What is your primary defensive firearm?

[Hardtarget]

If primary equals most often at ready...then the pistol I carry every day is it. Logic demands that choice be adjusted if time allows. If I'm at home I'll go with the AR. If I'm holed up...there will be a 12 ga...M1...and other pistols as well. You know...get 'em out!

Mark

 

[Dr.Rob]

I used to keep a 12 ga. pump as my primary, usually a handgun nearby as well. I live in a better neighborhood these days and I usually rely on just a pistol.

In fact, my shotgun migrated to the back of the safe as I started shooting dynamic rifle matches and I purpose built a short carbine for use as a 'house gun.' I've hunted with my shotgun a lot, and have full confidence in its power and my ability to use it, I just shoot my rifles a LOT more.

 

[pm8675309]

Usually conceal a Kahr PM9.

If I'm wearing my hot pants, Micro Eagle.

Nightstand, G19.

 

[Alte Schule]

That thought is not one we would like to entertain, but coming onto one's property does not present an immediate danger, and it is therefore not something that would justify the threat or the use of deadly force.

Altrighty then, but consider that exposing oneself to serious injury or death is in itself a really good way to become a victim.

What you have gotten by with in the past is no guarantee of future outcomes. If you want to press your luck in the future, go ahed. No experienced trainers and no responsible law enforcement persons would recommend that.

How in the world could you ever make that assessment without knowing who is out there?

You will note that the statute (Code Section 9.42) does not address trespass, and that the "Castle Doctrine" does not apply in the outdoors.

I hope you are learning something.

Sir, I'm 65 and have, except for a few years with Uncle Sam, lived the life I have wanted for me and my family. I don't go out of my way to offend people or steal and and when it comes to me, my family or possessions I expect the same from others. But, unfortunately that's not the world we live in. That you believe inaction to someone coming on your property to commit a crime is, frankly, completely alien to me. My cousin is the same way though. He lives in rural Wisconsin and doesn't own a firearm and avoids any type of confrontation.
I live in Texas and apparently you do not. I respect your position as a moderator on this forum and don't mean to offend you or anyone else but what your "experienced trainers" taught you where you live apparently isn't the same as what I was taught and practiced for close to 40 years now. I don't meet every problem with an unholstered or exposed firearm. I know the parameters of of the castle doctrine and most penal and vehicle laws of this state. You can nit pic what I have stated here to death, take what I said out of context, and offer your opinion, which I respect, of what I should or should not do but the fact remains that's your opinion. I will act, within my interpretation of the law, as I deem necessary and will accept the consequences of my actions as a grown adult if I am wrong.
I'm not some rube that grabs a firearm, although I am armed most the time, or points a firearm any time someone comes on to my property and says "get" but unfortunately, be it right or wrong, my trust in my fellow man has a low threshold and until I determine otherwise strangers will always be treated with caution. I live in a remote area on a dead end road and I know the majority of the people back here if not all of them. If a strange car or unknown person comes around it gets my attention and usually my neighbor down the roads attention and nothing more than that. I always wave at cars that come down the street and to the young couples and fisherman that head into the woods down by the creek. I can tell, and you probably can too, if someone or something isn't quite right. If so they get a little extra scrutiny. Local law enforcement doesn't actively patrol this area but they know me and my LEO son that lives close by and know we have a low tolerance for any type of criminal activity. I have 911 on speed dial but it's usually a ten minute response time.
Modern technology is a wonderful thing. After my neighbors house was burglarized, in the daytime, a few years ago we got a package deal with them on a home security system. With free software upgrades every two years. Cameras give me a 360 view of my house to the two monitors inside and also have motion detector lights front and back. So yes I do know what's out side before I go. Most of the time it's deer, feral pigs and the occasional coyote but other times it's not. It's unfortunate that the times we live in dictate such measures but I can only depend on myself, not others, to protect my family and property.

 

[Kleanbore]

That you believe inaction to someone coming on your property to commit a crime is, frankly, completely alien to me.

I do not believe that at all.

What I believe is that exposing oneself to serious physical risk to protect property or to prevent a property crime make no sense whatsoever--and that's taking the legal aspect completely out of the equation.

,,what your "experienced trainers" taught you where you live apparently isn't the same as what I was taught and practiced for close to 40 years now.

I'm afraid I have to seriously the competence of any off your teachers who may have recommended heading outside to confront a suspicious person. And what you have practiced for years is not necessarily prudent at all.

Your 360-view is a great thing to have. But if there is someone outside, you have ask yourself whether taking the risk of getting shot, or of having to defend yourself in legal proceedings, or of possibly losing, is worth the ego trip that one might get out of confrontation. The value of your tangible, movable property certainly cannot be worth it.

I will act, within my interpretation of the law, as I deem necessary...

Just make sure that your interpretation is correct.

For example, you may lawfully use physical, non deadly force, if necessary, to terminate trespass. That means to persuade a trespasser to depart. Under some circumstances, you may bring a weapon into play to create an apprehension that you would, if necessary, use deadly force. But you may not use deadly force to address trespass alone,e regardless of your suspicion about that the trespasser may have been intending, and you most certainly may not use force or the threat of detain a trespasser, as you seem to have alluded.

 

[Alte Schule]

I do not believe that at all.

What I believe is that exposing oneself to serious physical risk to protect property or to prevent a property crime make no sense whatsoever--and that's taking the legal aspect completely out of the equation.

I'm afraid I have to seriously the competence of any off your teachers who may have recommended heading outside to confront a suspicious person. And what you have practiced for years is not necessarily prudent at all.

Your 360-view is a great thing to have. But if there is someone outside, you have ask yourself whether taking the risk of getting shot, or of having to defend yourself in legal proceedings, or of possibly losing, is worth the ego trip that one might get out of confrontation. The value of your tangible, movable property certainly cannot be worth it.

Just make sure that your interpretation is correct.

For example, you may lawfully use physical, non deadly force, if necessary, to terminate trespass. That means to persuade a trespasser to depart. Under some circumstances, you may bring a weapon into play to create an apprehension that you would, if necessary, use deadly force. But you may not use deadly force to address trespass alone,e regardless of your suspicion about that the trespasser may have been intending, and you most certainly may not use force or the threat of detain a trespasser, as you seem to have alluded.

Sir, I guess your not one to engage in a civil discussion without directing petty insults. Ego trip?. Please. But I would get some self satisfaction of stopping a bad guy making an unwanted intrusion into my life.
My instructors lacking competency? Their competency has kept me, and many others, fairly injury free for a long time. I don't actually recall a class of what to do if I find a bad guy on my property engaging in a criminal act but I have been instructed on how to respond to those types of crimes and have done so on numerous occasions. I will and have treated it the same way.
I will agree that most, not all, personal property can be replaced and that confrontation is always a risk. You can call me what you want, fool, idiot, whatever for risking a confrontation on my property but when I put on my uniform and go to work the threat and risk element is always present. True I have been a desk jockey and have had a mostly a PR job for the last few years but just driving down the highway is a risk around here. I trust my instincts and my ability to assess a threat. Have been doing it a long time but in noway do I consider my self bulletproof or incapable of making a mistake.
I made it a point to state that I don't greet people that come on to my property by pointing a firearm at them nor treat all persons entering my property as a "trespasser" and your claim that I "alluded" to using force on someone that just shows up without a proper invite is preposterous and made it clear, or so I thought, of just the opposite. The presence of my Rottweiler usually makes people cautious and stay at a distance. Beaudreaux is really a friendly dog until I put him on alert.
I cannot stress enough that I know when to shoot or not shoot and have been in that situation a few times. Outside of my time in the Army a long time ago in a place far away, luckily, I never had to. If you would sir, tell me how you would respond if you became aware someone breaking into your car and attempting to steal it or your personal property. Just let it go and call 911? Yell at them out the window? Maybe you don't know because you have never had it happen to you. I have so please don't attempt to lecture me on my response. You are entitled to your opinion though.

 

[Kleanbore]

Ego trip?. Please. But I would get some self satisfaction of stopping...

"Ego trip" was my shicoe of words to describe personal satisfaction. Call it what you like.

My instructors lacking competency? Their competency has kept me, and many others, fairly injury free for a long time.

Have you really had an instructor advise you to leave a position of safety and head out to find someone on your property? No one I have ever spoken to or read would advise that for anyone who is not duty bound. Can you cite one?

I suggest that it has been good fortune and not competent instruction that has kept you injury free.

I will agree that most, not all, personal property can be replaced and that confrontation is always a risk.

And the consequences of that risk could be extremely severe. Would the severity of consequences be matched match the value of the property after replacement, or even come close?

Full disclosure: I have survived numerous "house clearing" incidents. Pure luck. I didn't know any better. Same thing regarding answering the door armed. My firearm cannot stop bullets, nor can yours.

...your claim that I "alluded" to using force on someone that just shows up without a proper invite is preposterous...

I made no such claim. You said that you had detained persons until police arrived.

You may prevent people from committing a crime, and you may use force to prevent them from leaving with property if there is no other way, but you do not have the right to detain them, except under the rarest of circumstances.. And even then when you do, you incur considerable risk, legal and physical.

I cannot stress enough that I know when to shoot or not shoot and have been in that situation a few times.

So do I. That's not the real issue, is it?

f you would sir, tell me how you would respond if you became aware someone breaking into your car and attempting to steal it or your personal property. Just let it go and call 911?

Where I live, that is the only lawful choice.

If I lived where the use of deadly force were lawfully justifiable to protect moveable, tangible property, same thing--simple risk assessment--consequences vs the cost of mitigation.

Now, I haven't spent much time in remote rural circumstances for many years, but I am well aware that the telephone would be most unlikely to bring help timely. But I would not expose myself to the risk of being shot by a hidden accomplice watching the door simply to prevent the theft of a car.

Even if I were not injured, and even if I were completely in the right, the cost of engaging a lawyer to support me in interrogations would dissuade me.

What is the risk of injury? The likelihood of being injured if I were go out to do some questioning or persuasion is a whole lot less remote than the likelihood of my being attacked while refueling my car, but I carry a gun at tthe gas station anyway. It's just a matter of which risks can be mitigated, and how.

Either way, the potential consequences are extremely severe.

But you asked what I would do, and that's a great question. If I lived under Texas law, and if I lived on rural property, I would start with having your dog and your cameras and your lights, and I would strongly consider putting in a wireless two way high-volume sound system that would allow me to communicate with people on the property from a position of safety. If a couple of challenges and some industrial strength coaching did not suffice, I would know that I was up against something serious, and that going outside would be a really bad idea.

And that takes back to the original subject of the thread. For those circumstances. my answer would be a rifle.

Actually, if I lived on a farm today, I would surely keep a loaded semiautomatic rifle handy anyway, anywhere.

 

[Alte Schule]

"Ego trip" was my shicoe of words to describe personal satisfaction. Call it what you like.

Have you really had an instructor advise you to leave a position of safety and head out to find someone on your property? No one I have ever spoken to or read would advise that for anyone who is not duty bound. Can you cite one?

I suggest that it has been good fortune and not competent instruction that has kept you injury free.

And the consequences of that risk could be extremely severe. Would the severity of consequences be matched match the value of the property after replacement, or even come close?

Full disclosure: I have survived numerous "house clearing" incidents. Pure luck. I didn't know any better. Same thing regarding answering the door armed. My firearm cannot stop bullets, nor can yours.

I made no such claim. You said that you had detained persons until police arrived.

You may prevent people from committing a crime, and you may use force to prevent them from leaving with property if there is no other way, but you do not have the right to detain them, except under the rarest of circumstances.. And even then when you do, you incur considerable risk, legal and physical.

So do I. That's not the real issue, is it?

Where I live, that is the only lawful choice.

If I lived where the use of deadly force were lawfully justifiable to protect moveable, tangible property, same thing--simple risk assessment--consequences vs the cost of mitigation.

Now, I haven't spent much time in remote rural circumstances for many years, but I am well aware that the telephone would be most unlikely to bring help timely. But I would not expose myself to the risk of being shot by a hidden accomplice watching the door simply to prevent the theft of a car.

Even if I were not injured, and even if I were completely in the right, the cost of engaging a lawyer to support me in interrogations would dissuade me.

What is the risk of injury? The likelihood of being injured if I were go out to do some questioning or persuasion is a whole lot less remote than the likelihood of my being attacked while refueling my car, but I carry a gun at tthe gas station anyway. It's just a matter of which risks can be mitigated, and how.

Either way, the potential consequences are extremely severe.

But you asked what I would do, and that's a great question. If I lived under Texas law, and if I lived on rural property, I would start with having your dog and your cameras and your lights, and I would strongly consider putting in a wireless two way high-volume sound system that would allow me to communicate with people on the property from a position of safety. If a couple of challenges and some industrial strength coaching did not suffice, I would know that I was up against something serious, and that going outside would be a really bad idea.

And that takes back to the original subject of the thread. For those circumstances. my answer would be a rifle.

Actually, if I lived on a farm today, I would surely keep a loaded semiautomatic rifle handy anyway, anywhere.

I stated that I didn't recall a class on what to do if I find a bad guy on my property committing a criminal act and included the fact that I had been trained on how to respond to a burglary and have done so several times. I remiss that I didn't add "in progress" or that my training included procedures on how to handle the variety of things that I may have encountered while working. Through the years policies were rewritten and training techniques improved. Some I agreed with and some I didn't. The old school hands on way of doing things changed to techniques in verbal intervention and deescalation or what we referred to as "hug a thug." But, no, I haven't had any training that specifically outlined how to respond to a person committing a crime on my property but I guarantee you one thing it won't be through verbal intervention.
Yes my home security system is pretty awesome. Adding the dog last year gave my wife some comfort as I work nights half the month. The last few years I was in the military I was a K9 handler. Beaudreaux was a tough nut at first but he turned around and became pretty level headed. I want him to be aggressive but only on command. He's still young and learning.
Yes I did detain two people at gun point. Both were caught committing a crime on my property. Burglary of a vehicle and the other Attempted Burglary of a Habitation. I know the covered angles of approach to the my driveway and fence line. I was on them before they had any idea I was there. Luck? Maybe but I like to think it was training and experience. Both were 2 or 3 time loser meth heads, meth is a big problem around here, and plead out to prison time. They gave me absolutely no trouble while waiting on the locals.
Yes Texas has some liberal laws when it comes to self defense and protection of property. Where else can you legally carry a handgun or long gun in your vehicle but you must have a license to carry for your handgun, unless your an LEO, once you exit the vehicle? Long guns have no such requirement. We also have 80 and 85 MPH speed limits in parts of the state. I think the last time I was in Illinois it was 60 on the interstate. Nothing like putting the hammer down on a long cruise.
I'm an old guy of polish descent hard headed and set in my ways. You know until you brought up the issue of being injured it never really crossed my mind. My sole focus is, and will always probably be, to confront the problem. But thank you for thinking of my safety. Speaking of semi rifles I have a CZ EVO Scorpion 9mm carbine that I picked up last year. Sweet shooter!
And sincere apologies to the OP for the hijack.

 

[Sauer Grapes]

Semi auto 8+1.

 

[Swing]

"There are different primary defensive firearms depending upon situation"

^. Where I am has a big factor on this. The item(s) I'm carrying or have accessible varies pretty wildly if I'm walking down the street, in my home, at my office, out in the hinterland, in the country but on my own acreage, etc. There is no one size fits all answer to this one.

 

[Kleanbore]

You know until you brought up the issue of being injured it never really crossed my mind.

Well, that i is the main reason why it is not considered prudent to venture out of doors to confront someone or to investigate what may involve violent criminal actors.

It is fundamental to the concept of self defense. The first steps should always be to avoid and evade.

Can you think of anything that would be worth being shot when you can avoid it?

 

[Alte Schule]

Well, that i is the main reason why it is not considered prudent to venture out of doors to confront someone or to investigate what may involve violent criminal actors.

It is fundamental to the concept of self defense. The first steps should always be to avoid and evade.

Can you think of anything that would be worth being shot when you can avoid it?

I go forward to confront problems my man. Always have and always will. I really appreciate your concern with my safety but I'm still going to do what I do. What might not be important to you isn't the same for me. Maybe it's because I had a hardscrabble life in the 50's and 60's.and the only possessions I had were clothes. My six brothers and sisters and I didn't have many personal. possessions. If I wanted something else I worked for it. I do know that I'm not going to knowingly let a meth head come into my life and steal my hard earned property so he can smoke another bowl without some type of recourse from me. Everyday risks are inherent for me and I don't dwell on it. You say it's a needless risk and I say I it's a risk I'm willing to take. I've done everything possible, IMO, to secure my house, my family and property, If a thief ignores or defeats those security measures he obviously hasn't thought about the X Factor.That being a armed and extremely PO'd home owner. The risk the criminal is willing to take, IMO, far outweighs mine. I didn't ask for it but I will end it. Hopefully without force. To end this, on my part anyway.I'll just reiterate that our opinions differ and I'll leave it at that.

 

[Jack B.]

Feet , don't fail me now!

 

[Berger.Fan222]

What is your primary defensive firearm?

It is generally recommended to keep a rifle or shotgun handy whenever possible: in a vehicle or close at hand for home defense. A semi-auto pistol is a good choice for concealed carry and other situations where it is overly impractical to have a rifle or shotgun ready at hand.

 

[Robert]

My currently issued duty weapon, G22. I keep my AR by the bed and a 30 round mag handy just in case.

 

[Solomonson]

Well, that i is the main reason why it is not considered prudent to venture out of doors to confront someone or to investigate what may involve violent criminal actors.

It is fundamental to the concept of self defense. The first steps should always be to avoid and evade.

Can you think of anything that would be worth being shot when you can avoid it?

That's a very important and true point.

 

[P5 Guy]

Glock 34

 

[sean m]

Ruger LCP or SP101 are my primary carry guns. Beside the bedside and in the kitchen pantry, 12 gauge pumps.

 

[mljdeckard]

I voted rifle. But I am more likely to have a pistol with me in an emergency.

 

[fastbolt]

My "primary" defensive weapon is one or another revolver or pistol.

For normal retirement CCW/LEOSA application, that's often one or another of my J-frames or LCP's. Sometimes one of my larger belt guns, depending on plans, risk assessment and activities.

If I'm holding a shotgun or rifle, then the primary handgun naturally becomes a secondary weapon.