Really? I’ve seen two different people ask you for that cite.
Funny; I haven’t seen it either.
Why don’t you link us to that response, where you provided the cite, in that other thread?
Because I was involved in the thread, and just did a search through the thread and didn’t see it.
If you want ideas on Pistol/rifle/shotgun & caliber/gauge, I’d be glad to lend a hand.
(Raises hand) Ooh! Ooh! I have a question! If you wanted to go to the expense and difficulty of obtaiing 000 or even 0000 buckshot, would those be good manstopping loads or would they overpenetrate? (I presume 00 is the default antipersonal round for good reason).
You are now officially, and for all time, my hero. Elvis Presley lives in your shadow. Seriously.
Wow, way to hit me with a question that I had to look up the answer to, Lumpy. I love it when that happens, because then I get to learn something new, too! 
There was a post in the other thread where I stated that Birdshot would be sufficient for home defense: I later amended that to state that birdshot would probably be sufficient for home defense, but it does not meet the FBI’s standards for penetration to hit the Central Nervous system as a man stopper (FBI’s criteria is 14 inches in Ballistics Gel bricks).
…
Looks it up.
…
I can find surprisingly little information on this topic, so I’m piecing together the following from a variety of sources, and my own intelligence.
First: #00 buck is a sufficient man stopping round.
Second: #0000 buck is only .030" larger than #00.
Third: Each “pellet” of #00 buck imparts more energy than a 9x19mm Parabellum (commonly called the 9mm).
Fourth: Since I can’t find any Ballistics for #0000 buck, I’m going to assume that it travels slightly faster than #00, but will have more recoil. (Key: Assume)
These facts (and one assumption) combined give me the indication that, while 0000 and 000 buck will be sufficient in stopping power, they may be prone to over penetration.
Since #00 is sufficient I will not recommend that #000 or #0000 until I see evidence that they’re better for the job at hand.
Much the same way that 9mm has been shown to be sufficient, and since it has less recoil, I will continue to recommend 9mm and not .45 ACP – until sufficient proofs have been shown that a higher recoil, less round (or pellet, in this instance) is advantageous.
Edited for inclusion: I might be able to find out a bit more tomorrow, I’ll make a few calls during business hours, because this has piqued my interest…
We have a 2700 square foot house with 4 exits that are doors.
Six months out of the year, the only real way out of this house is in front.
Well, let me rephrase that. The only way to retreat from a break in would be in ass deep snow and uphill.
Oh, we can get around to the front of the house, to the road, but if someone is breaking in, that may not be a good idea.
That’s because of snow. Without putting on winter gear and snow shoes the only way out of our house with out freezing to death is to get to our vehicles.
The only way into the house is from below. Where our vehicles are.
I’ll stay put thank you very much. I may even have my Wife try to call 911, not that it would do much good.
In the valley that I have lived for 17 years (about 100 homes). Robbery is rare (or unheard of [I don’t know of any in this valley]). A home intrusion/robbery here is a suicide attempt. I suspect we are all armed to some degree.
The idea of retreating out of my house in the dead of night and not being able to get to a vehicle could easily be a death sentence in itself.
PS… I think you city folks are nuts.
PSS… We all have to do the best with what we have.
I second this. Even if you’re not for the idea of owning guns, I highly recommend visiting a range that offers rentals and just emptying a few magazines at a target (under supervision if you’re not too familiar with firearms of course). It’s pretty satisfying and can be strangely stress-relieving. I guess it’s the same principle behind people paying to throw plates at a brick wall.
Yep, 50-50 chance that if you see someone in your house they are really home invaders. Sounds like good odds to me, just fuckin’ shoot them and if they are your kids you can apologize in heaven
Yes, because we all know that the 4 cites given in this thread are all of the cites that exist. :rolleyes:
And if they are your kids they wont be breaking into anybody ELSES house will they?
We are still waiting for all those horrify stats and numbers…
Yes, you literally did not say it couldn’t happen. You just said my scenarios were “bullshit”, “strawmen”, and that cops would knock on the door before barging in. You objected to my first cite because no police were killed. Not sure why you ignored the second, so it’s pointless to cite all the other mistaken no-knock police break-ins.
No, my kids will be waiting in line waiting to hear your kids say “you want frys with that”?
You so funny
Todderbob, here is the best page I’ve found so far for shooting 000 and 0000 loads, in 12-gauge and 10-gauge(!), including some ballistics:
I read that, as it kept coming up first on my Searches. But I am reluctant to take an angelfire handloading site as standard for 000 / 0000 shot ballistics. Mostly because I’ve seen some people who do horrible, dangerous loading practices.
I’m still going to make a few calls tomorrow, I’ve got a friend who work(ed?) in an ammo manufacturing plant, and a few friends who have shot skeet and worked on shotguns professionally and as hobbies. I’m sure one of them will have a more solid answer.
This.
Amen.
QFT
What he said.
yeesh!
Some posts of the last two pages were walking really close to the unacceptable line. DanBlather, your toe is on or over the line for your last couple of posts.
If the hostility is not ratcheted back, the straw men put away for the next political fight, and some genuine discussion is not soon forthcoming, I am going to close this with extreme prejudice.
[ /Moderating ]
I will. If someone is trying to kick the door in and a warning is give then then it’s reasonable to shoot someone who continues trying to enter. This happened in my area. It was a group of teenagers who refused to stop the attempt at entry. I believe their response was to throw a cinder block through the door window. One of them was shot dead. No charges were filed.
Here, let me fill in some gaps…
I’ll stop for now; didn’t even have to go past three pages deep into a Google search for these. Might be one or two that are duplicates; if so, sorry. I tried to make sure they were all unique cases.
So, which is more likely…? Someone mistakenly shoots someone who REALLY isn’t invading their home, or someone gets raped/beaten/killed by someone who IS invading their home?
This is plainly false. Anyone who has family members or flatmates is going to see them in their house thousands of times more frequently than a burglar. But we don’t shoot them, because only an idiot shoots without confirming that the target isn’t one of those people.
Just because you have found two people who didn’t follow that rule does not mean that we support their incompetence.
Of course no responsible gun owner is going to shoot someone by mistake. If they do, they aren’t a responsible gun owner. This is just a form of the True Scotsman argument.
The OP started off by asking whether it was right to shoot the person breaking into what he thought was his own house, with some posters saying that the fact that someone was in your house in the middle of the night is evidence in and of itself that they are up to no good, and therefore are proper targets of a homeowner’s self defence.
I and others have shown that there are cases where people can be in your house by mistake, where police may be in your house legitimately (searching for a burglar), police may be there mistakenly (serving a no-knock warrant at wrong house), or the home owner my mistakenly identify a loved one as threat.
To my mind, this raises the bar on when it is prudent to shoot. Since the SDMB is made up of smart people there may never be a case where they make a mistake, but we have seen that even highly trained people such as a policeman can over react with tragic results.
In my life there will many more opportunities where a noise I hear in the middle of the night is something benign, than there will be that my home is being invaded by murderous thugs that will not leave when they realize I am home. If I lived in a heavily crime infected area I might think differently, but I’d still hope I’d have a higher bar than “where there’s any reason to believe I’m in danger I should have the right to use my own discretion in shooting”. The cases I cited all had a reason to believe they were in danger, yet no one in this discussion has defended their actions after the fact.
I think we all agree that if someone is in your house and intends you harm, then you have a right to defend yourself. The hard part is deciding when someone intends you harm. It is not just a case where it’s open season when a person you do not expect or do not recognize is in your home.