Gun Control

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Jul 18, 2014 3:01 am UTC

addams wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Crissa wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Additionally, while complaining about sniping and lack of citations, you trimmed your quote such to remove the included citation link. Pot, kettle, black.

You can lie about your citation, but it does not say anything to contradict me.

-Crissa


That is not a lie, there was obviously a citation there. And it substantiates military suicide rates, which do contradict your claims.

Oh look, another anti-gunner got caught in a lie. And by that, I mean sending ricin to political figures in an attempt to frame gun advocates.

uumm.
Every Camp has its NutBalls.

That NutBall may be suffering and causing suffering because of her membership in the subjet of Humans called Actors.
Not, her membership in the Subset, Anti-Gun. Two very different things.


In this particular case, her motivation was strictly gun-centric. She wasn't merely a nutter who happened to belong to an activist group(long lists of such people exist, of course), but she attempted to influence policy on gun laws by putting people's lives directly in danger. Now, obviously, she's ALSO a nutter, because...normal people don't go mailing ricin around, but it's still gun control relevant news for sure.

This received significant coverage at the time, and post-sandy hook, came at a time when the gun control debate was pretty notorious. In addition to the contents of the letter, two of the three targets(Bloomberg himself and the head of MAIG) were extremely involved in the gun control debate(Obama also was involved, but...being president, his inclusion alone is not particularly indicative of any one topic).

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10010
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Fri Jul 18, 2014 5:30 am UTC

It is always so sad when we raise our hands against one another.
The men and women that are working to end Gun Violence, on both sides, have their work cut out for them.

Guns are dangerous.
Cars are dangerous.

People that don't know anything about Guns, are not usually very good at operating a Gun.
People that don't know anything about Cars, are not usually very good at operating a Car.

Well...How about Mandatory Military Training and Service?
That will teach more people about guns.
There is some chance some of them will learn something.

It can't make our people worse Citizens.
Our people are Crap Citizens, now.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 291
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Crissa » Fri Jul 18, 2014 6:51 am UTC

Why would an off-topic link have anything to do with my argument?

Tyr, that's just... Pitiful. I don't even know what you're expecting that to prove.

-Crissa

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Jul 18, 2014 2:50 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:Why would an off-topic link have anything to do with my argument?

Tyr, that's just... Pitiful. I don't even know what you're expecting that to prove.

-Crissa


It is on topic. It is not about you, it is simply additional topic-relevant news.

You can continue beating the old argument to death if you like, but merely saying "other risks exist too" does not explain a lack of correlation. Sure, correlation isn't causation...but if you don't have either, you essentially don't have much of anything to support your argument.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 291
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Crissa » Fri Jul 18, 2014 6:28 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:It is on topic. It is not about you, it is simply additional topic-relevant news.

Now you're just lying to cover up your distraction that you lost the exchange.

Gun control does affect suicide rates because it increases the lethality of suicide attempts.

No amount of saying that there are other factors (no one argued there weren't) or that some random nut was random (and bring up old news) will change the outcome.

-Crissa

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Jul 18, 2014 7:09 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:It is on topic. It is not about you, it is simply additional topic-relevant news.

Now you're just lying to cover up your distraction that you lost the exchange.

Gun control does affect suicide rates because it increases the lethality of suicide attempts.


This depends on what is being compared against. Yes, shooting yourself is quite lethal. Being hit by a train is also pretty lethal, though. Likewise, leaping from a significant height.

Hanging, there is some degree of failure if, say, the rope breaks. It's still pretty lethal, though.

I presume you mean to argue that gun control DECREASES suicide attempts, of course. Obviously, arguing for either an increase or a decrease would depend upon what the control method was.

No amount of saying that there are other factors (no one argued there weren't) or that some random nut was random (and bring up old news) will change the outcome.

-Crissa


It isn't old news. The incident itself is old. Her conviction is new, and thus, relevant.

As for the "other factors", that was your statement, only a couple posts back. I was not claiming it, I was pointing out that your allusion to "other factors" to explain a lack of evidence is quite weak. I'm glad you agree it's a weak argument, though.

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Cleverbeans » Thu Jul 24, 2014 6:49 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:This depends on what is being compared against. Yes, shooting yourself is quite lethal. Being hit by a train is also pretty lethal, though. Likewise, leaping from a significant height.

Here's a breakdown of the mortality rates of various of suicide methods. Guns methods are clearly clustered at the top. This is why it's illegal to sell me firearms and my depression shows up on criminal record checks despite not being a crime. Crissa's completely correct in stating the guns increase the success rate of suicide attempts. It's important to distinguish between the suicide rate and the suicide attempt rate. I would expect the suicide rate to be higher in the US but the attempt rate to be similar to other comparable nations.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jul 24, 2014 8:12 pm UTC

Cleverbeans wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:This depends on what is being compared against. Yes, shooting yourself is quite lethal. Being hit by a train is also pretty lethal, though. Likewise, leaping from a significant height.

Here's a breakdown of the mortality rates of various of suicide methods. Guns methods are clearly clustered at the top. This is why it's illegal to sell me firearms and my depression shows up on criminal record checks despite not being a crime. Crissa's completely correct in stating the guns increase the success rate of suicide attempts. It's important to distinguish between the suicide rate and the suicide attempt rate. I would expect the suicide rate to be higher in the US but the attempt rate to be similar to other comparable nations.


As already cited, the suicide rate(which of course, is successful suicides), is not unusually high in the US. It's remarkably average for civilized nations. It also does not track gun ownership rates.

So, somewhere, your chain of causality is broken.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby morriswalters » Thu Jul 24, 2014 8:36 pm UTC

Of course guns are lethal. That is by design. Even people who are depressed aren't stupid. It also appears to be a male thing. If you are interested in doing it there are a couple of things on the list that are at least as lethal. But take more setup. But not that much more. If you desire to, you will. Banning guns won't fix that problem. Nitrogen was the most interesting, safe to handle and commonly available. Should you need a permit?

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Cleverbeans » Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:37 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:As already cited, the suicide rate(which of course, is successful suicides), is not unusually high in the US. It's remarkably average for civilized nations. It also does not track gun ownership rates.


Yeah suicide is a strange beast. Cultural differences have a significant impact on suicide rates. However there do seem to be a number of studies implying a link. I recall someone suggesting that perhaps the mentally ill were more likely to own guns but the link provided seems to discount that theory.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Gun Control

Postby Azrael » Fri Jul 25, 2014 2:07 am UTC

Crissa, Tyndmyr: You channeling my brother and I, bickering across the table when we were tweens.

Stop doing that. The only person keeping score is me, and you're both losing.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Jul 25, 2014 3:10 am UTC

Suicide was always weird. Guns are a bit of a problem because most suicides are apparently split-second decisions rather than planned out for a long period in advance, so anything that makes it a bit of a hassle to kill yourself lowers the suicide rate significantly.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10010
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Fri Jul 25, 2014 3:55 am UTC

Suicide is a different subject.
This is a Light hearted thread about Weapons.

Suicide is a Heavy hearted subject.
Suicide lends its self to pointless bickering.

People that want to bicker will find a way.
Bickering and Nagging are the Root Cause of many Suicides.

Stop Suicide!
Stop Being Petty!

Start a new Thread.
You can Name it:
The Bickersons Discuss Suicide

Edit: Back on Gun Stuff.
How do a bunch of uneducated Idiots manage to die of so few accidents??

You know how a gun should match the ammo.?
I'm not all that bright. Still...

I was told to get the ammo.
By accident, I got the right kind.

I thought I had a 90-03.
Gun guys might laugh.

Yes, Sir;
I'm that stupid.
And; I'll remember it that way, too.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 28, 2014 7:06 pm UTC

Honestly, I have no idea. I was talking to Cleverbeans.

We differed some time ago, yes, but the topic had moved on to other news.

Speaking of other news, it's been ruled that DC cannot ban all concealed carry. Now, there will probably be a stay, and further court battles in this ongoing saga, but it's still a significant decision. Hopefully the new policies get clarified so folks don't need to be legal experts to understand the ramifications.

This *may* mean required reciprocity, though. Which would be frigging huge. Fifty states with different policies is kind of...convoluted at the moment.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jul 28, 2014 9:57 pm UTC

The 2nd amendment says arms, not firearms. Can I go around with a sword? I feel like swords are protected by the 2nd amendment.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:01 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:The 2nd amendment says arms, not firearms. Can I go around with a sword? I feel like swords are protected by the 2nd amendment.


I don't see why not. Arms is indeed a broad term, and the time of writing, certainly included swords.

I suspect that carrying a sword for self defense nowadays may be somewhat impractical, swords being somewhat large and clumsy in proportion to the defensive value offered, but hey, free country, right?

I note that at the time of writing, private ownership of cannon was pretty common as well. Hell private ownership of warships was considered a normal thing. So, say, anti-piracy arms on a ship *should* be covered IMO.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3665
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Gun Control

Postby EdgarJPublius » Tue Jul 29, 2014 2:13 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I suspect that carrying a sword for self defense nowadays may be somewhat impractical, swords being somewhat large and clumsy in proportion to the defensive value offered, but hey, free country, right?


A dagger might be a better option though. There are plenty of varieties to choose from, developed in differing cultures for exactly this purpose.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jul 29, 2014 1:33 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I suspect that carrying a sword for self defense nowadays may be somewhat impractical, swords being somewhat large and clumsy in proportion to the defensive value offered, but hey, free country, right?


A dagger might be a better option though. There are plenty of varieties to choose from, developed in differing cultures for exactly this purpose.


Indeed. Knives are usually more practical tools than swords, nowadays. Pretty portable, and fairly handy for stuff other than defense as well, whereas cutting small stuff with a sword could be clumsy.

But still, if someone wants the cool but impractical option, knock yourself out, IMO.

User avatar
slinches
Slinches get Stinches
Posts: 1009
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:23 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby slinches » Tue Jul 29, 2014 7:39 pm UTC

Actually, I think a full size sword may be more effective as a deterrent than a standard knife or dagger, especially against unarmed groups or individual robbers with a knife. Although, to be fair, being that conspicuous may make you a target for gun wielding criminals and those account for ~40% of personal robberies.

Here's a summary of state knife laws that has a fairly comprehensive set of links to the proper statutes.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby leady » Tue Jul 29, 2014 9:49 pm UTC

I think you'd need to look at the range that robberies occur - effectively point blank - the range a nice samurai sword is a nice deterrent

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jul 29, 2014 10:05 pm UTC

Oh, a sword is better than a knife...in much the same way that a rifle is better than a handgun.

But...carrying a sword around all the time would be inconvenient. Most ways to carry one would be a bit annoying for getting in/out of a car, I would think.

User avatar
slinches
Slinches get Stinches
Posts: 1009
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:23 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby slinches » Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:10 pm UTC

That's an accurate comparison, in a sense, but it misses the point that knives and swords are both close combat weapons which would be effective at the ranges involved in personal robberies. Whereas, a rifle is almost useless (still an effective blunt force weapon) in this scenario. All else being equal, I'd rather have the sword over the knife against an aggressor (or group). Although, I recognize that it's highly impractical to carry a full size sword.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10010
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Wed Jul 30, 2014 1:44 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Oh, a sword is better than a knife...in much the same way that a rifle is better than a handgun.

But...carrying a sword around all the time would be inconvenient. Most ways to carry one would be a bit annoying for getting in/out of a car, I would think.

That is Sooo funny.
People!!

The old swords of Japan were formidable weapons.
It was not a point and shoot affair, like guns are.

Only Experts and a Lucky Beginner were allowed to carry one.
Those guys always look so stiff in the old Japanese Paintings.

Maybe they look stiff because they were stiff.
On Guard at all times, when wearing that Weapon.

(shrug) I used to use a Machete.
It had never occurred to me that it was a Weapon.

It was a Gardening Tool.
I was pretty good with Machete.

I worked with a friend to take the land Back from European BlackBerries.
That is the way it was done before the BrushHog. BrushHog is Better!!

eeewww.
Cutting Living BlackBerry Canes is one thing.
Cutting living Son of Canes is a different thing.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Mutex
Posts: 1388
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Mutex » Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:21 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Oh, a sword is better than a knife...in much the same way that a rifle is better than a handgun.

But...carrying a sword around all the time would be inconvenient. Most ways to carry one would be a bit annoying for getting in/out of a car, I would think.


That's why everyone used horses instead of cars in medieval times.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jul 30, 2014 1:24 pm UTC

slinches wrote:That's an accurate comparison, in a sense, but it misses the point that knives and swords are both close combat weapons which would be effective at the ranges involved in personal robberies. Whereas, a rifle is almost useless (still an effective blunt force weapon) in this scenario. All else being equal, I'd rather have the sword over the knife against an aggressor (or group). Although, I recognize that it's highly impractical to carry a full size sword.


Rifles are extremely useful at short ranges. Sword over knife at close range, sure, generally. The exact same is true of rifles.

For instance, a LOT of military combat takes place at very close ranges indeed, but there is significant dispute over if sidearms are even worth carrying at all(the USMC is generally against). The value is as a backup, too...not as "oh, he's close, drop the rifle and swap to pistol".

Be aware that even if a rifle is not pointed directly at you, there is still a huge muzzle blast, etc. Movie dodging of the bullet or whatever isn't reasonable. Even if you DID have the good fortune to step slightly to the side of the barrel just before the bullet comes out, it's a little like having a flash bang go off next to your face. You'll be deafened, likely stunned, and may have significant physical injuries from the force of the blast. Eardrum rupturing is quite likely.

I suspect that Hollywood and it's love of gunfights somehow becoming fistfights is to blame for this misunderstanding.

User avatar
slinches
Slinches get Stinches
Posts: 1009
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:23 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby slinches » Wed Jul 30, 2014 7:24 pm UTC

The reason I say a rifle is nearly useless in self defense is that is takes too long to ready and fire in an attack. Even for someone trained in the use of a handgun, a knife wielding assailant is at a distinct advantage at close range. This article has a more detailed explanation of why, but states this "Bottom line: Within a 21-foot perimeter, most officers dealing with most edged-weapon suspects are at a decided - perhaps fatal - disadvantage if the suspect launches a sudden charge intent on harming them." This disadvantage would only be increased with a rifle.

stoppedcaring
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 7:21 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby stoppedcaring » Wed Jul 30, 2014 7:42 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:...a LOT of military combat takes place at very close ranges indeed, but there is significant dispute over if sidearms are even worth carrying at all(the USMC is generally against). The value is as a backup, too...not as "oh, he's close, drop the rifle and swap to pistol".

Be aware that even if a rifle is not pointed directly at you, there is still a huge muzzle blast, etc. Movie dodging of the bullet or whatever isn't reasonable. Even if you DID have the good fortune to step slightly to the side of the barrel just before the bullet comes out, it's a little like having a flash bang go off next to your face. You'll be deafened, likely stunned, and may have significant physical injuries from the force of the blast. Eardrum rupturing is quite likely.

That, I think, is why our troops carry their M4s with the muzzle pointed toward the ground, finger over the trigger, butt in the air. If you come around the corner, face to face with someone intent on killing you, you just lift the muzzle and pull the trigger.

slinches wrote:The reason I say a rifle is nearly useless in self defense is that is takes too long to ready and fire in an attack. Even for someone trained in the use of a handgun, a knife wielding assailant is at a distinct advantage at close range. This article has a more detailed explanation of why, but states this "Bottom line: Within a 21-foot perimeter, most officers dealing with most edged-weapon suspects are at a decided - perhaps fatal - disadvantage if the suspect launches a sudden charge intent on harming them." This disadvantage would only be increased with a rifle.

I suspect (though I could of course be wrong) that this assumes the officer's weapon is still holstered, as opposed to being in the ready-fire position already.

User avatar
slinches
Slinches get Stinches
Posts: 1009
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:23 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby slinches » Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:04 pm UTC

stoppedcaring wrote:I suspect (though I could of course be wrong) that this assumes the officer's weapon is still holstered, as opposed to being in the ready-fire position already.

Yes, the basic assumption in a self defense or non-violent (yet) police contact scenario is that the weapon would start in the state you carry it in: holstered or similarly secured out of the way for normal everyday activities. It's a reasonable assumption since that is how nearly every encounter will start in public. Defense inside the home has a different set of assumptions which may favor a rifle over a sword, knife or handgun, but a shotgun would likely be better than any of those for that.

Also, stalking around town with a semi-auto tactical carbine in a patrol ready position is likely to draw a lot of attention and may even be considered "brandishing" in some places.

Triple Log
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2014 5:32 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Triple Log » Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:10 am UTC

slinches wrote:
stoppedcaring wrote:I suspect (though I could of course be wrong) that this assumes the officer's weapon is still holstered, as opposed to being in the ready-fire position already.

Yes, the basic assumption in a self defense or non-violent (yet) police contact scenario is that the weapon would start in the state you carry it in: holstered or similarly secured out of the way for normal everyday activities. It's a reasonable assumption since that is how nearly every encounter will start in public. Defense inside the home has a different set of assumptions which may favor a rifle over a sword, knife or handgun, but a shotgun would likely be better than any of those for that.

Also, stalking around town with a semi-auto tactical carbine in a patrol ready position is likely to draw a lot of attention and may even be considered "brandishing" in some places.

Even if it isn't brandishing running around with a shouldered rifle could get you charged with something. Disturbing the peace, definitely.

On another note, shotguns [i]generally[i] are thought of the best for home defense. The good ol' sound of chambering a round is enough to make any intruder think twice. And of course, other benefits: stopping power, less penetration through walls (hence less danger to others), whatever else I can't think of right now.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jul 31, 2014 4:42 am UTC

slinches wrote:The reason I say a rifle is nearly useless in self defense is that is takes too long to ready and fire in an attack. Even for someone trained in the use of a handgun, a knife wielding assailant is at a distinct advantage at close range. This article has a more detailed explanation of why, but states this "Bottom line: Within a 21-foot perimeter, most officers dealing with most edged-weapon suspects are at a decided - perhaps fatal - disadvantage if the suspect launches a sudden charge intent on harming them." This disadvantage would only be increased with a rifle.


Nah. Even a slung rifle can be readied about as fast as a holstered handgun.

That source is interesting indeed, but it should be used to highlight that a knife can be a very dangerous ambush weapon. I'll also point out that knife wounds are unlikely to be instantly lethal, so even if the assailant does stab the officer, the assailant will likely still be shot. Sudden ambushes are indeed an issue, but...ambushing someone with a firearm using a knife is not really a wise strategy. It often becomes a situation in which BOTH parties lose. Ditto for knife on knife fights, for much the same reason.

stoppedcaring wrote:[
I suspect (though I could of course be wrong) that this assumes the officer's weapon is still holstered, as opposed to being in the ready-fire position already.


This is correct. Tuller drills start with weapon in holster in a normal carry position. The nature of it being a drill means you may be more aware than in every day to day life, and thus, respond faster, of course. Being ambushed when one is not expecting it is a hard thing to safely simulate with live fire.

Normally, one would carry a rifle slung, and a pistol in a holster. Neither would be in a ready position either for this drill, or for general public use. I note that while military personnel do use ready positions when combat is expected shortly, carry firearms in ready positions all the time is tiring, so, in practice, they mostly carry firearms in exactly the same way you or I would. Life ain't call of duty, having your gun out all the time just isn't practical.

Triple Log wrote:On another note, shotguns [i]generally[i] are thought of the best for home defense. The good ol' sound of chambering a round is enough to make any intruder think twice. And of course, other benefits: stopping power, less penetration through walls (hence less danger to others), whatever else I can't think of right now.


This is a common urban myth, I'm afraid. Self defense training will frequently seek to disabuse such beliefs. Relying on the chambering sound, a cocking sound, etc is...not considered reliable, or something that should be considered for defensive value. In any case, almost any firearm makes a fairly loud, distinctive noise when cocked, and thus, the shotgun isn't terribly unique here anyway.

Stopping power is something that is measured in many ways. Rifles generally move vastly faster than shotgun rounds. Size of round is larger on a shotgun, sure, but that is only one factor. Shotguns are generally superior to handguns in stopping power, sure, but not rifles. Penetration through walls, is, unfortunately, also something of a myth, though this will depend significantly on exact situation. There is no commercial shotgun round that isn't capable of blowing through four layers of drywall, and most of the time, the walls of your home will have only two. Yes, bricks or heavy wooden support beams are much better, but...they are also better for everything else. Still, a 12 ga slug will flatten a concrete block, and put dangerous shards out the far side, while many calibers of rifle are usually stopped by such things. The 5.56mm round favored for AR-15s, etc, is sufficiently fast that if it hits hard surfaces at an angle, it just shatters. This utterly destroys the thing hit, but doesn't retain nearly as much energy for penetration. Additionally, any scattershot rounds in a shotgun are somewhat more likely to accidentally hit more things simply because of shot spread at long range, thus posing a greater risk to those around you. Typical home defense ranges are short enough that the spread does little to help you actually hit the intended target, it simply makes misses riskier.

Ballistics is...complicated. Part of the issue here is that shotguns fire big, slower rounds. Slower rounds tend not to mushroom nearly as much, which means they penetrate further, and deliver less/slower stopping power. Fast, expanding rounds are far better for self defense in most circumstances.

And of course, shotguns typically suffer in ammunition capacity. Sure, there are obscure specialty shotguns that hold 10+ rounds, but the vast majority of shotguns are set up for 3 or less. Most handguns hold at least 6 rounds, often many more, and almost all rifles have at least 5 rounds, with, again, many holding a good deal more.

In general, rifles > shotguns > pistols. Each step is fairly significant. Now, there are reasons to use all of them(like, I already have a shotgun, and money is tight), but if you are looking for a home defense firearm, prioritize rifles over shotguns.

Additionally, on a related myth, do not, under any circumstance, rely on birdshot as a home defense round. It has a wide spread that is damaging, but very, very poor at stopping people. Or anything bigger than a bird, really. This combines a high likelihood of accidental injury to others with lower defensive value.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10010
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:21 am UTC

Triple Log wrote:
slinches wrote:
stoppedcaring wrote:I suspect (though I could of course be wrong) that this assumes the officer's weapon is still holstered, as opposed to being in the ready-fire position already.

Yes, the basic assumption in a self defense or non-violent (yet) police contact scenario is that the weapon would start in the state you carry it in: holstered or similarly secured out of the way for normal everyday activities. It's a reasonable assumption since that is how nearly every encounter will start in public. Defense inside the home has a different set of assumptions which may favor a rifle over a sword, knife or handgun, but a shotgun would likely be better than any of those for that.

Also, stalking around town with a semi-auto tactical carbine in a patrol ready position is likely to draw a lot of attention and may even be considered "brandishing" in some places.

Even if it isn't brandishing running around with a shouldered rifle could get you charged with something. Disturbing the peace, definitely.

On another note, shotguns [i]generally[i] are thought of the best for home defense. The good ol' sound of chambering a round is enough to make any intruder think twice. And of course, other benefits: stopping power, less penetration through walls (hence less danger to others), whatever else I can't think of right now.

Can those things, really, be loaded with Rock Salt?
Anything else?

Big Boom;
And; The victim lives to Bitch about it.

Sounds good at first blush.
People have such wide variation in Temperament.

One guy might fire his gun toward another person, twice in a lifetime.
Another guy might fire his in earnest, twice a week.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby leady » Thu Jul 31, 2014 11:04 am UTC

that good old concealment is not cover video on youtube is pretty scary in showing practically all calibers blasting though wood, brickwork etc :)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:43 pm UTC

leady wrote:that good old concealment is not cover video on youtube is pretty scary in showing practically all calibers blasting though wood, brickwork etc :)


Yeah. Your bog standard interior wall is...not stopping ANY bullets unless the round shatters because of angle or something. I *love* in movies where the good guy dives behind a couch or a desk or something when shot at. I should probably stop now, before I get carried away with hilarious hollywood firearm tropes. Don't look for them on tvtropes. That's just too much life to spend.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:14 am UTC

Yeah, I hate it when they do that in movies. I know enough about guns to know that a chair isn't going to stop a bullet. If I know something doesn't work, it breaks the movie magic.

I don't "know" that there isn't sound in space, so you can have all your PEW PEW PEWs. But I DO know that if you crash a plane straight down into an ocean, no one is swimming away. I should watch the movie going "whoa that guy is badass" not "BULLSHIT!!!".

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby DSenette » Fri Aug 01, 2014 2:36 pm UTC

Triple Log wrote:
On another note, shotguns [i]generally[i] are thought of the best for home defense. The good ol' sound of chambering a round is enough to make any intruder think twice. And of course, other benefits: stopping power, less penetration through walls (hence less danger to others), whatever else I can't think of right now.


anyone keeping a weapon for home defense that isn't storing the weapon with a round in the chamber is objectively doing home defense incorrectly. racking the slide on an automatic pistol, yanking the charging handle on an AR or pumping a shotgun will most definitely waste a round in this scenario which makes this the last thing you want to do. also, it gives away your position in the structure giving a, possibly drug addled, assailant a relatively good place to start firing off rounds if they're armed. at the very least they'll know which direction you're coming from and be able to adequately hide for an ambush.

as for penetration...that most definitely depends on what round you've got..even in a shotgun. if you're shooting bird shot out of a 410...a sturdy couch cushion would be a pretty good way to prevent a lethal shot at any reasonable range that isn't point blank. 00 Buck out of a 12ga would probably still be pretty shitty to get hit with through a wall or two. if you're firing slugs (which, if you're looking for knock down....is the way to go) then most structures in a home aren't really going to be doing too terribly much for anyone inside the home as far as protection is concerned.

the typical reason people suggest shotguns for home defense are they're near mindlessly simple to operate, and you don't necessarily need to be a sniper to make a hit (you DO need to be pointing AT the thing you want to hit...preferably center mass...but you don't have to necessarily be pointing at a specific body part). plus most tactical/home defense shotguns are fuck-off scary to look at from the end that goes boom.

the ballistics of the good ol' .223 (5.56) round are such that they typically won't breach MOST cover since the round is so ass heavy while being overall fairly light. they tumble like crazy when they hit something and typically (typically) won't remain lethal once they pass through a wall (unless you're fairly close to the wall)

and yes Addams
if the home load is your poison of choice
then poison can be your load
or nails
or thumbtacks
or Nerds candy
or the teeth of all the people who have previously attempted to break in to your home

shotgun ammo can be made of just about anything....the ballistics of that anything won't always get the same results...but rocksalt is most definitely a common home load choice.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Aug 01, 2014 4:59 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:anyone keeping a weapon for home defense that isn't storing the weapon with a round in the chamber is objectively doing home defense incorrectly.


Eh, I wouldn't go that far. Rapid loading is important for it to be of any practical value but...my AR is magazine fed. This allows me to keep the firearm unloaded, and have a loaded mag stored seperately, but within reach....so in an emergency, it could still be loaded quite rapidly. Storage practices will probably vary depending on risk in your neighborhood, as well as risks in the home(ie, do you have young children, etc?) Some situations may require it to be kept loaded, but not necessarily all situations.

the typical reason people suggest shotguns for home defense are they're near mindlessly simple to operate, and you don't necessarily need to be a sniper to make a hit (you DO need to be pointing AT the thing you want to hit...preferably center mass...but you don't have to necessarily be pointing at a specific body part). plus most tactical/home defense shotguns are fuck-off scary to look at from the end that goes boom.{/quote]

Shot spread is essentially nil at typical home defense ranges. Most loads/chokes aren't opening up at all at ten yards, and most homes do not have straight lines of fire that are significantly longer than that. Hell, most of the time distance is measured in a few feet, because someone hostile is often approaching you. I would not consider accuracy to be a significant element here. If you have a home defense shotgun, I suggest taking it to the range, and seeing how much your buckshot(if that's what you're using) opens up in about 10-15 feet. You will indeed need to be pointing at the body part you wish to hit.

I dare say any firearm looks fairly scary when it's pointed at you. Sure, particularly large ones may be slightly more intimidating, but I wouldn't consider that to be very significant. Select your gun based on practical function...the aesthetics of it are no more important than the paint on your car. The pink gun is exactly as good as the black one.

and yes Addams
if the home load is your poison of choice
then poison can be your load
or nails
or thumbtacks
or Nerds candy
or the teeth of all the people who have previously attempted to break in to your home

shotgun ammo can be made of just about anything....the ballistics of that anything won't always get the same results...but rocksalt is most definitely a common home load choice.


I would advise against strange loads like this. Some of them can have safety implications for the shooter(wax loads have been kabooming guns, for instance), and the priority should be on stopping the intruder asap, not on esoteric stuff. Poison in particular seems indefensable. It's not going to help you stop him, thus keeping you safe, immediately...it only harms the assailant over a period of time that's too long to be relevant in a defensive context like this. Your goal should be to stop them, not to cause extra damage, pain, or loss of life. Using poison for home defense seems deeply unwise(and it may present legal difficulties as well).

Plus, nails tear the crap out of the inside of your barrel. Bad general practice. Don't get me wrong, I've handloaded some frigging esoteric junk for screwing around purposes...but commercial home defense loads are going to be far more practical than random junk.

Edit: Forgot rock salt. It's...less lethal. Non-lethal rounds are something of a misnomer. Rubber bullets, rock salt, whatever...you're still shooting stuff going really fast at a person. These were intended as a fairly long range deterrent...if you get close enough, anything becomes lethal. At contact range, even blanks can be lethal. So...do not fire unless you are in a position where killing someone is justifiable. I'm not a big fan of rock salt as it may not actually stop the assailant if used properly, and...less lethal ammo in general needs to be used fairly carefully to not be either lethal or worthless. If you opt to go this route, train, and understand what your trade-offs are.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby DSenette » Fri Aug 01, 2014 5:14 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
DSenette wrote:anyone keeping a weapon for home defense that isn't storing the weapon with a round in the chamber is objectively doing home defense incorrectly.


Eh, I wouldn't go that far. Rapid loading is important for it to be of any practical value but...my AR is magazine fed. This allows me to keep the firearm unloaded, and have a loaded mag stored seperately, but within reach....so in an emergency, it could still be loaded quite rapidly. Storage practices will probably vary depending on risk in your neighborhood, as well as risks in the home(ie, do you have young children, etc?) Some situations may require it to be kept loaded, but not necessarily all situations.

In a home defense situation you're wasting valuable time racking a round (yes, I know...it doesn't take that long...but it's a quickness kind of situation)...plus...you're still leaving yourself to giving off your position within the structure when you rack a round

but I would like to retract my use of the word objectively....you're just doing it less efficiently.

even if you keep the weapon unloaded, you should still be keeping it away from children as if it were loaded so the storage of a loaded weapon should be indistinguishable from the storage of an unloaded weapon

Tyndmyr wrote:
DSenette wrote:the typical reason people suggest shotguns for home defense are they're near mindlessly simple to operate, and you don't necessarily need to be a sniper to make a hit (you DO need to be pointing AT the thing you want to hit...preferably center mass...but you don't have to necessarily be pointing at a specific body part). plus most tactical/home defense shotguns are fuck-off scary to look at from the end that goes boom.{/quote]

Shot spread is essentially nil at typical home defense ranges. Most loads/chokes aren't opening up at all at ten yards, and most homes do not have straight lines of fire that are significantly longer than that. Hell, most of the time distance is measured in a few feet, because someone hostile is often approaching you. I would not consider accuracy to be a significant element here. If you have a home defense shotgun, I suggest taking it to the range, and seeing how much your buckshot(if that's what you're using) opens up in about 10-15 feet. You will indeed need to be pointing at the body part you wish to hit.

I dare say any firearm looks fairly scary when it's pointed at you. Sure, particularly large ones may be slightly more intimidating, but I wouldn't consider that to be very significant. Select your gun based on practical function...the aesthetics of it are no more important than the paint on your car. The pink gun is exactly as good as the black one.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-t ... -patterns/ guy showing some differences in shot spread...at 12 feet you've got a 1 3/4" to 4" group (ish)....which is a bit larger than the possible radius of a single round. big difference? no...but if you're in the "not the bestest shot" group...you might still catch the guy with a BB or two if you're not exactly on point. this is not to affirm ye olde "spray and pray" idea that people have of a shotgun where you just point it in a room and everything in the room gets a shot.

Tyndmyr wrote:
DSenette wrote:and yes Addams
if the home load is your poison of choice
then poison can be your load
or nails
or thumbtacks
or Nerds candy
or the teeth of all the people who have previously attempted to break in to your home

shotgun ammo can be made of just about anything....the ballistics of that anything won't always get the same results...but rocksalt is most definitely a common home load choice.


I would advise against strange loads like this. Some of them can have safety implications for the shooter(wax loads have been kabooming guns, for instance), and the priority should be on stopping the intruder asap, not on esoteric stuff. Poison in particular seems indefensable. It's not going to help you stop him, thus keeping you safe, immediately...it only harms the assailant over a period of time that's too long to be relevant in a defensive context like this. Your goal should be to stop them, not to cause extra damage, pain, or loss of life. Using poison for home defense seems deeply unwise(and it may present legal difficulties as well).

Plus, nails tear the crap out of the inside of your barrel. Bad general practice. Don't get me wrong, I've handloaded some frigging esoteric junk for screwing around purposes...but commercial home defense loads are going to be far more practical than random junk.
this is undeniably true...if you're going to actually use the thing for it's intended purpose you should be using a load that's for that purpose....though the point was that you can literally put anything in a shotgun shell that will fit and it will likely shoot. you can even plant flowers with the right load
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby DSenette » Fri Aug 01, 2014 5:28 pm UTC

also...the shot spread thing isn't me supporting the idea that a shotgun is better for home defense....it's just one of the things that people cite as a reason to suggest a shotgun for home defense.

the only reason I would suggest a shotgun for home defense is the near idiot proof functionality of most shotguns.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10010
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Thu Aug 07, 2014 1:59 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
DSenette wrote:anyone keeping a weapon for home defense that isn't storing the weapon with a round in the chamber is objectively doing home defense incorrectly.


Eh, I wouldn't go that far. Rapid loading is important for it to be of any practical value but...my AR is magazine fed. This allows me to keep the firearm unloaded, and have a loaded mag stored seperately, but within reach....so in an emergency, it could still be loaded quite rapidly. Storage practices will probably vary depending on risk in your neighborhood, as well as risks in the home(ie, do you have young children, etc?) Some situations may require it to be kept loaded, but not necessarily all situations.

the typical reason people suggest shotguns for home defense are they're near mindlessly simple to operate, and you don't necessarily need to be a sniper to make a hit (you DO need to be pointing AT the thing you want to hit...preferably center mass...but you don't have to necessarily be pointing at a specific body part). plus most tactical/home defense shotguns are fuck-off scary to look at from the end that goes boom.{/quote]

Shot spread is essentially nil at typical home defense ranges. Most loads/chokes aren't opening up at all at ten yards, and most homes do not have straight lines of fire that are significantly longer than that. Hell, most of the time distance is measured in a few feet, because someone hostile is often approaching you. I would not consider accuracy to be a significant element here. If you have a home defense shotgun, I suggest taking it to the range, and seeing how much your buckshot(if that's what you're using) opens up in about 10-15 feet. You will indeed need to be pointing at the body part you wish to hit.

I dare say any firearm looks fairly scary when it's pointed at you. Sure, particularly large ones may be slightly more intimidating, but I wouldn't consider that to be very significant. Select your gun based on practical function...the aesthetics of it are no more important than the paint on your car. The pink gun is exactly as good as the black one.

and yes Addams
if the home load is your poison of choice
then poison can be your load
or nails
or thumbtacks
or Nerds candy
or the teeth of all the people who have previously attempted to break in to your home

shotgun ammo can be made of just about anything....the ballistics of that anything won't always get the same results...but rocksalt is most definitely a common home load choice.


I would advise against strange loads like this. Some of them can have safety implications for the shooter(wax loads have been kabooming guns, for instance), and the priority should be on stopping the intruder asap, not on esoteric stuff. Poison in particular seems indefensable. It's not going to help you stop him, thus keeping you safe, immediately...it only harms the assailant over a period of time that's too long to be relevant in a defensive context like this. Your goal should be to stop them, not to cause extra damage, pain, or loss of life. Using poison for home defense seems deeply unwise(and it may present legal difficulties as well).

Plus, nails tear the crap out of the inside of your barrel. Bad general practice. Don't get me wrong, I've handloaded some frigging esoteric junk for screwing around purposes...but commercial home defense loads are going to be far more practical than random junk.

Edit: Forgot rock salt. It's...less lethal. Non-lethal rounds are something of a misnomer. Rubber bullets, rock salt, whatever...you're still shooting stuff going really fast at a person. These were intended as a fairly long range deterrent...if you get close enough, anything becomes lethal. At contact range, even blanks can be lethal. So...do not fire unless you are in a position where killing someone is justifiable. I'm not a big fan of rock salt as it may not actually stop the assailant if used properly, and...less lethal ammo in general needs to be used fairly carefully to not be either lethal or worthless. If you opt to go this route, train, and understand what your trade-offs are.

You people make a lot of sense, sometimes.
And; Sometimes, not.

A Shot Gun for Home Defense?
That is a funny one.

Sure. That is the fire arm of choice for The Hulk.
Some 4 foot 8 inch woman that is being Robbed and Assaulted and is Mouthy too?

Even if she is Not Mouthy, she's too little to move that Machine around, much.
Yes. If she is Highly Familiar with the Machine, she will be able to use it.

Still...That girl is running a Very High chance of that Machine being taken away from her.
Maybe; You can have a conversation about what it is like to have Strangers walk into your Home.

I have had it happen.
I used to like it.

Spoiler:
I guess I know, now.
My home was also a Business, of Sorts.

Strangers walked in the front door.
Guests walked in the back door.
I used the side door.

It was a Big House.
I loved that old house.

Even during that last year while both agents of my government and independent contractors were making my life a Living Hell, I did not, even, consider a gun.
I carried Bear Spray, in the car.

My plan C.:
Get to the Rig.
Get it moving.

Under extream distress, I evacuated me, from my home.

The way I did it;
I stayed as calm as I could.
I walked with a steady gate with my head down, over floors I knew well.

I walked into my room.
I put shampoo and hairbrush in my laundry basket.
I put my computer and cords into my laundry basket.
I picked up the laundry basket and walked out.

Once I was in the Car, I felt relatively safe, in those days.
I loved that Car.

It had 4 wheel drive and knobby tires.
I could take it in The Back Way.

And; That is where I would go.
The Back Way.

Yes. It was Hell.
Still....I still loved that Car.
One of my favorite roads was dirt and ungraded.

By the end of summer that thing was beaten to powder.
Some people are such Jerks.

I have seen Local Boyz hanging out waiting for Tourists.
When the Tourist comes along, they get out in front and blind the poor little Tourist with roster tails of fine powder.

Such a stupid thing to do.
So Tempting. right.

Country people are not worse people than city people.
They, just, have different temptations.

What about a Revolver?

For a small woman to carry with her?
What about a Revolver?

The Empty Chamber acts as the safety.
Would that work?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby DSenette » Thu Aug 07, 2014 3:14 pm UTC

addams wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
DSenette wrote:anyone keeping a weapon for home defense that isn't storing the weapon with a round in the chamber is objectively doing home defense incorrectly.


Eh, I wouldn't go that far. Rapid loading is important for it to be of any practical value but...my AR is magazine fed. This allows me to keep the firearm unloaded, and have a loaded mag stored seperately, but within reach....so in an emergency, it could still be loaded quite rapidly. Storage practices will probably vary depending on risk in your neighborhood, as well as risks in the home(ie, do you have young children, etc?) Some situations may require it to be kept loaded, but not necessarily all situations.

the typical reason people suggest shotguns for home defense are they're near mindlessly simple to operate, and you don't necessarily need to be a sniper to make a hit (you DO need to be pointing AT the thing you want to hit...preferably center mass...but you don't have to necessarily be pointing at a specific body part). plus most tactical/home defense shotguns are fuck-off scary to look at from the end that goes boom.{/quote]

Shot spread is essentially nil at typical home defense ranges. Most loads/chokes aren't opening up at all at ten yards, and most homes do not have straight lines of fire that are significantly longer than that. Hell, most of the time distance is measured in a few feet, because someone hostile is often approaching you. I would not consider accuracy to be a significant element here. If you have a home defense shotgun, I suggest taking it to the range, and seeing how much your buckshot(if that's what you're using) opens up in about 10-15 feet. You will indeed need to be pointing at the body part you wish to hit.

I dare say any firearm looks fairly scary when it's pointed at you. Sure, particularly large ones may be slightly more intimidating, but I wouldn't consider that to be very significant. Select your gun based on practical function...the aesthetics of it are no more important than the paint on your car. The pink gun is exactly as good as the black one.

and yes Addams
if the home load is your poison of choice
then poison can be your load
or nails
or thumbtacks
or Nerds candy
or the teeth of all the people who have previously attempted to break in to your home

shotgun ammo can be made of just about anything....the ballistics of that anything won't always get the same results...but rocksalt is most definitely a common home load choice.


I would advise against strange loads like this. Some of them can have safety implications for the shooter(wax loads have been kabooming guns, for instance), and the priority should be on stopping the intruder asap, not on esoteric stuff. Poison in particular seems indefensable. It's not going to help you stop him, thus keeping you safe, immediately...it only harms the assailant over a period of time that's too long to be relevant in a defensive context like this. Your goal should be to stop them, not to cause extra damage, pain, or loss of life. Using poison for home defense seems deeply unwise(and it may present legal difficulties as well).

Plus, nails tear the crap out of the inside of your barrel. Bad general practice. Don't get me wrong, I've handloaded some frigging esoteric junk for screwing around purposes...but commercial home defense loads are going to be far more practical than random junk.

Edit: Forgot rock salt. It's...less lethal. Non-lethal rounds are something of a misnomer. Rubber bullets, rock salt, whatever...you're still shooting stuff going really fast at a person. These were intended as a fairly long range deterrent...if you get close enough, anything becomes lethal. At contact range, even blanks can be lethal. So...do not fire unless you are in a position where killing someone is justifiable. I'm not a big fan of rock salt as it may not actually stop the assailant if used properly, and...less lethal ammo in general needs to be used fairly carefully to not be either lethal or worthless. If you opt to go this route, train, and understand what your trade-offs are.

You people make a lot of sense, sometimes.
And; Sometimes, not.

A Shot Gun for Home Defense?
That is a funny one.

Sure. That is the fire arm of choice for The Hulk.
Some 4 foot 8 inch woman that is being Robbed and Assaulted and is Mouthy too?

Even if she is Not Mouthy, she's too little to move that Machine around, much.
Yes. If she is Highly Familiar with the Machine, she will be able to use it.

Still...That girl is running a Very High chance of that Machine being taken away from her.
Maybe; You can have a conversation about what it is like to have Strangers walk into your Home.

I have had it happen.
I used to like it.

Spoiler:
I guess I know, now.
My home was also a Business, of Sorts.

Strangers walked in the front door.
Guests walked in the back door.
I used the side door.

It was a Big House.
I loved that old house.

Even during that last year while both agents of my government and independent contractors were making my life a Living Hell, I did not, even, consider a gun.
I carried Bear Spray, in the car.

My plan C.:
Get to the Rig.
Get it moving.

Under extream distress, I evacuated me, from my home.

The way I did it;
I stayed as calm as I could.
I walked with a steady gate with my head down, over floors I knew well.

I walked into my room.
I put shampoo and hairbrush in my laundry basket.
I put my computer and cords into my laundry basket.
I picked up the laundry basket and walked out.

Once I was in the Car, I felt relatively safe, in those days.
I loved that Car.

It had 4 wheel drive and knobby tires.
I could take it in The Back Way.

And; That is where I would go.
The Back Way.

Yes. It was Hell.
Still....I still loved that Car.
One of my favorite roads was dirt and ungraded.

By the end of summer that thing was beaten to powder.
Some people are such Jerks.

I have seen Local Boyz hanging out waiting for Tourists.
When the Tourist comes along, they get out in front and blind the poor little Tourist with roster tails of fine powder.

Such a stupid thing to do.
So Tempting. right.

Country people are not worse people than city people.
They, just, have different temptations.

What about a Revolver?

For a small woman to carry with her?
What about a Revolver?

The Empty Chamber acts as the safety.
Would that work?

the idea that a woman can't operate a shotgun for home defense is somewhat outdated and in all but the most restrictive of cases quite incorrect. a higher caliber revolver is just as likely to be difficult to operate for someone of slight stature. in many cases, the revolver (or automatic pistol) could actually be WORSE for someone of small stature for home defense because recoil is more difficult to manage when all you've got to absorb it is your wrists. higher caliber pistols (that would match the ballistics of a 12ga shotgun) make it fairly difficult to make accurate follow up shots. you can get home defense rounds for lighter overall (though, felt recoil may not be lighter) 20ga shotguns that are very easy to swing around. just like any weapon, the proper training is what makes the weapon effective.

having a chamber empty in a revolver does indeed act as a drop safety (and if you're carrying a revolver you should always have the hammer down on an empty chamber unless the gun has an integrated drop safety...and even then...it's probably a good idea) but now you've limited yourself to (on average) 5 rounds or less.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests