HD plus indoor range time, what gun?

[riverdog]

I think I'd sue the perp's estate if I was forced to shoot him -- emotional distress and all that. I'd be feeling so bad about having to drop the hammer I wouldn't be able to communicate well with the police when they arrived.

 

[JShirley]

a lot of bloodlust in here since my last post

I have no desire to kill anyone. I just love my fellow humans enough to not want an obvious threat to be able to hurt others.

In GA, the family of someone killed while in commission of a felony is prohibited from being able to bring a lawsuit.

John

 

[rbernie]

Sorry for furthering the thread drift, but...

Texas aside, for a shooting to be justified, the situation must be such that a reasonable person would believe there is an imminent threat of death or severe bodily harm. I can foresee one home-defense situation where it would be justifiable to shoot without announcing your presence in some way: if an intruder is attacking someone else, such as a family member.

Quit pickin' on Texas.

If I wait until an intruder is within striking distance of my family, I have virtually no ability to repel the intruder with my firearm. I do not understand what defensive scenarios you (and hopefully your family) have analyzed, but that's a pretty basic construct. Distance is your friend.

Sorry for being off-topic, but I'm a bit shocked to see this from a moderator...

I'm equally shocked that folks don't know the laws of the land. It is not unreasonable for me to presume that an intruder in my house at night presents me-n-mine with a credible threat of death or serious bodily injury. The laws of the land in many many jurisdictions agrees with that assessment. That's not blood lust. That's the statement of a adult and a responsible gun owner.

For the vast majority of circumstances, I think it would be impossible to justify shooting an intruder without there first being some sort of confrontation or warning given. And, to my knowledge, it is not legal for non-LEO to shoot fleeing violent felons.

If they're fleeing, I let 'em flee. But if they're coming up the stairs, I will presume that they are in need of Stopping.

My warning to potential intruders is a locked door, an alarm system, and a canine or two. Make it past that, and I'm not going to dwell on whether somebody really, REALLY means to be there - their actions clearly demonstrate so.

I owe them no further warning, and to provide them with one MAY prove to be A Bad Idea. I have no idea how many there are, or what they may have in the way of tools and intent.

That's not blood lust - that's plain common sense.

If you feel like dealing with a civil suit, you _may_ get off on criminal charges in a lot of these fantasy-situations you guys are playing out.

Fortunately, the Texas statutes defining the lawful use of deadly force also provide civil liability protection in the event that a shooting is determined to be criminally justified. In other words - if it's a good shoot in the eyes of the law, then no civil liability can be imposed. Texas law enforces this by allowing the defendant to collect the entirety of their legal fees from the plaintiff when the suit is inevitably tossed out of court.

 

[Markbo]

That's pretty funny- appealing to a higher power when I have repeatedly stressed the need for doing the morally correct thing.

Hmmm... I went back and re-read all your posts and do not find a single instance you have appealed for the morally correct thing... unless you think shooting a possibly unarmed person that CANNOT harm you from across your home is morally correct.

I stand by my repeated question... you cannot KNOW if someone in your house is a violent felon. You cannot unless you know who they are and know their criminal and personal history. I'm throwin' the flag on this stuff.

markbo, why would you only "sometimes" shoot someone posing a fatal threat to someone very close by? You don't assume you could be next? and, a drunk and beligerent neighborhood kid looking for booze or some quick cash never killed anyone?

I never said that.. I don't know how you made that assumption as I never addressed anyone else being very close by. Sure a drunken kid could kill me. I never said I would run down and help him and give him the opportunity either... my statement was meant to infer that I WILL identify my target first. And if I believe he is a stupid teenager I will give him the opportunity to leave alive.

...If you are in my home I will shoot. I am not a mind reader...

Then you may very well be committing murder.

...We recently had a high profile case in Cheshire,CT of two felons commiting a "simple B&E" that turned into a triple murder(among other crimes). Somehow I do not believe they revealed their complete intentions to the good Doctor or his family.

Then by definition it was not a simple B&E, now was it?

 

[Rustynuts]

Get a Saiga 12! Good for HD and fun at the range. 10-rd mags availabel and if you're a bad shot (or have a zombie outbreak), there are 20-rd drums! Go here for info. Oh, and racking the AK bolt sounds just like racking a pump, or at least as menacing.

http://forum.saiga-12.com/index.php?act=idx

Stock


Converted (you can also get collapsible stocks)

 

[Indifferent]

Wow.... I opened a can worms.
All I wanted to know was, if I ever needed to use one, what did you think.
I still think a SxS is one cool tool.
But my Mossy is coming home soon.
Should NEVER have to use it. Dont want to have to use it, but I will if ever needed.
Do I care about the laws of my State or City or Country?
Yes.



Do I care about my Family more?


Yes!
So since I want to play at the range the Mossy will serve me well.
Since I want to protect myself the Mossy will serve me well.
Since I live in an Urban Jungle (Ghetto) the sound of the Mossy will serve me well.



Am I suprised how this topic turned to bloodlust? YES!
To the ones that answered very maturely, I thank you!
Thank you all, but very much so;
JShirley, Riverdog, Rbernie, Markbo, Alexd, Dave McKrackin, wyncollector

I am prepped.

Now how many rounds should I keep on hand for Zombies?

By the way, counter-suing the perps estate is not that bad of an idea out here in Idiot ville- Southern California!

 

[Markbo]

How many rounds you keep is up to you. I have 8 + 5 in/on my Mossy and a couple more boxes in the same room. I have no idea of the statistics on how many shots are fired on average by a home owner during an assault, but I do know I don't want to run out of ammo so I don't think 20-30 rounds is overdoing it at all

By the way, counter-suing the perps estate is not that bad of an idea out here in Idiot ville- Southern California!

Except that the perp - as discolsed by his own chosen line of work - is likely to have nothing and his family won't even be able to afford a lawyer to defend themselves where you on the other hand won't GET a lawyer without a huge amount of money up front. If you go down that road, you'd better be sure he has got something to sue for.

 

[USP45T]

sorry Markbo. someone else made referrence to sometimes dealing with a deadly threat close by, not you.

 

[JShirley]

I went back and re-read all your posts and do not find a single instance you have appealed for the morally correct thing.

Well, Markbo, perhaps we understand things differently. I wrote what I believe to be a very careful examination of my moral responsibilities here:

And if I let a violent felon escape to hurt others, am I not also somewhat culpable? Should I let someone covered with (someone else's) blood get away? Are my tender sensibilities so delicate as to let loose a danger on someone less prepared? What kind of monster would that make me?

Or, did you mean since we appear to have different beliefs, what I have said cannot be the morally correct thing? I believe I am speaking for following right action with all of the preceding/following statements:

It's not worth giving someone holding a weapon an opportunity to hurt me or my family.

(Re: inviolability of self & protection of family)

I'll follow my conscience, and you follow yours. Mine just doesn't allow me to let any obvious threat to leave to plague, rape, and kill others.

(Re: assumption of societal responsibility)

Performing any morally incorrect action is- by definition- a Bad Thing.

(Re: elucidation of the concept)

So, we have an obvious difference of opinion. I just haven't felt any need to throw virtual stones, but either I'm not explaining well, or you're understanding poorly. Let me know how I could be clearer.

As far as target id, you seem to be making an unwarranted assumption, and as far as absence of weapon or absence of potentially lethal threat, since I have EXPLICITLY STATED those factors, I fail to see how you are not factoring them.

I'm fine with people disagreeing with me- good folk can disagree, as long as each strives to do the right thing as they understand it- but it would be nice if you actually read what I said.

John

Indifferent, there has been some thread drift, but it's a good idea to carefully think through your responses to various threats well before you might encounter them. It's also a GREAT idea to look at your state law. In Georgia, as I mentioned, the family of someone committing a felony when killed cannot sue. We always have to do the things we understand to be right. I knew before I left for Afghanistan, for instance, that I might "meet" someone through my sights that was trying to do the right thing as he understood it, just as was I. And I would shoot him down with absolutely no malice.
Fortunately, I didn't have to make any of my kills with a rifle. Not because it would keep me up at night, but because that would mean the enemy got way too damn close.
I personally use a Mossberg 500 with Ghost Ring sights. It's really important that a shotgun fit you well. For me, that meant going with a shorter LOP stock. Try out several different ammo brands, so you can find something you can afford to shoot that works well in your weapon.

Question:

Now how many rounds should I keep on hand for Zombies?

Answer: None. Zombies don't use shotguns.

 

[Markbo]

Well THAT post was very clear, thank you Shirley... and no I never said that because you think differently you are wrong.. Let me try to address you latest:

And if I let a violent felon escape to hurt others, am I not also somewhat culpable? Should I let someone covered with (someone else's) blood get away? Are my tender sensibilities so delicate as to let loose a danger on someone less prepared? What kind of monster would that make me?

That is obviously your moral stand. Which I have stated over and again and you have NEVER responded to - HOW DO YOU KNOW SOMEONE IN YOUR HOUSE IS A VIOLENT FELON? You cannot and therefore your 'what if' is moot.

(Re: inviolability of self & protection of family)

This can easily be debated that it is not a moral stand, but simply an instinct of survival except as it relates to the inviolability in culture.

(Re: assumption of societal responsibility)

Who asked you to do this? Who asked you to hunt down and kill someone that you have shown by your non-response that you CANNOT identify as a violent criminal. And if it were taken to the extreme... what are you doing here in front of your computer... why aren't you hanging around outside jails and prisons and halfway houses?

(Re: elucidation of the concept)

Uhhhhhh...What!?

You have elucidated nothing with that statement other than to say "immoral is bad". Well that's a big fat Duh... you have not elucidated a concept of morality in any way because... and I really am surprised at this... you refuse to answer my oft-repeated question. How can you simplify or clarify a 'concept' when you can't even elucidate your intended action is even possible?

Look, I don't want to get into a pissing match with you either. You say you will shoot anyone, I say I want target identification... the logistics and arena in which I plan to do it are completely immaterial. Perhaps my home is set up in a way that allows me and yours is not... it could be that simple.

Perspective... I preach about it all the time on THR... my perspective is not yours and vice versa. We should be open enough to each others ideas and giving perspective of where we are coming from allows that clarify. You not answering a question after being asked... what 4 times??... clarifies what?

Nothing... not a darn thing.
You may think I am a stump... I know I am not. I am an analytical thinker that always seeks clarity.

Eschew Obfuscation!

 

[Ergosphere]

You may want to look at your state law. I think you are in CA, so you probably can speak to that.

Yeah... California almost doesn't allow self-defense at all.

There's no duty to retreat inside one's home, at least, though you can't use deadly force to protect your property. Outside the home, the case law is such that essentially you're only justified in using deadly force if deadly force is already being used against you... in this case, there's no presumption of innocence and you must prove (to a "reasonable person" standard) justification.

 

[rbernie]

HOW DO YOU KNOW SOMEONE IN YOUR HOUSE IS A VIOLENT FELON?

If they are in my house uninvited - AFAIK they are commiting a felony. If they break down my door/window to gain entry, they are violent.

I fail to grasp how anyone could presume otherwise.

 

[zxcvbob]

Conneticut statutes allow me to use lethal force to prevent or terminate a forced entry into my home. I am not going to ask what your intentions are or if you have been convicted of a felony. If you are in my home I will shoot. I am not a mind reader.

Just to spin things out of control, what does Conneticut say if it's the police making a "dynamic entry" and they have the wrong address or otherwise have no warrant?

 

[Gary A]

A round is chambered to prepare the shotgun for use, not to scare someone with the sound. If it scares the BG away, that's fine, but it's not to be expected.

 

[Marshall]

This is simple.

If they've broken into my home, they made the decision to be considered armed, dangerous, a threat to me and my family and are a committing a felonious act for being there. Don't let anyone make you feel responsible for the felons well being after breaking into your home, unless your laws say differently. And some states do, believe it or not. I'm just glad I don't live in one of those few states.

 

[Markbo]

If they are in my house uninvited - AFAIK they are commiting a felony. If they break down my door/window to gain entry, they are violent.

I fail to grasp how anyone could presume otherwise.

Bernie (your other name isn't wayne is it?) since you are in Texas:
If someone breaks into your house, that does not automatically make it a felony. That is just a fact. Breaking a window/door etc is not violence... it is a mechanical act. It is not an act against a person. Against a person's private property, sense of well being, etc I agree... but it is not a thunk on the head. Now if they break in with guns, clubs or are masked or most importantly to me... kick the door in and start running... they are making a bad, bad move. That is an attack!

If they manage to get in with minimal noise/damage and are rummaging around for something to steal, they are not behaving violently.

And presumption is exactly my point. I will not presume just because someone broke in my house, they must be shot. Won't do it. What if it is a friend or neighbor with a key? What if it's that misguided teenager who needs some shaping up but not buckshot in the back. What if it's that drunk Brit who was swinging on some strangers swing set a few years back in Houston? He was visiting Houston and got out of his cab at the wrong address. He was knocking on the door - they couldn't understand what he was saying - so he went and sat on the swingset. When he came back to the door, they shot him. They were within their rights... but they have to live with the fact, they shot a guy for being drunk and lost.

There are what if's in life. Despite what many here would try to portray (and may of us wish were true) life is not a black and white world we live in... it is simply shades of gray.

And perspective... MY perspective is that I have a plan, I have the floorplan and I have levels of security that allow me to not have to confront ANYone that comes in in my house face to face until they have had more than enough warning. It allows me the option of letting them run before the cops get there - because the cops are getting called the instant I know someone is in my house - or confronting them and holding them. In my own personal opinion only... that is right thing to do IF my life is not in danger. And were we disagree is obvious - just because someone in is my house, I don't believe my life is in danger.

I might feel threatened... afraid... angry... I am sure the adrenaline will be pumping like crazy. But to me that is all the more reason to remain level headed and not do something that does not need doing...yet.

I am not a vigilante. The cops around here would gladly try to find him/them. Sneaking around my house to shoot someone just because I am "Saving society" is total BS... right that minute I have ONE ultimate goal and that is the protection of myself and my family. If I am at the mall and I see someone accosted, that is entirely different and I would intervene in a heartbeat.

But when I lose sight of what personal defense is and make it about me hunting down bad guys, that is waaaay beyond what we are talking about.

Now if said intruder makes ONE step except out after I order him 'or else'.... then everything changes. There will be no more warning. There will be no fair chances. There will be one dead threat.

Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that?
Mark

 

[JShirley]

Bo,

You say you will shoot anyone

No. Why don't you go back and read what I said? If you won't actually read what I wrote, there really is no point replying, is there?

 

[ingram]

you cannot KNOW if someone in your house is a violent felon. You cannot unless you know who they are and know their criminal and personal history. I'm throwin' the flag on this stuff.

Nor do you (JS) have the ability to predict the future, you are going to kill someone because you think they might rape, assualt, or kill someone after you scare them away from your house. Assuming this based off a brief encounter is unfounded, while I would agree with someone arguing that the odds of this person going out and committing a violent felony would be greater than the general public, you have absolutely no insight into what those chances really are.

Also your excuse that not shooting someone who is no longer a threat to you, but POSSIBLY to someone else in an undefined future somehow makes you responsible for their actions later is absolutely ridiculous.

What I see, is bloodlust and a whole lot of ridiculousness, I will second the amazement that this is coming from a moderator.

I wont be commenting here again, and most people will be inclined not to at all, but when idiocy is spread the members here shouldn't care who is saying it, and voice thier opinion against.

You are not omnipotent. Your right to kill stops when the immediate danger to your life or loved ones is over. Killing based off absolutely unfounded speculation is not something anyone here should ever advocate. Moderator or otherwise.

 

[JShirley]

Nor do you (JS) have the ability to predict the future, you are going to kill someone because you think they might rape, assualt, or kill someone after you scare them away from your house. Assuming this based off a brief encounter is unfounded

Not true- EVERYONE has the ability to predict the future, accurately or not. I deliberately gave extreme examples (intruder covered with another's blood, police bulletin, etc) to point out situations when it would be obvious the person is an immediate and deadly threat to society.

Main Entry:
pre·dict Listen to the pronunciation of predict
Pronunciation:
\pri-ˈdikt\
Function:
verb
Etymology:
Latin praedictus, past participle of praedicere, from prae- pre- + dicere to say — more at diction
Date:
1609

transitive verb: to declare or indicate in advance; especially : foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason

 

[BlackJackal]

If someone ever broke into my house and was armed they are a threat, why would they have a gun if they didnt plan on using it?, if they didnt have a weapon then i wouldnt shoot, hold them for the police to come.

 

[JShirley]

This is the weird part- there may be (US) states where shooting an intruder would be justified, but holding them may not be. I know of a situation in GA where a very capable man stopped, and disarmed two men who were coming to kill him. He would have been justified in killing them, but got in legal trouble because he did not let them leave.

If the intruder does not appear to be an immediate threat, and wants to run, let them.

 

[Markbo]

If the intruder does not appear to be an immediate threat, and wants to run, let them.

This will be my last post on this thread as well. That statement is not just from what all you have said before in this thread... it is schizophrenic 180° opposite!



Color me done!

 

[rbernie]

I said:

If they are in my house uninvited - AFAIK they are committing a felony. If they break down my door/window to gain entry, they are violent.

And you replied with:

What if it's that drunk Brit who was swinging on some strangers swing set a few years back in Houston? He was visiting Houston and got out of his cab at the wrong address. He was knocking on the door - they couldn't understand what he was saying - so he went and sat on the swingset. When he came back to the door, they shot him. They were within their rights... but they have to live with the fact, they shot a guy for being drunk and lost.

Your example has absolutely ZERO to do with my premise. I think that a spirited exchange of ideas is A Good Thing, but let's maintain our intellectual honesty while doing it. If they are on my porch, they have not physically broken into my house.

Read this article, or any one of a scad that are just like it, and tell me at what point the clues aligned for these homeowners to figure out that the intruder in their house was violent? As far as I can tell, that clue usually appears right about the time that the last option to Prepare To Repel Boarders disappears.

The couple in that article were darn lucky. Where do YOU think that scene was going, had the unarmed hubby not flung himself upon the (apparently armed) intruder and bought the wife the time needed to retrieve the firearm and return?

That was fixin' to be a bad, bad scene.

If they manage to get in with minimal noise/damage and are rummaging around for something to steal, they are not behaving violently.

Yes, they are. They illegally entered my property via the use of FORCE; the fact that they're being quiet doesn't mitigate that. Ye gods - are you postulating that B&E isn't A Bad Thing anymore if you're quiet about it?

You are not omnipotent. Your right to kill stops when the immediate danger to your life or loved ones is over. Killing based off absolutely unfounded speculation is not something anyone here should ever advocate. Moderator or otherwise.

You guys are making this far harder than it really is.

Have you ever woken up in the middle of the night, without knowing why? Then heard a crash? Then heard scuffling, and a muffled thud? Then wondered why the dog is silent? Then wondered where your kids were? Then realized, OH HOLY MOTHER OF SHIVA! I gotta do something! Someone's in my house! Then tried to quietly wake the spouse and tried to get them to call 911 without making too much noise, then retrieved a firearm and scurried to your ready position while your spouse whispers far too loudly into the phone? Ever done this, all the while thinking PLEASE, PLEASE let me get into position to guard the kids before whoever forced their way into the house in the middle of the night hears me or my spouse, figures out that we're up here and decides to come up those stairs? Wondering WHY DIDN'T I HEAR THE DOG? @#$!....

Lemme tell ya - when you get outside the master bedroom and you swing toward the kids rooms and you hear a noise that sounds like someone pounding up the stairs, you WILL NOT be thinking, "Hmm. Should I rack the action and let the intruder(s) know that I'm here?".

Sweet baby jeebus.

You may scream, you may try your best command voice instructing The Bad Guys to exit the house, you may drop your shotgun and pee your pants, you may flatten against the door frame and shoulder your weapon, or you may charge for the top of the stairs with all the energy you can muster out of that sound sleep you were in. You might do any a number of things. But you won't know what that thing is until you get there.

But the one thing that I can pretty much guarantee you that you will NOT be doing is playing a mind game and debating whether or not the intruder is potentially violent or not, or whether they are a misguided neighbor or not. It just doesn't work that way.

And as an aside - I can pretty much guarantee you that if its the drunk neighbor stumbling up the stairs, there is no 'warning' that you can provide that will register in their alcohol-addled mind and cause them to stop doing whatever they are doing. If there are impaired, they will keep coming; target ID is your only hope and any warnings will prove useless. If they are not impaired, they may or may not keep coming once they know you're home. But I will advise you that my experience is that most 'non-violent' B&Es occur during the day when the burglar knows that nobody's home. When they come into the house at night, it's generally because the intruder(s) are unafraid of being discovered. That is Bad JuJu Fixing To Happen.

If you are smart and trained and capable of snapping to the ready, you just MIGHT get yourself into a ready position to guard that which you most value. And THEN you might decide that a warning is tactically sound, or maybe you'll decide that it's better to wait in the darkness for the police to come. Maybe there was nobody coming up the stairs yet. Maybe there was, in which case you have less than a second and a half to ID the intruder and make The Decision.

Lemme know what you decide when you get there. Until then - try not to color things (and people) so black-n-white.

ETA: In rereading the above, it occurs to me that my intent may be lost on some. Lemme boil it down to simple concepts.

• Being in your house is no different that being out-n-about. Any event sufficient to cause you to draw a weapon in potential self-defense should be treated exactly for what it is.
• Being in your house does not alleviate the need for prudent Target Identification. 'Castle Doctrine' allows the presumption of self-defense, but you still need to perform the basic ID of the target before making The Decision. The same due diligence you would use outside of your house probably applies inside of your house.
• Any intruder that has broken his/her way into my house while me-n-mine are in it will be presumed to be violent until proven otherwise. The statistics for nighttime invasions in many areas are NOT happy ones.
• If I make contact with an stranger who has forced their way in my house, and we are at a distance greater that 1.5 seconds apart - I may offer them the opportunity to demonstrate their pacifist nature.
• If we contact each other at a distance less than 1.5 seconds apart - I will probably err on the side of caution for me-n-mine. I am in my house. They are not invited. Less than 1.5 seconds of separation distance is inadequate to safeguard me-n-mine from someone with ill intent, and my crystal ball telling me the state of their mind isn't working today.

 

[GigaBuist]

Contrary to popular mythology, you CAN miss with a shotgun, and pretty easily too. People do it all the time.

Somebody's been watching me shoot trap!

 

[junyo]

I wish I were as omniscient as some of you guys seem to be. I'll just say this, "Rodney Peairs". Perfectly legal, even understandable, yet a completely innocent man is dead, another ruined. Wanna bet he wishes he had clearly ID'd the target before he fired?