fish2xs
Member
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...
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...