There's a lot of interest in using a rifle for home defense, and many choose to do so. In the discussion, many consider the ability to penetrate multiple walls as a negative factor in choosing one. Their concern is striking innocent individuals with rounds from their weapon.
Two aspects of use are being left out of the discussion. First, the intruder doesn't care about it - and will use that ability against you. If you are sheltering behind furniture, a doorway, etc., they can and will shoot where you might be, and if they get a hit, they win. If your family is huddled behind you, their shots may go thru whatever they are hiding behind and still hit them.
Whether or not your firearm can or cannot penetrate walls and doors means nothing when the intruders certainly can.
Second, it's assumed that the conflict will have a 360 degree sphere of potential fire - and that endangers neighboring innocents. The reality is that your lanes of fire will likely be controlled by the location of doorways, walls, and hallways, in a limited alley of fire that's two way.
If the intruder is covering behind the corner of the hallway in the front part of the dwelling, why would anyone be shooting up or down thru ceilings/floors, or sideways out thru the walls or windows? The lane of fire in most instances is pretty direct, often line of sight, and in opposition.
The intruders bullets are just as likely to hit your neighbors as your's are. And to prevent or reduce that mishap, it's really incumbent on the homeowner to PLAN where you will shoot - to prevent hitting your neighbors in the likely higher risk occupational zones, and to prevent the intruder shooting at them, too.
It is, like it or not, a two way shooting range. Are you considering that your best place to shelter is conducive to your neighbor's safety? Or are you using their children's bedroom as your backstop behind you?
Whether it's directly behind the wall, or 50 feet away across the yard behind a hedge, is little matter.
I'm of the mind - due to training in the military - that stopping the threat as rapidly as possible is the better course of action, and that means using full power ammunition with well planned lanes of fire that consider the backstops. It reduces the amount of bullets traversing the building to the minimum - which is the goal in minimizing unwanted off site casualties.
The alternative being offered by the reduced penetration ammo argument just means you are deliberately choosing to use less powerful rounds that cannot adequately penetrate, whether it's your walls, or the cover the intruder is hiding behind. It's a deliberate choice to have less effective ammo, precisely when you need to have superior firepower to stop the intruder.
Are we suggesting that we should be using low powered underperforming ammo for self defense? In that regard, it's exactly the opposite of what is considered for CCW use. Nobody is much concerned about low penetration on the street, or in an office building, or at the mall. And those are more likely encounters than in your home.
We aren't the Police, who are forced by liability and the role of being a public servant who must recognize rights. We are homeowners exercising control over our domain. Frankly, as dumb as the VP was about shooting thru the door, if you have identified the people knocking down your door and they have been warned, it's a defense. Waiting for them to enter is endangering your family and increasing your risk. It's a poor time to realize your bullets can't go thru the door - but their's can.
Since nobody actually makes ammo that can be guaranteed to stop just before hitting an innocent person, better you study exactly when and where you can shoot in defense of your family in your home, and do the better job of protecting your neighbors.
Two aspects of use are being left out of the discussion. First, the intruder doesn't care about it - and will use that ability against you. If you are sheltering behind furniture, a doorway, etc., they can and will shoot where you might be, and if they get a hit, they win. If your family is huddled behind you, their shots may go thru whatever they are hiding behind and still hit them.
Whether or not your firearm can or cannot penetrate walls and doors means nothing when the intruders certainly can.
Second, it's assumed that the conflict will have a 360 degree sphere of potential fire - and that endangers neighboring innocents. The reality is that your lanes of fire will likely be controlled by the location of doorways, walls, and hallways, in a limited alley of fire that's two way.
If the intruder is covering behind the corner of the hallway in the front part of the dwelling, why would anyone be shooting up or down thru ceilings/floors, or sideways out thru the walls or windows? The lane of fire in most instances is pretty direct, often line of sight, and in opposition.
The intruders bullets are just as likely to hit your neighbors as your's are. And to prevent or reduce that mishap, it's really incumbent on the homeowner to PLAN where you will shoot - to prevent hitting your neighbors in the likely higher risk occupational zones, and to prevent the intruder shooting at them, too.
It is, like it or not, a two way shooting range. Are you considering that your best place to shelter is conducive to your neighbor's safety? Or are you using their children's bedroom as your backstop behind you?
Whether it's directly behind the wall, or 50 feet away across the yard behind a hedge, is little matter.
I'm of the mind - due to training in the military - that stopping the threat as rapidly as possible is the better course of action, and that means using full power ammunition with well planned lanes of fire that consider the backstops. It reduces the amount of bullets traversing the building to the minimum - which is the goal in minimizing unwanted off site casualties.
The alternative being offered by the reduced penetration ammo argument just means you are deliberately choosing to use less powerful rounds that cannot adequately penetrate, whether it's your walls, or the cover the intruder is hiding behind. It's a deliberate choice to have less effective ammo, precisely when you need to have superior firepower to stop the intruder.
Are we suggesting that we should be using low powered underperforming ammo for self defense? In that regard, it's exactly the opposite of what is considered for CCW use. Nobody is much concerned about low penetration on the street, or in an office building, or at the mall. And those are more likely encounters than in your home.
We aren't the Police, who are forced by liability and the role of being a public servant who must recognize rights. We are homeowners exercising control over our domain. Frankly, as dumb as the VP was about shooting thru the door, if you have identified the people knocking down your door and they have been warned, it's a defense. Waiting for them to enter is endangering your family and increasing your risk. It's a poor time to realize your bullets can't go thru the door - but their's can.
Since nobody actually makes ammo that can be guaranteed to stop just before hitting an innocent person, better you study exactly when and where you can shoot in defense of your family in your home, and do the better job of protecting your neighbors.
