Printable View
I was being facetious, though, for the average person that's not handling a handgun on a regular basis a .357 is too much gun. To this day the shotgun is the best home defense weapon for the average homeowner, cheap, multifunctional, much easier to use, plenty of stopping power and less risk to downrange damages.Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Also
Shooting skeet is 100x more fun than shooting targets with a rifle or handgun.
Can’t argue that a good shotgun is an excellent choice for home defense, but my primary family use weapon is an AR-15. Why? With the right ammunition it dumps all of its energy into whatever it hits first and over penetration is less of an issue than either a pistol or shotgun. My oldest daughter can’t handle the recoil of a 12 gauge but can easily & accurately fire an AR. The only real downside with the AR is the manual of arms is slightly more complex, but with a touch of training almost anyone can use it effectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
There is always 38 special for the limp wristed like Seran. Honestly for California and all their BS high cap restrictions & such, it’s not the worst weapon by a long shot. A revolver chambered for 357 is quite versatile.
Edit: I collect and prefer AKs chambered in 7.62x39, but common steel cased bimetal ammo is overkill in penetration. If I was a gangbanger doing drive-bys though and didn’t worry about what’s behind the target, it’s the perfect weapon.
[QUOTE=Neveragain;2293111]I was being facetious, though, for the average person that's not handling a handgun on a regular basis a .357 is too much gun. To this day the shotgun is the best home defense weapon for the average homeowner, cheap, multifunctional, much easier to use, plenty of stopping power and less risk to downrange damages.[/Quote
The shotgun is a terrible home defense weapon. Low ammo count, it doesn't spread like Hollywood portrays, at home defense ranges, you need to aim just like a rifle or pistol and you likely have less shots to hit with. More recoil than a pistol and most rifles makes them less controllable. A shotgun with a reasonable ammo count is heavier than a rifle or pistol compounding the controllability issue. Good sized buckshot has the same penetration as a pistol if not more considering modern self defense bullets, slugs blow through people and walls as well or better than other weapons. The only advantages to a shotgun are the cost, variable ammo available and the reputation. Also, most shotguns don't have to be registered in those shitball states that require registration.
I would rather have 30 rounds of good m855 or other suitable ammo in my AR-15 with a 16" barrel along with a second mag clamped to the first to deal with an attacker than my 12 guage police with 9 + 1 rounds for about the same weight.
Personal preference.Quote:
Also
Shooting skeet is 100x more fun than shooting targets with a rifle or handgun.
Shotgun does have advantages. Terminal ballistics of 00 buckshot is absolutely devastating. It’s roughly the equivalent of getting hit with a 9mm bullet 9 times at once (or however many pellets there are per shot). It’s true that the spread at short distances is narrow but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. It does have capacity limitations but 5+ rounds commonly found in pump or autoloading shotguns is in almost all cases more than enough for any home defense situation. If I had to be in a gun fight, which I hope I never do, I’d prefer a shotgun (or almost any long gun) over a pistol.
Really though, just have something & train with it. I’d shy away from single shot or double barrel shotguns, but it’s better than a pointy stick if that’s all you got.
M855 is a halfway decent penetrator but for terminal ballistic performance against unarmored human targets (99+% likely a home invader won’t being wearing any kind of armor) and limiting over penetration concerns I would stick with good old M193 55 grain.
See, but that's an unreasonable expectation. The commission of gun crimes come in two flavors, the prosecuted and unprosecuted. A criminal is either caught, or uncaught. The common denominator is someone has to have a gun to commit a gun crime. Do suppress the availability of firearms to reduce instances of their being used as an accessory in a crime, or just wait until a crime is committed and make a long term prohibition of ownership a repercussion..? We can agree crime is the problem, but I think reducing the lethality by restricting firearms is the solution. What do you think is the solution that doesn't affect innocent owners?Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
The solution is to address the real problem, which is people. Criminals must be removed from society. We must treat the mentally ill and address the root cause of the affliction. We must empower the good honorable people to fight the injustices of tyranny & evil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Tell me Seran, by California law how many bullets can a murder have in their gun? How long does a mugger have to wait to by law to acquire their weapon? What kind of laws do evil men follow that will prevent them from acting upon their foul intent? There are more guns in this country than people. You, me, nor anyone else can’t do anything about that. But even if you got your wish and all the guns vanished, would we still have the same criminals? You think just because those people don’t have a gun they can’t hurt people effectively by alternative means?
Evil prevails when good men do nothing. All your gun control laws do is put the good guys at a disadvantage to the bad guys. We need every advantage that can be afforded. God created man. Samuel Colt made man equal.
505 people, per 100,000 population. That is the per capita incarceration rate in the United States, number two behind Cuba at 510 and just ahead of Panama at 478. I'm sure that number has worsened since the data set I viewed, but the US has over 2 million prisoners and we still have a gun problem. If we incarcerate as many people per capita as corrupt nearly third world regimes and we still have a worsening gun problem, then simply 'removing them from society' isn't a solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
Realistically, it's both. Stricter prison standards, firearm ownership bans for criminals, making it a class 1 felony to sell a gun to someone banned that also carries with it a ownership ban for the seller.. Then we start to see progress. Guns haven't leveled the playing field, that is a misnomer proven by those countries without our gun problems, that couldn't be more obvious.
Perhaps what we can find common ground on is to find an alternative to incarceration for non-violent drug offenders as that has greatly contributed to the overcrowding of our prisons. I also am a strong advocate for community outreach programs. Education and a loving nuclear family can break the cycle of poverty & crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Those countries that don’t have gun violence problems have knife violence problems. Guns are not some evil sentient object that shoot people all on their own. Taking away guns would not solve the problem of evil. A gun is absolutely the great equalizer. A 100 pound woman with a firearm and the small amount of knowledge of how to use it can effectively defend herself against a 300 pound man hell-bent on raping her.
Every major city is a democrat run crime ridden shithole and those are all where gun crimes are the worst despite having the strictest gun laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I don't expect you to be able to put 2+2 together here, so perhaps ask your mom to help. It's the least she could do for society.
Part of the prison overcrowding problem is the reluctance of states to use the death penalty due to the ridiculous number of legal challenges to every option for execution available. Someone is sentenced to death under the laws of the state should be put down, not given lifetime incarceration. I'm really surprised you're arguing community outreach and drug diversion for non violent crimes, that is one of the issues that plagues major Metropolitan areas, especially in California. What stops a person from committing crime it there is no punishment that makes a lasting impression?Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet
A hundred pound woman protecting herself from a rapist, really? Provided she has enough awareness of the impending crime to draw a firearm and use it to protect herself, what will she do if the criminal also had a gun and disabled her first? You speak of overwhelming force as a means of diversion, but that is only effective so long as it can be deployed effectively. We play a game with very effective ambush mechanics, people employ the same subterfuge or stalking to keep their victims unaware before they strike. A gun out of hand is no use at all, and just as likely it's going to wind up in the possession of the assailant.
A society where criminals are locked up, those who are reformed actually reformed, and the fear of retribution so great that non mentally imbalanced people will think twice. That is an ideal society. Ours is suffering from drug addiction, overtly generous welfare benefits going beyond basic food, shelter and health-care, and a system of justice being neutered by the privileged few who don't understand what a bane free roaming, gun toting recitivists are.