(Gun Control) Is Self Defense the Same for Everyone?

[Silent Protagonist]

Usually gun rights advocates use the more pragmatic "the time it takes for a home invader to do harm to me and my loved ones is significantly shorter than the time it takes the police to respond to a 911 call" argument rather than a "I don't trust the cops because of racial history" argument, but the former has been falling on deaf ears for years. Apparently there can only be two all encompassing sets of beliefs now and the anti-gun stuff is usually lumped in with the police prejudice stuff so maybe your way will gain more traction. At least the topic isn't women's self defense where you get those bizarre "Women shouldn't have to defend themselves, criminals just shouldn't do crime" arguments.

Though I will say if you do ever find yourself in a situation where you need to use a gun to defend yourself,even if you don't need to fire a shot, you absolutely should get the police involved, even if only after the fact.

I'll take it under advisement, but I have to weigh it against police actions [https://newsone.com/playlist/black-men-boy-who-were-killed-by-police/item/2]

I more meant in the sense that you probably won't be a home invaders first or last, and notifying the police can help lead to their arrest and prevent more innocent people being harmed. And if you are their last, it's probably a lot safer to let the coroner handle disposal than to try to do it yourself.

Dark jokes aside, I'd like to try to encourage you to take a step back and try not to let examples and statistics from the internet color your opinions of entire groups of people. Confirmation bias plus internet can be a terrible combination. I know this is impossible, and I don't mean to suggest your views are wrong or unwarranted. Let me share with you a personal experience/realization I had. I used to live/work in a city with a substantial black population. I experienced several cases of anti-white racism from black people during that time, and there was no shortage of further examples to be found online. I began to have anxiety when encountering strangers who were black because I was worried what they thought of me as a white stranger, if they hated me for being white or thought I secretly hated them for being black. This was cured pretty quick when I realized how much easier it would be for a black person to fall into this same trap. I was negatively affected by a few real world experiences and a handful of fringe bigots on the internet. I realized that they not only have to deal with those things but an entire history and culture of those bigoted attitudes, and all in far greater magnitudes than what i had experienced. I knew that realization didn't make the things that happened to me any less bigoted and wrong, or that it was any less likely that some of the people around me harbored unspoken prejudices against me because of my race. But I learned that by dwelling on it and worrying about it that it was poisoning me and probably becoming a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. That's the horrible thing about bigotry is that it feeds into itself and experiencing it tends to create more of it.

On a lighter(?) note, what kind of ammo do you use for your shotgun? Do you keep any non-lethal types on hand? I don't own a gun myself but the people I've spoken to that have a shotgun for home defense usually tell me they keep it loaded with one or two non-lethal shells such as salt or beanbags to fire first, followed up by more conventional(and deadly) shells if that doesn't scare them off. What is your philosophy on this?

 

[Thaluikhain]

On a lighter(?) note, what kind of ammo do you use for your shotgun? Do you keep any non-lethal types on hand? I don't own a gun myself but the people I've spoken to that have a shotgun for home defense usually tell me they keep it loaded with one or two non-lethal shells such as salt or beanbags to fire first, followed up by more conventional(and deadly) shells if that doesn't scare them off. What is your philosophy on this?

Also not a gun owner (or lawyer), but I've heard bad things about that. Firstly, that if you don't need to kill someone, you shouldn't be shooting them. Secondly, that a good lawyer can make that look dodgy, you are trying to cause pain rather than protect yourself.

 

[Agema]

Also not a gun owner (or lawyer), but I've heard bad things about that. Firstly, that if you don't need to kill someone, you shouldn't be shooting them. Secondly, that a good lawyer can make that look dodgy, you are trying to cause pain rather than protect yourself.

It potentially depends on the law in any one jurisdiction: some may be more favourable to forms of self-defence argument than others. In the UK, for instance, you may be expected to justify use of a weapon and level of force to a higher degree than most US states.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

On a lighter(?) note, what kind of ammo do you use for your shotgun? Do you keep any non-lethal types on hand? I don't own a gun myself but the people I've spoken to that have a shotgun for home defense usually tell me they keep it loaded with one or two non-lethal shells such as salt or beanbags to fire first, followed up by more conventional(and deadly) shells if that doesn't scare them off. What is your philosophy on this?

Also not a gun owner (or lawyer), but I've heard bad things about that. Firstly, that if you don't need to kill someone, you shouldn't be shooting them. Secondly, that a good lawyer can make that look dodgy, you are trying to cause pain rather than protect yourself.

You're not wrong. Beyond the law, you should never ever, under any circumstance, point a gun at someone you are not prepared to shoot to kill.

 

[Agema]

You're not wrong. Beyond the law, you should never ever, under any circumstance, point a gun at someone you are not prepared to shoot to kill.

Indeed. I've had someone point a loaded crossbow at me, and it's a profoundly uncomfortable feeling.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

No, Self-defense is not the same for everyone. :s

There was a case I heard years ago of a black woman who was routinely being abused by her boyfriend/husband, fled from him into the garage when he was in a rage at her, and she fired a warning shot with a gun that was hidden in the garage (I forget it it was hers or his, or if she injured him at all).

...SHE was the one who got charged and punished in that case.

So yeah, considering the state of US policing, I wouldn't be surprised if the cops were like "A black guy shot someone breaking into his own home? HE MUST BE GUILTY OF SOMETHING, this can't be self-defense!" :s

Oh, wait, that wasn't the question?

Erm...If you're taking lessons + safety lessons and using a shotty purely for home defense...I see no real issue with you doing it. It's not like like a shotgun can mow down an entire mall if stolen or you go insane, nor is it something easily concealable to smuggle into a place it shouldn't be.

That and shotguns are supposed to be reasonably easy to hit with in close quarters which is what you need if you're defending yourself in your own home. So all in all, it's the best possible choice of weapon for this situation.

Being someone who holds pacifism very high as an ideal (And who lives in much safer Canada, AND I'm pasty-white as hell), I likely wouldn't ever buy myself a gun, but if I REALLY felt like I had to (say I lived in the states in a neighborhood of Qanon types religiously chanting about civil war to murder all lefties if trump was impeached), I'd go for a shotgun too.

 

[Leg End]

No, Self-defense is not the same for everyone. :s

There was a case I heard years ago of a black woman who was routinely being abused by her boyfriend/husband, fled from him into the garage when he was in a rage at her, and she fired a warning shot with a gun that was hidden in the garage (I forget it it was hers or his, or if she injured him at all).

...SHE was the one who got charged and punished in that case.

Marissa Alexander? Few reasons behind it, with some having a quasi-logical basis but the SA in that case was just kind of a *****, if we're being frank. Warning shots as a whole were not legal in the state at that time, so she discharged a firearm in his general direction with the children nearby. Idea in that case is that she arguably was not acting in defense of herself and was misusing lethal force, and by extension was endangering her children by doing so. In short, it could be argued she was no longer in a situation where lethal force was justified.

Do I agree with going after her? Fuuuuuck no. But she'd have been legally in the right by just dropping him. Welcome to a pain in the ass area of the law, linked to the bit above where using less-lethal ammunition can be used against you because fuck having a moral compass when deciding what to prosecute, the DA needs to pad those fuckin stats by any means necessary. Yes I'm bitter.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I don't get doing martial arts as a way of enhancing your capacity to protect yourself so I guess the same would apply to shotgun training lol.

Martial arts are a way of keeping healthy and enhancing your mind, it's kinda like less-gay-yoga in a sense. Sure, you could theoretically apply those skills to beating someone's head in, but ultimately these are martial ARTS, not Skills, so you are learning a form of physical art-form when you go to your dojo and practice your kata and so on. It's also a way of being fit and flexible and whatnot as well of course, but fundamentally what you're learning is how to think in a disciplined manner, how to focus and how to put all those things into practice in situations that require split-second decision-making. Sure, it could help in a situation where there's some type of danger assailing you or someone around you, but it'd almost never take the form of you doing a jumping kick at a badguy with a knife and taking him out like you're a ninja, it'll prolly be useful in lessening your panic and allowing you to run away or hide and help others run away more efficiently.


Compared to all that stuff, learning to shoot a shotgun well is not really in the same camp. That is just a skill for killing people most effectively. It's not even in the same camp of gun show tricks where you have someone fire a revolver 6 times in like half a second, that too is kind of an art form but also not gonna come in handy when you're trying to actually protect yourself and also not shoot everyone behind the bad guy together with him lol.

 

[Thaluikhain]

That and shotguns are supposed to be reasonably easy to hit with in close quarters which is what you need if you're defending yourself in your own home. So all in all, it's the best possible choice of weapon for this situation.

Yes and no. Again, not a firearms expert, but a commonly cited number is one inch of shot spread per yard of distance. Admittedly, that's still more shot spread than not having a shot spread, but the average distance for shooting inside houses in the US is supposed to be 7 yards or less, so 7 inches of spread or less, which isn't huge.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

You're not wrong. Beyond the law, you should never ever, under any circumstance, point a gun at someone you are not prepared to shoot to kill.

Indeed. I've had someone point a loaded crossbow at me, and it's a profoundly uncomfortable feeling.

I've had a loaded gun pointed at me. I can confirm this as well.

 

[Silent Protagonist]

That and shotguns are supposed to be reasonably easy to hit with in close quarters which is what you need if you're defending yourself in your own home. So all in all, it's the best possible choice of weapon for this situation.

Yes and no. Again, not a firearms expert, but a commonly cited number is one inch of shot spread per yard of distance. Admittedly, that's still more shot spread than not having a shot spread, but the average distance for shooting inside houses in the US is supposed to be 7 yards or less, so 7 inches of spread or less, which isn't huge.

Another argument I've heard is that shotguns have certain ammo types that are significantly less likely to penetrate beyond the target or ricochet compared to even some smaller caliber bullets. I usually hear birdshot recommended for this because it is absolutely a lethal form of ammunition but is less likely to have the stopping power to remain lethal at larger distances or after penetrating a wall due to the lower mass of the individual pellets, so a stray shot isn't as likely to harm a neighbor or anyone that is supposed to be in your home if they aren't in the direct line of fire. I don't know how accurate that is because thankfully I don't have any firsthand experience with those kinds of scenarios. Though I do know you can also get ammo such as slugs that are basically the opposite and can turn the shotgun into a high penetration cannon. If I remember correctly "hollowpoints" are supposed to be the bullet equivalent because they are designed to spread out on impact rather than penetrate but I don't think they have the same drop off of range that comes with lighter shot types in shotguns

 

[Marik2]

You're not wrong. Beyond the law, you should never ever, under any circumstance, point a gun at someone you are not prepared to shoot to kill.

Indeed. I've had someone point a loaded crossbow at me, and it's a profoundly uncomfortable feeling.

I've had a loaded gun pointed at me. I can confirm this as well.

Was it a black guy?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Another argument I've heard is that shotguns have certain ammo types that are significantly less likely to penetrate beyond the target or ricochet compared to even some smaller caliber bullets. I usually hear birdshot recommended for this because it is absolutely a lethal form of ammunition but is less likely to have the stopping power to remain lethal at larger distances or after penetrating a wall due to the lower mass of the individual pellets, so a stray shot isn't as likely to harm a neighbor or anyone that is supposed to be in your home if they aren't in the direct line of fire.

Yeah, there's some arguments about that.

American firearms instructor Massad Ayoob discussed this in an interview, and pointed out that it is humanly possible to punch a hole in the typical household wall (at least in the US), but not possible to punch a hole in a person, and yet you want a weapon that will damage a person but not go through a wall. He also mentions that in his house, he's got a panic room to get the family into in case they are attacked, which has one door and he's set up his office so that there's a shelf full of books to hopefully catch stray pellets when fired from the room at that door.

OTOH, yeah, people talk about birdshot, how that at anything beyond tiny ranges the shot will spread out and lose penetration and you'd only have tiny distances in your house. Sounds reasonable, but not sure, myself. You also see birdshot lose penetration and get stopped by heavy clothing at not massive distances as well.

Though I do know you can also get ammo such as slugs that are basically the opposite and can turn the shotgun into a high penetration cannon. If I remember correctly "hollowpoints" are supposed to be the bullet equivalent because they are designed to spread out on impact rather than penetrate but I don't think they have the same drop off of range that comes with lighter shot types in shotguns

Slugs have greater penetration, yes, but I'd not call them "high penetration" except compared to shot, as you might be comparing them to intermediate or full power rifle rounds. AR or AK style weapons are also popular for home defense, and there's more powerful weapons out there.

Hollowpoints (or frangible safety rounds) are an option, yeah. Though, the safety issue wasn't the reason for hollowpoints, it is a bonus.

Again, I should point out that I'm by no means an expert on the subject, I've just got lots of time on my hand and listen to people that are.

 

[Agema]

American firearms instructor Massad Ayoob discussed this in an interview, and pointed out that it is humanly possible to punch a hole in the typical household wall (at least in the US), but not possible to punch a hole in a person, and yet you want a weapon that will damage a person but not go through a wall.

There are all sorts of characteristics of people and walls which make this punching metaphor a potentially unsafe comparison. Skin and flesh is elastic, and due to lacking a penetrative point fists will cause them to deform and absorb the shock, very unlike your average wall.

What I would suggest you might want from a relatively low-penetration weapon such as birdshot is merely that a wall reduce the momentum of the pellet sufficiently that it's much less likely to seriously injure someone on the other side. There's always the dumb luck possibility of hitting an eye or major artery.

Also, perhaps, a good reason to buy a solid brick house with robust, brick internal walls.

 

[Thaluikhain]

There are all sorts of characteristics of people and walls which make this punching metaphor a potentially unsafe comparison. Skin and flesh is elastic, and due to lacking a penetrative point fists will cause them to deform and absorb the shock, very unlike your average wall.

True, it's limited, but I'd say it's not a useless talking point as long as people keep its limitations in mind.

What I would suggest you might want from a relatively low-penetration weapon such as birdshot is merely that a wall reduce the momentum of the pellet sufficiently that it's much less likely to seriously injure someone on the other side. There's always the dumb luck possibility of hitting an eye or major artery.

Sure, but then you still absolutely want it to be powerful enough to seriously injure whoever you are firing at. Difficult to balance, unless:

Also, perhaps, a good reason to buy a solid brick house with robust, brick internal walls.

If that's an option, then, yeah, solved all sorts of problems in one go.

 

[Silvanus]

He also mentions that in his house, he's got a panic room to get the family into in case they are attacked, which has one door and he's set up his office so that there's a shelf full of books to hopefully catch stray pellets when fired from the room at that door.

Also, perhaps, a good reason to buy a solid brick house with robust, brick internal walls.

As always, I'm so glad not to have to even consider this kind of thing when I'm looking for a place to live. Because, y'know, people don't have goddamn lethal projectile weaponry here.

The sacrifices of personal safety and psychological comfort that the US citizenry has made in exchange for fuck-all benefit astounds me.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The sacrifices of personal safety and psychological comfort that the US citizenry has made in exchange for fuck-all benefit astounds me.

You get to cosplay as a soldier with a real gun, though, and pretend you're going to lead a revolution or something.

Boogaloo!

 

[Agema]

Sure, but then you still absolutely want it to be powerful enough to seriously injure whoever you are firing at. Difficult to balance, unless:

Well, a conventional bullet, if it doesn't tumble or bounce in the body, needs penetration because it'll just make a relatively small and discrete hole. A shotgun firing a load of pellets with a several inch diameter spread can get the benefit of area over depth so require much less penetration.

As far as I'm aware the penetration of shotgun pellets depends heavily on their mass. I guess they're normally lead (~11 g/ml) or steel (~8 g/ml). A lighter material therefore might get a decent trade-off of being able to effectively penetrate clothing and mess up plenty of flesh whilst being much less likely to go through a wall.

The problem then is that I can't think of any economically feasible or sufficiently stable metals between aluminimum (3 g/ml) and those around 8 g/ml like iron or nickel. Maybe aluminium would be in the sweet spot, but otherwise maybe some form of rock or ceramic?

 

[Leg End]

As always, I'm so glad not to have to even consider this kind of thing when I'm looking for a place to live. Because, y'know, people don't have goddamn lethal projectile weaponry here.

'Cept they kinda do and being wary of your fire and potentially penetration is still a thing. Shotguns are actually the most common firearms there, if memory serves. But since it's not you, it's still not a consideration for you.

The sacrifices of personal safety and psychological comfort that the US citizenry has made in exchange for fuck-all benefit astounds me.

We have our opinions of the UK and see quite similar things in the inverse. Let's agree to disagree.

Props though for there being a rather entertaining discussion of Ballistics occurring in this very thread. Noting for anyone in the less-lethal munitions half of it trying Rock Salt that you should be particularly anal about cleaning your gun afterward testing, unless you enjoy bad times in the future.

Spoiler

Or possibly don't use it at all because of rather questionable effectiveness, but Kill Bill really helped popularize people testing it out, so...

 

[Silvanus]

'Cept they kinda do and being wary of your fire and potentially penetration is still a thing. Shotguns are actually the most common firearms there, if memory serves. But since it's not you, it's still not a consideration for you.

Not in any significant numbers they don't. I can find statistics for around 500,000-1 million shotgun owners in the UK. Minuscule numbers for handguns, rifles, and rapid-fire stuff.

Most UK citizens will never see a gun, unless they perhaps go clay-pigeon shooting. But in the street, or even during a break-in? No, the probability is tiny, and statistics show we're immensely safer than US citizens (including US gun owners).

We have our opinions of the UK and see quite similar things in the inverse. Let's agree to disagree.

Similar things how? Statistics show extremely clearly that it's not even in the same league.

Almost nowhere is in the same league. It's just become normalised by a wall-monied and particularly bellicose industrial lobby.