an excellent question-- one which unfortunately doesn't have one answer. The answer is dependant on:

1. The level of preparation of the person in question.
2. The nature of the disaster.
3. Any special needs any of your loved ones may require.
4. Any limiting factors such as unwillingness to leave pets.


And whatever you choose still CAN BE the wrong choice in retrospect.

I personally favor the "Bugging In" view. But this is also contingent with my geographical location. I am far enough away from the gulf where I will not be hit with tidal surge. My home will likely not disintegrate underneath me unless I get hit with a tornado.

In my opinion, Bugging Out is a last resort for most people. Likely, a person does not have a "Bug Out Location" such as a hunting camp. Instead, they are a refugee. Not altogether an appealing situation.

However, I knew a woman from my hometown who had moved to Gulfport. She chose to "Bug In" within her beachfront home during Katrina. They never found her body. Clearly, Bugging In was a wrong decision in her situation.


In my family, we've talked about what my parents would have had to do if my grandfather had lived through Katrina. (he passed a year before.) They would have had to "Bug Out"-- no discussions. He was on Oxygen frequently due to his age and chronic conditions. They did have a oxygen-generating machine but it is uncertain if the thing could have worked consistently on generator power. And there is NO way my grandfather could have tolerated the stiffling heat we dealt with day and night.


At the same time, in MY home, there would have been NO WAY I would have "Bugged Out" to some shelter. In Hurricane Katrina, no shelters would allow you to bring your pets. Many hotels and such were the same. Flame me if you want, but there is no way on God's green Earth that I would have left my little Jack Russell pups. I like them more than I like MOST people. Any attempt to force me to leave them would have been met with drastic, immediate, and quite irrevocable consequences.


So, that said... it is always-- in my opinion to make efforts to prepare your home to ride out a disaster. Plan, plan, and plan some more. Bugging out is Plan B-- and Plan B almost always sucks.

Really, when you think about it there are very few times where Bugging Out would be Plan A for a prepared person. Sure-- it would probably be better to leave if you are on a fault line during an earthquake. But how often do you get 48 hours notice for those? Sure, a tornado can ruin your day. There, you get about 30 seconds notice.

With hurricanes and volcanic eruptions, you would get the time and notice to get gone if you chose that course, but I'm having trouble thinking of other situations where a prepared person would have notice and choose to Bug Out.

You can ride out most natural disasters if you have made a responsible effort to prepare.


Anyway... that's my thoughts. Bear with me. I haven't had a cup of coffee yet. It's brewed and I'm getting it now.



-- John

 

[JWarren]

Tactical Ninja wrote:

Like when?

Been wracking my brain about this for about a half-hour now - still can't think of any legally sound shooting scenario involving rifle-range fire. Even being as much of a gun guy/heartless libertarian/conservative hate-monger/death penalty proponent as I am, were I put on a jury for a case involving some guy drilling people at 300 yards, I can only see myself coming to the conclusion that said guy was just really, really looking for an excuse to shoot somebody.

Earlier, I had full intentions of posting essentially agreement with the above statement.

I WAS going to say:

Really, the situation for longer-range shots would likely NEVER occur in what I consider a realistic SHTF scenerio. (I think more in terms of Natural Disasters than I do Post-Apocalyptic End-of-the-world" scenerios.)


An SUV barreling towards your house? I can't imagine why that would occur. More than likely, that SUV is someone coming to check on you to make sure you are alright. Once I got into a routine, I delivered fuel and supplies to my mom and dad ever two days in Katrina's aftermath. One day they told me of the plight of some of the elderly and others in the community. Because I (or one of our group) had to make fairly frequent trips to Baton Rouge, I began to make regular trips to some of the less-fortunate in our area to get orders things they needed. About every two or so days, I found myself loaded down with milk, baby formula, bread, and even bananas and apples once. I'd have hated the thought that someone would shoot me as I am driving up.

In a natural disaster scenerio, you won't be seeing any real organized or well-thought-out "attacks." There will not be hordes of looters charging your home. No... the looters are hitting stores. What you will have is "Sneak-Thieves."


And that brings me to why I changed my opinion of longer-range firearms.

Now, let me say this-- everyone's living arrangements are different. If you live on Carrolton Avenue in Metairie, distances have an entirely different meaning than if you live in a rural homestead with a 10 acre lawn. (My lawn is 5 acres. I mow it with a tractor and bushhog. No, really I do.)


OK... so what REALISTIC scenerio could I see that would utilize a longer-range SD rifearm?

Well, I did get one. Sure it will probably meet criticism, and I expect some disagreement. I'll do my best to ellaborate my rationale.


Between that last post and this one, I found myself thinking about the events of Katrina. While I was "Bugged In" at my Father-in-Law's home in Lousiana, one of his neighbor's had his generator stolen by thieves while they slept. The thieves sneaked to the home and cranked the neighbor's lawn-mower to mimic the sound of the generator. Then the turned off the generator undetected and made off with it.

I find myself wondering what I would have done if I had been in that situation and woke in time to see someone driving off with my generator back then.

The answer is simple. I would have shot.

The debates about "shooting over property" ENDS in a SHTF or disaster scenerio. Those are debates to be had in a functioning society. Stealing someone's generator or fuel IS an assault on that person. There is no "report it and let the police handle it." They aren't there, and will not be anytime soon. And even if they were, the theft of a generator or fuel dramatically affects your ability to survive. Legal remedies are NOT an option when the next day or two are crucial.

There is no "it's only property" debates. No-- it isn't property. It is your ability to survive. Stealing someone's essential emergency supplies is no different than shooting them in the face. If, by chance, you are able to prevent a thief from getting away with the supplies they it is STILL self-defense.


I bring this scenerio up because, sadly, it wasn't that uncommon in the aftermath of the storm. Three times in 8 weeks, we had attempts to steal our generators and/or fuel in the middle of the night. All three times, they were unsuccessful-- but because they were discovered and fled. I won't say if I fired or not--its irrelevant. I'll only say that those that attempted to steal from us realised that stealing from us would be uncomfortable.



So, I still maintain that:

1. Your handgun is going to be the firearm of choice almost all the time.

2. Home Defense can utilize a number or firearms-- handguns, shotguns, carbines. A number of individual factors may make your personal choices differ from others.

3. There ARE realistic scenerios where a longer-than-expected shot could occur.


It's something to think about.



-- John

 

[XD-40 Shooter]

For short range urban combat survival scenario's, I'd go with the shotgun, 870 or Mossy 500. Short range killing power of the shotgun is devastating and you can use slugs if you need to hunt game out to 100 yards, the 12 gauge will kill anything that walks on this planet. Out to 30 yards, buckshot is the name of the game. Besides the fact that shotguns are simple, easy to maintain, rugged, and reliable.

I asked my dad this very question, with a caveat, I gave him the choice of a Mini-14 or an 870 12 gauge, in a hurricane katrina type situation. My dad chose the shotgun hands down, as all of your defensive needs will be short range.

 

[benEzra]

(Kindrox)

I darn well want a lot of rounds at the ready. AK with a drum is going to be hard to beat. AKs with the long banana clip don’t conceal well enough for me, I don’t know if you can get 20s like for the AR. For my AR I keep a mix of 20s and 30s. 30s for inside the house, 20s for concealability.

Yes, you can get 20-rounders for the AK; I like them a lot, not so much for concealability (an AK with even a 10-round magazine and a folding stock would still be darn near impossible to conceal on your person), but for lighter weight and handier pointing. Here's my SAR-1 with a Hungarian 20-rounder:

I do own some 30's (and a single 40), but the 20's are lighter, handier, and make the rifle more comfortable to sling, so (for me) they tend to get the most use.

(OrvilleYertleson)

The AK has more range, but it's control features are horrible. It is also a lot less 'handy' than a carbine or shotgun.

I think it may depend on what you're used to. FWIW, my AK is carbine-length (16" barrel, 36" overall) and with a 20-round magazine isn't terribly heavy and points well.

The controls to take some getting used to, but the only serious ergonomic problem I see is the placement of the safety, since it's hard to run with either hand. Mag changes and running the bolt are fast and easy with the left hand (going under the receiver to grab the charging handle).

(KC&97TA)
Personally, not to flame anyone; AR's don't look as "thug" as AK's do.

That also has a lot to do with how the person holding the rifle presents himself, the circumstances of the interaction, and how the rifle is configured. You can set up an AK to look a lot like an AR at a distance (M4 style stock, 20-round magazine, black forend, and optic), but it's not something I'm particularly concerned about.

 

[Gord]

The answer is simple. I would have shot.

Arguing self-defense in front of a jury requires that you have felt you were in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily harm. You don't have that in this situation, thus you would almost certainly be convicted of murder or manslaughter.

It could also be argued that a generator, in most cases, is not essential for survival - and if your circumstances dictate that it is, you should be guarding it far better than your neighbor did in the first place. I would be moving it inside and chaining it up heavily nearby before going to sleep.

Make no bones about it - if I had my way, property shootings would all follow the Texas model. Unfortunately, I do not make the laws and in most states you may only legally use deadly force when your life is immediately threatened. Whether "here and now" is more important than the consequences for one's actions down the road is an individual decision, but it would be prudent to remember that the law-abiding are at a disadvantage in our society. We are the ones who will be prosecuted when order is restored, simply because we are able to be found.

I stand by my assertion that there is no realistic and legal circumstance in which one may defend oneself at range.

 

[Soybomb]

Will the bullet do this at close ranges, though - from point-blank to fifty yards? It's the close-in effects I'm after, as no one seems to be able to provide a plausible (and legal) scenario for making a 100+ yard shot with a rifle in self-defense. I assume a hollow- or softpoint would expand as designed, but I've no idea if a bullet still traveling at significant velocity will tumble or if that's something that comes into play when the round has shed some speed and energy in flight.

My base reasoning is still that 1 - nine .30 projectiles should hurt more than one .30 projectile, assuming the latter performs in a similar fashion to the former; and that 2 - nine projectiles, each with a portion of a shotgun's comparatively low pressures behind it, should penetrate less and have a shorter maximum effective range than a single projectile fired from a high-pressure rifle.

Absolutely, most gelatin tests that you see are done just feet away from the block. In fact it goes the other way, the fragmentation effect relies on the speed of the bullet and the futher out you get, the less likely you are to get as much tissue destruction. This also pertains to the second part. The shotgun pellets rely on the crushing of tissue by the round pellets, usually makaing cavities even smaller than the pellets. Going through a few layers of dry wall does very little to take away their ability to create that type of wound. Something like a 5.56 round that bleeds off energy very quickly as it passes through barries is losing its "wounding magic" much more quickly than 00 buck.

Really, the situation for longer-range shots would likely NEVER occur in what I consider a realistic SHTF scenerio.

Its pretty unlikely but it does seem like there were reports in katrina of people attacking others by shooting at them from a great distance away. I imagine these reports were generally exaggerated and seldom would the proper answer have been to stick around and shoot back. I also don't find it unthinkable that in the event of a large scale disaster that a desperate man with a deer rifle might not try to shoot at others from great distances.

 

[ROMAK IV]

Like when?

Been wracking my brain about this for about a half-hour now - still can't think of any legally sound shooting scenario involving rifle-range fire. Even being as much of a gun guy/heartless libertarian/conservative hate-monger/death penalty proponent as I am, were I put on a jury for a case involving some guy drilling people at 300 yards, I can only see myself coming to the conclusion that said guy was just really, really looking for an excuse to shoot somebody.

Feel free to do whatever makes you happy - I'm just looking for the logic.

WOW!! Some of you have the prejudiced thinking of the antigun folks,(i.e. assuming that all shots are to kill and all targets are human) and appear to be little prepared for possible disaster situations: The whole idea is to be prepared for as many possible situations as possible. It's impossible to think or economically deal with every one of them. I would like a 10,000 watt diesel generator, however I can't afford one. Some can't afford a pickup, although a pickup may or may not be a necessity in a disaster situation. If you happen to live in an apartment, you can't really practically own a generator, no matter how useful it would be during a disaster.

As for possible uses for a rifle, with superior range and penetration, how about these: (and they took me about 5 minutes to think up.)

Engaging hostile and armed targets behind cover. I am reminded of the 24 episode where a conspirator in the Iranian Nuclear attack, hid from Bauer behind a ceiling support post and he shot her through the post. So how about a hostile at 50 yards, in or behind a car?

Stopping or disabling vehicles. What if someone steals your generator, or other essential supplies, and tries to escape in a vehicle. You may not want to necessarily kill the driver, a rifle gives you more choices as well as a much greater chance of success. .

Hunting larger animals for food.

Shooting rabid or wild dogs a distance.

Engaging hostiles armed with rifles as well. Criminals prefer handguns because of convenience and concealability. With no police to worry about, why wouldn't they use rifles. If you wait to engage them at less than 100 yards, you have no advantage. Let's say you get attacked during a SHTF situation, wouldn't it be prudent, if you have a decent rifle, to disengage and reengage at 2 or 300 yards, where you would have the advantage over most?

Feel free to assess the possibility of the above. It may be your life or the lives of your family that depends on your choices. I live in a semi-rural area, where the possibility of any armed attack at all is extremly remote, but animals already are somewhat of a threat. I would NOT want to have to shoot a possible rabid skunk with a pistol, and a shotgun would be a minimum for that purpose. I also have little reason to have to relocate for most disasters, but still would take a rifle if I had to get some kind of supplies. Hopefully that would be after order gets restored, but imagine trying to secure food, medicine, or emergency building materials, having to drive though an area where people are starving and dieing. That's the bad thing about our medical system, that they discourage long term storage of medicine. Overall, if you are only worried about which gun to get for a disaster, and don't concern yourself with the more basics, you are wasting your time. You will run out of food, water and medicine and be forced to confront whatever is out there. At the very least, have a firearm you are comfortable with and proficient with, a week's supply of food and water, and medicine, both basic hygenic stuff, and proscription if you use it. In addition, there are quite a few bad things that can happen even short of SHTF. What if Gasoline prices doubled overniht because terrorists atacked and destroyed much of the Suadi oil fields. There would be both extreme price hieks and shortages. Besides having difficulty in paying for fuel, it would be profitable for criminals to steal gasoline dirrectly from cars. I have also noticed, an apparant shortage in rifles, especially milsurp ones. The gun stores which used to have full walls and racks of rfiles have noticable gaps, and reduced selection. Which increases the possibility that you might have to face someone with a rifle. Are you comfortable with that possible encounter using a pistol or shotgun?

 

[Gord]

Absolutely, most gelatin tests that you see are done just feet away from the block.

To be fair, I haven't looked at any gelatin tests for large-caliber rifles - I'll root around for some later this evening (really should have done that already instead of just wondering aloud whether a .308 will tumble at close range).

I also don't find it unthinkable that in the event of a large scale disaster that a desperate man with a deer rifle might not try to shoot at others from great distances.

It's not that I think it's a stretch that one could be fired upon from a distance (even a handgun can reach out to a couple hundred yards), it's just that I can't think of any scenarios where it would be legal (or smart) to return fire instead of just getting behind cover ASAP.

WOW!! Some of you have the prejudiced thinking of the antigun folks, and appear to be little prepared for possible disaster situations

The fact that I concern myself with realistic disaster scenarios does not make me anti-gun or unprepared.

I am reminded of the 24 episode

We're not getting off to a good start in the realism department here...

So how about a hostile at 50 yards, in or behind a car?

Cars are bullet magnets and are concealment, not cover - see The Buick o' Truth. Cars are made of thin sheetmetal. Anyone firing from inside one can be easily taken out with a handgun. Do you have a duty to retreat by law? Can you get behind cover quickly? Then you are not justified in sitting there in the open taking potshots at people.

Stopping or disabling vehicles. What idf someone steals your generator, or other esential supplies, and tries to escape in a vehicle.

When are you going to realistically need to "stop or disable" a vehicle? How many news stories can you link me to that involve a civilian doing so in defense of his or her life?

You cannot legally fire upon a fleeing vehicle or person. They have broken off the engagement, and by firing after them you have initiated an assault yourself. If you wound or kill them you open yourself to legal consequences ranging from being sued in civil court to being tried for murder or manslaughter.

Hunting larger animals for food.

Shouldn't be necessary - if it's even possible - in the urban US. I have my doubts even for rural areas - AFAIK the South has weathered plenty of hurricanes and floods without everybody having to go out and bag some deer to stay alive.

Shooting rabid or wild dogs a distance.

Again, not advisable to have rounds flying around unnecessarily in urban areas. Wild dogs at a distance are not a threat to you.

If you wait to engage them at less than 100 yards, you have no advantage.

You won't go to jail for being a "nutjob with an itchy trigger finger."

wouldn't it be prudent, if you have a decent rifle, to disengage and reengage at 2 or 300 yards, where you would have the advantage over most?

Not in the real world, no.

All of your proposed scenarios assume that you live in an extremely rural area - most don't - and that you are unburdened by the letter of the law, which, short of every National Guardsman and police officer in America being vaporized, simply isn't true.

 

[naloxone]

AK.

Because if you know you're getting into a gunfight, a long gun is better than a handgun, and a rifle round is better than shot or pistol calibers.

The AK is inexpensive, reliable, easy to operate, easy to maintain, mags are reasonably priced, ammo is less so, but still not as silly as .223 prices.

 

[JWarren]

It could also be argued that a generator, in most cases, is not essential for survival - and if your circumstances dictate that it is, you should be guarding it far better than your neighbor did in the first place. I would be moving it inside and chaining it up heavily nearby before going to sleep.

No offense, but that is arm-chair quarterbacking at its finest.


Anything CAN be argued. I would fully expect that it would be argued against me. One can fully expect that I'd have arguements to counter.


I am not speaking about the legalities of it. That is heavily dependant a number of factors -- State, jurisdiction, DA, jury of peers, etc. I am talking about the realities of it. One should not take this as legal advice.

It is easy for someone to argue the value of a generator that didn't live through it. I am realizing more and more that if a person wasn't there, they will likely NEVER understand. I won't argue it.

All I'll say is that I am practically certain there would be no reprecussions. Again, you'd have be have been there to see what I mean.


hehe... Moving a generator inside your house and chaining it up while you slept? My friend... people don't wake up when they do that. At night is when you run your generator the most likely. That is when you are actually inside your home.

We DID have ours chained to the house. Bolt cutters can still take care of chains.


As for doing a "better" job guarding... well, more armchair quarterbacking. You can't sleep beside it. It's noise drowns out a lot of sounds. And after working your butt off all day in stifling heat, you would be suprised at how deeply you will sleep. And sleep isn't optional.



Edit: It is impossible to envision what these things can be like unless you see them. It is impossible to conceptualize the Hierarchy of Needs from outside the event.

Consider this article:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050901/1hurricane_2.htm

Police said a man in Hattiesburg, Miss., fatally shot his sister in the head over a bag of ice.

That happened not too far from where I have my office. And Hattiesburg was NOWHERE nearly as badly hit as even where I weathered it.



-- John

 

[Gord]

Not trying to armchair QB - just making a point.

I have no doubts that a generator is a supremely valuable piece of equipment in the aftermath of a disaster - but it's probably not essential to survival (short of running needed medical equipment, etc etc) and is thus "just" property - you can't use deadly force to defend it.

As I said, such things are (when it comes down to it) personal decisions. It can't be argued one way or the other because different people will see different situations in different lights - to some it may be worth the possibility of jailtime, to others, it may not.

 

[JWarren]

and is thus "just" property - you can't use deadly force to defend it.

Actually, it depends on the State. You can defend property here.


-- John

 

[JWarren]

Tactical Ninja
Senior Member

Join Date: 07-19-06
Posts: 665


665-- The Neighbor of the Beast.


Thought you may like that.



-- John

 

[Gord]

Heck, if it's legal where you're at, go for it. I would. Unfortunately, in most it isn't.

And - nice. Better make a few more posts quickly here...

 

[goon]

A little over a year ago I needed an inexpensive but reliable HD gun for my apartment. I wound up getting a used Mossberg 500 in excellent shape for $149. It was about the best deal I have ever gotten on a gun. After trying it out with a variety of ammo, I was amazed at the potential and versatility. The thing shoots slugs like a rifle out to about 70 yards and still puts them close enough at 100 that you wouldn't want to try to stand there and catch one.
In the scenario you describe where any shots you need to take will probably be close but you may need to shoot through something, a gun that can do both would be useful.
Also, if you decide you don't need to take life, there is the option of putting a load of #8 into the brick wall or old chevy that the BG is hiding behind. I would imagine that a load of shot hammering into what I was hiding behind would convince me to move on but the small shot size would mean no penetration and therefore, no legal mess to clean up later. Definitely not wise in all circumstances but it does give you the choice at least.