Home Defense: Go-To Guns and One Assumption Why...

[fish2xs]

If you don't live in an 'anti' state like MA, pretend you
do for a minute. Pretend that the laws and public opinion
are slanted against law abiding gun owners and towards the
disadvantaged - who break into people's houses.

We all have our favorite home defense tool (357, AK, 12g)
selected and to varying degrees, ready for what we hope
never happens. And we all have our reasons why our go-to
home defense tool is just that: go-to. Mine is my 870
for a number of reasons. But I have one reason that I
don't think I've seen discussed before, and I'd like to
put on the table for debate and sanity check.

(Remember you live in an 'anti' state.)

Scenario 1: BG enters house late at night. I confront him
with a handgun. I discharge the weapon within the legal
constraints of self/home defense (however there are no
witnesses), but it takes 4 or 5 shots (maybe more) to
stop his advance.

Scenario 2: Same as 1, except I have my 870. One trigger
pull unleashes 9 - 00buckshot 'rounds'. His advance
stops.

In the inevitable trial that will follow, I will have to
justify multiple trigger pulls in scenario 1 - or - only
one trigger pull in scenario 2.

Thus, one of my reasons for having the 870 be my go-to
for home defense is my assumption that it will be easier
to prove I was as non-malicious as possible in defense of
home and family.

Is this stupid? or is there some legitimacy?

And thinking about it now, I think there is more public
disdain for handguns than shotguns and my chances at trial
will be better...

OK - you are back in your home state now. Remember the
primary reason I pick the 870 is effectiveness, in combination
with other reasons (ie. over penetration, etc) so don't
blast me on having the tail wag the dog...

 

[Oracle]

I think that a 12 or 20 gauge shotgun is an excellent choice for home defense. And, it's more "pc" than many other home defense options, as you've mentioned. I say that choosing an effective home defense arm that may, if you have to use it, cause you fewer problems is a good idea. My "go to" gun is a Mossy 12 gauge for many of the same reasons, but primarily because it's effective.

And, don't forget to take your HD gun to the range, and practice maneuvering with it in the confines of your house. It will do you much more good if you know how to use it and are in practice with it.

 

[Dorrin79]

I think your point is legitimate. I'm sure that a typical sheeple jury would be more understanding of one blast from a ol' hunting shotgun than multiple taps from a EvilBlackAssaultCopKiller Handgun of Death (tm)

My concern would be that in any state so far gone as to consider SD with a handgun = bad, but SD with a shotgun = good, you're probably screwed regardless.


Glad I live in Texas...

edited to add - my 12ga is also my home defense gun of choice. Not out of legal concerns, but rather a combination of effectiveness and limited penetration.

 

[Cosmoline]

ANOTHER FACTOR:

It's almost impossible to survive a shotgun blast at PB range. Even if the goblin lives for a bit, he'll likely die in the hospital or on the way. They'd have to carve out half his body just to get all the shot.

In the vast majority of states, wrongful death suits are more difficult to bring and harder to collect on than a standard suit from someone in a wheelchair with some handgun slugs in him.

 

[BerettaNut92]

Honestly, I think you're screwed either way...might as well use the better tool.

 

[Sleuth]

With your assumtions, you may have a small point, IF your shotgun is a typlical hunting gun (Blue Steel & Wood), not black plastic with a light in the forend. And you never told anyone you kept it only for defense, had hunting licenses and other equipment for hunting birds, etc., etc.

However, surviving the lawsuit is a moot point if you are not able to defeat the threat. Most gun modifications are to this end. And what you do and say prior to and after the event can be far more important than what kind of gun you used. EXAMPLE: Have you ever told anyone that you will kill anybody who breaks into your home? Bad Idea! The other guy's investigator will find that person, and have him in court showing your pre-disposition to kill rather than defend.

I teach a course on post shooting stratagies and tactics that is exactly on this point. When it was THE DAY for me (every day could be THE DAY), I followed my own lesson plan and the lawsuit went away.

 

[Dorian]

I teach a course on post shooting stratagies and tactics that is exactly on this point.

Ok I'm interested. Can i get some more information?

 

[Cosmoline]

LETHAL MEANS LETHAL

You're confusing some issues here. When you use lethal force, you are trying to kill. If you're not trying to kill, you should stop using lethal force.

The whole business about "shoot to stop" is simply another way of saying that you MUST cease using lethal force the moment you are no longer faced with imminent death. This is another reason to use the shotgun or another long gun. Multiple bullets from a semi can be trouble, esp. if it's found the BG was turning around and trying to get away while you were emptying your high cap. Cops can get away with plugging goblins in the back. We probably wouldn't be as lucky.

But lethal force is lethal force, make no mistake. Claiming you didn't mean to kill him because you were just shooting him to make him stop is absurd.

 

[gearbox]

I live in the gun-unfriendly state of California. I have a unloaded 870 with a trigger lock on it with 5 Federal tacticool 00 buck cartridges within reach. I also have a HK USP9Compact loaded with 9+1 124gr Gol Dots and another mag holding 9 laying next to it--all locked in a GunVault.
My "Go To Gun" would be the HK because it's quicker to access and operate: the locking mechanism is a combination lock which can be opened very quickly and in the dark & the only operations required to fire is a click of the thumb and a pull of the finger. The alternative (the shotgun) requires: turn on the light, view the three small tabs on the trigger lock & enter code, remove/pull lock off and let fall, feed a shell into the ejection port and let the slide cycle forward, disengage safety, aim & pull trigger, (optional) load other shells.

 

[Sven]

Sounds like good reasoning to me. 870 has a strong deterrent option that your pistol lacks as well... the universally known and understood sound of a shotgun pump being operated!

 

[foghornl]

Living in Ohio, right now my first go-to weapon is the 1911-A1. In an anti-state as you mentioned, my go-to would be the Mossberg.

 

[Sleuth]

Cosmo, I disagree. If someone attacks me, I will stop the attack. If he lives or dies is of no concern to me at the time. Extra hits are quite common, shots in the back not unusual, neither are hard to overcome in court. Going around telling people (by posting here) that you intend to kill someone is far more difficult to defend.
You sound like you were trained by the UK police, who think that in any case you should only fire one shot, and then evaluate. They fear that if the 1st hit COULD have stopped the attack, you can be tried for murder for firing any additional shots. (I wounder how they decide which was the 1st hit?)

Firearm choices quickly devide into discussions of potential stopping power debates as well as tactical considerations (long guns more effective, but harder to manuver around a house, etc.)

All kinds of firearms have been used to defend, from muzzleloaders to Class 3 machineguns. Choices are made on everything from the effect on the outcome of the court case to the color of the gun (do they make that in pink?)

My choices: base on efficacy, efficiency, tactical concerns. Surviving to be sued is more important that choosing a gun based on it's effect on the court case. Your choices may differ.

 

[clubsoda22]

I use particularly nasty ammo in all of my guns. My only concern is that if i had to use the gun in self defence, my choice of fragmenting ammunition would be used in court. Either way, my defence would simply be that i use the best ammo available to stop the imminent threat to my self as quickly as possible. End of story.

 

[MolonLabe416]

A pistol is a poor weapon to stop a fight. We carry a pistol because it's portable, it's concealable, and we can have it always on our person. Choose a shotgun, carbine, or rifle for every other scenario. An 870 is an excellent choice.

 

[B_Scott]

My shotgun holds 9 rounds for a reason...and it's probably not because I expect to be attacked by 9 people at once.

What makes you think you will be ABLE to stop firing after one shot when your adrenaline is flowing?

 

[ShaiVong]

I would think that if you lived in a moderate state, your home was invaded through LOCKED doors, and hopefully the perp had some kind of weapon on them (if they do, good for you in court, bad for you in the house). Then discharging any ammount of rounds at said intruder would not be overhard to defend. Unless ofcourse he had multiple back wounds and nothing else, or you drilled him in the forehead after he fell on his back.

My strategy is to keep firing until the perp is off of his/her feet, and then evaluate the threat. Like a previous poster stated before; weather they die is not my concern or objective. Neutralizing the threat is the objective. There IS a difference in a court of law. Its the difference between manslaughter and murder.

I do not intend to kill any intruder, I only intend to neutralize the threat that they pose to myself and my family. If they perish in this neutralization, then that is a tragic and regretable side-effect, and if they don't, then I'm glad they survived our confrontation. From a legal and religious standpoint, purposefull killing is not acceptable.