Rolled Out On: 8/19/2005 12:23 PM

That's a tall order. Something fairly small but powerful enough to travel 50 yards and effectively destroy its target. Shotguns have so many loads it'll be a tough find. Good luck.

Rolled Out On: 8/19/2005 1:11 PM

Just for home defense I'd buy her a Mossberg 590 12 gauge pump shotgun with speed-feed synthetic stock, ghost ring sights, 8-shot magazine capacity, and short cylinder bore barrel. Buy low recoil home defense ammo for it and the little lady will handle it just fine.

I disagree about "the gun itself doesn't protect you" part of your post. Most criminals that hear the distinctive sound of a pump shotgun's action operating, will instantly flee the scene. Even an empty gun is far more effective than no gun at all.

Rolled Out On: 8/19/2005 2:07 PM

As the wife in this morality play, I vote for a rifle of medium calibre; I found it easy to use and at a distance of about 100 feet, I can afford to be 3" to 4" off on a body shot. Plus, it comes handy for deer season.

Shotguns are for scaring crows and pissing off neighbors; the way you have to hold a rifle pretty much precludes accidentally pointing it in the wrong direction anyway, so I don't think ricochet will be an issue, like with a handgun.

Happy hunting, er, shopping.

Rolled Out On: 8/19/2005 2:43 PM

My only issue with a rifle is that they are unweldy in close quarters. A 12gague shotgun (gas semi auto) of just about any type will do well. Get a short barrel, and load it with buckshot. No need for a Magnum round. Nice thing about the semi autos - they weight more for less kick.

12 gague - the first point and click interface!

Rolled Out On: 8/19/2005 4:37 PM

I'm a serious shotgun buff but am going to seriously recommend a .38 special revolver for your better half. Here goes.

1) Shotguns require some range time too. They all have safetys, and semi-autos and pumps are machines that are not intuitive.

2) At inside the house type of range, <20' typically. a shotgun's spread is about 6-12" - not three feet.

3) A revolver is the simplest firearm in the world - no safety, not much to think about, point and shoot. Confronting a bad guy in your own house has gotta be extremely high stress.

4) You have kids. Locking up the shotgun while keeping it relatively tough, compare that to one of the handprint safes that are $110. check cabelas.com

5) buy high quality frangible .38 ammo such as Glasers that don't overpenetrate.

6) poking a long gun around the corners of your house could lead to easier disarmament than a short barreled revolver.

Nice web site, by the way.

Rolled Out On: 8/19/2005 7:13 PM

I'm partial to a black hood and ninja stars. That always scares the shit out of people when you drop from the shadows and start chucking stars at them.

Oh.. and maybe a blowgun.

Rolled Out On: 8/19/2005 8:59 PM

Count me with Kingslasher on the Mossberg team. I've got two 500s and it took two trips to a range to get my wife comfortable with both of them.

And the sound of a load sliding has chased bastards out of my yard a few times all by itself.

Rolled Out On: 8/19/2005 9:08 PM

Yeah, one time when I was living in this apartment / house place, my landlady decided to fix my roof at 6 AM (I'm guessing because in the summer in Florida, it's cooler then). She screamed holy hell when she heard the loud ka-klank of me chambering a round. I had thought someone had jumped up on the eave of the porch to break in.

Rolled Out On: 8/19/2005 10:35 PM

Some other Ideas:

Winchester 1300 Defender in 20 gauge! Ready-built for home defense.

Good fit for smaller people, has almost no recoil with shotshells, and very little with slugs...sure, it's a little less devastating than a 12 gauge, but just as intimidating.

Remington 870 in 20 or 12 gauge!

Very versatile, especially with the swappable barrels and easily available magazine extensions.

Rolled Out On: 8/20/2005 9:05 AM

If I could drop from the ceiling, I'd go with Haacked's suggestion - less mess to clean up later. But my better half points out that the spread on a shotgun will be useful with a nasty visitor on that end of it, and won't need to be raised to aim, unlike the rifle. Brent's points about storage with little kids is good, though mine aren't little anymore, and are better aim than me.

Rolled Out On: 8/20/2005 10:16 AM

Though I would prefer people didn't exercise their gun rights, and I will admit right upfront that I know nothing about models or performance, the idea of guns for protection or sport has never really bothered me too much, especially when it's obvious they're in the hands of responsible owners - - but did I read that right?

You would rather kill someone than get sued?

Maybe you're not fully understanding the recent changes to the Castle Doctrine, or how civil liability works. Because dead criminals do not absolve wanton recklessness. They just make you a killer.

Tell me I misunderstood. Please.

I really like your blog, btw.

Rolled Out On: 8/20/2005 12:25 PM

You would rather kill someone than get sued?

No, I would rather kill someone than have them get off on a technicality then try again to kill or harm my family out of revenge. The small amount of space here doesn't allow me to go into every detail of my thoughts.

Rachel, if I'm not mistaken, you are a law student. And if so, I understand you'd have a better understanding to what is legal and not legal. Why do you consider me defending my own house 'wanton recklessness'? Why should I attempt to ONLY disarm and disable a violent criminal when doing so may put my own life in more jeopardy than it already is?

Shooting to wound requires precision. When I was in the Marines, I put 99 rounds out of 100 in the dead center of a target 500 yards away. But I was laying down, had stabilization for my rifle and could take all the time I needed. If you're in my house, I don't have the luxury of trying to aim for both hands and then the knees to disarm and disable you. Center mass is easy to hit, and I'm going to pump several rounds to ensure you go down. One of those is bound to hit a vital organ. Unless the circumstances warrant it (ie you're not alone), once you are on the ground, I'm finished. If you survived but are completely incapacitated, you're no longer a threat. That is why I am not a 'killer'. My aim is to disable you the fastest way possible, and the best way to do so is to aim to kill.

If you have a problem with me killing an intruder, then you need to work hard to educate people to not break into other people's houses because they are the ones at fault. Don't blame the victims for defending themselves.

Rolled Out On: 8/20/2005 2:05 PM

Being a law student doesn't have much to do with what is clearly a serious distance between your experience with a group ethic from your military training - which certainly makes sense in that context - and how you relate it to your present individual life. That is not a criticism, but an empirical look at what you've said.

'Defending your house' is not wanton recklessness, because it is too broad to be that. Defending your house includes an alarm system, a scary dog, motion-activated lights, etc. Killing people - and people ending up dead as a result of your actions is "killing people" whether you can justify it legally or not - can very easily be classified as recklessness.

I mean, really, for all your surface rebuttal that my interpretation is incorrect, it still just sounds like you think your actions should be above the moral standards of the law because someone else broke the letter of it first, and, further, that vigilantism is OK with you if it serves your ends.

I find that position a little disturbing myself, but please don't take that to mean I'm saying you're "wrong," necessarily, in any given context, or that I'm trying to convince you of anything in particular. After all, it's probably hard to do a moral self-check when you're scared for the wife and kids, but I think that was the legislative intent in broadening the protections of the Castle Doctrine.

I was just curious as to how entrenched the idea was for you, because I've never really heard anyone actually argue simultaneously for responsible, family-oriented gun control and that killing is justifiable under what seems to me to be pretty languid standards.

Feel free to email if you've got more to say on it. You're pretty interesting.

Rolled Out On: 8/20/2005 3:40 PM

Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six. Or, more importantly, see your wife or daughters carried by six.

Rolled Out On: 8/22/2005 9:11 AM

I once had the opportunity to talk about this with some folks with lots of hands-on experience with varied types of weapons. The general conclusion was that a 12 gauge shotgun (your brand of choise) loaded with 04 buckshot would pretty much do everything you need it to---you get more shot than in 00 size buckshot, so get more impact over standard room size.
Hope this helps.

Rolled Out On: 8/22/2005 2:52 PM

it still just sounds like you think your actions should be above the moral standards of the law because someone else broke the letter of it first, and, further, that vigilantism is OK with you if it serves your ends.

So, we are to just watch if our family's are raped and killed? If some one breaks into my house, (as SaaM said) that in and of it's self is a violent act. Personally, I would advocate that a person 'cover' the villain and issue the cliched 'Freeeze MTFer' command. When they twitch, then you fire. It was their choice to break in, not my choice to allow them.

What kind of world is it where we have to buy alarms, big scary dogs, CCTV, panic rooms and personal army's of security corps outfitted with tazers and pepper spray? It's a world where the criminals have more rights then the victims, and they know it.

I will not start it, but you betcha, I will finish it. Here's a pacifist standing up for Victims Rights!

Rolled Out On: 8/22/2005 8:52 PM

You should shoot to kill, when you need to shoot, but you shouldn't leave documentation like this website in the public domain.

If you have a skeet and trap range anywhere near you, see if they rent shotguns (it's easier than transporting a shotgun, depending on local laws). Try before you buy.

Rolled Out On: 8/23/2005 3:37 PM

Well, for starters, I am not anti-gun. I am not pro-gun, either. There are rights afforded to people who want them, and those rights are well-established enough that we're not really discussing that. What I'm interested in is this idea that so many people seem to think it's justifiable to kill in a specific context. Personally, I am anti-killing, but even that I can push aside for the purposes of this discussion.

And, actually, killing someone because they forcibly entered your home *is* a languid moral standard. I don't want to toss around a bunch of specialized knowledge here, because that's counterproductive to getting to the heart of the moral issue here - which, again, is what interests me, the rights of gun owners are established - but, frankly, you should read the legislative histories and debates to the Castle Doctrine before assuming that relaxing the duty to retreat promulgates a moral standard *of any sort* (which is what I think you mean by saying it's not a languid standard) As I was saying before, the rationale for the expansion of the Castle Doctrine is practical. People don't have time for moral checks when they're very, very scared, and the economic and political cost of prosecuting that is exorbitant. The legal standard is definitively not a moral one.

Now, as to the idea of vigilantism, when you are acting above the protective guidelines afforded you, you are commiting vigilantism. Again, please note I am not " pro- or anti-vigilantism" either; I am, though, surprised that the term has everyone screaming they're not vigilantes. Your ideas say differently, and that's why I find this to be such intelligent discussion here - we are admitting that we do not hold so close the social standards when they begin relating to us as ourselves alone and those we love, and defining what the threshold for that is.

And I'd like to mention that I started this with the context being that someone broke in, not that someone raped and attempted to kill. That falls under a very different social and legal standard, and, yes, such killing is justified in almost all instances under external standards and I would guess everyone's personal standards, too.

As to other security options - Cowboy, an alarm system can be installed for a hundred bucks. A healthy dog can be adopted at a shelter and trained with a book from the library. I speak from experience on those ones. I am very open to persuasion on most elements of this issue, but you cannot convince me that economics justify guns over other security measures, because the facts don't stack up. And tsy . . the world where we have to buy alarms is the same world where we have to buy guns. I'm not sure what your point is.

And in summation, people breaking into your house are not always trying to hurt you. If we apply this standard, we must also say people who shoot want to kill.

And, yeah, cool, I only suggested the email bc. I assumed people wouldn't care very much, but I guess I was wrong. : )

Rolled Out On: 8/23/2005 4:24 PM

Rachel, not to pick on you, but your taking the fence position on every possible situation (I'm not pro{blank} or anti{blank}) is very, very languid. Pick what you find to be right or wrong and stick with it.

And in summation, people breaking into your house are not always trying to hurt you. If we apply this standard, we must also say people who shoot want to kill.

How is my wife who is taking care of two kids supposed to be able to determine the intent of an intruder? She can't. She must react in the best way to protect herself and her offspring. Since the intruder didn't stop at the front door, why should my wife attempt to hide in another room? When he breaks down that door, should she hide in the closet? When he enters the closet, should she just close her eyes? Why are you criminalizing her for protecting herself? It's her house, she shouldn't have to run in the first place. She is already should be in the safest place possible. If someone doesn't respect the sanctity of my house, what other conclusion can she possibly come to except they are here to harm her and her children?

Now about the strawman of security options. The dog costs a shitload of money in food, vet bills, etc. Plus if you're deathly allergic, it doesn't do you much good. I have an expensive alarm system. It's expensive because it doesn't work any more and costs an arm and a leg to get someone out to look at it. And if Joe Breakin is whacked out on PCP and doesn't care if the alarm is going off or not, what is my wife supposed to do? Throw the alarm manual at him? While the tresspasser might ignore a dog or the alarm, I'm willing to put a paycheck on the bet that he won't ignore 00 buckshot from a 12 gage. Again, the shotgun provides the most protection.

Again, NONE of this is an issue if you'd just stay the fuck out of my house, nor try to carjack me or steal my wallet. S.I.M.P.L.E. Why do you feel the burden should be on my shoulders? The fault, the blame, and the 'too bad, so sad' is 100% the criminal's doing.

Rolled Out On: 8/23/2005 6:01 PM

And another thing I cannot even comprehend is why you insist on claiming it is my responsibility to keep you out of my home. You have the moral responsibility to keep yourself out of my house, not vice versa.

Rolled Out On: 8/23/2005 11:57 PM

Purchase the wife a small caliber revolver that she can handle and get her to the range to practice with it. A shotgun while effective is a bulky to move around the house.

Pepper spray is also a great option because it's non-leathl force and will stop most attackers in their tracks... and she can keep it with her. A gun is not an item she will keep with her most of the time and if someone does break down the front door, would she have time to get to a gun... not forgetting a gun needs to be secured from access by the kids. Gun lock, safes, etc all slow down access to them.

if the need arises to pull the trigger, you shoot to kill and don't stop until the threat is netralized... but FL law states that you or someone elses life must be clear and imminent danger before the use of deadly force... only the person pulling the trigger at that split second can truely decide if it's the right course of action, but I'd rather have the gun and make that choice then think of my other option.

Dog works well as a first line of defense, but they are expensive, eat 40 pounds of dog food every two weeks, snores like a train, shits like a cow... my 10mm is silent unless I want it to go bang.

Rolled Out On: 8/24/2005 6:35 AM

Xciter, the trade off for the handgun's portability is it's requirement for precision. The shotgun also has that lovely 'CLANK' that indicates to the intruder they're screwed. Besides, my wife doesn't mind guns, but the range doesn't interest her so practice won't come often enough to make it effective.

As far as someone's life being in immenent danger, once you break the sanctity of my home, I have no other course of thought. Period. But I like the word 'neutralized'. It fits better.

Gonna repost this to move the discussion up a bit. Thanks for all the comments (You too Rachel. Thanks for providing a differing opinion without getting rude. I hope I'm extending the same courtesy!).

Rolled Out On: 8/19/2005 4:39 PM

4) Correction *while keeping it relatively accessible is tough*

Rolled Out On: 8/20/2005 5:29 PM

Loose talk about a serious subject doesn't equal "think[ing] your actions should be above the moral standards of the law" any more than shooting someone who breaks into your house equals vigilantiism. When someone forces entry into your home and you use deadly force, that's hardly a "languid standard."

I used to be pretty anti-gun, too. With the fact of home invasion and the rise of personal predation (crimes against people committed simply to cause human pain and suffering as opposed to monetary or other material motives), it's become unrealistic - and I find it immoral as well - to protect people with criminal intent by suggesting we all use only "acceptable" tactics, i.e., no guns.

Rolled Out On: 8/20/2005 5:37 PM

Oh! So only the rich are entitled to defend their homes?

I wonder how many can afford an alarm system and monitoring subscription, a "mean scary dog" that's also good with kids; why not get the closed circuit TV system, too?

I can get a shotgun for $300.

Rolled Out On: 8/21/2005 8:47 AM

R, if you don't mind, I prefer the conversation here so that others can add in their 2 cents and correct any logical errors.

My justfications for killing are far from languid. In fact, they're pretty strong. If you're in my house illegally, you are here to hurt us. I don't have time to consider the circumstances or run a background check on you to see if you have a history of violence or not. My only option is to dispose of you before you can do any damage. The fastest and safest way for my wife to protect herself is with a firearm that keeps the attacker far away.

Cowboy blog adequately described why I think I shouldn't have to go through all the effort and expense to boobytrap my own house to ward of intruders.

I pray to God that I never, ever have to kill another human being. I've only pulled a gun twice in my life (one being my landlady), but if I do have to actually use it, I have to be mentally prepared to deal with killing another human being. If I am not 100% sure I can do it, then handling a weapon is a dangerous thing to do. Telling myself when I shoot, it is to kill, prevents me from developing false hope that I can shoot to wound only.

Rolled Out On: 8/24/2005 11:57 PM

Rachel: "After all, it's probably hard to do a moral self-check when you're scared for the wife and kids"

Replace "do a moral self-check" with "do the right thing", and see how far that sentance gets you.