Shotgun for Home Defense a Poor Option?

[Krampus]

What are you views on shotguns for home defense? Here's some cons to think about and debate:

A) Shotgun spread with 18-20" barrel is about the size of your hand at 15-20 feet, not the blanket spread most people believe.

B)Shotguns can easily be taken away by someone else due to leverage. You're particularly susceptible to this in hallways, door ways or other confined area's of your home. Even with the pistol grip option and the short 18.5" barrel your maneuverability is limited.

C)Particularly the .410 is a very poor choice for a home defense shotgun. It's almost like shooting a .44 Mag with snake shot. If you're going to get a shotgun for home defense at least get a 20 or 12 gauge.

D)Follow up shots are slow(this just applies to pump shotguns)

E)Risk of short cycling the action under stress

[Ewergrin]

I think Shotguns are exemplery for home defence. There are a wide variety of non lethal type shots for shot-guns readily available to the public, and unless your assailant is high on PCP, or just plain unhuman, a non-lethal round such as a bean bag type (there are many many different varities, all of which get the job done) is perfect, since you won't be liable for killing some scumbag.
Of course, as Phlegethon will tell you, another great means of protection is to be learned in some form of martial arts and there many other types of non firing weapons, such as batons and what not (Phlegethon can fill in the details) that are great for home use as well. Also, property damage and risk of innocent bystander injury is reduced almost to a negotiable amount.

[Tryggvi]

B)Shotguns can easily be taken away by someone else due to leverage.

Not only shotguns. All weapons are constantly taken away from the defenders, rendering them helpless.

:dots

[Milesian]

I am concerned however that with making guns freely available to everyone, this inevitably includes all the nutcases going about as well.
Tommy Hamilton (who went into a school in Dunblane and shot dozens of kids) managed to slip through the net (through his contacts being a Freemason). But how many more have failed to procure guns and repeat such tragedies due to gun controls?

There is an argument which states that criminals will procure weapons illegaly anyway. However, what about people who are just insane, who would never be accepted for a gun license in a place like Britain? If they were available to anyone, then what's to stop them arming themselves to the teeth and going on the rampage?

It reminds me of tales about certain foreign paramilitaries in America.
They would just find a sympathiser with a driving license (for age verification) and then happily go about buying assault rifles all day, before smuggling them back out the country

There are obviously pro's and con's to both arguments, I just wonder if the price to pay for making guns freely available is worth it?

[Gladstone]

I am concerned however that with making guns freely available to everyone, this inevitably includes all the nutcases going about as well.
Tommy Hamilton (who went into a school in Dunblane and shot dozens of kids) managed to slip through the net (through his contacts being a Freemason). But how many more have failed to procure guns and repeat such tragedies due to gun controls?

There is an argument which states that criminals will procure weapons illegaly anyway. However, what about people who are just insane, who would never be accepted for a gun license in a place like Britain? If they were available to anyone, then what's to stop them arming themselves to the teeth and going on the rampage?

It reminds me of tales about certain foreign paramilitaries in America.
They would just find a sympathiser with a driving license (for age verification) and then happily go about buying assault rifles all day, before smuggling them back out the country

There are obviously pro's and con's to both arguments, I just wonder if the price to pay for making guns freely available is worth it?

Here in the states it is illegal for someone insane to buy a gun...of course they can lie on the form.

In practice in many states, while you may own a gun....it's illegal to take it out of your home (except for target practice and hunting weapons). Some states do have concealed carry as my state does (convicts consistently report this is their number one fear, an armed private citizen) The purpose primarily for the Americans right to bear arms was should the government get out of hand, people could wrest it back, not crime concerns; this was specifically written about by our Founding Fathers. They had had the unpleasant experience of fighting England with insufficent arms at least initially; am sure you can relate.

[Milesian]

Here in the states it is illegal for someone insane to buy a gun...of course they can lie on the form.

In practice in many states, while you may own a gun....it's illegal to take it out of your home (except for target practice and hunting weapons). Some states do have concealed carry as my state does (convicts consistently report this is their number one fear, an armed private citizen) The purpose primarily for the Americans right to bear arms was should the government get out of hand, people could wrest it back, not crime concerns; this was specifically written about by our Founding Fathers. They had had the unpleasant experience of fighting England with insufficent arms at least initially; am sure you can relate.

Of course I can relate to that

Still, I think it was Phlegethon who brought up the point that facing a modern military (armed with bombers, ground strike aircraft, helicopter gunships, guided missles, etc,) - is owning an AK47 really going to be effective.
Of course the right to own armoured tanks and SAM missles might even up the odds slightly

[Gladstone]

Still, I think it was Phlegethon who brought up the point that facing a modern military (armed with bombers, ground strike aircraft, helicopter gunships, guided missles, etc,) - is owning an AK47 really going to be effective.

The Iraqis certainly are having an effect fighting the Coalition...with Ak-47's (and other assorted non-armored weapons).

Of course the right to own armoured tanks and SAM missles might even up the odds slightly

I was reading an old US magazine (from 1960) and was surprised to see an article where it showed private citizens practicing with a mortor, they even had a photo and everything ; the article was against people having that right. Mortor grabbers!!

[Milesian]

I was reading an old US magazine (from 1960) and was surprised to see an article where it showed private citizens practicing with a mortor, they even had a photo and everything ; the article was against people having that right. Mortor grabbers!!

Yes, the people in South Armagh are particulary adept at creating home-made mortars

To be honest, I can't see a country's army carrying out a miltary campaign against it's own citizens. I doubt many GI's would be willing to go to war against their own families. I think the government can only maintain itself through non-violent means (ie. brainwashing through Mass Media, maintaining apathy and fear of speaking out, etc)

I think they would avoid a military engagement with it's own citizens as that would likely result in revolution and overthow of the government, and they want to avoid that at all costs. Therefore, I personally can't envisage such a situation and consequently the need for guns to be freely available.

Still, I'm not cemented in my position

[Gladstone]

To be honest, I can't see a country's army carrying out a miltary campaign against it's own citizens. I doubt many GI's would be willing to go to war against their own families. I think the government can only maintain itself through non-violent means (ie. brainwashing through Mass Media, maintaining apathy and fear of speaking out, etc)

I think they would avoid a military engagement with it's own citizens as that would likely result in revolution and overthow of the government, and they want to avoid that at all costs. Therefore, I personally can't envisage such a situation and consequently the need for guns to be freely available.

I think the multi-cult would prefer to achieve it's aims without the use of militarys and rely primarily on brainwashing. However, I think deceit and fraud can only go so far and that in certain countries it would be necessary for the cult to utilize military forces for the final push. There are many people aware of what's taking place (more need to be aware to be sure) and at a certain point it might be necessary for people to act to stop what's taking place, and preserve Europeon peoples. The multi-cult may try to preempt something like that with military action of their own.

With the massive numbers of non-citizens joing the US military it's not necessarily that inconceivable; a large percentage of the US military is foreign born and non-Europeon, over 10% (probably more). The foreign born would have no qualms about firing on US citizens, specially as the multi-cult teaches them Europeon ancestried people are out to do them harm. Too, they could simply import troops from foreign lands ..ie a UN action to quell "ethnic disturbances"; Yugoslavia set a precedent.

[Saoirse]

I want to get a black, 9 shot mossberg shotgun.