Home defense with childern in the house

[The-Reaver]

I never said it would kill the bad guy.

Aim for center mass area and dump your tube into him.

I don't know about you guys, but I have fired birdshot in a house and I was completely alert, no ears ringing, no muzzle flash blindness. Nothing.
Catch a guy in the face or chest at 15 feet. He's going to have a bad enough day to make him quite moving.

 

[bigfatdave]

Reaver, now you're getting into the concept of a voluntary stop as compared to an involuntary stop.

Counting on a voluntary stop is a bad plan. I hope that if I ever need to employ deadly force that I will get a voluntary stop, but I'm prepared to cause an involuntary stop if needed.
Chances are, a burglar will retreat the moment occupants make their presence known. Chances are that a home invader will flee at the first sign of hardened entrances or an armed response. But counting on the predators to be cowards doesn't help me any, and makes me no safer. Immediate overwhelming violence, on the other hand, makes me safer as I waste no time choosing weaponry, ammunition, or tactics once deadly force is called for. One chance to surrender, retreat or disengage - then shoot to stop.

 

[The-Reaver]

Well then risk over penetrating and killing your kids in their sleep.
I'll just dump my tube. & keep a sidearm like I always have.
Good day to you.

 

[Warp]

Yeah...your side arm would never penetrate your interior walls...

 

[Paris]

I think you're all right, just from different points of view.

On one hand, pretty much any firearm is going to penetrate modern sheet rock walls and perhaps even exterior walls. On the other hand, you have to do what you have to do in that situation - protect yourself, your family and your property. How do you mitigate the risk? Do you use a lower power payload and take the chance that the target doesn't go down or quit or do you use a moderate to high power payload and guarantee penetration of interior walls?

That's why I think defending against a home invasion truly is a terrifying prospect because truthfully, for both arguments presented in this thread, there is no good answer. It could go badly, no matter which way you choose.

 

[JShirley]

I'm pretty sure Reaver was saying someone who had just been shot would be concerned about other things than his puzzlement with apostrophes. (Even if I think his choice in armament is silly and contrary to common sense and expert advice, alike.)

John

 

[The-Reaver]

Yeah...your side arm would never penetrate your interior walls...

357 Rat shot.

You guys think its all about shooting to kill, do that nowadays even under the castle doctrine and they will find a way to screw you in the end.
If 7 shots of bird doesn't work & 6 shots of Rat doesn't work then do what infantrymen have always done when they run out of ammo. Melee.

Ever been butt stroked by a solid stock or the muzzle of rifle/shotgun? I haven't thankfully.

 

[JShirley]

You guys think its all about shooting to kill

No, actually, we think it's about "shooting to stop". I sincerely suggest you stop posting and do a little more research before further opining.

 

[bigfatdave]

no, it is about shooting to STOP

And any plan that involves melee when you have two firearms in your possession is a failure of planning. The whole point of a firearm is to prevent melee distance fighting.

I suppose you could attach a Bayonet Spork to really show them you mean business!

 

[Warp]

It is about shooting to stop. Rat shot and birdshot are not to be trusted to do so reliably.

I have little worry about the legalities of shooting an intruder in my own home.

 

[The-Reaver]

Ok boss man. Roger that
Shoot to kill enjoy your fine, your jail time, or your dead children
RvR out.

 

[Warp]

Our dead children? Really? Because we don't trust rat shot or bird shot to stop an attacker?

You seriously need to grow the hell up

 

[bigfatdave]

Also you don't employ deadly force in a half-assed way, it will open you up to even more legal liability.

"So, Mr Reaver, you shot to wound?
..."Yes, your honor, I didn't want to kill my attacker, just to deter them, I could always bonk them with the stock if shooting them didn't change their plans!"
"So you weren't in fear of your life, and thought you could just deter with deadly force? ... ... Were you trying to teach them a lesson or were you actually defending yourself?"

It goes downhill from there.
Shoot to stop
Shoot to live
No half measures

 

[Warp]

Agreed. With that mentality you would be better off using pepper spray or a Taser than using ineffective but still deadly-force projectiles out of a firearm

 

[Paris]

Ok boss man. Roger that
Shoot to kill enjoy your fine, your jail time, or your dead children
RvR out.

Death is a possible outcome of the bad guy's choice to invade my home. He/she is responsible for this outcome, not me. Shoot to stop.

 

[JShirley]

Okay, guys. I'm sorry, but based mostly on really stupid input from one poster this one is totally off the rails.

Birdshot is even less a reliable stopper than under-powered handgun rounds.

Always, always, always shoot to stop. Not to scare. Not to wound. Not to kill. To stop.

Since firearms are not magic icons, we want good ammunition in them. All mechanical devices are subject to fail, and handicapping ourselves with projectiles that are known to be inferior for the purpose is ill-considered.

In general, using ammunition similar to local police department is an easily defensible choice, legally (assuming you followed good sense and the law otherwise). Using ammunition made for stopping prey animals that weigh a few pounds or less - yet leaving enough to eat- is insane.

John