I'd be interested to know your source(s). Would you mind giving it. Thanks!
MOST defensive shots are 6 ft from a
shotgun's muzzle, and that means that the pattern is but 1-2" wide. In other words, you might as well as have had a rifle, cause you sure still have to aim the shotgun like a rifle, or you will miss.
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
I'd be interested to know your source(s). Would you mind giving it. Thanks!sure. Dept of Justice annual Crime Survey
shows that 65-75% of all attacks are not made with a gun, so at what range can you justify shooting them, eh? 10 ft or less, and that's measured from your chest to his. The muzzle of a shotgun is 3 ft closer to him.
'Every year, the FBI'S Uniform Crime Report says that over half of the GUN fights occur at 10 ft or less, and that's with COPS. Cops tend to have longer range engagements than civilians can justify, and that skews the average range to be longer for cops than it is for civilians. So, 70+% of the time, it's at 10ft or less, because the attacker has no gun, and over half of the remainder of the time, it's at 10 ft because that's how crime goes down, for civilians. So, nearly 90% of the time, it's at 10 ft or less. Few homes have rooms that are more than 20 ft square, and few attacks are from one corner to another. So the odds are at least 6 to 1 that you will (if justifiable in Court) fire at less than 10 ft, and the odds are about 20 to 1 that you will fire at less than 20ft.
shows that 65-75% of all attacks are not made with a gun, so at what range can you justify shooting them, eh? 10 ft or less, and that's measured from your chest to his. The muzzle of a shotgun is 3 ft closer to him.
'Every year, the FBI'S Uniform Crime Report says that over half of the GUN fights occur at 10 ft or less, and that's with COPS. Cops tend to have longer range engagements than civilians can justify, and that skews the average range to be longer for cops than it is for civilians. So, 70+% of the time, it's at 10ft or less, because the attacker has no gun, and over half of the remainder of the time, it's at 10 ft because that's how crime goes down, for civilians. So, nearly 90% of the time, it's at 10 ft or less. Few homes have rooms that are more than 20 ft square, and few attacks are from one corner to another. So the odds are at least 6 to 1 that you will (if justifiable in Court) fire at less than 10 ft, and the odds are about 20 to 1 that you will fire at less than 20ft.
Re: sure. Dept of Justice annual Crime Survey
(By the way, you need a new, much shorter, shotgun barrel. The one you're using, now, protrudes too far over the side of your armchair. If you're not extra careful with it, you might end up poking yourself in the eye.)
What are you, eh - Canadian? We ARE talking about violent attacks, here. The kind that come under the purview of justifiable use of deadly force. You've heard of a firearm training exercise called the, 'Tueller Drill' - eh? Guess what! Studies are currently under way to expand the justifiable shooting range to as much as 40 feet!!! If this is permissible behavior for LEO's, then, it's good for everyone else, too. The problem with the use of deadly force in a gunfight does NOT devolve from being too close; it arises from exactly the opposite concern - being too far away!223 fan said:shows that 65-75% of all attacks are not made with a gun, so at what range can you justify shooting them, eh? 10 ft or less, and that's measured from your chest to his. The muzzle of a shotgun is 3 ft closer to him.
(By the way, you need a new, much shorter, shotgun barrel. The one you're using, now, protrudes too far over the side of your armchair. If you're not extra careful with it, you might end up poking yourself in the eye.)
How about an editorial reference: title, section, page #, and an exact quote. You seem to be badly confused. What does, 'COPS' have to do with anything?223 fan said:‘Every year, the FBI'S Uniform Crime Report says that over half of the GUN fights occur at 10 ft or less, and that's with COPS.
This drivel is, nothing more than, one long badly confused non-sequitur. What crap! It's not worthy of a reply. Hell, on second thought, it's not even worthy of posting on a serious weapons board! I've got to know: Do you, also, belong to PETA?223 fan said:Cops tend to have longer range engagements than civilians can justify, and that skews the average range to be longer for cops than it is for civilians. So, 70+% of the time, it's at 10ft or less, because the attacker has no gun, and over half of the remainder of the time, it's at 10 ft because that's how crime goes down, for civilians. So, nearly 90% of the time, it's at 10 ft or less. Few homes have rooms that are more than 20 ft square, and few attacks are from one corner to another. So the odds are at least 6 to 1 that you will (if justifiable in Court) fire at less than 10 ft, and the odds are about 20 to 1 that you will fire at less than 20ft.
I MET Dennis Tueller, at the 1978 Nat'ls
in S CAl, where were you? Regardless of what bs you want to spread around, the fact remains that the ranges are what I said, and so are the % of probability of firing at such ranges. The Tueller drill was about having to DRAW and fire, not about firing a shotgun that you already have pointed at the man. It takes nearly everyone 3 seconds to cover 30 ft, from a standing start, and for sure it will take them that long to cover 40 ft. If you are THAT slow, I suggest that you just hire a bodyguard, cause such klutzes have no business with a gun.
in S CAl, where were you? Regardless of what bs you want to spread around, the fact remains that the ranges are what I said, and so are the % of probability of firing at such ranges. The Tueller drill was about having to DRAW and fire, not about firing a shotgun that you already have pointed at the man. It takes nearly everyone 3 seconds to cover 30 ft, from a standing start, and for sure it will take them that long to cover 40 ft. If you are THAT slow, I suggest that you just hire a bodyguard, cause such klutzes have no business with a gun.
Where Are You From?
OK, then! Know what? I met Bruce Willis once; you remember the guy who starred in, ‘Die Hard 2’ and delivered the famous line; ‘That punk pulled a Glock 7 on me! You know what that is? It's a porcelain gun made in Germany. It doesn't show up on your airport X-ray machines; and it cost more than you make, here, in a month.’
Of course we, all, know that Glock doesn’t make any model called a, 'Glock 7'. Neither are Glocks made of porcelain; and airport X-ray machines DO see them; but, what the hey, (That’s Canadian!) this movie’s, still, great fun – as long as you remember not to believe everything you hear! (This may not be easy for you; but, still ... .)
In an honest effort to get you turned in the right direction: Any set of statistics that includes ALL attacks (including the vast majority that occur without: a gun, a knife, or ANY weapon) has no legitimate relevance, whatsoever, to the use of a firearm in personal combat. This is, simply, statistical nonsense that bureaucrats use in order to inflate a data base in an effort to substantiate an, otherwise, shaky statistical proposition.
Contrary to the ridiculous position you espouse: Proximity has little or NOTHING to do with the justifiable use of ANY gun in defense of life. For instance, if a sniper is a block away using a rifle to shoot at a homeowner or the people at a barbeque party in his backyard, then, that homeowner would be justified to return fire in order to dissuade the threat. Just because someone is a block away does not, necessarily mean that shooting back (or even first) automatically equates to a presumed degree of culpable homicide.
Now, here’s the other part that you seem to be having trouble with: Do you mean to imply that; ‘If a civilian shoots an attacker at (say) 21 feet, then, he is more likely to face murder charges?’ That’s ridiculous! The correct answer to your stated proposition; ‘Dept of Justice annual Crime Survey (sic) shows that 65-75% of all attacks are not made with a gun, so at what range can you justify shooting them, eh?’ remains;
‘AT WHATEVER DISTANCE AN ATTACKER POSES A MORTAL THREAT – PERIOD!’
There is NO direct relationship (statistical, judicial, prosecutorial, or otherwise) between: the use of deadly force, and distance in mortal combat. This problem appears to exist, only, between your ears; and, after reading your ridiculous comments on Carlos Hathcock, I’ve got to believe that there IS a whole lot of uncharted space in there!
By the way, Andy, or 223 fan, or whatever you’re presently calling yourself, ARE you a member of PETA? (Maybe the Canadian chapter – eh.)
OK, then! Know what? I met Bruce Willis once; you remember the guy who starred in, ‘Die Hard 2’ and delivered the famous line; ‘That punk pulled a Glock 7 on me! You know what that is? It's a porcelain gun made in Germany. It doesn't show up on your airport X-ray machines; and it cost more than you make, here, in a month.’
Of course we, all, know that Glock doesn’t make any model called a, 'Glock 7'. Neither are Glocks made of porcelain; and airport X-ray machines DO see them; but, what the hey, (That’s Canadian!) this movie’s, still, great fun – as long as you remember not to believe everything you hear! (This may not be easy for you; but, still ... .)
In an honest effort to get you turned in the right direction: Any set of statistics that includes ALL attacks (including the vast majority that occur without: a gun, a knife, or ANY weapon) has no legitimate relevance, whatsoever, to the use of a firearm in personal combat. This is, simply, statistical nonsense that bureaucrats use in order to inflate a data base in an effort to substantiate an, otherwise, shaky statistical proposition.
Contrary to the ridiculous position you espouse: Proximity has little or NOTHING to do with the justifiable use of ANY gun in defense of life. For instance, if a sniper is a block away using a rifle to shoot at a homeowner or the people at a barbeque party in his backyard, then, that homeowner would be justified to return fire in order to dissuade the threat. Just because someone is a block away does not, necessarily mean that shooting back (or even first) automatically equates to a presumed degree of culpable homicide.
Now, here’s the other part that you seem to be having trouble with: Do you mean to imply that; ‘If a civilian shoots an attacker at (say) 21 feet, then, he is more likely to face murder charges?’ That’s ridiculous! The correct answer to your stated proposition; ‘Dept of Justice annual Crime Survey (sic) shows that 65-75% of all attacks are not made with a gun, so at what range can you justify shooting them, eh?’ remains;
‘AT WHATEVER DISTANCE AN ATTACKER POSES A MORTAL THREAT – PERIOD!’
There is NO direct relationship (statistical, judicial, prosecutorial, or otherwise) between: the use of deadly force, and distance in mortal combat. This problem appears to exist, only, between your ears; and, after reading your ridiculous comments on Carlos Hathcock, I’ve got to believe that there IS a whole lot of uncharted space in there!
By the way, Andy, or 223 fan, or whatever you’re presently calling yourself, ARE you a member of PETA? (Maybe the Canadian chapter – eh.)
G
I first posted on this site as a guest several days ago, and made the mistake of wasting my time responding to 223 fan. He's so interested in defending his life that he didn't notice that he doesn't have one. If I ever came to the realization that I was as screwed up as he is, I'd go in search of armed conflict and leave my gun at home. Guns are not the solution to all problems, but the problems they can solve probably can't be solved any other way.
Aptly stated.
Thanks Ghost.
Thanks Ghost.
u dont KNOW enough to debate with
me, is what you MEAN. Hey dummy, how is a "sniper" going to take a long range shot at you in your HOUSE, dummy? What good is your silly shotgun and buckshot. against a rifle, anyway, hmm? YOu will never SEE the sniper, even if he DOES miss you. He will simply disappear if he doesn't get you on the first shot.
The statistics I quoted are accurate. I've been attacked a dozen times, and WOULD have been attacked a dozen more, had it not been OBVIOUS that the attackers(usually there were more than one) were going to get hurt a LOT more than they were willing to risk. Quite a few of those attacks were by dogs. I used to be an attack dog handler. I made black belt in 1973, where were you?
It's too bad you guys are such weenies, but that's the way nearly everyone turns out any more.
me, is what you MEAN. Hey dummy, how is a "sniper" going to take a long range shot at you in your HOUSE, dummy? What good is your silly shotgun and buckshot. against a rifle, anyway, hmm? YOu will never SEE the sniper, even if he DOES miss you. He will simply disappear if he doesn't get you on the first shot.
The statistics I quoted are accurate. I've been attacked a dozen times, and WOULD have been attacked a dozen more, had it not been OBVIOUS that the attackers(usually there were more than one) were going to get hurt a LOT more than they were willing to risk. Quite a few of those attacks were by dogs. I used to be an attack dog handler. I made black belt in 1973, where were you?
It's too bad you guys are such weenies, but that's the way nearly everyone turns out any more.
G
Andy, it surprises me that someone who places so much emphasis on preparedness would come into a battle of wits unarmed. Do you ever wonder why you have been attacked 12 times? I find it hard to believe that you have much time to spend training, what with all the time you obviously spend posting your drivel on this forum. And hey, before you post your next gem, run spell check, will you? It has occurred to me that it's possible that you're just an imaginary person that this board has cooked up to promote lively discussions on different subjects, but no, ignorance like yours is too hard to fake.
I can easily use my anonymizer program
and "be" 20 people on the same site, and make you think that you actually KNOW something, before I show that you don't know much of anything.
and "be" 20 people on the same site, and make you think that you actually KNOW something, before I show that you don't know much of anything.
No, I don't know who this person is, and really don't care. I was about ready to close down this site anyway and use the vBulletin license for something else. You can all either use it or not, and use it however you want. Makes absolutely no difference to me at all.It has occurred to me that it's possible that you're just an imaginary person that this board has cooked up to promote lively discussions on different subjects, but no, ignorance like yours is too hard to fake.
I put together this site because I like to talk about guns and like to read what other people (in most cases) say about them. Besides the cost of the license, it doesn't cost me really anything to run this site, because I lease my own servers.
The stuff some people write I just treat as idle entertainment.
G
anyone who REALLY knows much of
anything knows that everything I say about guns,ammo, shooting, etc, is accurate. Punks can't TAKE it when I show how fos that they really ARE,that's all. I LIKE rubbing some smartasse's face in his own crap. They DESERVE it.
anything knows that everything I say about guns,ammo, shooting, etc, is accurate. Punks can't TAKE it when I show how fos that they really ARE,that's all. I LIKE rubbing some smartasse's face in his own crap. They DESERVE it.
And I'll bet your eyes are brown too.:laugh01:
G
Hell, cowboy, andy's got brown matter where most people have gray matter. But, I've decided that since my original purpose for contacting this forum was to share info, I will try to do that in each of my postings. If I thought I knew it all, I'd be happy to sit home and just feel good about myself. I wanted to hear about the kind of results people have had with cartridge conversions, such as those from Ace Dube in Alaska. These range from simple 22lr in 223 in a contender to 32 acp in 30-06. Not long complicated 22lr in hk91 kits, just little empty case looking chamber reducers. The possibilities seem endless.
G
and pointless. hey, dummy, nobody
bothers with the $1000 .22 unit for HK's. Nobody with any sense bothers lugging around the too heavy, HORRIBLE trigger pull HK's, anyway. The $150 Ciener .22 unit for the AR is the way to go. Why settle for a stupid single shot, when you can have a 20 rd box mag 22 autoloader, hmm? Why have nothing but a stupid bolt action, when you can have the 223 that wins nealy all the 600 yd stages at the Service Rifle matches, hmm?
bothers with the $1000 .22 unit for HK's. Nobody with any sense bothers lugging around the too heavy, HORRIBLE trigger pull HK's, anyway. The $150 Ciener .22 unit for the AR is the way to go. Why settle for a stupid single shot, when you can have a 20 rd box mag 22 autoloader, hmm? Why have nothing but a stupid bolt action, when you can have the 223 that wins nealy all the 600 yd stages at the Service Rifle matches, hmm?
G
Oh, gee, I forgot, the only purpose for a gun is so we can be the last man standing after world war IV . It's hard to tell sometimes where a single shot was fired from, but when you start opening up with 20 round mags, it does become easier. While you're charging around, shooting at everything that moves, a quiet camoflauged hunter with a single shot will let you walk up to him, and then he will have your ammo. Think how long it will last him at the rate of 1 shot a day for food. With all the ammo you'll be carrying you probably won't have any room to pack a lunch, and after your first 20 rd mag is empty, all the prey animals have departed, and the predators are now looking for you. And when you have to sleep, their dogs will narrow down the search for you, by the smell of all the gun cleaning fluid you'll need for your precious ar, and if that doesn't work there's always the bs trail, which as always, will be thick and wide.
Ghost: that's what I meant by brown eyes, iffen he has a white spot on top his head, he's a quart low.
G
just because U r a lame, firing 20 shots
just because u HAVE 20 shots, doesn't mean everyone is as big a fool as you are. Also, dummy, AR barrels COME in short lengths and with threaded muzzles. I wrote THE BOOKS on making silencers, ya know. Like I said, I knew more about this stuff when I was in high school than lames like you are ever going to learn.
just because u HAVE 20 shots, doesn't mean everyone is as big a fool as you are. Also, dummy, AR barrels COME in short lengths and with threaded muzzles. I wrote THE BOOKS on making silencers, ya know. Like I said, I knew more about this stuff when I was in high school than lames like you are ever going to learn.
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Firearm Forums - Arms Locker
A forum community dedicated to all firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Recommended Communities
