Buyng a Gun

[Professor S]

I'm purchasing a home defense weapon in the near future. I've owned guns before, but they were only a .22 rifle and a 30/6 hunting rifle, both of which not ideal for home defense. I'm looking for something that doesn't involve much aiming or thinking beyond turning the safety off and zero chance of misfire/jamming.

So far I've broken it down to these:

Mossberg 590A1 - These have been banging down doors in the Middle East for a decade. Easy to use, reliable and powerful. Con - Big and might be hard to maneuver and store. Plus - Plenty of accessories, like attachable flashlights, which are perfect for late night home defense.




Taurus "The Judge" .45/.410 pistol



The benefit of this weapon is that it fires either .45 caliber rounds, a proven man-stopper, or .410 shotgun shells with a wide area of affect. Con - The .410 shells don't have much stopping power, but after the first disorienting and very painful .410 round each subsequent chamber can be loaded with .45. The .410 gives you time to aim the .45 if necessary. Plus - Its small and very versatile.


SAIGA 12 Shotgun



Well... just %$&@ing look at it! It even looks like it might kill you by looking at its picture.

J/K - I'm really between the Mossberg and the Taurus. My hope is that I'll never have to touch either one I choose, beyond maintenance and learning how to operate it properly.

[Vampyr]

I would go for the Taurus.

The shotgun seems as likely to damage your own property as it is the intruder.

[Ginkasa]

Did something happen to cause you to want a crazy hardcore shotgun, or did just think "Well, you never know?"

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Ginkasa

Did something happen to cause you to want a crazy hardcore shotgun, or did just think "Well, you never know?"

I'm not interested in the Mossberg because its "crazy hardcore", but only because its rated as very reliable and easy to use. I'm also interested in the version without the stock and the standard Mossberg 500 depending on cost (the 500 is only about $200). I just thought if I'm going to get a shotgun for home defense I might as well get the one that will liquefy a man's torso if the need arises.

The idea is that I'm not going to have time to think or even really aim. My blood pressure will be through the roof with adrenaline pumping, and I want to know that if I pull the trigger the intruder is 1) going to get hit and 2) is not going to need a second round.

As for the need for this, I think the fact I'm having a kid has made me bite the bullet on buying a home-defense weapon. I first got the itch when I got married, but now with a kid on the way there is just so much to lose if some scumbag invades my home.

[Teuthida]

It's the whole torso liquefying thing that bothers me. Checked out a video for the Taurus. Ouch. Perhaps its just me but if you really must have a gun, number one it would be used to scare someone off, and number two you shoot to injure and not kill...thus taking the time to learn how to use your killing device. Happen to know the statistics of unarmed vs armed break-ins? A shotgun to the chest of a kid trying to nick your Xbox is a bit harsh.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Teuthida

It's the whole torso liquefying thing that bothers me. Checked out a video for the Taurus. Ouch. Perhaps its just me but if you really must have a gun, number one it would be used to scare someone off, and number two you shoot to injure and not kill...thus taking the time to learn how to use your killing device. Happen to know the statistics of unarmed vs armed break-ins? A shotgun to the chest of a kid trying to nick your Xbox is a bit harsh.

No offense Teuth, but I'm going to chalk that up to you not having a family or a home of your own yet. Trust me, if you think someone has broken into your home the last thing your worried about is aiming to injure. If I have to shoot, I want that person to blow to pieces. I can't assume the intent on the intruder and anyone would be stupid to do so.

That said, the one time I thought someone broke into my house my first reaction was to first announce that I had a gun and then I told the non-existent intruder that if they left now nothing would happen. (A branch broke a window)

After I waited and didn't hear anyone leaving, I headed down stairs to check things out. I was never so scared in my life and I definitely would not have the capacity to rationally "aim to wound" regardless of training with the weapon (I am trained with guns, BTW, over 20 hours total). At the time, I felt completely helpless: "What if he has a gun?" was all I was thinking and I raced to the kitchen to grab a knife before exploring any further.

Bottom-line: If someone breaks into my house I assume they are threatening my safety and the safety of those I love. If I see someone I shoot to hit the target, and STOP the target, and I want a weapon that will make it difficult to fail at that goal.

If someone doesn't want to get shot then they shouldn't invade someone else's home. Thieves should be well aware of the risks they take.

[Typhoid]

I'm a firm believer in pacifism, and only would suggest a gun for hunting - I did however work out some math the other day - albeit no doubt incorrectly:

There is a break in in the US every 15 seconds, which after you do all of the tedious mathworking, means that everyone in the US (based on the numbers) will be broken into every 14 years.


Edit: And Maybe just because it's Canada and we don't feel we constantly need guns for every situation; someone tried to break into my dad's house and failed. Instead of buying a gun, he spent money on preventing ways people can break into the house. And to me that actually makes a lot more sense. Why buy a gun, if you can just buy alarm systems, knob-to-floor door stops or heavy duty deadbolts and latches.

Guns should be for hunting.

[Dylflon]

I agree with the Typh.

I'm pretty firmly against guns in the home. If you're doing it for protection you don't really need a shotgun.

Go for the Taurus if you have to pick, otherwise I get the impression that you kinda want to kill somebody (since shotguns tear people apart).

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

I agree with the Typh.

I'm pretty firmly against guns in the home. If you're doing it for protection you don't really need a shotgun.

Go for the Taurus if you have to pick, otherwise I get the impression that you kinda want to kill somebody (since shotguns tear people apart).

What in the world are you talking about? I want to KILL SOMEONE? Are you nuts? Did you ready anything I wrote? This is why its so hard to have a discussion with some people.

I want to PROTECT MY FAMILY. I will regret having to kill someone to do so, but I certainly will not avoid killing at all costs. The whole idea of a home defense firearm is to take out the invader as quickly and easily as possible, because the more hurdles you put in front of that goal, the more likely you are to get shot/killed by the invader.

In any case, if I hit someone with a .45 bullet, they're just as dead as they would be if I hit them with buckshot. I just have a higher chance of missing.

Going with the shotgun. This actually helped a lot!

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Professor S

No offense Teuth, but I'm going to chalk that up to you not having a family or a home of your own yet. Trust me, if you think someone has broken into your home the last thing your worried about is aiming to injure. If I have to shoot, I want that person to blow to pieces. I can't assume the intent on the intruder and anyone would be stupid to do so.

I could be wrong on this, but I think that is tricky legal ground. You have a right to defend your home against a threat, but only to a point. I can't see a jury taking kindly to a kid breaking into your house to steal beer and you blow him to pieces.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Bond

I could be wrong on this, but I think that is tricky legal ground. You have a right to defend your home against a threat, but only to a point. I can't see a jury taking kindly to a kid breaking into your house to steal beer and you blow him to pieces.

There is a "no retreat" law in PA, I believe. If someone breaks into my house, I can kill them if they do not exit the home when given the chance.

Again, I'm not talking about stalking someone through my house silently with night-vision goggles. I'm talking about giving fair warning and then if they refuse to back down, should I not assume they expect to attack me?

This is common sense.

[gekko]

Originally Posted by Professor S

There is a "no retreat" law in PA, I believe. If someone breaks into my house, I can kill them if they do not exit the home when given the chance.

Just curious how that one will look in court.

Judge: "Did you ask the intruder to leave before firing?"
You: "Of course."
Judge: "Did anyone witness you saying this?"
You: "Yep, the intruder did."

Seems hard to prove. Regardless, I'd recommend the shotgun. Your goal is not to find the best weapon to clear a house with, but find the best weapon to get an intruder to leave your house. Shotguns have a psychological factor to them like you wouldn't believe. Simply listening to a pump action shotgun (even empty) will likely be more effective than a much more dangerous weapon. And of course, if you need to shoot, it'll do its job.

[Combine 017]

I like the SAIGA, excellent in the event of a full scale zombie apocalypse.
It also looks bad ass, just needs a rifle scope.

The revolvers barrel is too short and it looks stupid.
If your going to get a revolver go all out and get the one Dirty Harry uses.

[uber_paddler]

If I had a gun it would be one like Vash the Stampede uses. Unfortunately, I don't think it's even mechanically possible.

[Fox 6]

No offense, but if you are in a situation where you are contemplating scenarios about serial rapists or home invaders coming into your home, maybe you live in a bad place in general.