NFA Firearms for home defense?

[NOLAEMT]

Auditory Exclusion, is a phenomenon that applies to the APPARENT lack of noise or hearing imparement that occurs when you fire a gun in a stressfull situation.

The damage to your auditory nerve and the cillia in your ear still occours

 

[Aaron Baker]

As for using a can to "save your hearing"... also irrelevant.

Reference this thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=64963

Your brain, under stress, may allow you to ignore the sound of a gunshot, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't done the physical damage to your hearing. The parts of your body that are damaged by loud noises aren't part of your brain--they're part of your ear, and they can be severely damaged whether you notice the gunshot or not.

Silencers/suppressors SAVE your hearing. Period. If you can afford to have them, you're obviously encouraged to use them at the range, etc, to protect your hearing. They will also protect your hearing if you ever have to use your gun inside your house.

It's not an issue of whether suppressors save your hearing. They do.

It's an issue of whether saving your hearing is worth the potential hassles of the aftermath of a self-defense shooting using a suppressor.

Let me put it this way: logic tells me that if you're not required to announce your presence before opening fire on home intruders, then you're not required to have loud gunshots either.

Aaron

 

[Cosmoline]

Legal yes, under the legal code, Under the civil code no. The Castle doctrine does not protect you from an " excessive force " law suit.

There isn't really a tort of "excessive force." But the issue might come up if you have a high rate of bullets from a full auto. The argument would be that your first round stopped the act and neutralized the threat, so the rest of the rounds were not justified.

In any case, the possibility of losing your NFA weapon is enough to keep it from ever being used for self defense unless aliens attack.

Your body is incredibly stressed in a situation like that and as a defense mechanism your ears have a way of protecting themselves.

Alas, no. It would be very cool if humans had little muscles that closed off the precious ear structures from such noise but they do not. The failure to register very loud shots is MENTAL and is caused by the stress and the extreme level of noise. Your ears are still getting 100% of the damage.

But I agree you should be prepared to lose some hearing if it comes to shooting someone. A silenced weapon, whether we like it or not, is going to be seen as an assassin's weapon even by most gun owners on the jury.

 

[devilstalker]

I guess it makes sense that your ears take damage even if you dont notice it, I wasnt speaking from medical expertise but rather personal experience. I have been in several situations requiring me to fire w/o hearing pro and as stated, never noticed the noise as painful. I have also notice no loss in hearing, and I get regular physical exams to include hearing tests. My hearing has not gotten any worse, but that does not mean that it is probably true that your ears still sustain some form of damage from hearing a gunshot.

I guess what I would say is if the ONLY reason you would use a can is to save your hearing, its not nearly enough of a reason. My earlier argument was meant to serve as a relief of that concern... I have been shot at and have shot back with out hearing pro, both indoors and out, and with both handgun cal and rifle. Never "hurt" my ears in the moment, and despite taking inherant damage to my ears from it, never lost any hearing permanently. If you plan on needing to shoot in HD situations alot, consider two things: using a can on your pistol/ar and changing careers

 

[Midwest Doc]

short shotgun works best 18 inches.usually the racking of an 870 is enough to tighten sphincters

I have a Serbu Super Shorty based on the 870. Even though it only holds 2 rounds, it is easily and very quickly reloaded.

 

[Flfiremedic]

With my second mortgage I purchased an RPG for home defense, with my third mortgage I put an attorney on retainer...no idea why...I am defending myself, the castle docterine will protect me
Seriously the more common and benign ammo and weapon you can use for home defense you better for defending yourself in court, both criminal and civil.

 

[Maverick223]

Seriously the more common and benign ammo and weapon you can use for home defense you better for defending yourself in court, both criminal and civil.

Very true. This is one of the reasons that I have always liked a 20Ga. "Coach-Gun" for a HD long gun (the other, of course, being effectiveness).

 

[jmorris]

In any case, the possibility of losing your NFA weapon is enough to keep it from ever being used for self defense unless aliens attack.

Except for full auto toys most NFA "firearms" cost less than a nice over/under.

Not that I have used them (or any firearm for defense) but if I did, loosing them wouldn't be at the top of the list of things to worry about.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Except for expensive curios and destructive devices, why not? A round is a round, regardless of what type of gun it came out of and how loudly it came out of said gun. I think a gun owner being afraid to use a certain weapon because it looks scary lends credence to the anti's views.

 

[JR47]

This is an exercise in futility. "Excessive force" because you hit them multiple times? Then, wouldn't emptying you magazine, or cylinder represent the same thing? That has been beaten to death as a reason for prosecution.

Don't we think that the family of the intruder will sue in civil court just as readily is he was killed by a .22 revolver as a Model 1918A2 BAR?

Yes, the gun will likely be taken for evidence. If that's this important, then I guess that all the owners on here who sing about their Wilson Combat, Baer, and Brown 1911s are going to use a Lorcin for self-defense?

A gun is a gun in the eyes of the law. A cartridge is like-wise a cartridge. Surely, under the circumstances listed in these pages, the use of a .44 Magnum would incite a call for "excessive force". Much less the .454 Casull that is the hunter's Only firearm.

 

[merlinfire]

I can easily agree that at close quarters, a SBS or SBR can be more advantageous. It will also be used against you in the civil case, and possibly, a criminal case.

 

[HankB]

Just as a matter of interest, unless there's a baffle strike, will ballistic testing of recovered bullets give any indication of whether or not a suppressor was actually attached to the firearm when the bad guy(s) were shot?

 

[relentlessknives.com]

Wow what a thread.....no high jack here, but really someone enters your house with intent you seriously harm you....and the courts are what we worry about. Strange but true.
So what does that say about our peers....as well as the people who represent and protect us.
An old man once told me , that back when he was a kid they used to hang horse thieves. Then the bad people took over and they stopped doing that. Why, because it just wouldn't be right to hang their own relatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitey_Bulger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom


I vote for swords. At close quarters the sword may be more effective than the gun,
it's not real noisy and in some places the paper work to own one is less expensive.

The point being....well you decide.

 

[Telekinesis]

Just as a matter of interest, unless there's a baffle strike, will ballistic testing of recovered bullets give any indication of whether or not a suppressor was actually attached to the firearm when the bad guy(s) were shot?

I don't see how it would reveal if a suppressor was used (absent a baffle strike or maybe use of wipes), but you would have to explain why no one heard the gun shots...

 

[Maverick223]

Just as a matter of interest, unless there's a baffle strike, will ballistic testing of recovered bullets give any indication of whether or not a suppressor was actually attached to the firearm when the bad guy(s) were shot?

No way to tell, and doubtful even with a baffle strike (using good quality expanding/fragmenting ammunition).

I vote for swords. At close quarters the sword may be more effective than the gun,
it's not real noisy and in some places the paper work to own one is less expensive.

Ever hear of bringing a knife (albeit a big one) to a gunfight? There's a reason that no modern, respectable military force issues a combat sword (whether expecting CQB or not), when many issue pistols, bullpups, carbines, and shotguns. ...just sayin'.

 

[relentlessknives.com]

Ever hear of bringing a knife (albeit a big one) to a gunfight? There's a reason that no modern, respectable military force issues a combat sword (whether expecting CQB or not), when many issue pistols, bullpups, carbines, and shotguns. ...just sayin'.

Ha Ha I agree, but also feel that shooting the bad guy with a silenced machine gun is just as good as shooting him with a single shot .22

Or if it's not that way...it should be. The point being that if someone enters your house without your permission to murder rape and rob you, who the hell should care what you used to dispatch the rascal

 

[GunSafari]

I think those who own pricey NFA weapons keep them tucked away in safes while not in use.

For an intruder in a regular sized home a simple handgun or shotgun is all you should really need, not sure why anyone would want to use a long rifle inside a small home, especially an automatic!

Now outside or during warfare are 2 completely different scenarios...

 

[kwelz]

So much wrong with this post.

I think those who own pricey NFA weapons keep them tucked away in safes while not in use.

A gun in a safe is useless. And NFA is not that pricy except full auto which is artificially inflated

For an intruder in a regular sized home a simple handgun or shotgun is all you should really need, not sure why anyone would want to use a long rifle inside a small home, especially an automatic!

This has been covered time and time again. Not only is a Rifle a better man stopper than any pistol but it has been shown that 5.56 rounds(when using the right bullet) have LESS penetration through wallboard than a handgun. And a shotgun lack the ability to do quick followups. And most of this topic has been about SBRs and Suppressors

Now outside or during warfare are 2 completely different scenarios...
True. but that doesn't mean that a weapon effective for one is not effective for the other.

 

[Maverick223]

^I disagree with both statements regarding long guns. The long-gun is far superior, but the scattergun is very useful despite slow follow-up shots, as it affords a one-shot stop percentage that is unsurpassed. That isn't to say that a rifle isn't effective, or that there is no place for pistols (they tend to be easier to grab in a hurry), just that neither the rifle nor shotgun should be overlooked for sheer effectiveness in stopping threats.

 

[GunSafari]

Of course a rifle is a better man stopper, but going around corners and in a tight setting like a home (narrow halls/blind corners), someone who doesn't have some type of training would probably be better off with a handgun or a point & pull shotgun.

Back to the NFA thing. Any automatic would be a bad idea but a SBS would be pretty handy, and a SBR in proper hands only downside is losing that weapon for a decent period of time. It sucks with any weapon but doubly for something you waited to get approval for and paid an extra few hundred dollars to have.

A suppressor you could probably got off clean using, just make sure to take it off immediately after and it won't get confiscated, they won't know any better if you don't tell them and it won't really matter to their investigation if you used a suppressor or not, if anything it'll turn you from the victim to a maniac with a silencer, plus just think if you did tell them the nasty headline in the local newspaper if media coverage were to occur.

 

[strambo]

a SBR in proper hands only downside is losing that weapon for a decent period of time. It sucks with any weapon but doubly for something you waited to get approval for and paid an extra few hundred dollars to have.

Counter-point: odds are one will not have to fight armed home invaders. What are the odds of it happening twice?

So, given the above; why not have the best HD weapon you can? (if that is a 10.5" AR-15 with a suppressor, so be it)

Then, if you have to use it, against all odds, and it gets confiscated into evidence, so be it. Now, fall back to the trusty 870 (whatever) for the astronomical chance of home invasion #2.

I'd rather have the best tool for the job in my hands when I need it than in the safe, choosing a "lesser" option based on secondary concerns.

That said, I'm just suggesting "food for thought" not saying an SBR or suppressor is "best" for HD. That is another debate, I just question why anyone wouldn't choose to use what they think is the best weapon they have available.

 

[pjlaw1]

Well some suppressors are pretty solid. And since they are classified as weapons alone. You could just smack someone over the head with one. That would be pretty silent.

No but really I have a SBR AR with M4000. The M4-2000 gets taken off and put away.

 

[HankB]

I don't see how it would reveal if a suppressor was used (absent a baffle strike or maybe use of wipes), but you would have to explain why no one heard the gun shots...

If it's a defensive shooting in your house, why in the world would you try to explain ANYTHING that SOMEONE ELSE did or didn't hear? The less you say, the better . . .

 

[Jim K]

The only case I know of recently where an auto weapon was used for self defense was in the H&K-USA parking lot, by an H&K employee Some fuss, but some very high priced lawyers got involved and there were no charges.

In theory, the type of weapon used should have no bearing on the legitimacy of the shooting. Even if the weapon is illegal, that means a charge for possession of an illegal weapon; it does not alter the facts of the self defense.

As a practical matter....

Jim

 

[Johnny_Come_Lately]

I would suggest thinking of things in a different way.

Am I going to jump off a cliff just because I can? Seems to me I should give careful consideration to what I do, because as previously posted, sometimes my actions speak far louder and with greater repercussions than I ever intended.

Just because I have the right to free speech, do I really want to call my neighbor an a..h...e? After all, he is still my neighbor.

Just because I hold a FFL and have paid dearly for my toys, do I want the BATF getting involved in what is a good shoot? Even though the DA may not prosecute me, now that the feds are involved, they may choose to prosecute me on a violation of someone’s civil rights.

Certainly I could use a FA Kalashnikov to deal with an intruder, but how many bullets am I going to put through my son or daughter’s bedroom wall in the process? Kind of like trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

TANSTAAFL means There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. In other words, there is an opportunity cost to everything and the more exotic it is, the costlier it is.