The Defensive Shotgun; How we make it work--MilCopp Blog

[Fail-Safe]

For those that read my posts in this thread, remember, I was speaking to the validity of the shotgun as a HD weapon.

Oh, I get what you were speaking of, but some of your comments were as wrong as wrong can be. Especially regarding pellet payload as capacity(by that logic a 9+1 12gauge loaded with birdshot has a higher capacity the an M23 system (yes I know, reductio ad absurdum). Its inarguable. A shotgun commonly used for HD has a capacity of 6+1-9+1 so yes, the AR wins that battle.

I also noticed you quoted Dr Roberts, on the shotgun having more lethality than a 5.56 carbine. Unfortunately you didnt note his other comments regarding why he feels the 5.56 is superior for home defense. The reduced over penetration, the smaller "footprint" of the carbine, the ability to defeat armored advesaries, the reduced penetration after walls are encountered, the reduced recoil, the higher capacity, the easier reloads, the fact that a novice shooter will generally shoot a carbine better than a shotgun, among many others.

Again, I like the shotgun, both 12 and gauges, for HD. I still believe the AR (and even the AK) are superior overall for defensive purposes. I would he happy with just an XS bead sighted shotgun and light equipped shotgun, but I would be happiest with a nice RDO and light equipped carbine.

[Canonshooter]

Interesting discussion.

The point about "social acceptance" of the shotgun is IMO a valid one - it is on this single point that the shotgun trumps the AR. With the way the media works nowadays, a home owner defending his family with an "assault rifle" would far more likely make the news then if a shotgun was used. It's sad, it sucks, but it is unfortunately reality.

In regards to the effectiveness of 12 gauge 00 buck vs. 5.56 at close range, my vote is "none of the above" - I wouldn't want to be shot by either. Within the confines of my home, I would not feel undergunned with either, but once we move outside and range increases, it's the AR that would be my choice in a defensive situation. That said, I can easily envision what might transpire during a home invasion, but once the battle moves outside of those four walls, it is IMO no longer a "home invasion" and how the legal use of deadly force would apply ("castle doctrine") becomes more open to interpretation - especially in the mind of a left-leaning DA.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not getting myself wrapped around the politically correct axle, but it is IMO one of the best points made in the OP.

[Alaskapopo]

Interesting discussion.

The point about "social acceptance" of the shotgun is IMO a valid one - it is on this single point that the shotgun trumps the AR. With the way the media works nowadays, a home owner defending his family with an "assault rifle" would far more likely make the news then if a shotgun was used. It's sad, it sucks, but it is unfortunately reality.

In regards to the effectiveness of 12 gauge 00 buck vs. 5.56 at close range, my vote is "none of the above" - I wouldn't want to be shot by either. Within the confines of my home, I would not feel undergunned with either, but once we move outside and range increases, it's the AR that would be my choice in a defensive situation. That said, I can easily envision what might transpire during a home invasion, but once the battle moves outside of those four walls, it is IMO no longer a "home invasion" and how the legal use of deadly force would apply ("castle doctrine") becomes more open to interpretation - especially in the mind of a left-leaning DA.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not getting myself wrapped around the politically correct axle, but it is IMO one of the best points made in the OP.

It really depends on the political enviroment where you live. But frankly politics is the last thing you should worry about when your life is on the line. Use the most effective tool.
Pat

[Canonshooter]

It really depends on the political enviroment where you live. But frankly politics is the last thing you should worry about when your life is on the line. Use the most effective tool.

Pat, I agree that local politics can vary considerably - what may not get a second look in some places would lead to prosecution in others.

This is why considering the "best tool for the job" must also (unfortuately) include the potential legal aftermath of a deadly encounter. In the previously mentioned case of the attorney firing on the felons with a SKS who were fleeing in a car, a far more "effective tool" would have been a RPG. That, however, would have resulted in a mighty civil action/legal battle, which can potentially drag on for years and bankrupt the victim, and possibly even send them to prison.

The first job no doubt is to survive the encounter, but never under estimate the legal battle that will surely follow. A person taking up a defensive position in their home with a 12 gauge while calling the police for help will far more likely survive both the encounter and the legal aftermath than the person armed with a decked-out AR actively engaging the intruders in a gun battle. Considering this as part of your home protection planning is IMO the smart thing to do.

[DarrinD2]

I agree with Pat on the point of whether you should worry about the legal issues that come along with the weapon you choose. During my time as an Ast. AG in Arizona I never saw a Prosecutor use it as a main theme of attack, and those I talked to couldn't cite one instance where it played a major part of the prosecution. I could see a prosecutor playing that in a close case, maybe, but basically if someone is involved in a clean self defense shooting it's not even going to trial. Only questionable self defense shooting go to trial. Same with civil trials. This is all just based on my opinion and experience in the AG's office.
p.s. my 590A1 looks as "scary" as my AR.

[c3006]

I think it boils down to confidence,I always want the weapon in my hand that I am most confident with even if it is not considered the best for the job by professionals. I feel the best with my shotgun inside my carbine outside but ill take whatever I can get

[Pi3]

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot3_2.htm
So, if there is a lawyer attached to every bullet, does a round of double aught have 8 or 9 lawyers attached to it? If so, how well do they get along all crammed together like that?

[rojocorsa]

For the avg CA homeowner, it will probably be easier to deal with a shotgun rather than a carbine. The majority of us are limited to 10 round AR mags which in roughly 75% of cases can't even be dropped freely*. So whats an 8 round shotgun then? It's probably easier to top off.

Also, I can find shotguns in almost any FFL business here in CA. ARs and AKs, not so much. I mean, it's better than before, but all Big 5s sell basic 870s and 500s.


**Some CA shooters alter their builds so that they can drop mags by removing other evil features. These are known as featureless builds. But unless you owned the mags prior to the year 2000, you're still stuck with 10 rounders.


In short, the social acceptability is a massive point for the shotgun in some areas--especially if it has a wood stock.

[26 Inf]

Interesting discussion.

The point about "social acceptance" of the shotgun is IMO a valid one - it is on this single point that the shotgun trumps the AR. With the way the media works nowadays, a home owner defending his family with an "assault rifle" would far more likely make the news then if a shotgun was used. It's sad, it sucks, but it is unfortunately reality.

I That said, I can easily envision what might transpire during a home invasion, but once the battle moves outside of those four walls, it is IMO no longer a "home invasion" and how the legal use of deadly force would apply ("castle doctrine") becomes more open to interpretation - especially in the mind of a left-leaning DA.

I just saw this and I'd just like to throw some thoughts out regarding the castle doctrine:

1) Know YOUR state's law, not the one you read about on a thread someplace. Castle Doctrine laws are different, some state's laws apply to the 'person' where ever they may be - even in public; some don't go that far.

2) Some CD laws indemnify the person using force from civil litigation; others don't. Regarding civil litigation, no homeowner's policy will cover you for an intentional act, so if you intentionally shoot someone defending your home, you may be paying for your defense if a civil suit is brought. If you recall, OJ was found not guilty, but successfully sued by his victim's families.

3) Most (not going to say all) self-defense laws do not allow you to press the attack when your assailant is in retreat. I, along with just about everyone in the world, cheer when I see video of an armed citizen chasing a robber out of a coffee shop, popping rounds at him as he runs out the door, but the DA that decides to prosecute on something like that need not be particularly 'left leaning.'

[williejc]

Good points, sir. Shooting a person fleeing from one's premises or retreating would be a big error. As stated, civil liability is really a great concern. We must remember that a justifiable ruling does not necessarily protect us from being sued in criminal court. Financial ruin from legal fees is almost always a given. Also, let's be aware that ethnic/cultural politics can have a strong influence on legal ruling and interpretation because district attorneys, mayors, constables, judges, and sheriffs are elected officials who are politicians first and foremost. I regret to say that there are urban areas and some rural ones that are particularly unsafe if you look and speak differently from everybody else. Police and elected official come from the population of these areas. In my travels, I avoid New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Jackson, Miss., and sections of Memphis, Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio. My point: getting a fair shake from the system can depend on regional politics.