4 ms·

if your defending yourself you want a hand gun Disagree, at least depending on the situation. If you're defending yourself in your home, the most appropriate

if your defending yourself you want a hand gun Disagree, at least depending on the situation. If you're defending yourself in your home, the most appropriate weapon is likely a short-barreled shotgun. The short barrel is advantageous for being able to quickly maneuver around corners, etc. And the shot requires less (but not zero) accuracy in aiming, and if you use the right size shot, is less dangerous to bystanders because of minimal risk of over-penetration. While we're on the topic, the gun control people are irrational in trying to ban rifles with pistol-style grips. Such a grip gives no advantage to the bad guys: in Aurora, he was equally able to fire the AR-15 (which had such grips) and the shotgun (which probably didn't). However, pistol grips are useful to a home defender. It would allow the defender to hold the weapon covering the bad guy with one hand, while using the other hand to dial 911. Without the pistol grip, the defender couldn't do that.

protomyth 14y ago
Have to agree with CWuestefeld, for home defense you want a shotgun with a short barrel. You want to know how to shoot it and you want some safety and maintenance training. Also, do not choose ammo that is going to go through your walls.
- Retric 14y ago
  Don't forget a lot of gun owners are shot with their own weapons. At a minimum you want a shoulder strap for larger weapons, and the ability to keep a hand free while aiming. Longer barrels also allow people to more easily grab them which is vary dangerous, and make it more obvious where they are in the home. As to penetrating issues, you can use shotgun ammo in handguns, but with a short enough barrel the difference becomes minimal as long as you have a reasonable clip size. PS: Statistically gun owners are less safe. I expect that with reasonable precautions you can cross the threshold into overall safety. But, clearly you need to approach things from the perspective that owning a gun is a larger risk by default and then deal with the new risks.
  - protomyth 14y ago
    Do you have the stats on "Don't forget a lot of gun owners are shot with their own weapons". I don't think I agree with the shoulder strap part, and I have never seen or heard of shotgun ammo in a hand gun.
    - Retric 14y ago
      Kellermann states that as an emergency room doctor, he noted that the number of gunowners injured by their own gun or that of a family member seemed to greatly outnumber the number of intruders shot by the gun of a homeowner, and therefore he determined to study whether or not this was in fact true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann (I could quote from this, but it's IMO worth a read.) When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-i... EX: "owner that was armed with a shotgun got shot with his own gun" http://texasfred.net/archives/2671 http://texasfred.net/archives/2671 PS: As to why you have not heard of this. The final appropriation language included the following statement: “[N]one of the funds made available for injury control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control”. These words appear in every CDC grant announcement to this day. [5]
      - CWuestefeld 14y ago
        Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Showing correlation doesn't show causation. Consider, for example, that people who are more likely to be injured by a gun at the outset are probably more likely to own, and even to have to use, a gun themselves. A drug dealer, for example, is more likely to have a gun because of his line of work. But having the gun isn't what makes it more dangerous; rather, it's more dangerous, so he feels he needs a gun. Thus, the gun owners have a higher Bayesian prior. It would be very wrong to interpret this to say that owning a gun causes your likelihood of it being used (maybe even accidentally) against you. I suggest that many people who actually do such studies understand this, and that is a better reason for it not to be in the headlines.
- CWuestefeld 14y ago
  You want to know how to shoot it and you want some safety and maintenance training. Absolutely! One needs to learn how to properly wield the weapon, and to do so safely. But "knowing" this stuff isn't sufficient to be able to do so successfully. You must train: practice at least until you can feel comfortable with the weapon: you know what the trigger pull and the recoil feels like, you are comfortable with the grip in your hand and smoothly bringing it up to position, etc. For anyone crazy enough to believe what they see on television: you won't be able to just pick up a gun and shoot it properly without some experience. You just won't. Some of this is "book learning". But some of it is "you just need the practical experience". In particular, you will be very surprised at how difficult it is to use a handgun to hit a person-sized target in the far corner of your living room. If you don't learn and practice with your gun, you're no more likely to be successful than you are at programming without actually doing a real project.
  - protomyth 14y ago
    I do agree practice is a necessity but people often forget the other basics, particularly maintenance. To add, if you intend to own a firearm, go somewhere with some experience and get one that suits you personally. Think of it as the vi / emacs debate writ larger.
    - CWuestefeld 14y ago
      if you intend to own a firearm, go somewhere with some experience and get one that suits you personally Good advice. In particular, it's too easy to view the gun's style. Do NOT consider that it looks cool, tough, etc. The fact that the .50 Desert Eagle looks menacing is not going to save you from the fact that you (or me, at least) just can't properly shoot a gun that's so big and powerful. Being able to use it properly is much more important. Also, don't just assume that it's going to be an auto like a Glock, etc. IMHO a simple dual-action [1] revolver is probably a better choice for defensive situations, precisely because it is so simple. A revolver will never let you down: you can always just pull the trigger again to get to the next chamber. By contrast, autos are prone to jamming, not to mention a misfired bullet; either way, you're now at the mercy of the bad guy. Your primary concern in this area is dependability. [1] "Dual action" means that you may cock it for better trigger pull, but if you don't, you can still fire it with just the trigger

protomyth 14y ago

Have to agree with CWuestefeld, for home defense you want a shotgun with a short barrel. You want to know how to shoot it and you want some safety and maintenance training. Also, do not choose ammo that is going to go through your walls.

Retric 14y ago
Don't forget a lot of gun owners are shot with their own weapons. At a minimum you want a shoulder strap for larger weapons, and the ability to keep a hand free while aiming. Longer barrels also allow people to more easily grab them which is vary dangerous, and make it more obvious where they are in the home. As to penetrating issues, you can use shotgun ammo in handguns, but with a short enough barrel the difference becomes minimal as long as you have a reasonable clip size. PS: Statistically gun owners are less safe. I expect that with reasonable precautions you can cross the threshold into overall safety. But, clearly you need to approach things from the perspective that owning a gun is a larger risk by default and then deal with the new risks.
- protomyth 14y ago
  Do you have the stats on "Don't forget a lot of gun owners are shot with their own weapons". I don't think I agree with the shoulder strap part, and I have never seen or heard of shotgun ammo in a hand gun.
  - Retric 14y ago
    Kellermann states that as an emergency room doctor, he noted that the number of gunowners injured by their own gun or that of a family member seemed to greatly outnumber the number of intruders shot by the gun of a homeowner, and therefore he determined to study whether or not this was in fact true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann (I could quote from this, but it's IMO worth a read.) When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-i... EX: "owner that was armed with a shotgun got shot with his own gun" http://texasfred.net/archives/2671 http://texasfred.net/archives/2671 PS: As to why you have not heard of this. The final appropriation language included the following statement: “[N]one of the funds made available for injury control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control”. These words appear in every CDC grant announcement to this day. [5]
    - CWuestefeld 14y ago
      Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Showing correlation doesn't show causation. Consider, for example, that people who are more likely to be injured by a gun at the outset are probably more likely to own, and even to have to use, a gun themselves. A drug dealer, for example, is more likely to have a gun because of his line of work. But having the gun isn't what makes it more dangerous; rather, it's more dangerous, so he feels he needs a gun. Thus, the gun owners have a higher Bayesian prior. It would be very wrong to interpret this to say that owning a gun causes your likelihood of it being used (maybe even accidentally) against you. I suggest that many people who actually do such studies understand this, and that is a better reason for it not to be in the headlines.
CWuestefeld 14y ago
You want to know how to shoot it and you want some safety and maintenance training. Absolutely! One needs to learn how to properly wield the weapon, and to do so safely. But "knowing" this stuff isn't sufficient to be able to do so successfully. You must train: practice at least until you can feel comfortable with the weapon: you know what the trigger pull and the recoil feels like, you are comfortable with the grip in your hand and smoothly bringing it up to position, etc. For anyone crazy enough to believe what they see on television: you won't be able to just pick up a gun and shoot it properly without some experience. You just won't. Some of this is "book learning". But some of it is "you just need the practical experience". In particular, you will be very surprised at how difficult it is to use a handgun to hit a person-sized target in the far corner of your living room. If you don't learn and practice with your gun, you're no more likely to be successful than you are at programming without actually doing a real project.
- protomyth 14y ago
  I do agree practice is a necessity but people often forget the other basics, particularly maintenance. To add, if you intend to own a firearm, go somewhere with some experience and get one that suits you personally. Think of it as the vi / emacs debate writ larger.
  - CWuestefeld 14y ago
    if you intend to own a firearm, go somewhere with some experience and get one that suits you personally Good advice. In particular, it's too easy to view the gun's style. Do NOT consider that it looks cool, tough, etc. The fact that the .50 Desert Eagle looks menacing is not going to save you from the fact that you (or me, at least) just can't properly shoot a gun that's so big and powerful. Being able to use it properly is much more important. Also, don't just assume that it's going to be an auto like a Glock, etc. IMHO a simple dual-action [1] revolver is probably a better choice for defensive situations, precisely because it is so simple. A revolver will never let you down: you can always just pull the trigger again to get to the next chamber. By contrast, autos are prone to jamming, not to mention a misfired bullet; either way, you're now at the mercy of the bad guy. Your primary concern in this area is dependability. [1] "Dual action" means that you may cock it for better trigger pull, but if you don't, you can still fire it with just the trigger