mljdeckard
Member
You can't re-write rule #4 because you are scared of something you can't see.
"My gun jammed..."
- Thread starter Fred Fuller
- Start date
- Status
LOL. I've had to break into houses that I've lived in a number of times. LOL. How would that look from outside? It would look exactly like a burglar was gaining entry. How would that sound from inside? It would sound exactly like a burglar was gaining entry. Obviously you're playing some Internet punk ego game, so you want to swing around telling everybody that you execute every Jehovah's Witness that knocks on your door - and that's great. Carry on.
But the point is that people do, from time to time, exhibit behaviors that give the impressions of wrongdoing but are not. Fearful, untrained and irresponsible gun owners will fire at shadows, odd sounds, an unexpected knock on the door or a Japanese exchange student.
Peairs was acquitted of all charges, but I'll wager he wasn't happy how it all turned out for him.
dayid
Member
No one ever suggested to shoot "at every little noise".
We are suggesting that if someone is breaking into your home, shooting them is a realistic and appropriate response.
Who was inside your houses that would be shooting at you?
No one has ever said to "execute" anyone.
No one has ever said to shoot at someone who "knocks on your door".
Someone breaking in is different. Apparently you lack the ability to recognize such things.
No one said to "fire at shadows"
No one said to "fire at odd sounds"
No one said to fire at "unexpected knocks"
No one said to fire at "Japanese exchange students"
Please do rejoin us once you understand basic reading comprehension. You're just being silly now.
P.S.,
Yoshihiro Hattori was not breaking into a home, and never had his arm inside the person's door breaking in. Come back when you want to actually talk on the subject at hand.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Not completely satisfied. The gun malfunctioned. Not a good thing to have happen in a life and death event. The satisfying part was that nobody in the home was hurt, so the gun and the shooter accomplished the mission. That neither of the intruders was killed was a bonus...for them at least...so all in all, it turned out pretty good.
No. I don't relish the idea of killing anyone. If someone forces me to fire, and they happen to die as a result...that's one of the hazards of the trade...but not a desideratum. Not for me, anyway.
No word yet on the shotgun's design. A slide-action...pump...can jam up if it's short stroked. That's operator error, most often induced by stress and abject terror. Practice is the key to correcting that. If it was a self-loader...the gun needs to be examined by a smith, and probably cleaned and oiled.
No. I don't relish the idea of killing anyone. If someone forces me to fire, and they happen to die as a result...that's one of the hazards of the trade...but not a desideratum. Not for me, anyway.
No word yet on the shotgun's design. A slide-action...pump...can jam up if it's short stroked. That's operator error, most often induced by stress and abject terror. Practice is the key to correcting that. If it was a self-loader...the gun needs to be examined by a smith, and probably cleaned and oiled.
He or she is correct. If you do not know who the person is, you are not "sure of your target "--by definition. If you do not know who else is where on the other side of your door (out to several hundred feet, at least) at the time, you are not sure of your backstop.
Your right to use deadly force has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether or not someone "deserves to be shot", nor do you have any right at all to make that determination.
That is completely irrelevant.
Such a possibility does not enter at all into the determination of whether the use of deadly force is immediately necessary and therefore justified.
Breaking glass to unlock a door is usually unlawful, but not always. It depends on who does it and for what reason. The decision of whether someone has broken the law is reserved for a jury of the person's peers, and the determination of the "consequences", to a trial court judge. However, none of that has anything at all to do with whether or not it is lawful in a particular jurisdiction to use deadly force in the event of a home invasion.
Again, whether a person deserves to die is up to a jury. You cannot shoot someone simply because he is "breaking the law" anywhere in this country. In many jurisdictions you can use deadly force if immediately necessary as a last resort to prevent a forcible felony, but that is not the same thing.
Actually, there may well be a "good excuse" (ever hear of a necessity defense?). The "laws above" were intended, quite properly, to establish that the act of breaking into an occupied dwelling provides a reasonable presumption of an immediate danger of death or serious injury to the occupants, thus justifying the use of deadly force to prevent such harm. They have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of punishing the intruder for breaking the law, nor do they permit the use of deadly force simply because someone is breading the law. They pertain to the right of self defense, and only to that subject.
...which has absolutely nothing to do with the justification for the use of deadly force.
??
Based upon what has been described above, the shooter in this case was no doubt justified in shooting. Even in Colorado, where the "castle law" requires that the intruder actually enter the dwelling, a shooter was not prosecuted for shooting someone who had broken glass to unlock a door without criminal motive--his arm had been inside. However, had the person in the case of the incident related by the OP been a family member or friend, that shooter would regret his action for the rest of his life, justification notwithstanding.
Recall, however, that the shooter's gun jammed, and that the jam prevented him from shooting the intruders as the fled. That jam undoubtedly prevented that shooter from losing his entire fortune, his gun rights, his clean record, and his personal freedom.
He was lucky that his gun fired the first time, that the injured person turned out not to be an innocent person, and that his gun jammed before he could go on to commit a felony.
Thank you, kleanbore. I was just outside cutting firewood and thinking about this discussion, and what is central to an evaluation here are the rules of firearm safety. As the NRA teaches it, the idea is that if everyone follows the four basic rules, accidental shootings will almost never happen.
Some of the examples given, e.g., breaking into your own home, are only meant to illustrate that what looks and sounds like a crime in progress may not be. Similarly, the sound of breaking glass and an arm reaching through a broken pane would have anyone going straight to Defcon Four - ready to fire.
By holding to rule one and two, an accidental shooting can be avoided. The owner making the decision to evaluate the intruder as hostile is a personal decision, but until the owner of the arm in question is identified as friend or foe, shooting first risks injuring or killing a friendly.
Being a gun owner is a tremendous responsibility because you have the ability to end a life very efficiently. With that responsibility comes the burden of taking reasonable measures to avoid an accidental shooting.
Some of the examples given, e.g., breaking into your own home, are only meant to illustrate that what looks and sounds like a crime in progress may not be. Similarly, the sound of breaking glass and an arm reaching through a broken pane would have anyone going straight to Defcon Four - ready to fire.
By holding to rule one and two, an accidental shooting can be avoided. The owner making the decision to evaluate the intruder as hostile is a personal decision, but until the owner of the arm in question is identified as friend or foe, shooting first risks injuring or killing a friendly.
Being a gun owner is a tremendous responsibility because you have the ability to end a life very efficiently. With that responsibility comes the burden of taking reasonable measures to avoid an accidental shooting.
No, I would not have been satisfied, as the event unearthed some serious problems.
The outcome was positive despite great errors.
1. Weapon storage.
The shotgun was in a zippered case and loaded. A zippered case, gun sock,etc are completely inadequate to store a weapon in state of readiness for HD/SD. Zippers can fail (as occurred) and weapon protuberances can catch on fabric.
There are several solutions to keep a shotgun in a ready & accessible state, the security of which can be varied for the home owner's situation. In the OP, it sounds like no small children frequent the domicile, so unsecured ready storage is acceptable.
2. Weapon state of repair/maintenance
Everyone assumes operator error and I agree that is the most likely reason for the malf. But, the weapon could be at fault, given it has had four years to moulder. For instance, the Rem 1100 O-ring could have given out, making his shotgun an awkward single-shot.
3. Shooter practice/familiarity
Four years between range sessions is WAY too long. At minimum, annual refreshers.
4. Choice of ammunition
Gah, bird shot is for the birds! (in a HD/SD situation)
Buck or slugs.
5. Shut that mouth
Discipline when speaking with LEOs & the press is essential. The man in in the article talked WAY too much.
------
I do not fault the home owner for coming back toward the door. It is likely the best place to stop the goblins, as it is a bottle neck.
yongxingfreesty
Member
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,396
might as well not even own the gun if you leave it in the case.
always gotta have one handy!
always gotta have one handy!
Had this happened to me I would definitely change my habits.
1. Make certain the gun is in working condition.
2. Determine the loading and have it loaded with that cartridge or shell.
3. Have it accessible.
4. Get fixed in my mind when it’s the correct time to shoot, or if to shoot.
Okay, the first three are easy to implement. Number 4 is something we really don’t know how it will go down when the time comes to do it. We can talk about how we are going to do everything exactly right and legal and CYA but that’s just talk. Talk’s cheap.
1. Make certain the gun is in working condition.
2. Determine the loading and have it loaded with that cartridge or shell.
3. Have it accessible.
4. Get fixed in my mind when it’s the correct time to shoot, or if to shoot.
Okay, the first three are easy to implement. Number 4 is something we really don’t know how it will go down when the time comes to do it. We can talk about how we are going to do everything exactly right and legal and CYA but that’s just talk. Talk’s cheap.
Mainsail
Member
But in this case, and in most cases, it wasn't handy at all; and yet he prevailed anyway.
FTR,the Four Rules:
Nothing in the article indicates the homeowner violated any of the Four Rules.
#1: Maybe the homeowner twirled the shotgun like a baton when he was not defending his home, but we don't know that.
#2: Homeowner was more than willing to destroy the burglar, given his statements.
#3: No indication homeowner wasn't practicing proper technique,here
#4: He knew his target was the burglar & the burglar's arm. I assume the homeowner is like myself in that I know the lay of the land outside my home's doors (given we se the backstop every time we leave via the door.. Heck, given that the homeowner was using bird shot, the door itself (save the glass) was sufficient backstop.
---------
Here in my neck of the woods, a businessman shot and killed 3 burglars in the space of two weeks with a shotgun. All at his combo business/domicile. One of them was in the middle of breaking through a window.
The grand juries(1) determined there was no crime committed (by the businessman) and sent him on his way. The prosecutor did not press the issue, either.
A local nitwit reporter went after the businessman and taped an encounter where she was very nasty to the man. Said reporter was sent packing by the outrage we all felt at her actions.
----
The article in the OP has the homeowner shooting while the burglar was in the process of B&E. I have no problem with that and would likely do the same. The laws of my state favor me in this regard, as does the prosecutor's disposition, and also the local citizenry that makes up the jury pool.
I have two small children & a wife to think about. I am not about to give up any advantage (and thereby endanger my family) to satisfy some intertube folk who are all flustered at the thought. Especially when the law, prosecutor, and citizenry have shown that the pro-active course of action has their support.
Also, our house is brick clad(2) and if the goblins pass through the threshold, the field of fire that could possibly endanger my family increases. Instead of having his FoF constrained by the doorway (smaller the farther back from the door he is), after the goblin passes the threshold, the entire interior of the house is vulnerable to gunfire, there being only sheet rock and studs to stop gunfire.
Every bit of tactical and common sense points to me stopping the goblin before he passes the threshold.
Other folk in different circumstances (law, prosecutor, citizenry, etc.) may have a different solution.
(1) Every homicide goes to a GJ here, no matter how cut & dried.
(2) I use 000 buck in my neighborhood, as my neighbor across the road has only siding & glass on the part of his house that faces my front door. I prefer slugs, but that would penetrate his house. The distance is such that 00 buck would not penetrate the siding and may or may not bust glass.
Nothing in the article indicates the homeowner violated any of the Four Rules.
#1: Maybe the homeowner twirled the shotgun like a baton when he was not defending his home, but we don't know that.
#2: Homeowner was more than willing to destroy the burglar, given his statements.
#3: No indication homeowner wasn't practicing proper technique,here
#4: He knew his target was the burglar & the burglar's arm. I assume the homeowner is like myself in that I know the lay of the land outside my home's doors (given we se the backstop every time we leave via the door.. Heck, given that the homeowner was using bird shot, the door itself (save the glass) was sufficient backstop.
---------
Here in my neck of the woods, a businessman shot and killed 3 burglars in the space of two weeks with a shotgun. All at his combo business/domicile. One of them was in the middle of breaking through a window.
The grand juries(1) determined there was no crime committed (by the businessman) and sent him on his way. The prosecutor did not press the issue, either.
A local nitwit reporter went after the businessman and taped an encounter where she was very nasty to the man. Said reporter was sent packing by the outrage we all felt at her actions.
----
The article in the OP has the homeowner shooting while the burglar was in the process of B&E. I have no problem with that and would likely do the same. The laws of my state favor me in this regard, as does the prosecutor's disposition, and also the local citizenry that makes up the jury pool.
I have two small children & a wife to think about. I am not about to give up any advantage (and thereby endanger my family) to satisfy some intertube folk who are all flustered at the thought. Especially when the law, prosecutor, and citizenry have shown that the pro-active course of action has their support.
Also, our house is brick clad(2) and if the goblins pass through the threshold, the field of fire that could possibly endanger my family increases. Instead of having his FoF constrained by the doorway (smaller the farther back from the door he is), after the goblin passes the threshold, the entire interior of the house is vulnerable to gunfire, there being only sheet rock and studs to stop gunfire.
Every bit of tactical and common sense points to me stopping the goblin before he passes the threshold.
Other folk in different circumstances (law, prosecutor, citizenry, etc.) may have a different solution.
(1) Every homicide goes to a GJ here, no matter how cut & dried.
(2) I use 000 buck in my neighborhood, as my neighbor across the road has only siding & glass on the part of his house that faces my front door. I prefer slugs, but that would penetrate his house. The distance is such that 00 buck would not penetrate the siding and may or may not bust glass.
I am a bit perplexed about these cautions that one might shoot a friend coming into the house. I’ve racked my brain trying to remember and cannot recall even one incident where a friend came calling and kicked in the door rather than knock or ring the door bell.
mljdeckard
Member
jfruser.....there were TWO bad guys in this case. The shooter had no idea what was behind his target. He threw #4 out the window.
mljdeckard:
So the home owner didn't see the other goblin. Big whoop. Neither did you, and you have no idea if goblin #2 was behind goblin #1 (therefore fleshy goblin "backstop"...not exactly a bad thing, IMO), to the side (therefore not "backstop"), or wherever.
If the door was wide open, his front yard an endless prairie, and he saw only one goblin because they were stacked up one behind the other...so what? Are you not going to shoot because you don't have x-ray vision to peer though goblin viscera into the soulful eyes of the second goblin?
One has to apply common sense to reality and safety guidelines. Without it, we'd have folks refusing to point their firearms at the ground, as they are not willing to violate the letter of Rule #2...not being willing to destroy innocent Chinamen on the other side of the globe. Others would never clean their weapons, as their owner's manual states that the first step in cleaning their weapon is to unload it...but since all guns are always loaded, they are stopped butt-cold by Rule #1. Yes, truly a conundrum on the scale of "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"(1)
Common sense: not so common, these days.
(1) That would be "silence" to everyone who applies common sense to the problem.
So the home owner didn't see the other goblin. Big whoop. Neither did you, and you have no idea if goblin #2 was behind goblin #1 (therefore fleshy goblin "backstop"...not exactly a bad thing, IMO), to the side (therefore not "backstop"), or wherever.
If the door was wide open, his front yard an endless prairie, and he saw only one goblin because they were stacked up one behind the other...so what? Are you not going to shoot because you don't have x-ray vision to peer though goblin viscera into the soulful eyes of the second goblin?
One has to apply common sense to reality and safety guidelines. Without it, we'd have folks refusing to point their firearms at the ground, as they are not willing to violate the letter of Rule #2...not being willing to destroy innocent Chinamen on the other side of the globe. Others would never clean their weapons, as their owner's manual states that the first step in cleaning their weapon is to unload it...but since all guns are always loaded, they are stopped butt-cold by Rule #1. Yes, truly a conundrum on the scale of "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"(1)
Common sense: not so common, these days.
(1) That would be "silence" to everyone who applies common sense to the problem.
mljdeckard
Member
If you have no idea, you shouldn't shoot.
BHP FAN
Member
''The 911 call came in at 9:19 a.m. about a home invasion burglary at 632 Nodding Hill Road in Spartanburg County, said Public Information Officer Tony Ivey...''
way to go giving away the guys addy for all the homey's gang banger friends to get revenge.
way to go giving away the guys addy for all the homey's gang banger friends to get revenge.
Makes me wonder if, in the end, semi-auto shotguns aren't better than pumps for HD. Some people seem to favor pumps for their simplicity, but maybe the odds of a user error are much greater than an equipment error. (assuming that it was a pump shotgun)
Everything else in this situation has been covered, so no need for me to add anything there.
Everything else in this situation has been covered, so no need for me to add anything there.
Cornbred
Member
actually 2 or 3 bad guys by the article.
Good grief he did know what was his target and beyond. The person/persons who kicked in his BACK door and trying to come into his house was his target. If bad guy #2 or #3 are behind they are still his targets. I have to go with Jfruser use a little common sense. If one bad guy is kicking in my back door (note kicked in, not knocked on, the back door which is not the door people normally go to) and has one or two buddies with him THEY are there to help him thus THEY are breaking into my home and all have became targets. As for knowing whats beyond I am sure he new that he had about 400 ft of woodlands in front of his house and at least 800 ft of woods to the back of the house (thanks google maps) All that being said he was justified in using deadly force by SC state law. Which by the way superceeds the NRA's, or anyone elses safety rules.
Think of the press release as a job protection program.
Cornbred
Member
Mljdeckard Even with your own state laws I am pretty confident that I could argue that the shooting was justifiable. It all comes down to the interpretation of the law and case presidence if there is any.
Back on target:
Overall it turned out good, he nor his family were hurt.
What could have been done different that day? Very little other than keeping his mouth shut around the reporter.
In the preperation for a potential incident like this quite a bit.
I would have chosen different round, probably 00B or slug. Even then that bird shot and wadding can be very effective at close ranges.
Probably the most important thing is Training Training Training. It cant be said enough. It could have killed several birds with one stone. Regular or semi regular training might have identified the need for a new case. Should ensure that regular maintenance is being conducted which would help ensure proper function. He would have been more capable of clearing the malfunction and getting back into the fight if they hadn't ran off.
ShadyScott999
Member
Guys,
I posted the SC statute. That being said, I do see both sides. I tell my students that just because it is "legal" it still might not be the "right" thing to do. In self defense of person and much more so of property is a double edged sword. Once you have determined an action to be legal, it become a personal issue.
If one of my students asked me my opinion of this situation I would suggest that once the homeowner was in "defensible" position as he was, he should have given verbal commands to stop. If they continued to and breached the door, that would be the time to fire.
In closing, Every SD scenario is dynamic. It is very easy to armchair quarterback after the fact. Throw in some internet bravado and things go sour quickly.
The answer is train more, train better, then train some more.
I posted the SC statute. That being said, I do see both sides. I tell my students that just because it is "legal" it still might not be the "right" thing to do. In self defense of person and much more so of property is a double edged sword. Once you have determined an action to be legal, it become a personal issue.
If one of my students asked me my opinion of this situation I would suggest that once the homeowner was in "defensible" position as he was, he should have given verbal commands to stop. If they continued to and breached the door, that would be the time to fire.
In closing, Every SD scenario is dynamic. It is very easy to armchair quarterback after the fact. Throw in some internet bravado and things go sour quickly.
The answer is train more, train better, then train some more.
Last edited:
Gouranga
Member
In regards to the comments on different situations. You have to evaluate that based on your situation. In my home, I have me and my wife and 4 young children. There is absolutely no reason why there would be someone coming into my window at 2 am. None.
Anyone there is 99.9999% likely to be a burglar who knows we are home and has a plan to deal with that. When I weigh the lives of my 4 children and wife vs the .0001% chance that someone is drunk and breaking into the wrong house. IF I am a situation where I am in control, have clear view and no sight of a weapon, I would be likely to give a verbal warning before just opening up. If I do not, and depending on the point of entry (in the room with my girls, or farther away away from them and direct immediate harm to them), I may not give them that chance.
I also know very well, what is beyond my home at any point. IF said burglar has friends outside, I am not concerned with their safety. I do use ammo less likely to endanger my neighbors should i miss. Given it is dark, you were just woken up, and you have loads of adrenaline in my blood, I would be expecting my aim to be less than optimal.
As far as this mans firearm, I have a new gun, well kept and cleaned. IN the last 2 months, I have run 650 rounds through it during target practice, 1 of those rounds (about the 410th) failed to eject and caused a jam. None before did, none after and the weapon is in mint condition. It may have been his gun was in great condition, and this was just his 410th round. Not really enough info here to say for sure.
I would also say in the heat of the moment I would give 2 hoots about the legality of everything. My thoughts would be solely on protecting my loved ones.
Anyone there is 99.9999% likely to be a burglar who knows we are home and has a plan to deal with that. When I weigh the lives of my 4 children and wife vs the .0001% chance that someone is drunk and breaking into the wrong house. IF I am a situation where I am in control, have clear view and no sight of a weapon, I would be likely to give a verbal warning before just opening up. If I do not, and depending on the point of entry (in the room with my girls, or farther away away from them and direct immediate harm to them), I may not give them that chance.
I also know very well, what is beyond my home at any point. IF said burglar has friends outside, I am not concerned with their safety. I do use ammo less likely to endanger my neighbors should i miss. Given it is dark, you were just woken up, and you have loads of adrenaline in my blood, I would be expecting my aim to be less than optimal.
As far as this mans firearm, I have a new gun, well kept and cleaned. IN the last 2 months, I have run 650 rounds through it during target practice, 1 of those rounds (about the 410th) failed to eject and caused a jam. None before did, none after and the weapon is in mint condition. It may have been his gun was in great condition, and this was just his 410th round. Not really enough info here to say for sure.
I would also say in the heat of the moment I would give 2 hoots about the legality of everything. My thoughts would be solely on protecting my loved ones.
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
Some interesting and worth-while discussion here- thanks to all who participated for that. Now that the thread has quieted down, I want to cover a couple of the things I had hoped to see talked about here.
DaveBeal gets the Kewpie doll in Post #6 for catching the fact that the homeowner in question was likely bailed out of a potential bad situation by the jammed gun, given his stated intent to pursue and continue firing.
Not a lot of posters pointed out the fact that the interrupted robbery attempt was the second in two weeks: "A man whose home was robbed last week heard someone breaking in again on Tuesday morning...". That fact might explain some of the "attitude" reflected in the homeowner's statements as to his intent to chase the would-be robbers and continue shooting, but it's still not a wise course of action. Of course, not understanding that often enough, a burglary crew decides to come back to get stuff they missed or couldn't carry away the first time through was a pretty important shortcoming on the homeowner's part as well. That of course ties in with not having a defensive firearm more readily and reliably available as well. They obviously fixed the damaged door/lock from the previous break-in, but didn't seem to have gone much further to protect the house.
The reporter failed to tell us what exact kind of shotgun Clary had. Apparently a repeater, since he said "I had five bullets in it," but whether semiauto or pump, we don't know. There are always arguments over whether semiautos are reliable enough to use as defensive shotguns. With good ammo, a quality semiauto is IMHO as reliable as a pump. Without any attention for four years, however, that might well not be the case.
It was mentioned a couple of times that if the shotgun in question was a pump, Clary might have short-stroked it after firing the first round. That's a possibility. One other potential problem no one mentioned that I noticed was that plastic hulled shotgun shells left under pressure from a magazine spring for a long time have been known to bulge, collapse at the wad, or even split open. That's one possible cause for the jam that wouldn't require short stroking in a pump, or a malfunction otherwise in a semiauto.
If you keep a shotgun loaded for home defense, shoot up the ammo that's in it every so often, and load it fresh. You need the practice, and the gun needs new ammo from time to time.
It was an interesting case study, and we can be grateful to Mr. Clary for unwittingly sharing his example with us and allowing us to pick it apart and learn from it.
I hope he learned some things from it as well...
lpl
DaveBeal gets the Kewpie doll in Post #6 for catching the fact that the homeowner in question was likely bailed out of a potential bad situation by the jammed gun, given his stated intent to pursue and continue firing.
Not a lot of posters pointed out the fact that the interrupted robbery attempt was the second in two weeks: "A man whose home was robbed last week heard someone breaking in again on Tuesday morning...". That fact might explain some of the "attitude" reflected in the homeowner's statements as to his intent to chase the would-be robbers and continue shooting, but it's still not a wise course of action. Of course, not understanding that often enough, a burglary crew decides to come back to get stuff they missed or couldn't carry away the first time through was a pretty important shortcoming on the homeowner's part as well. That of course ties in with not having a defensive firearm more readily and reliably available as well. They obviously fixed the damaged door/lock from the previous break-in, but didn't seem to have gone much further to protect the house.
The reporter failed to tell us what exact kind of shotgun Clary had. Apparently a repeater, since he said "I had five bullets in it," but whether semiauto or pump, we don't know. There are always arguments over whether semiautos are reliable enough to use as defensive shotguns. With good ammo, a quality semiauto is IMHO as reliable as a pump. Without any attention for four years, however, that might well not be the case.
It was mentioned a couple of times that if the shotgun in question was a pump, Clary might have short-stroked it after firing the first round. That's a possibility. One other potential problem no one mentioned that I noticed was that plastic hulled shotgun shells left under pressure from a magazine spring for a long time have been known to bulge, collapse at the wad, or even split open. That's one possible cause for the jam that wouldn't require short stroking in a pump, or a malfunction otherwise in a semiauto.
If you keep a shotgun loaded for home defense, shoot up the ammo that's in it every so often, and load it fresh. You need the practice, and the gun needs new ammo from time to time.
It was an interesting case study, and we can be grateful to Mr. Clary for unwittingly sharing his example with us and allowing us to pick it apart and learn from it.
I hope he learned some things from it as well...
lpl
Ed Ames
Member
"Not in Texas." Or, said in a less humorous way, the legal standards for deadly force vary.
I don't know what the standard is in S.C. but chances are the attackers had already committed a felony by breaking down the door.
As for Lee's questions, meh. It worked for him. The guy probably short stroked his shotgun in his panic. It's not what I would've done but he lucked out. I think it's probably typical of what a lot of non-gun people would manage on a good day.
merlinfire
Member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Messages
- 793
Kleanbore is right.
Be prepared to defend yourself, yes.
Automatically assuming that anyone breaking a window or a door is knowingly coming into your house for nefarious purposes, and then shooting them, might be legal where you are. But that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean you won't regret it later. I agree that you need to at least Yell at them to give a potentially confused person an opportunity to realize their mistake, especially if only an arm is through the door at this point.
I've had to get into my father-in-law's house for an emergency before, and had to jimmy the door. What if he'd been asleep when I called, but woke up when he heard the door? He has guns. What if he'd blown me away because he assumed I was a burglar? I'd be dead right now, and no more a burglar than any of you.
Killing is serious business, don't take it so lightly.
Be prepared to defend yourself, yes.
Automatically assuming that anyone breaking a window or a door is knowingly coming into your house for nefarious purposes, and then shooting them, might be legal where you are. But that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean you won't regret it later. I agree that you need to at least Yell at them to give a potentially confused person an opportunity to realize their mistake, especially if only an arm is through the door at this point.
I've had to get into my father-in-law's house for an emergency before, and had to jimmy the door. What if he'd been asleep when I called, but woke up when he heard the door? He has guns. What if he'd blown me away because he assumed I was a burglar? I'd be dead right now, and no more a burglar than any of you.
Killing is serious business, don't take it so lightly.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
