Buying A Gun

[skeneegee]

A Remington 870 is a great, affordable shotgun. I've been shooting clay pigeons with my coworkers for a few months with this shotgun and am very happy with how fun it is. It isn't too hard at all to get dialed in.

Good luck with your venture, be safe and have fun!

[grossaffe]

having a regular shotgun is fine, posessing a sawn off shotgun that is lss than 26" is not. because its concealable and doesnt have any real use as a weapon other than to conceal or use in a place where a regular shotgun may be difficult such as in a house or vehicle.

that's kinda the point, isn't it? protection against home-invasion?

[HBN]

You want a fun gun to shoot? Large-bore 5/8ths sawnoff (Meaning there's still five-eights of the barrel left.)

keep in mind if the length of the barrel is less than 18 inches from breech to barrel tip or if the overall length of the gun is less than 26 inches that is illegal to own in most (if not all) states! one of my dads friends has a sawed off 410 double barrel pistol, very cool but also probably very illegal

I'm curious as to the reasoning behind that. What makes sawed-offs illegal? they're better for home protection since you don't have to work the long barrel around walls.

Spread much farther, much greater chance innocents will get hurt.

That's why you use slugs, rather than shot. But yeah, it is a bit illegal. That's why I said make it a 5/8ths sawnoff. Usually - depending on the barrel length to begin with - that will leave you with a "barely legal" gun. But still legal. But, if all its for is fun and you don't take it off your property, it can be as illegal as you want. Just keep it on your own property.

Personally, I don't see any problem with killing them so long as you use the entire animal and don't waste it.

That's hunting for a reason other than sport. Mostly, sport hunting is simply to hang a dead animal's head on your wall. Most of the time (Says a reliable source I know who hunts a lot) other than the mount, the animal is pretty much wasted. Some people in the taxidermy trade will sell the leftovers to people for their animals (Particularly dogs), but not enough to say that all of the animals are "used". If you use the entire animal, either for your own food, or for a dog or large pet cat (Or other large carnivore), I wouldn't call you a sport hunter.

The guy who lives next door to me is the worst kind of sport hunter, literally spending thousands of dollars (US) a year to go out and shoot, and brings NOTHING back. Not a trophy, or meat. Nothing at all. He just shoots the animal, and leaves it there to rot. To me, that's sickening.

[Triton]

that's kinda the point, isn't it? protection against home-invasion?

if you need to protect against home invasion then get a pistol of some sort and learn how to shoot it, your less likely to damage or destroy your surroundings or accidentally kill the person instead of just disabling them as well. sawn off shotguns are generally held to be used by criminals and sometimes carried by truckers because of its size and maneuverability for defense on the road and i think under certian circumstances you can get a proper license for one

[vskid]

That's hunting for a reason other than sport. Mostly, sport hunting is simply to hang a dead animal's head on your wall. Most of the time (Says a reliable source I know who hunts a lot) other than the mount, the animal is pretty much wasted. Some people in the taxidermy trade will sell the leftovers to people for their animals (Particularly dogs), but not enough to say that all of the animals are "used". If you use the entire animal, either for your own food, or for a dog or large pet cat (Or other large carnivore), I wouldn't call you a sport hunter.

I believe that some (most?) hunting ranches will sell the meat if the shooter just wants the trophy. My dad's cousin went on a hunting trip to Africa. He said that the ranch would sell the meat in the local village, so in some ways the people that hunt on those ranches are helping to feed the people. So while the shooter is being wasteful, the ranch owners know that theres more money to be made.

that's kinda the point, isn't it? protection against home-invasion?

if you need to protect against home invasion then get a pistol of some sort and learn how to shoot it, your less likely to damage or destroy your surroundings or accidentally kill the person instead of just disabling them as well.

There is no such thing as shooting to wound. If you shoot something, you are willing to destroy it. You can go for the less vital areas if you can, but you still have to be willing to accept that they could die.

[Triton]

There is no such thing as shooting to wound. If you shoot something, you are willing to destroy it. You can go for the less vital areas if you can, but you still have to be willing to accept that they could die.

its all about minimizing risk. your more likely to kill somebody shooting them at close range with a sawn off shotgun because of the spread pattern and power of a shell of buckshot or a slug. a pistol, if you know how to properly operate them, are much less likely to kill the person unless your aiming for a vital spot (head, torso) especially if its a smaller caliber round (.22, .25, .38 )

[grossaffe]

that's kinda the point, isn't it? protection against home-invasion?

if you need to protect against home invasion then get a pistol of some sort and learn how to shoot it, your less likely to damage or destroy your surroundings or accidentally kill the person instead of just disabling them as well. sawn off shotguns are generally held to be used by criminals and sometimes carried by truckers because of its size and maneuverability for defense on the road and i think under certian circumstances you can get a proper license for one

I believe a shotgun is less likely to cause collateral damage because the shot will not go through your target like a slug or a bullet will.

[Triton]

you would have to be nearly point blank for the spread to be concentrated on the target (under 10 foot probably) and at that range its more than likely to be fatal. most pistol rounds are low enough velocity to be stopped in the body the exceptions being any high power rounds (7.62x25, .357 magnum, anything magnum rounds and anything above .45 calibre) and if your using a high power hunting rifle for home defense your just not too bright.

[grossaffe]

you would have to be nearly point blank for the spread to be concentrated on the target (under 10 foot probably) and at that range its more than likely to be fatal. most pistol rounds are low enough velocity to be stopped in the body the exceptions being any high power rounds (7.62x25, .357 magnum, anything magnum rounds and anything above .45 calibre) and if your using a high power hunting rifle for home defense your just not too bright.

If the bastard is invading my home, the least of my concerns should be his life.

[Triton]

unless the state you live in has a "castle doctrine" law you can still be held accountable if you kill a person invading your home. generally self defense laws hold up

The general criminal law allows for the use of necessary and proportionate, non-deadly force in self-defense anytime the victim reasonably believes that unlawful force is about to be used on him. While the statutes defining the legitimate use of force in defense of a person vary from state to state, the general rule makes an important distinction between the use of physical force and deadly physical force. A person may use physical force to prevent imminent physical injury, however a person may not use deadly physical force unless that person is in reasonable fear of serious physical injury or death.

weather or not you can legally kill somebody who is breaking in to your home does NOT mean you should. only in cases where there is a distinct definite possibility of grievous bodily harm or death should you ever even consider taking the life of another human being.

also

Many countries agree that it may be lawful for a citizen to repel violence with violence to protect his or her own or another's life and limb, or to prevent sexual assault. However, there is less agreement on the extent to which it is ever justifiable to kill the attacker. There are usually tests based on the proportionality of the response to the attack. Thus, there may be exculpation if the level of force used in defense matches the force threatened and the "winner" of the conflict first retreated or showed a clear intention not to fight (assuming this was possible in the time available).

[vskid]

The general criminal law allows for the use of necessary and proportionate, non-deadly force in self-defense anytime the victim reasonably believes that unlawful force is about to be used on him. While the statutes defining the legitimate use of force in defense of a person vary from state to state, the general rule makes an important distinction between the use of physical force and deadly physical force. A person may use physical force to prevent imminent physical injury, however a person may not use deadly physical force unless that person is in reasonable fear of serious physical injury or death.

Any use of a gun is deadly force, whether its a .22 handgun or a 12 gauge shotgun, its still deadly force. So if you're gonna take the risk of using deadly force, you might as well make good use of it.

[Triton]

thats like saying because your a blackbelt in karate you should just kill anybody who trys to fight you instead of disabling them or just not fighting. or that you should just hit somebody with your car instead of trying to avoid an accident because, by god, its designed to survive crashes or something. that kind of thinking is just stupid and irresponsible. just because you CAN kill somebody with a gun doesnt mean you SHOULD. except for situations where you or a loved one are at severe risk of being killed should you EVER consider taking the life of another human being.

[vskid]

just because you CAN kill somebody with a gun doesnt mean you SHOULD. except for situations where you or a loved one are at severe risk of being killed should you EVER consider taking the life of another human being.

I never talked about whether or not you should use a gun. I was saying that IF you use a gun, it'll almost for sure be called deadly force, thus it should not be used to wound, as it could easily kill. Of course you shouldn't shoot someone who's taking an old lady's purse, hand-to-hand should always be the first choice. But if he has a gun to the lady's head, then use of a gun should be considered.
Guns are not to wound, they are to kill. Guns should not be used if you don't want to kill someone. Their ability to kill makes it far to risky to use them to wound. You can try to go for less vitals, but only in a situation where you'd be justified in killing them.

[Triton]

thus it should not be used to wound, as it could easily kill.

thats like saying you shouldn't drive the speed limit because your car CAN go faster. yes there is always a risk of killing somebody if you are shooting them. its a given that you shouldnt shoot somebody unless you feel the possibility of killing them is an acceptable risk. that DOES NOT mean that you should just shoot to kill anyway!

[vskid]

thus it should not be used to wound, as it could easily kill.

thats like saying you shouldn't drive the speed limit because your car CAN go faster. yes there is always a risk of killing somebody if you are shooting them. its a given that you shouldnt shoot somebody unless you feel the possibility of killing them is an acceptable risk. that DOES NOT mean that you should just shoot to kill anyway!

I said you should try to go for less vital areas, but you shouldn't think "I'm shooting at their leg, they won't die so its ok". If I'm in a situation where I feel that I have to shoot to defend myself, its going to be a kill shot because its going to be an extreme situation.