I would like to congratulate everyone here for a largely cool and level-headed discussion of firearms for home defense.
Most gun discussions on non-gun forums tend to go south pretty quickly.
Testament to the quality of WCIers.
Fair point to discuss the “vast majority” comment. However, that comment does not at all prove bias but rather the lack of quoting a specific study supporting his claim that the vast majority of children killed by guns are gangbangers. I could easily see that being true, but I don’t have any facts to prove or disprove it.
Regardless of that, the point still holds true that you can’t take any if the aforementioned studies and apply them liberally to what is more likely to be the situation with physicians. To do so is either biased or ignorant of basic study interpretation.
Fascinating topic.
@janettebournes or AlexxT – are there classes for this sort of thing (meaning, gun practice/self defense/how to equip house for intruder and then shoot the crap out of them?). As you can tell, I am not into this but for family security (now with a kid!) I have to take it seriously despite living in a very low crime rate area and living low profile.
Thanks!
)
2) a red dot sight mounted atop the stock night sights of the gun. Assuming you are awake when the intruder is in and don’t need the laser to give away your position, you’ll be able to line up the red dot on the target. You see it, the target doesn’t. The red dot is also powered by a battery so it “co-sights” with the stock night sights so you can still acquire a target even if batteries on both devices are dead 3) a suppressor since even firing handgun rounds in an enclosed space will lead to hearing loss. Agreed, it’s not high on the list of concerns if someone is inside our home but if the suppressor suppresses sound and muzzle flash, all the better
I am not arguing that a 16-year-old’s murder is less tragic than a 4-year-old’s accidental death, or that teenagers killed by guns deserve it, or that the number of young children being killed by guns is acceptably low. But, I would contend that a 19-year-old who has moved out of home, drives, has a child of his own, and could be issued a machine gun in the military is an adult, not a child. Uncharitable/unfair terminology notwithstanding, I think spiritrider is justified in insisting on the distinction.
I’ve never shot with a laser sight so that would be really fun to see the difference. Would really help to have a quick way to light the whole house up, and though I am somewhat annoyed by over “smartification” of certain things, this would be an area that would be super useful.
Yes, that’s another controversial issue. Should one become dependent on lasers? What if battery runs out, etc. So one should practice with and without laser, with 2 hand grip, with one hand grip, with weak hand side, etc. and all combinations thereof.
Now laser manufacturers are making combined laser and flashlight units, ( now that we have led lights ) so you can light what you see, although green lasers light up a target area adequately. Experts say you don’t want your house lit up, since you know the terrain and the intruder doesn’t , so dark gives you an advantage. Also, lasers and lights give away your position. etc, etc.
I believe that 70% of shooting victims live ( IIRC, maybe I’ way off) , but that’s primarily hand guns ( much less lethal ) and extremity wounds. Of course, some are severely disabled.
I only cared for one rifle wound. It was a proverbial “flesh wound” from an AK47 type rifle that blew away a tunnel through the calf ( 3-4″ diameter) but fortunately missed the bone. Others were killed in that incident, but I only saw the one patient. He eventually made a full recovery, but it took months and the wound was painful. Of course, a similar hole through the abdomen would be pretty catastrophic, although many survive those as well.
Exact numbers are hard to come by, and all are suspect, but the numbers I have seen suggest that 50-60% of assailants run when they see a gun, 20-30% more run when it’s fired, and of the remainder, most will stop fighting when shot, regardless of injury or caliber, but of the remainder, there’s a correlation with caliber, but it ultimately only makes a difference of around 2%. ie 95% of assailants will be deterred or stopped with a hand gun of any caliber, 3% won’t stop after being shot with a small caliber but will stop after being hit with a large caliber, and 2% keep going even if struck with large caliber multiple times. But rifles are different. They have enough power to stop you and cause severe injury much more often.
For self-defense purposes, the goal of shooting an assailant is not to kill, but to stop. So people interested in this subject look for statistics on how often a particular weapon causes the assailant to disengage, and not how often they are killed. The problem is that some people don’t stop even after being shot multiple times with large caliber weapons. That’s why in police shootings the victims are shot as many as 15 times or more. The officer can’t know if they hit, or how many times, so you have to keep shooting until movement stops.
I’ve never shot with a laser sight so that would be really fun to see the difference. Would really help to have a quick way to light the whole house up, and though I am somewhat annoyed by over “smartification” of certain things, this would be an area that would be super useful.
Handgun would be simple, mid range collateral damage, and low for accuracy.
Sigh. Discussions about firearm choice for self-defense is as contentious and pointless and subjective as is the discussion about portfolio selection.
Everything you wrote is correct, but…
There is lots of consistent data ( NYC police over the years, and FBI ) showing that police miss 70% of the time at a 7 foot distance ( from memory, my numbers may be off ). However, what’s missing from that data is an indication of how many people were struck. In other words, they may miss with 7 shots, but if they fire 10 shots and hit with 3, they have hit the target 100% of the time.
I have never seen similar data for the use of a shotgun in the home, so we can’t compare. But my point there is that having an 8 or 12 inch spray of shotgun pellets does mean you only have to aim within 8 inches of the target, but it doesn’t mean that you can just point in the general direction of the target and expect to hit it. You still have to aim and use the sights. And because the shotgun has so much recoil, even with a 20 g. semi-auto ( and you are absolutely correct, a 20 guage is probably better for home defense due to lower recoil ) it will take you a relatively long time to find your target again, aim, and get off your second shot. You could fire more rounds with the handgun and miss more often and still hit your target more often and with more precision, and be less likely to hit an unintended target.
If you weigh less, the perceived recoil will be greater. This will make a shotgun a less than ideal choice for most women.
Adding a green laser to a handgun does amazing things for accuracy at the range. I go from 5 or 6 inch groups at 17 yards to 1 inch. How that works out at night in my house is unknown, and I hope it remains so.
But an issue of great concern to the police is handgun retention, an example of which we saw in the video linked by WCI above, in radiology. Retention is more difficult with a long gun indoors. As you clear a room and/or turn a corner, your barrel will be seen before you see them, and they can get control of the end of the barrel. At that point you are worse off than without a gun. How often is this a problem in real life incidents? I have no idea.
I look at a gun as insurance, and like term life insurance, while many may agree that we should have it, we disagree about how much, how long the term, laddering, spousal insurance etc. We each have our opinion, and no one knows what the right answer should be. And just like guns for self defense, few of us will ever need to put our insurance to the test. So neither subject is something that I can get worked up about. I’m just offering my considered but highly subjective opinion. I used to tell my patients that if there’s more than one way to treat a problem, it’s because all the options are good, or perhaps because none is. But if one were clearly better, then everyone would recommend it. The same goes for firearm selection. To each his own.
Over penetration of rounds is certainly a consideration, and a big one. ( An 80’s year old friend of ours was coming out of the shower in her home in Oakland when she heard her door being broken down. She ran for the phone and was talking to 911 when they burst in and shot her in the arm. It took out her ulnar nerve just below the axilla, which was unfortunate because playing the piano was her major avocation. The police found that one of the bullets had gone through her wall, across her yard, through a fence, and lodged in the neighbor’s wall.) But 00 buck shotgun pellets are the size of a .38 bullet, and easily go through drywall, and slugs have reportedly gone through engine blocks, so even with a shotgun, ammunition choice needs to be considered. If you choose handgun ammunition with penetration in mind, then that problem will be successfully mitigated.
For those that think firearms are only for killing: I have a shotgun that I have never shot (family heirloom); perhaps I should get rid of that along with my great grandma’s toothpick holder which I also don’t use. I have a pistol that I commissioned to basically become a work of art. I have another shotgun whose sole purpose in life is to turn little discs of clay into little clouds of clay-dust. In college, I had a rifle whose sole purpose in life was to put little holes in the center of a piece of paper. Could I use these for homicide or suicide? I suppose, but my fancy kitchen knife is probably more likely.
You ever tried to hit a clay with a knife? Seriously. This is a sport. It’s in the Olympics.
Handgun would be simple, mid range collateral damage, and low for accuracy.
Leave a comment: