451 Detonics
Member
You can have both worlds rolled into one...I shot this 1100 for trap far quite a few years. Now it wears a Speedfeed stock but back then it looked like this...
Tactical shotgun vs comparable hunting shotgun
- Thread starter Damnit
- Start date
- Status
No
The appearance of the shotgun is trivial against the enormity of taking a human life. Don't worry about the appearance of the shotgun. Odds are you'll never use it for the proposed purpose and if you do the appearance will be the least of your real problems.
Bushido81
Member
Any attorney worth his salt would shred that argument in rebuttal or cross exam. Use what your comfortable and proficient with and will unquestionably end the confrontation. I totally understand the want to think ahead for stuff like that. But when your considering home defense weapons the primary concern needs to be how well the tool chosen fits the task.
nalioth
Member
Agreed. Just owning a "tactical" anything won't make you tactical.Jason_W said:
Y'all seen my signature?
Bud Tugly
Member
Folks who use their guns for clay games or hunting become very familiar with shouldering, aiming, shooting, and reloading them. Many models have extra 18-20" battels and ammo extension tubes you can switch to so they can serve double duty for HD. If that isn't practical, then your HD gun should at least have an action type you're very familiar with.
IMO it's foolish to buy any gun, shoot a couple of boxes of ammo through it, and think you're adequately protected. An HD situation is likely to happen in the middle of the night and you'll be sleepy and panicky and it's probably going to be pitch dark in the house.
That's no time to be fumbling with an unfamiliar weapon Whatever HD shotgun you choose, you need to shoot it until everything about its operation becomes second nature to you. IMO that's FAR more important than the configuartion of the gun.
IMO it's foolish to buy any gun, shoot a couple of boxes of ammo through it, and think you're adequately protected. An HD situation is likely to happen in the middle of the night and you'll be sleepy and panicky and it's probably going to be pitch dark in the house.
That's no time to be fumbling with an unfamiliar weapon Whatever HD shotgun you choose, you need to shoot it until everything about its operation becomes second nature to you. IMO that's FAR more important than the configuartion of the gun.
Thankfully here in Jacksonville, THE Murder Capital of Florida.
We have a "stand your ground law"
You may use deadly force against anyone who puts you in fear for life.
Anywhere you have the legal right to be.
It does NOT matter wheather you use a sharp stick, or a 40mm grenade launcher.
If you use deadly force in self defense, you CANNOT be sued.
Useing "less than lethal rounds", will get you charged with shooting to mame.
In that case You CAN be sued.
Most self defense shootings here done with a Marlin Model 60 22LR.
Or a very old .38 special revolver. Because that is what people have.
Neather are very Tacticool, but they work if that what you have.
Also gives some credit to the idea that where you shoot them, and
how many times. Is more important than what you shoot them with.
The last liberal District Attorney we had Proved, that attempting to
Try a Home Owner for shooting a home invader is Career Suicide.
Our new Govenor promised us an "open carry" Law.
If he does not deliver soon, he will be a one term loser.
end of rant
We have a "stand your ground law"
You may use deadly force against anyone who puts you in fear for life.
Anywhere you have the legal right to be.
It does NOT matter wheather you use a sharp stick, or a 40mm grenade launcher.
If you use deadly force in self defense, you CANNOT be sued.
Useing "less than lethal rounds", will get you charged with shooting to mame.
In that case You CAN be sued.
Most self defense shootings here done with a Marlin Model 60 22LR.
Or a very old .38 special revolver. Because that is what people have.
Neather are very Tacticool, but they work if that what you have.
Also gives some credit to the idea that where you shoot them, and
how many times. Is more important than what you shoot them with.
The last liberal District Attorney we had Proved, that attempting to
Try a Home Owner for shooting a home invader is Career Suicide.
Our new Govenor promised us an "open carry" Law.
If he does not deliver soon, he will be a one term loser.
end of rant
shiftyer1
Member
I just got rid of a tactical shotgun. It looked cool but whenever I needed a shotgun I just never grabbed it.
I believe that in some situations and under some circumstances the weapon used to defend oneself can definitely have a bearing on weather the case goes to court or, if in court, influence the decision of the jury. This is exactly the same influence that the type of car one drives may affect whether or not they receive a speeding ticket. I’m not saying that it will impact all cases but that it undoubtedly could impact some and I personally do not want or intend to be the exception rather then the rule when the “stakes” include a prison sentence. If placed in a situation where I must defend my family or myself I will use whatever I have at hand if need be, weather that is a combat style weapon, a hunting style weapon or a baseball bat. But that isn’t what this discussion is really all about. It’s about choosing a weapon in advance that will be kept in a position to be readily available and aid in insuring a successful outcome of a bad but unavoidable situation. A successful outcome for me personally or for my family is not one that involves my spending 20 years in prison after successfully defending myself or my family because the weapon I choose conjured up a negative image in some uninformed juror’s mind. I will not choose a weapon that in any way might put my freedom or my future ability to protect and provide for my family at greater risk because of some image ingrained in some uninformed persons mind by the media or Hollywood, a person who at that moment may be in a position to determine or influence my future. This is especially true when the performance of the shotgun in question is no greater then another whose image is potentially less damaging in court. The attitude, experience and knowledge of the individuals investigating a case, determining weather or not to prosecute a case or the jury members deciding a case will vary and the judgment of some will be effected by the image some weapons generate. This may not be the way things should be but unfortunately it is the way things are in the society we live in.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
As always, be careful with what you say about "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground" laws. They are NOT a foolproof path to justifiable homicide bliss. They simply reduce your burden of proof in one category when you offer your affirmative defense for the homicide you've committed.
What they can do is to define certain circumstances (such as someone violently entering a home or sometime a car) under which their motives may be assumed to be worthy of a lethal force response. And, in general, they may remove the requirement for you to have exhausted every other avenue of conflict aviodance, such as retreating.
Now, less lethal rounds are NOT a good idea -- you're still using a firearm and that means deadly force, so your standard of ability, opportunity, and jeopardy remains just as high. If you can't lawfully fire on someone with buckshot, you can't lawfully fire on them with any other firearm round, either. So there's no value in using them. They're just a less effective form of lethal force, from a civilian defensive standpoint, so you might as well use something that is known to work in most cases, like buck or slugs.
That is, when someone puts you in actual jeopardy or reasonable fear thereof. If the DA decides that your fear was not realistic, you will still be charged. Your claim of fear of deadly violence may be disputed and you certainly may still end up on trial. These castle doctrine laws do NOT change the requirements that you verifiably establish that your attacker had the ability and the opportunity to put you in jeopardy -- those being required in any jurisdiction to be able to claim "self defense."
What they can do is to define certain circumstances (such as someone violently entering a home or sometime a car) under which their motives may be assumed to be worthy of a lethal force response. And, in general, they may remove the requirement for you to have exhausted every other avenue of conflict aviodance, such as retreating.
This hearkens back to several other threads we've had recently. If you use deadly force in self defense -- and your claim of "self-defense" is accepted and upheld by the DA and/or jury -- you are immune from further civil lawsuits. If the totality of the circumstances do not support your claim, and your self-defense claim is rejected leaving you convicted of manslaughter or something worse, then there is no protection for you against civil lawsuits.
Can you provide us with a citation or some case law on that? If your justification for shooting is sufficient, it doesn't matter what kind of force you used. If your justification is found to be insufficient, less lethal rounds don't get you off the hook. Under what aspect of law do less lethal rounds place you in special jeopardy, legally?
Now, less lethal rounds are NOT a good idea -- you're still using a firearm and that means deadly force, so your standard of ability, opportunity, and jeopardy remains just as high. If you can't lawfully fire on someone with buckshot, you can't lawfully fire on them with any other firearm round, either. So there's no value in using them. They're just a less effective form of lethal force, from a civilian defensive standpoint, so you might as well use something that is known to work in most cases, like buck or slugs.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
We've just had several good threads on this exact question. Here's the most relevant: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=586981
Also, reread post 19.
Will the weapon you used encourage the responding officers, investigating detectives, District Attorney, and/or Grand Jury to bring you to trial for your act of claimed self-defense? Hard to say.
But, if things do go as badly as they may and you do end up in front of a jury it is well established that the more exotic and dangerous your weapon appears, the more likely it is that the jury will look disfavorably on you.
The best advice is to choose what actually works most efficiently for you (not what looks coolest, necessarily) and practice until you master that weapon. And, at the same time, study your state's law and obtain the best advice you can on how it is applied in practice -- including how any "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground" modifiers actually work.
Then, do all you can to avoid ever having to apply what you've learned.
berettashotgun
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2005
- Messages
- 1,149
I get what I wanted and could shoot well and get a ton of practice at the range.
"Tactical" pistol grip shotguns are seemingly all the rage with turkey hunters nowadays.
It is a seemingly "cliche" saying, but "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6"
BTW ~ I much prefer the regular grip on a shotgun stock to a pistol grip.
English style looks beautiful, but I always hit my nose with my thumb.
"Tactical" pistol grip shotguns are seemingly all the rage with turkey hunters nowadays.
It is a seemingly "cliche" saying, but "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6"
BTW ~ I much prefer the regular grip on a shotgun stock to a pistol grip.
English style looks beautiful, but I always hit my nose with my thumb.
Attachments
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
This idea comes up on THR nearly every day. In case anyone has missed the memo thus far:
The gun that is used in a defensive shooting has no bearing on whether or not a shooting is deemed to be legally justifiable. Use whatever gun you are comfortable with.
The gun that is used in a defensive shooting has no bearing on whether or not a shooting is deemed to be legally justifiable. Use whatever gun you are comfortable with.
bubba in ca
Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 373
``It depends``
The specifics of the weapon don`t matter per the law. However, the law is interpretted by PEOPLE all down the line.
Much depends on the community and the individuals involved, including you. Things are also changing because there are more and more ARs, AKs, etc out there, plus .22 play guns that look like them, so the general public should be slowly getting used to them.
The jury is part of community values. generally speaking, if I got in a shootout i would like to do it clean-shaven, wearing decent looking jeans or chino pants and a plaid shirt with bland colors and using a gun that looked midrange in price and quality, preferably American made with ammo that said `home defense`on the box.
And i would have a long chat with my lawyer about these issues long before we got anywhere near trial. If he is a criminal defese lawyer who occasionally has represented innocent people, he should have a feeling for community values, subject, as always, the the crap shoot of who ends up judge and jury.
Ivè been on jury duty and grand jury duty and the sistem generally works. BUT, i did notice that any little thing that puts a little teeny suspision in the minds of jurors seems to carry a big wallop.
The specifics of the weapon don`t matter per the law. However, the law is interpretted by PEOPLE all down the line.
Much depends on the community and the individuals involved, including you. Things are also changing because there are more and more ARs, AKs, etc out there, plus .22 play guns that look like them, so the general public should be slowly getting used to them.
The jury is part of community values. generally speaking, if I got in a shootout i would like to do it clean-shaven, wearing decent looking jeans or chino pants and a plaid shirt with bland colors and using a gun that looked midrange in price and quality, preferably American made with ammo that said `home defense`on the box.
And i would have a long chat with my lawyer about these issues long before we got anywhere near trial. If he is a criminal defese lawyer who occasionally has represented innocent people, he should have a feeling for community values, subject, as always, the the crap shoot of who ends up judge and jury.
Ivè been on jury duty and grand jury duty and the sistem generally works. BUT, i did notice that any little thing that puts a little teeny suspision in the minds of jurors seems to carry a big wallop.
- Status
