…as an aside, I think that concealed carry on planes should be legal, and that airlines should insist that armed passengers load up with frangible during the flight – pre flight weapon check…

Ochlan on October 5, 2007 at 4:10 PM

As a frequent flyer, I would love to have that right. But I would prefer it allowed to only those willing to swear on an Old or New Testament that they are not going to hijack the plane using it.

http://www.taurususa.com/video/taurus-theJudge-video.cfm

factoid on October 5, 2007 at 1:58 PM

Doesn’t EVERYONE have an ICBM in their basement?

Get a life worm. Choose to be a victim if you want, but do not require me to be one also.

Frangible round are a really good idea whether for shotgun or pistol. Since they do nearly the same damage to the human body as a lead or full metal jacked round but are extremely unlikely to penetrate walls and harm innocent bystanders afterwards. Responsibility is the key issue with gun ownership. You want to defend yourself and your family, but not harm any innocent person while doing so.

doriangrey on October 5, 2007 at 12:29 PM

Glaser Safety Slugs were available for a while years ago. Are they still around now? (I’ve been overseas a decade, returning soon.)

eon on October 5, 2007 at 9:15 AM

Good advice, pardner. There is no “one size fits all” in self defence. I was raised with firearms (little machines that you use to put food on the table, protect yourself, your family, and home) and have a small Thai born wife. She never shot a firearm until last year, when my brother and I gave her a bit of training. She is coming along nicely.

Point is, look at your surroundings, think of the dangers you may face, choose the best weapon, and maybe a backup or three. Be prepared, and think ahead.

_Jon on October 5, 2007 at 9:01 AM

VERY good point.

No flaw here … just a failure to think.

Yes … the second amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms … but it does not give you the right to point a loaded rifle at passers-by just for giggles.

An assembled nuke is the equivalent of a loaded rifle pointed at someone’s head … at the heads of everyone within 20 miles of you.

Point a loaded rifle at someone for no reason, and they would be justified in either shooting your sorry ass, or having the police do it for them.

Point a nuke at a county occupied by people ( i.e., merely assemble it ), and the residents there have every right to hang your stupid ass from the nearest lamp post, and then call in the Bomb Unit to haul the damned thing away.

When a leftard uses the “Nuclear Strawman” as an anti-second amendment argument, he has auto-failed.

Such a gaffe should not be graced with counter-argument, but should be treated as a Godwin’s Law level personal f*ckup.

Automatic Fail.

Hollowpoint on October 5, 2007 at 7:12 PM

All very true. Which is why you follow the standard Rules of Engagement;

1. Aim for the assailant’s center of mass, also known as the upper chest area (Think; between the nipples).

2. Fire at least two rounds into the center of mass.

3. Repeat as needed as long as the assailant is on his feet.

The signal to “Cease Fire” is when the assailant is on the floor and no longer advancing on you.

As for “shallow” wounds, most rounds of the Glaser and Magsafe type (Copper-alloy jacket with small shot inside with a plastic or Teflon cap to retain them, which penetrates and then “pops” inside the body) show approximately 8 to 10 inches penetration with wound channels roughly 2 1/2 to 3 inches in diameter at greatest extension, which generally occurs in the first 5 to 7 inches of internal trajectory. On most normal-sized human beings, the torso is from 9 to 11 inches front to back and from 16 to 18 inches in width. Assuming that the shooter aims at the correct area, the resulting cavity will include at least one lung, if not both, plus the heart.

As for hitting an arm upraised as a shield, that’s why you don’t cease fire after only one shot. As we used to say in the Advanced Marksmanship course, the First Rule of a hostile encounter is Murphy’s Law; Anything That Can Go Wrong, Will Go Wrong.

The answer is, of course, “Never Fire Only One Shot.”

cheers

eon

Frangible or pre-fragmented rounds (like Glaser or Magsafe) would also be my choice for indoor defense precisely because they won’t overpenetrate as much as any sort of conventional projectile. they also have generally good characteristics from a wound-ballistics standpoint.

And what happens in a real world situation where the first part of an attacker’s body you hit is an arm raised to wield a weapon of their own? You’re not going to get the penetration necessary. Or if the attacker is wearing heavy clothing with a lot of body fat?

A “large, nasty” but shallow wound may not cause enough blood loss to incapacitate an attacker. The vast majority of self-defense experts I’ve read do not endorse that type of round. They may have specialized uses, but there’s a reason cops generally don’t use them.

I’ve yet to hear of someone seriously wounded or killed due to overpenetration- but I have heard of attackers who’ve been able to continue thier attack after being shot.

What looks good in a gelatin block may not work so well in a real life situation.

The 2A refers to “arms”, not merely ‘individual weapons’…

But hang on…what about that annoying “well regulated” part of the 2A? Doesn’t that legitimize legislation regarding the safe storage, maintenance and deployment of nukes? Methinks it does.
Ochlan on October 5, 2007 at 4:00 PM

It’s accepted that the founders were referring to individual weapons. One generally doesn’t “keep and bear” a nuke or crew-served weapon.

And look up the dictionary definition “regulated”. It includes a defintion that has nothing to do with the type of government restrictions we currently think of when we use the word, and that definition is what makes sense in the context of the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

My personal problem with frangibles is that, depending on the exact shape and size of the “bullet profile” (external shape of the projectile) they may or may not feed reliably in any sort of self-loading arm. My old trick with the Glaser in a 9mm or .45 was to have one in the chamber in Condition One carry (cocked-and-locked), backed up by a magazine of conventional hollowpoints. But I don’t really like Condition One for a “house gun”, especially with children in the home.

Of course, in a double-action revolver, the shape of the bullet doesn’t matter. And a 5-or-6-shot cylinder of .357 or even .38 frangible loads is virtually guaranteed to convince a would-be “home invader” of the folly of his enterprise.

cheers

eon

Hollowpoint on October 5, 2007 at 3:55 PM

Frangible rounds are a great idea with many useful tactical applications, but I would hesitate to recommend them for home defense.

My general rule of thumb is – if the ammo is legally defensible for cops, I’ll consider it.

I don’t know of cops that carry frangible routinely…or use it at home. (as an aside, I think that concealed carry on planes should be legal, and that airlines should insist that armed passengers load up with frangible during the flight – pre flight weapon check)

Massad Ayoob has written volumes on this subject, and he’s my Oracle of choice ;-)

A nuclear warhead isn’t an individual weapon. An AR-15 is

The 2A refers to “arms”, not merely ‘individual weapons’. All manner of weapons are ‘arms’ – grenade/rocket launchers, mounted auto cannon, missiles. Although the FFs likely had personal arms primarily in mind, the possession of cannons was important to the militia too, and was similarly protected.

They could hardly be expected to imagine weapons as powerful as nukes, but arms they are too…so _yes_, as noodle-baking as it may sound to many, you have the _right_ to possess nukes.

Now go try exercising that right. Walk down to WalMart or your local Nuke store. Having problems obtaining one? How about panning for U235 (or whatever your fissile material of favor is) in the river? Not finding convenient clods of nuke material lying around? Damn.

Nukes are extremely complex and expensive things to make. The kind of expense that only nation states can bear. Maybe Bill Gates could afford one.

But hang on…what about that annoying “well regulated” part of the 2A? Doesn’t that legitimize legislation regarding the safe storage, maintenance and deployment of nukes? Methinks it does. Now the expense has just escalated phenomenally…secure silos, armed guards, launch protocols, shielding…yada yada yada.

My allowance won’t stretch that far.

But it’s nice to know I have the _right_

I’ll buy a $300 Mossy instead…

Frangible round are a really good idea whether for shotgun or pistol.
doriangrey on October 5, 2007 at 12:29 PM

Frangible rounds shouldn’t be relied on- they lack the ability to penetrate suffiently. Virtually any round capable of sufficient penetration is going to have the potential to penetrate a sheetrock wall should you miss your target.

In a pistol, use JHP defense rounds unless it’s a smaller caliber like .32ACP. In a shotgun 00 buck is overkill; #7 bird shot is too small. Something close to #4 buck is a good compromise.

It’s is true what you were told…best home defense is the 12-guage. No need to aim compared w/handgun.

Miss_Anthrope on October 5, 2007 at 2:49 PM

Most home defense situations occur at very short range- like 10 feet. At that range the shot barely has time to spread, so a shotgun has to be aimed as if it were a rifle.

So if you are for the Second Amendment, yet you don’t think I have a right to keep my nuclear warheads in my garage, then please explain me how you can reconcile those two positions.

Thanks, guys.

factoid on October 5, 2007 at 1:58 PM

A nuclear warhead isn’t an individual weapon. An AR-15 is.

LarryinVA on October 5, 2007 at 10:17 AM

It’s is true what you were told…best home defense is the 12-guage. No need to aim compared w/handgun.

JiangxiDad on October 5, 2007 at 9:25 AM

I know you already got your advice about what you should get from eon, but thought I’d give you the “little woman” perspective.

If you do buy a shotgun, I can shoot a 12-guage no problem. There is kick, so you may want to identify a closet (or other spot) with direct line to the front door but won’t take out the neighbors. She can get the kids behind her & keep her eye on the door, kneeling or leaning into the weapon. (Had to do that once…she just can’t panic!)

If you buy a handgun, I do recommend a revolver. Too much focus is required to use a semi sometimes, and it’s not necessarily more accurate. The higher your caliber (esp. up ~357/38), avoid snub-nosed or lightweight (if must choose, then no lightweight!) if you can help it. Hubby, knowing nothing of guns, bought me a 38 snub-nosed airlight (titanium). I told him he could’ve at least avoided titanium! But mine’s for concealed permit.

You know this, but get the family trained & really familiar with it by going shooting as much as you can. I’ve been around ‘em my whole life…knowledge, coupled with the “fear of Dad” factor if they are EVER touched w/o your approval (and a good safe – you can lock ‘em up when not home), are good bets you’ll have no problems.

And my wife wouldn’t want to use it, but would in defense of our young kids. Will keep her size in mind. thank you for the advice.

JiangxiDad on October 5, 2007 at 9:25 AM

May I suggest a .380 Auto or a good .38 caliber revolver? Lightweight and don’t kick real hard. Easy for women to use and has the stopping power necessary in close quarters.

I still prefer the shotgun because of the spread, but she would probably be safer with something she’s comfortable with.

More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.

Well, Duuhhh! This guy’s pretty dumb if he has to spell it out to this degree, or his readers are pretty dumb (in his view).

I certainly hope he doesn’t teach Constitutional law.

There is pretty much an agreement that handguns and shotguns are ‘arms’ in the sense of 2nd Amendment protection. Similarly, I should have no problems when I walk around with a scimitar or a mace strapped to my side. But how about bigger arms? Can the gummint abridge my right to keep a howitzer? A mortar? How ’bout a nuclear-armed cruise missile?

After all, these days, when terrorists can commandeer airplanes and fly them into buildings killing innocent people, having a shoulder-launched surface-to-air missile handy is a legitimate means of self-defense.

Also, one of the key arguments for the Second Amendment is that an armed public can keep the Government in check. But rebels carrying 9mm Glocks are not a very good deterrent to an evil dictator, should one ever become President, given that the evil dictator at that point would have ICBMs at his command, so the need for privately-owned nukes is a key issue for protecting liberty.

So if you are for the Second Amendment, yet you don’t think I have a right to keep my nuclear warheads in my garage, then please explain me how you can reconcile those two positions.

Thanks, guys.

JiangxiDad on October 5, 2007 at 7:46 AM

All the shotguns you listed are good for home defense, but drop the 00 buckshot, it’s a legal liability. There are frangible rounds out now for shotguns that are made of compressed materials that have the stopping power of 00 buck, but will not over-penetrate walls, and will almost eliminate the over-eager procecutor’s claim of over-reaching deadly force.

You can buy shotguns online and have it shipped to a licensed dealer for you, but it’s “Caveat Emptor” on used ones.

By the way, practice loading (dummy shells, never live ones), cycling the action, and operating the safety with your eyes closed until you can do it comfortably. If you ever need it, it probably will be in the dead of night, wih no lights on for you to look at what you’re doing. Go hunting rabbits and birds, using one is the best practice.

El Cazador on October 5, 2007 at 8:50 AM

Frangible round are a really good idea whether for shotgun or pistol. Since they do nearly the same damage to the human body as a lead or full metal jacked round but are extremely unlikely to penetrate walls and harm innocent bystanders afterwards. Responsibility is the key issue with gun ownership. You want to defend yourself and your family, but not harm any innocent person while doing so.

Yep…slamming 00 through it persuades me ;-)

Every serious research of the second amendment comes to the conclusion put forward by the author, as well as the fact that it is a federally guaranteed and controlled right, not a state issue.

The liberal supreme court of 1938 (if I remember the date correctly) got it completely wrong.

The libs stop reading when they see the word militia since that suits their purpose. There is a good deal more than that. Including other works and letters written by the framers.

dogsoldier on October 5, 2007 at 6:49 AM

I believe you are referring to the 1939 United States vs. Miller. which both should have and would have been overturned upon appeal had Miller not died.