Buying a Gun for Home Protection

carguy123 wrote: Paintball gun loaded with marbles!! Won't penetrate the walls into the kids room and gives you hundreds of shots!! I've run people off from the house a couple of times that way. None further inside than the garage.

I really like that idea. I do have a handgun for the house but I may start looking at CraigsList for a paintball gun. Thanks

(edited for spelling fail)

If anyone shoots me with my own gun, he will have to bring his own ammo. Because my gun will damn sure be empty. And he better be bulletproof.

This isn't meant as a direct against the OP or anyone else, just an observation I made once.

A was hanging out with a friend once and he wanted to show me the new glock he'd gotten 'for home protection'. Now, I know almost nothing about guns, and what little I do know I learned by watching the A-Team ... but it was obvious that my friend was using the 'home defense' issue to rationalize buying a gun he wanted because he had done NOTHING else to secure his home.

He had almost no outside lighting. His house had a screen door that was never locked, and a generic foam core exterior door with a weak deadbolt. A good portion of the back ground floor wall was sliding glass doors to a patio ... I could go on and on about what little he was really doing to secure his house, but I was drinking his beer at the time so I didn't.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that a gun can be part of a home defense strategy, but may not be the best place to start.

racinginc215 wrote: who said that? do I have your NRA panties in a bundle? So what you are saying is you can kill at will? you've seen it done on TV and Movies it must be easy to take a life. I'm glad you have that moral flexibility. you should make a fine serial killer or robber.

A.) I'm not an NRA member.

2.) Only the wife wears panties.

iii.) to ASSume that you are the only person in the world that could ever handle any situation such as home defense is ASSinine. Then to belittle others for pointing it out just reinforces what we already ASSumed.

Look, you CHOOSE to pick up a weapon to defend yourself, your family or your home and you need to understand the consequences. You need to make that decision that you will follow through from the beginning or expect to be the victim. Does that mean that everyone has to kill people to understand that? Nope. Does that mean that everyone who's encountered intruders at night while they were armed had to kill them? Nope.

I can't tell you that I know exactly what I will do if I am ever faced with life/death situation. I can tell you that I will likely HAVE THE CHANCE to make an impact on that decision by being able to defend myself and my family. I can also tell you that I would like to think I would "go down swingin' " doing all that I can to come out on top. Would I? No way to know. But I am not going to sit here and spout bullE36 M3 because I feel like I am the only one that can handle the situation.

racinginc215 wrote: having an empty gun for protection is like having a having a car without an engine.

You really are stretching aren't you?

racinginc215 wrote: having an empty gun for protection is like having a having a car without an engine.

I think he meant empty as in he used up all the ammoz.

Joey

racinginc215 wrote: Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found. It would be impractical – not to say unethical – to randomly assign volunteers to carry a gun or not and see what happens. So Charles Branas's team at the University of Pennsylvania analysed 677 shootings over two-and-a-half years to discover whether victims were carrying at the time, and compared them to other Philly residents of similar age, sex and ethnicity. The team also accounted for other potentially confounding differences, such as the socioeconomic status of their neighbourhood. Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings. Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher. While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't, Branas speculates. Supporters of the Second Amendment shouldn't worry that the right to bear arms is under threat, however. "We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous," Branas says. "This study is a beginning."

And what does people carrying weapions have to do with home protection? Or are you just on your anti-gun rant now?

2 things with this article: They do not mention if the people carrying are LEGALLY LISCENED to carry or not. They also do not seperate out those that were committing a crime at the time. Basically, this "study" is nothing but guesses.

That's right... because only you can have them for protection and handle them. Got it.

racinginc215 wrote: having an empty gun for protection is like having a having a car without an engine.

I believe he meant that his gun was going to be empty by the time anyone was close enough to take it from him.

"As a man" I like to be prepared.

Let me reiterate.... where I live, police response time is 10-15 minutes because we are rural. the police are the people that come in after it's over and write the reports over what happened. There are not nice people in this world. I have two dogs to alert/slow down an ne'er do well, and a nice shotgun or .45 to stop them. I don't EVER want to use them for anything more than killing skunks (we have 3 nests now on our 2 acre plot fml) and shooting holes in paper. But I know that IF I need them, they are there.

racinginc215 wrote: raise your hand if you've actually every killed anyone with a gun and not been in a combat zone or in the military. Did anyone's hand besides mine go up?

who did you kill and what were the circumstances?

The weapons I have for home protection are a Remington 870 Tactical 12 gauge with an 18.5" barrel and 7 rnd mag. I also have a Desert Eagle Baby Eagle .40 S&W.

The 870 has a very loud action and is a damn near indestructable weapon. It's loaded with #7 steel shot. The .40 S&W was chosen due to it's low recoil, high capacity (13 rnds) and weight. That's right, it's a heavy piece. That not only helps the recoil, but if I ever am in a situation where I'm out of bullets, I can beat someone to death. LOL

Another choice would be a Taurus Judge. They're calibered in the .45 Long Colt/.410 shotgun. Get the 3" mag cylinder. Very low recoil, very compact (as compared to a shotgun), and will have the spread you'd like for a home defense weapon. There's even special ammo out for the .410 for home defense.

I actually had some ammo for my .40 that was home defense ammo. I lived in an apartment and didn't want to fire at someone and kill my 4 neighbors. The round basically consisted of the copper hollowpoint jacket filled with small bb's and epoxy. The idea was, the jacket stopped in any soft tissue or wall materials and deposited all it's energy in the form of fragmenting the bb/epoxy mix.

Anyway, whatever you choose, take it to the range and get well acquainted with the weapon. Practice, practice, practice.

bravenrace wrote: So nobody should buy a gun for home protection?

I think what he was leaning towards is owning the gun won't make you protected.

knowing how to use it will more than having it.

But the larger issue you must seriously ask yourself; are you prepared for the consequences that go with using lethal force to defend yourself?

Most people who touch a gun non-professionally never ask themselves that question leaving them woefully unprepared.

Drewsifer wrote: Also, avoid gimmicks like pistol grips on shotguns and people who advocate point shooting. Do some research, learn how to fire a weapon properly, and if possible try out a few of the options available to you.

How is it a gimmick? It's for close quarters. A folding stock would be better, like the one on my AK, but I'm still effective the my pistol grip shotgun and I have put a lot of rounds through it.

Well, this thread WAS relevant to my interests...

madmallard wrote: Most people who touch a gun non-professionally never ask themselves that question leaving them woefully unprepared.

This. I was taught at a very early age that once you pull that trigger, nothing in the world will bring that bullet back into the barrel. So don't pull it, don't point it unless whatever you are pointing it at you are willing to kill.

It's not something I take lightly.

Cotton wrote:

Drewsifer wrote: Also, avoid gimmicks like pistol grips on shotguns and people who advocate point shooting. Do some research, learn how to fire a weapon properly, and if possible try out a few of the options available to you.

How is it a gimmick? It's for close quarters. A folding stock would be better, like the one on my AK, but I'm still effective the my pistol grip shotgun and I have put a lot of rounds through it.

For me, it's almost impossible to control the back of the shotgun with a pistol grip. 1" of motion at the grip means a foot or more at 10 feet of muzzle shift. I'm not comfortable with it. I can clear the house very easily with my 19" bbl and full buttstock.

racinginc215 wrote: "We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous," Branas says. "This study is a beginning."

And yet you, and Branas, draw all kinds of conclusions and innuendos to twist a likely bad study to make an anti-self defense, disarm the peasants point.

I'm sorry you had to shoot someone. That sucks, and I understand your frustration and your desire to not have other people go through what you went through. However, would you rather be dead now? Or would you rather your family be dead? I assume that was why you shot whoever it was.

I'm also glad you moved out of that situation.

So, is it better for the original poster to be dead? I think he needs to make that decision, and it sounds like he is. Anyway, to the OP, there are those who say shotgun and those who say handgun. A shotgun may be safer for you, but a handgun, being more maneuverable (think Miata v. F150) may be more dangerous for anyone in close to you, which is probably what you want to deal with. Either can be loaded with ammo that won't penetrate walls, if that is a concern.

Regardless, gun ownership is a tremendous responsibility and not to be taken lightly. Practice safe handling, operation, etc. as mentioned, is paramount. Some very wise people, now long passed, made sure YOU have a right to gun ownership.

I recently purchased this book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/9870563457

written by a man that lived through the collapse of Argentina. He has a lot to say about actual problems, including home defense. Ayoob, of course, is a guru.

Bravenrace,

you'd probably be better served identifying things that make your property a target, and making approaching your house as inconvenient to a criminal as possible.

Bobzilla wrote:

Cotton wrote:

Drewsifer wrote: Also, avoid gimmicks like pistol grips on shotguns and people who advocate point shooting. Do some research, learn how to fire a weapon properly, and if possible try out a few of the options available to you.

How is it a gimmick? It's for close quarters. A folding stock would be better, like the one on my AK, but I'm still effective the my pistol grip shotgun and I have put a lot of rounds through it.

For me, it's almost impossible to control the back of the shotgun with a pistol grip. 1" of motion at the grip means a foot or more at 10 feet of muzzle shift. I'm not comfortable with it. I can clear the house very easily with my 19" bbl and full buttstock.

I guess I'm just used to it. I basically have an outdoor range at my house, so can run through all kinds of...uh interesting....senarios that might not be allowed at most ranges. Pistol grips have there place. If I'm moving through my house I want mobility and stopping power...period. I've tried it with a pistol, rifle, shotgun, and pistol grip shotgun and in the end I prefer the pistol grip 12 gauge with a backup pistol.

My house is also very open style of a floor plan and we installed 36" doors throughout the house. So a short shotty with fixed stock works very well. In our old house, my 1911 was my first choice as it was tighter, harder to get through.

I'll say the same thing I always tell people looking at firearms: "Look at them all, shoot as many as you can and find the one YOU are most comfortable with. What works for me may be 100% wrong for you. Remember that you're buying this for YOU, not someone else."

Bobzilla wrote:

Cotton wrote:

Drewsifer wrote: Also, avoid gimmicks like pistol grips on shotguns and people who advocate point shooting. Do some research, learn how to fire a weapon properly, and if possible try out a few of the options available to you.

How is it a gimmick? It's for close quarters. A folding stock would be better, like the one on my AK, but I'm still effective the my pistol grip shotgun and I have put a lot of rounds through it.

For me, it's almost impossible to control the back of the shotgun with a pistol grip. 1" of motion at the grip means a foot or more at 10 feet of muzzle shift. I'm not comfortable with it. I can clear the house very easily with my 19" bbl and full buttstock.

I tried one of those ball, gangsta type pistol grips, beat the livin' crap outta my palm. A good conventional style pistol grip folder was comfortable firing folded or full, best of both worlds.

Bobzilla wrote: My house is also very open style of a floor plan and we installed 36" doors throughout the house. So a short shotty with fixed stock works very well. In our old house, my 1911 was my first choice as it was tighter, harder to get through. I'll say the same thing I always tell people looking at firearms: "Look at them all, shoot as many as you can and find the one YOU are most comfortable with. What works for me may be 100% wrong for you. Remember that you're buying this for YOU, not someone else."

I agree. Every situation, person, and home is different.

Bobzilla wrote: I'll say the same thing I always tell people looking at firearms: "Look at them all, shoot as many as you can and find the one YOU are most comfortable with. What works for me may be 100% wrong for you. Remember that you're buying this for YOU, not someone else."

Yeah, that.

I was looking at the Walther P99 .40 S&W and grabbed the Baby Eagle, just to give it a feel. Had them both in my hands, messed around with both, ended up leaving with the Baby Eagle.

Bingo. Too bad our gov't can't understand that one solution doesn't work for everyone.

For pistols, J-frames and 1911's are what fit my hands like a glove. My best friend hates them both and loves his Beretta's (Cougar .45 and 92FS) which I like, but wouldn't carry.