Home invasion defense: hand gun, sawed-off shotgun, Uzi, etc.?

Oh, just realized I hadn’t answered the OP. First move is to make sure the loved ones are with me, and we are in a ‘safe’, defensible area. Second, and probably at the same time, is to call 911 and make sure the cavalry is on the way. Worst comes to worst, they can arrive to perform medical care on us. If that solves the problem, I’m delighted. I’m certainly not going to try room clearing by myself. And though Texas does allow the use of deadly force to defend property, I probably won’t do so.

The dog or other alarm system may scare off the burglar/invader all by itself. Great! It will hopefully allow for enough warning for me to assess the situation and get the phone, light and weapon(s) together. An audible alarm might also attract attention, further inducing the criminals to leave, which is what I want.

But the OP wants to know what we’ll use, should we have to use violence to stop the threat, and the answer is to use what’s available. I prefer firearms—any firearm—to anything like hand to hand or edged weaponry. Had I a short barreled AR, I’d use it. The potential lack of over-penetration for properly selected .223 ammo is a major plus. (As well as being really counterintuitive) The edge in range over a handgun or shotgun is another plus. Not that it will be likely to come up—hell, all of this is astoundingly unlikely to happen to you or me—but if it should, and I need to stop a faraway threat, I’d rather have the rifle. I’m not going to likely have one though, given they’re starting at 1200 dollars and going up, these days.

Shotgun with buckshot would be my second choice. Either weapon needs something to aid the operator in low light situations, be it a light, laser sight, tritium sights, or all of the above. Because it’s going to be a lot more difficult to get a sight picture under stress, in the dark, than when you’re at the range. I can do the “balance the flashlight against the side of the pistol” thing with the back of my flashlight hand at the range, but probably not under stress.

All firearms need to be aimed. All need to be used with full awareness of what’s behind the target. Because anything that will penetrate a bad guy enough to make him stop being a lethal threat to you, will also penetrate enough to go zipping through several walls and doors, and whatever lies behind them.

Finally, practice with whatever you choose. A firearm isn’t a magic talisman that, solely by its existence, keeps the dangers at bay. You actually have to know how to use it and be familiar with how to do so. Then for God’s sake, study up on your jurisdiction’s rules on when you, Jane Citizen, can use deadly force. A good firearms instructor, like enipla or ducati was mentioning in another thread, should be able to help you answer these questions. Have a good lawyer on speed dial, along with whatever it’s going to cost (and it will cost a lot) to keep them on retainer. My guess is that your lost T.V. will cost a lot less then the lawyers will; firearms are to prevent the loss of much more valuable things, IMHO.

1 in 2234 seems extremely high.

But home invasions weren’t broken out, so I have to think that they would be much, much rarer.

If someone is going to rob a house, there is a very high likelihood they will do it when your house is empty to avoid any kind of confrontation.

With the lottery odds, Powerball odds are real long shots. I actually work at a provincial lottery corp and the odds of winning one of our more popular 6 out of 49 games for a guaranteed minimum win of $3,000,000 CAN (has been as high as ~$50 million CAN) is 1 in 13,983,816.

Even with the new odds I concede you probably would experience a home invasion before winning the lottery.

I still don’t see how firearms would help/prevent a home invasion.

And carnivorousplant not sure what you meant about the house you don’t live in being broke into twice.

I always cringe when I hear “I have no children so it’s okay”. You can’t always consider all possibilities. What if a friend comes by with kids? What if your wife or another relative accidentally was injured?

Here’s a scenario in Canada that could take place, and with how litigation seems to work in the states I could see it happening there as well. If I had a loaded firearm in my residence )not stored correctly), and a burglar breaks in and in the process of stealing said firearm accidentally shoots himself I can be charged! In the US you may not get charged, but the burglar could probably sue you.

Bottom line my opinion is firearms cause way more issues then they solve.

MtM

Robbery is not burglary. They are colloquially used to refer to the same sorts of crimes, but they have precise definitions. Per the definition I quoted from, robbery requires the use of force by the criminal to deprive the owner of her property, which is why I used that category of crimes. The number of burglaries is higher and the number of ordinary thefts is higher still. A peace officer or criminal attorney can illustrate how a robbery within a residence might be different than a home invasion, or might be innocuous yet fall within the definition of robbery (one where the criminal drugs their victim, perhaps?). But I’d say getting robbed in your house by one person is still frightening and the sort of situation people talk about when they speak of buying weapons for home defense.

To answer your question on prevention, pretty much all criminals don’t want to be shot. They also aren’t soldiers and taking your house like it were a fortified bunker and they were members of the 101st Airborne, isn’t likely to happen. Rather, they, if criminologists like Lonnie Adams are to be believed, are largely thugs and bullies, some of whom will happily inflict violence on people who cannot put up meaningful resistance, yet will run away when resistance is offered. I would say, again IMHO, that there’s a larger percentage of those who will willingly inflict violence in those criminals that perform home invasions, than you’re run of the mill burglar. In addition to the other means I mentioned in another post, (calling 911, audible alarm, dog, just being in the residence) I can’t think of a better way to stop an invader than by using a firearm. Should you run into the WAG, 1 in a million crook who will keep advancing after you start shooting, a firearm is the best way I know of to incapacitate that threat.

If children are known to be present, then locking up one’s firearms and ammunition is the prudent response. I grew up in a LEO’s household, with unlocked and loaded firearms readily available, and had no temptation whatsoever to play with them. For one thing, I’d went to the range entirely too often, and I would have had to clean them and reload more cartridges for them if I shot them. Both aren’t fun for me, though shooting wasn’t too bad. However, times are different. Thankfully, there are a multitude of locking arrangements available. Biometric safes look really interesting, FWIW.

IANAL, and am not familiar with Canadian law, but your hypothetical sounds unjust, and unlikely. Perhaps one of our resident Canadian lawyers can shed some light on how likely this situation is to come about? Nevertheless it is a cliche in firearms self-defense discussions that “bullets come with price tags,” and I’ve already mentioned the likely expenditures on criminal counsel, by anyone defending themselves with deadly force.

We are unlikely to agree on the utility of firearms versus their costs.

I really, really need a cite on your assertions that a burglar in Canada may sue a homeowner for shooting himself in the course of attempting to steal a handgun. As a public policy that seems simply ludicrous. I also would like a cite on the criminal-charging issue.

I own guns. I keep them properly locked up; they are not accessible to visitors. If my 14-year-old nephew lived with me I would have taught him how to use the gun by now so as to demystify and demythify it; he still would not have access to the guns except in a hunting context, and he’d never be able to initiate such contact. My wife knows how to use the gun; it would be irresponsible of me to have the gun in the house without her consent and unless she at a minimum knew how to handle with without shooting herself.

I don’t take my responsibility as a gun-owner lightly. As I wrote upthread my first response to a home invasion would be to retreat to a defensible position; that means getting my wife & baby into the master bedroom with me, locking the door, getting the gun in hand while she calls 911, and remaining in the bedroom until I am certain the danger has passed. The gun doesn’t make me invincible.

Shotgun.

I personally keep my RRA loaded with .223 at the read when I’m sleeping. If in the event I do have to use a weapon I’d rather not spread shot around my belongings and destroy my own property when I can simply place a few rounds right on target and get it over with. I’ve heard a lot of people sell the “I’m ready and itching for a burglar” comments in the past and to be honest I’d hate to deal with someone who’s broken in my house. Everyone describes the horrors of having your place violated, things stolen or broken. I for one would hate it for the sole reason of cleaning it up after. Chances are they’ve either broken a window or busted up a door jam to get in which will be $ out of my pocket, add the blood over flooring or furniture… it will be hell trying to clean up, if I can even get it out. :frowning:

I like to be prepared for any eventuality, that’s why I walk around with pillows strapped to my head in case the earth’s gravity suddenly goes out, that way I won’t hurt my head on the ceiling; then I strap on a life preserver in case of a flood; at night I load my shotgun and sit in a rocking chair with it the gun pointed at my front door and tuck in for a good night’s sleep. I also keep a crossbow loaded with a bolt dipped in holy water pointed at people during conversations just in case they turn into vampires during our morning staff meeting, you know, just in case.

I wonder how many people who keep a gun around just to be safe eat unhealthy diets and never exercise because that might be a more important element to living longer than your guns and ninja throwing stars.

I’m acquainted with a woman who’s husband was an Ex-LEO. A garbageman noticed gun magazines in their trash, reported the fact to his burglar associates, and subsequently, three powerful young men broke into the couple’s home when the man was there alone. As the story was told to me, the robbers admitted they knew the man was home, they came for the guns, money and jewelry … and they intended to kill the man after the crime.
He said they broke down the front door, and although he had several guns near him in the living room, he couldn’t get to them quickly enough to defend himself. He claimed they duct-taped him to a chair and threatened him with shotguns, arguing the whole time whether to kill him or not. They decided to not kill him. The stolen goods were never recovered.
This story might serve to strengthen the argument that firearms in the home are but one part of a defensive plan. Unless a dwelling is sufficiently fortified (a strong metal door/ gate) and perhaps alarmed, even by just a loud, nervous dog, a resident, even a trained police officer, may not be able to react quickly enough to protect the family.
This invasion happened in the middle of the day. The man was watching TV, and was awake at the time of the break-in.

hydrogen peroxide

I am fairly certain a person is legally liable if they set booby traps. Having your shotgun loaded and prepped to shoot the first person through the door, for instance. The question is whether a gun merely left loaded constitutes a booby trap. I certainly wouldn’t consider it so.

Katko v. Briney 183 N.W.2nd 657 (Iowa 1971) would seem to be relevant, and pretty much exactly on point with your first scenario. No idea if Briney was found criminally liable for his conduct, but see the case of Prentice Rasheed in Miami, 1986. Rasheed, IMHO, got damned lucky in his grand jury composition. FWIW, the Restatement (Second) of Torts, at section 85, disagrees with finding the landowner liable, if the landowner would have been privileged to use deadly force were the landowner present at the time. I don’t know why courts have, IIRC, near universally disregarded the Restatement on this.

For your second case, does a homeowner owe a duty of care to a trespasser to not injure them by a carelessly stored, loaded firearm? Does it matter if the trespass is criminal in nature (EDIT) beyond the trespass itself? (I.e., it involved breaking and entering. Or trespass for the purpose of committing an additional crime like theft?) In jurisdictions that allow comparative negligence, does the burglar’s act of burglary constitute sufficient negligence to outweigh the homeowner’s negligence (assuming there is any) in leaving a loaded firearm carelessly stored? I’m curious what the law is in Canada on situations like these.

Am I the only one who thinks of Gandalf talking to the trolls when the guys are debating? (“No, can’t kill him now. Do you know how much ammo costs? And how hard it is to get bloodstains out?”

Did you mean gun magazines (30 round STANAG 5.56x45mm) or gun magazine (Gun & Ammo, an InterMedia Outdoors publication)? No reason to throw out the former, they can at least replace parts. If the latter, that a big logical jump to rob a place (and how did he find out it was the garbage man?). I don’t doubt the story as told to you.

Man traps are illegal in like, 51/50 states. You cannot put a bear trap in front of your door, nor have a shotgun go off if the door is opened. Those have to potential to kill firemen and the like if responding to a call.

Loaded weapons in your home are legal almost anywhere, even California. Some places may want trigger locks and the like; those can be popped of reasonably quick.

I’m wondering if McDeath_the_Mad will come back to support his assertion.

Deadbolts would be my home self-defense tool of choice. They are really pretty good at keeping burglars out, and I don’t have to worry about the Firebug accidentally harming himself or a friend with one.

Apparently the number of people killed in America each year by someone who’s broken into their residence is on the order of ~100. There are ~120 million housing units in the U.S. So your chances of being killed in your home by an armed burglar are on the order of a million to one against. You’re about as likely to be struck by lightning.

The odds are considerably shorter that one of the residents of the home, or an invited guest, will wind up dead as a result of the presence of a gun in the home. So gimme deadbolts.

Found a factory-made 12ga pump (5 rounds) with an 18.5" barrel, cyl choke.
Being in CA, I would not be surprised that it was on a prohibited list.

(we hod our first loon shooting up a grade school playgound, what, 20 yrs ago?
AK47, no bushmaster for that creep

430 per year.

You also have a 1 in 4 chance of having a violent encounter if you’re home at the time of the break-in.

So, runner pat has a source that says we can expect about 400 people next year will be killed during a robbery, and according to NOAA, we can expect about 400 people will be struck by lightning (but only 40 or so will die from the lightning strike). RTFireFly was right, the two probabilities are roughly equal.