Burglar shot, grandfather says AR-15 made it an unfair fight

[Earl IV]

I don't have much sympathy for the burglars*, but this incident is not at all a good defense of civilians owning AR-15's. Exactly the opposite, imo.

* though I understand that their families are mourning their loss regardless, and sympathize with them

After re-reading about the incident and the latest update, I have not a stitch of sympathy for the burglars. Sure, their families have suffered a loss, but the burglars are 100% to blame.

As to the AR issue, a 12 or 20 gauge shotgun could have accomplished a desirable result, and it's likely not all of them would've been killed. But I say that with more concern about a homeowner than the suspect. Obviously, the less people you kill in your house, and the less of a chance someone down the street will be hit by a lethal projectile, the less trouble it'll cause you.

Agree on all counts

Sure but, have you ever tried to patch sheet rock after a shotgun blast? Not to mention the blood splatter. [emoji854]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Derec]

It's what the cops have learned--with the right ammo they get less overpenetration with assault rifles than with handguns.

Ok.

Sure, if you're using birdshot. Buckshot is up there with the lighter handgun ammunition.

Big buckshot maybe, and at short range with no obstructions. Buckshot varies between 5mm diameter T shot to 15 mm "tri-ball 12" (bore size of a 12 gauge, which turns it into a musket on steroids).
Note that due to its spherical shape, shot has less mass than a bullet of same diameter. Which means a higher drag to kinetic energy ratio and also more resistance through things like walls or doors. There is a reason bullet-shaped bullets were developed in the first place.

 

[Malintent]

If a person breaks into your home, you are allowed to shoot them. Google it. It's called the Castle Law. You do not need to warn them, you do not need to prove you are threatened... nothing. The act of breaking into a home is considered a threat of violence. As it should be, in my opinion. smash a window and step in.. equivalent to "I am hear to kill you".

 

[Malintent]

I don't have much sympathy for the burglars*, but this incident is not at all a good defense of civilians owning AR-15's. Exactly the opposite, imo.

* though I understand that their families are mourning their loss regardless, and sympathize with them

After re-reading about the incident and the latest update, I have not a stitch of sympathy for the burglars. Sure, their families have suffered a loss, but the burglars are 100% to blame.

As to the AR issue, a 12 or 20 gauge shotgun could have accomplished a desirable result, and it's likely not all of them would've been killed. But I say that with more concern about a homeowner than the suspect. Obviously, the less people you kill in your house, and the less of a chance someone down the street will be hit by a lethal projectile, the less trouble it'll cause you.

You are all correct that a shotgun (loaded for bird) is the safest for home defense. Anything over #4 shot (as in, bigger) is going to have a chance to penetrate a wall. Smaller than that and there is a high likelihood that a person shot at pointblank range will survive, albeit very bloody and painful, and excess shot will not penetrate a wall. Hell, #9 shot (what I use for Trap shooting) wouldn't even penetrate 1 piece of drywall. If it could, you wouldn't be hunting birds, you would be disintegrating them.

I reload my own (that means I make my own shotgun shells). I make 7/8 ounce slugs out of pure lead and charge the shell with just the right amount of a particular black powder for the perfect exit velocity. They are designed to kill an animal, but not be able to penetrate a piece of wood thicker than 1/2 inch. Using pure lead, as opposed to the alloys used to harden projectiles, makes the slug soft enough to basically just go flat against a very hard surface, but still deadly against a body.
they are no good for actual hunting, as their effective range is quite small... maybe 50 feet at most and then they are easily survivable.

Also, lead is no good for hunting. Need to use steel... but I can't smelt steel.

 

[Malintent]

It's what the cops have learned--with the right ammo they get less overpenetration with assault rifles than with handguns.

It's not like it can't overpenetrate.

Shotgun pellets are small and can't fly nearly as far as bullets and still keep dangerous speed even when not hitting something like a wall first. Going through a wall will decelerate the pellets quite a bit because of the mass to cross-sectional area ratio is far smaller than even a small caliber bullet.

Sure, if you're using birdshot. Buckshot is up there with the lighter handgun ammunition.

My 7/8 slugs are approximately equivalent to .55 caliber. Sure, they more WAY slower and are WAY softer, but my bullets are BIGGER than any handgun's.

 

[Emily Lake]

Well, first off, fights are supposed to be unfair. Anybody who gives someone a fair fight deserves to fucking die.

While breaking into a home shouldn't be a capital offense, it's really hard to feel any pity for someone who dies while doing it. In terms of it being self-defense, did they attack him or was it simply the fact that they were in his house the justification to fire an automatic weapon at them as his first move?

AR-15s aren't automatic weapons.

Also, I have exactly zero sympathy for the robbers here.

 

[Elixir]

It's what the cops have learned--with the right ammo they get less overpenetration with assault rifles than with handguns.



Sure, if you're using birdshot. Buckshot is up there with the lighter handgun ammunition.

My 7/8 slugs are approximately equivalent to .55 caliber. Sure, they more WAY slower and are WAY softer, but my bullets are BIGGER than any handgun's.

Not exactly ideal for home defense though - too easy to miss. OTOH, those rifled slugs have some awesome "stopping power".

 

[Emily Lake]

Doesn't this bring up a morality question. Is it okay to kill people that will only rough you up?

It's only not okay if you have ESP. Otherwise, when multiple people break into your house, I'm perfectly fine with killing them all the way dead. I might allow some caveat if they're obviously in distress and trying to hide from the aliens that want to abduct them, or other similarly exceptional circumstances.

They had brass knuckles, not guns. Guns will kill you, brass knuckles will seriously rough you up.

Brass knuckles can kill you too. As can bare knuckles, or boots, or elbows.

So then we ask ourselves, what does the "violent" mean in violent criminal? Merely the threat of getting beaten or the threat of loss of life? And what level of threat is it okay to kill preemptively?

If a criminal entering my home by force exhibits any sort of physical aggression toward me or mine, I'm perfectly fine with them losing their lives. I think it's unconscionable to expect a homeowner to risk being beaten to death or severe injury, simply to prevent the death of a violent criminal.

Of course, invading a home in numbers is sure the heck intimidating, and one can't exactly fault someone feeling their life is in danger. But then we have this fog of self-defense, where the guy who does the killing is certainly in absolutely no position to admit just opening fire indiscriminately.

I don't particularly care. Three people broke into his home, and were armed. It is absolutely justifiable self-defense as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Emily Lake]

Was reading about a shooting where a bullet traveled 3 blocks to instantly kill a random woman crossing the street. THAT's what an AR-15 does.

Slight quibble here: that's what an 5.56 AR-15 does. ARs can actually be built in a variety of calibers, including .22 and 9mm. Not all rounds have as much penetrating power as 5.56. Additionally, a hollow-point or other sort of frangible round will stop at a considerably shorter range than a jacketed rifle round.

Also, AR-15s are exceptionally accurate. If the homeowner were reasonably well-practiced, there may have been very little risk. ARs aren't really "spray and pray" weapons.

 

[Emily Lake]

But I agree, an AR15 is not the most reasonable home defense weapon.

Rossi circuit judge, ftw!

Seriously - what's not to like about a rifled revolver shotgun that can shoot 9mm long rounds as well as birdshot?

- - - Updated - - -

And even without fragmenting, handgun rounds penetrate walls better than rifle rounds:

Only if they are bigger caliber, which admittedly they usually are.

Not necessarily. It's the combination of weight and power. There are plenty of large rounds out there that are also very slow, and don't penetrate well at all.

 

[Malintent]

It's what the cops have learned--with the right ammo they get less overpenetration with assault rifles than with handguns.



Sure, if you're using birdshot. Buckshot is up there with the lighter handgun ammunition.

My 7/8 slugs are approximately equivalent to .55 caliber. Sure, they more WAY slower and are WAY softer, but my bullets are BIGGER than any handgun's.

Not exactly ideal for home defense though - too easy to miss. OTOH, those rifled slugs have some awesome "stopping power".

Ya, the scatter from shot versus the single projectile slug is certainly easier to hit a target AT ALL with. However, with the slug, there is no scatter that can do unwanted collateral damage. Also, making decent (round and consistent) shot is ridiculously tedious if you don't have a fancy machine. The cost of commercially made shot is too high to be worth using. just buy the shot shells, IMO.

Also, a methed out maniac can easily take birdshot to the face and just keep coming. Not any stopping power in small shot. It is more about scaring them into retreat thinking they are about to die, when they just need a pair of tweezers and to calm down. Definitely can take their eyes out, actually, come to think about it.

The commercial rifled slugs made for hunting pack quite a punch. After squeezing off just a few my shoulder is heavily bruised. I wager after 10 or so I wouldn't even be able to raise the barrel. I use far less powder (and cheaper hulls that couldn't take the explosive power of those) and can fire off hundreds a day, if I wanted to.

 

[laughing dog]

If a person breaks into your home, you are allowed to shoot them. Google it. It's called the Castle Law. You do not need to warn them, you do not need to prove you are threatened... nothing. The act of breaking into a home is considered a threat of violence. As it should be, in my opinion. smash a window and step in.. equivalent to "I am hear to kill you".

The Castle doctrine is not adopted everywhere in the US. There was a case in upper Mn in the past couple of years where the homeowner admittedly executed defenseless intruders and who was charged and convicted with murder.

 

[Malintent]

If a person breaks into your home, you are allowed to shoot them. Google it. It's called the Castle Law. You do not need to warn them, you do not need to prove you are threatened... nothing. The act of breaking into a home is considered a threat of violence. As it should be, in my opinion. smash a window and step in.. equivalent to "I am hear to kill you".

The Castle doctrine is not adopted everywhere in the US. There was a case in upper Mn in the past couple of years where the homeowner admittedly executed defenseless intruders and who was charged and convicted with murder.

correct. Not all states. Personally, I reject the phrase "defenseless intruder" as internally inconsistent (oxymoron).
.. and what idiot actually tells the cops that they "executed" intruders... Their eyes were gauged out before they got to my house... maybe that's why they broke in.. how should I know? maybe it was that their faces were peeled off that got them confused. and why they are naked with their genitals torn off... like a dog ate them? must have been some sex thing they were doing with each other. <shrug>

 

[coloradoatheist]

If a person breaks into your home, you are allowed to shoot them. Google it. It's called the Castle Law. You do not need to warn them, you do not need to prove you are threatened... nothing. The act of breaking into a home is considered a threat of violence. As it should be, in my opinion. smash a window and step in.. equivalent to "I am hear to kill you".

The Castle doctrine is not adopted everywhere in the US. There was a case in upper Mn in the past couple of years where the homeowner admittedly executed defenseless intruders and who was charged and convicted with murder.

correct. Not all states. Personally, I reject the phrase "defenseless intruder" as internally inconsistent (oxymoron).
.. and what idiot actually tells the cops that they "executed" intruders... Their eyes were gauged out before they got to my house... maybe that's why they broke in.. how should I know? maybe it was that their faces were peeled off that got them confused. and why they are naked with their genitals torn off... like a dog ate them? must have been some sex thing they were doing with each other. <shrug>

Yeah in the case that ld mentioned, the guy shot the two people they tumbled down the stairs, he dragged at least one somewhere else, shot them to kill them and didn't call the cops until the next day.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If a person breaks into your home, you are allowed to shoot them. Google it. It's called the Castle Law. You do not need to warn them, you do not need to prove you are threatened... nothing. The act of breaking into a home is considered a threat of violence. As it should be, in my opinion. smash a window and step in.. equivalent to "I am hear to kill you".

The Castle doctrine is not adopted everywhere in the US. There was a case in upper Mn in the past couple of years where the homeowner admittedly executed defenseless intruders and who was charged and convicted with murder.

Which has nothing to do with the castle doctrine.

Shoot an intruder, fine.

Go finish them off when they're down, not fine even in a castle doctrine state.