Posted on 03/28/2010 2:44:45 PM PDT by olepap
{:0)
THE ONLY time a firearm should be used against another human being is if “deadly force” is justified!
Bringing a firearm into a confrontation of any kind is either an acknowledgment of a deadly force situation or an escalation of a situation into a deadly force encounter. It does not matter what ammunition is contained in the firearm!
One has to understand if deadly force is justified or not, based on the local laws. Any use of a deadly force, when it is not justified is a sever crime. Anyone who has a firearm that they intend to use for self defense needs to understand the above based on the laws of where they live and intend to protect themselves with a firearm.
If deadly force is required, one wants appropriately chosen ammunition that will KILL! Anything else is just plane stupid. In simple language if you are in a life an death situation, then you “shoot to live.” You kill the other person because you had not choice or alternative action to avoid such a situation except to die or be badly injured.
If deadly force is not required, then a firearm in not needed and should not be displayed in any kind of a threatening manner. (If a fire arm is displayed in a non deadly force situation in some places that may called brandishing a weapon and may (or may not) be a crime. ) Even in open carry states, one needs to be careful to stay legal. Many police that oppose open carry have tried to use the brandishing/intimidation argument to prevent open carry with a variety of success.
Therefore, in the logic of our legal system, loading any type of special ammunition such as rock salt, black-eyed peas, rice, or rubber bullets is only likely to get one arrested for using deadly force, when it is OBVIOUSLY not warranted. Consider this a potential catch-22, unless you have a sympathetic investigating police officer or DA.
Rather than trying to figure out “less lethal loads”, people would be better served to learn the specific firearm laws of their jurisdiction.
Shooting for the purpose of revenge is also not usually justified by the courts. Shooting for the purpose of preserving life or preventing grave bodily indjury is often (but not always) justified by juries.
When I was a kid, some guy used to shoot at us with rock salt if went on is property, never actually got hit, but the rumor was he would shoot ya, rumor also was the cops would do nothing about it, just stay off his property. Greenbelt, Md 1975-78ish
I agree. Only one reason to point a firearm at someone, to kill them dead. Period.
I assure you both, #7.5 or #8 shot is perfectly fine for a defense load. In your residence, take a look around and see what might be the maximum shot distance you have. Unless you have an extraordinarily open floorplan, you are likely looking at the maximum range to an attacker being around 20 feet. Regadless of the load, at 20 feet a 12 gauge round will hit a human as essentially a solid mass of lead.
Penetration is a concern for many people that actually have to fire the weapon, especially those with families. You should always be concerned with what’s on the other side of the bad guy.
Those who doubt this should go to the range and, if practical, place a heavy coat, several t-shirts, and some ballistics gel at seven yards (21 feet). You might get laughed at as you’ll be aiming your shotgun at something that’s extremely close. Fire the weapon and check both the dispersion and the penetration on the ballistics gel. If you like, measure the width of a human from the side. See what you think.
This argument is way older than the web itself, but it’s been argued ad nauseam since its inception. I can assure you of that.
Fine by me - I vote for red. 00 buck it is.
WHAT HE SAID!!!
(well done)
Damn fine song written by Jason Isbell. Just saw him last Wednesday in an acoustic show in Atlanta.
Never Gonna Change is my favorite Isbell song when he was with the DBT’s.
The dimes weren’t as effective as I would have thought,I suppose those wood loads we keep around in case of vampire attack are no good either!
I gotta add this one, the Cheney Shotgun Experiment...
http://www.myscienceproject.org/shooting.html
Vampires are what bows are for. Make sure you use wood shafts, the ‘glass and carbon ones don’t work.
and don’t call me shirley
Ouch!! Remind me not to cross you!
He wrote some really good stuff with DBT. I was sad he left even though Patterson Hood and Mike Cooley are very good writers too.
Ballistics gel is actually fairly expensive, especially if you were just going to use it to test this out. There are a ton of resources online about this (for example, the Box ‘o Truth http://www.theboxotruth.com). Another site has some good real-world information here: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=381023.
It’s interesting to note that many of the posts seem to think that’s inadequate. If you ask me, 5.5” of penetration and what looks like at least 2” entry wound is going to stop any human on this planet. People always like to bring up the example of a mythical fat guy wearing a gigantic heavy jacket, but I don’t think that’s going to have much of an effect. The pellets do their damage both by entering the attacker and by bouncing; those that do not break bones will often bounce (doing even more damage). As many posts around will tell you, birdshot can definitely be fatal and buckshot can be less than lethal. While there is no doubt that buckshot is more damaging, for things like price, availability, and safety, I believe birdshot is the better option.
I will note that many objections are based on the FBI’s rather odd recommendation of at least 12 inches of penetration (and preferably 18) for a particular round or shell. In the vast majority of cases, 12 inches of penetration will put the projectile squarely through the bad guy and out the other side.
Still, in any case, it’s relatively cheap to take a thawed ham or chicken out to the range, toss some layers of clothing or an old jacket on it, and see what happens at various distances. I have never heard of a single person who was shot with birdshot and continued what they were doing before. Some might live, but I’m pretty sure it ruined their day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
