.357 vs .44 for home defence?
- Thread starter STEVR
- Start date
- Location
- maple ridge b.c
I would claim that since under certain cicumstances it is legal to shoot inside your home(self defence) that there is no place in Canada where it is not legal to load a resticted firearm.IM_Lugger said:
- Location
- The taint of Canada
IM_Lugger said:
See guys, its pointless to argue if you can shoot somebody in your house with a handgun. If you successfully defended yourself you'd be charged for having an illegally loaded gun.
Use a fail safe pump shotgun or my favorite, the Big F@#king Rock.
M
MackDaddy
Guest
As easy as it would be to pick-up the handgun, the shotgun sounds like a much better idea. The simple sound it makes when pumping the action would be enough to make anyone think twice about their original plans.
Problem is that my shotgun is not made for hunting, at all. Its a Fabarm Martial tactical model with 14" barrel, picatinny rail with SureFire G2 light mounted. Would be hard to convince a jury that I purchased it for wabbit huntin'.
Problem is that my shotgun is not made for hunting, at all. Its a Fabarm Martial tactical model with 14" barrel, picatinny rail with SureFire G2 light mounted. Would be hard to convince a jury that I purchased it for wabbit huntin'.
TightGroup
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Saint-Louis-de-Kent, NB
MackDaddy, thats perfect for a 3 gun match and also very good at the range for plinki 
I have a VERY hard time swallowing lie-berals when they say "your more likely to get your gun used on you by an intruder than you are to shoot him"
I can't see that.
That being said, 00 buck = best from what i have heard. But think about all the adreneline rushing through your body. Follow up shots = important. .357. I can't imagine somebody sticking around though, to rush you if you didn't get him on the first shot. Then again, Canada is drug-addict friendly, and I know a lot of them can be nuts depending on the drugs, and risk their life to take you down.
I can't see that.
That being said, 00 buck = best from what i have heard. But think about all the adreneline rushing through your body. Follow up shots = important. .357. I can't imagine somebody sticking around though, to rush you if you didn't get him on the first shot. Then again, Canada is drug-addict friendly, and I know a lot of them can be nuts depending on the drugs, and risk their life to take you down.
Cocked&Locked
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- S. Ontario
I have to go along with the people going for their gauge. My first choice would be my short 870. Second would be the 625. Nice big hole in the end of it and it would suck looking at the hollow points peeking out of the cylinder.
I expect either would convince a midnight shopper to vacate the premises without futher ado.
I expect either would convince a midnight shopper to vacate the premises without futher ado.
A 12 gauge shotgun may offer more stopping power but shooting one indoors without ear protection would probably cause a hell of a lot more damage to your hearing than, say, shooting a 9 mm handgun. A handgun is also easier to maneuver in tight spaces and there's virtually no chance of the intruder wrestling it away from you. In Iraq, many soldiers use their sidearms when doing house clearings. There’s probably a good reason for that.
that's exactly what I always thought; if you live in a apartment or house with narrow hallways/staircases you have a BIG disadvantage with a long gun (esp. if it's a not a semiauto). I never really got the whole 'shotgun as a best home defense tool' idea...It's easier to fight someone with a shotgun/rifle; if the BG is stronger than you and he gets a hold of the gun/barrel (he'd be wearing glows to avoid leaving fingerprints, so even if you pull the trigger he won't get burned) basically you're screwed! It's way harder to take someone's handgun away esp. in the dark.
Cocked&Locked
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- S. Ontario
Maybe over my head here, but I still go with the shot gun. Unless there is a reason to go looking through your house for the bad guy, finding and shooting him are gonna find you a world of legal grief. House clearing is for places where you are allowed to protect your property not just your life. I'll just be sitting nicely back from the top of the stairs with my 870 and #5. Every thing and every one important is behind me and there's only one way up. And anything coming up is going right back down, only way faster. When the adreneline hits, as its gonna in that sort of situation, the shottie will be way easier to keep on target than any handgun.
- Location
- The taint of Canada
He sure is cute!
Darren, I agree totally with your statement. I carry a wheel gun on the street for my job... The whole position behind legal firearms carry in Canada for anyone other than a peace officer is in DEFENSE. I totally agree with creating a secure position and defending it. In this country your supposed to call the police and wait. A quote taken directly from my carry permit: "For the purpose of protecting his or her life or the lives of other individuals in the course of his or her duty" For peace officers and all others carrying firearms there is a "use of force continuum" that needs to be followed. Simplified, you have to be justified by a specific threat to take any action with a firearm, if not justified, simply gripping a holstered firearm is assault by intimidation according to the Criminal Code. To make it simple, there are three legally important components; weapon, intent and delivery. You are usually legally justified in gripping your firearm in an attempt to disuade by intimidation as well as verbally warning/disuading, if presented with one component.
Draw to low-ready and verbally warn/disuade with two components, and to fire you need all three components, as well as being REASONABLY fearful of grievous bodily harm or death. In other words, a person across the street holding a knife, swearing to kill you isn't enough of a threat to fire, unless he obtains a method of delivery, such as running towards you and creating a realistic danger of grievous bodily harm or death.
My point is that this model is for "legally sanctioned firearms carry", there's no provisions or legal guaranties if you decide to use a firearm for home defense. Your putting your self at great risk to criminal charges and civil litigation due to the amount of subjectivity and differences in interpretation.
Also, I have a few coworkers who've been forced to fire in defense inside buildings... and each one of them have lost some portion of their hearing abilities.
Also, the way things are going in this country, your pretty much in charge of ensuring another persons safety when they're on your property. I recently heard something about a convicted burglar sueing a home owner for being cut with a knife while breaking into his home?....
Now, I must digress, I love guns and I believe we should have the right to carry for personal defense, however given how screwed up this countries legal system is, you really have to think twice.
I personally have had my home broken into twice, once while sleeping...(didn't wake up) and once while away.... I'm very educated about the legal ambiguities surrounding home defense as well as the risks to my safety. I choose to defend my home with a planned series of non-lethal methods, I'd rather be blamed for someone inadvertently getting hurt...being shot with paintballs at close range, sprayed with pepper spray etc... while they're robbing my house, then be charged with attempted murder and related firearms violations.
That being said, if push came to shove and things get bad, I have the ability and training to take away a criminals weapon and use it on him. Especially a handgun, anyone who points a handgun at me is not only risking my life, but his as well
If I lived in the states, Remington 870, with reduced recoil buck shot all the way.
If hell freezes over and the mummies are at the door... Ruger semi auto carbine in 44mag with a red dot.
To address the discussion that started the thread
357 all the way, 44 is too much gun for any practicle defense. You want to move and shoot, and shoot quickly and accurately. the 44 although goes along way for style points, has too much recoil for me.
Greg
Draw to low-ready and verbally warn/disuade with two components, and to fire you need all three components, as well as being REASONABLY fearful of grievous bodily harm or death. In other words, a person across the street holding a knife, swearing to kill you isn't enough of a threat to fire, unless he obtains a method of delivery, such as running towards you and creating a realistic danger of grievous bodily harm or death.
My point is that this model is for "legally sanctioned firearms carry", there's no provisions or legal guaranties if you decide to use a firearm for home defense. Your putting your self at great risk to criminal charges and civil litigation due to the amount of subjectivity and differences in interpretation.
Also, I have a few coworkers who've been forced to fire in defense inside buildings... and each one of them have lost some portion of their hearing abilities.
Also, the way things are going in this country, your pretty much in charge of ensuring another persons safety when they're on your property. I recently heard something about a convicted burglar sueing a home owner for being cut with a knife while breaking into his home?....
Now, I must digress, I love guns and I believe we should have the right to carry for personal defense, however given how screwed up this countries legal system is, you really have to think twice.
I personally have had my home broken into twice, once while sleeping...(didn't wake up) and once while away.... I'm very educated about the legal ambiguities surrounding home defense as well as the risks to my safety. I choose to defend my home with a planned series of non-lethal methods, I'd rather be blamed for someone inadvertently getting hurt...being shot with paintballs at close range, sprayed with pepper spray etc... while they're robbing my house, then be charged with attempted murder and related firearms violations.
That being said, if push came to shove and things get bad, I have the ability and training to take away a criminals weapon and use it on him. Especially a handgun, anyone who points a handgun at me is not only risking my life, but his as well
If I lived in the states, Remington 870, with reduced recoil buck shot all the way.
If hell freezes over and the mummies are at the door... Ruger semi auto carbine in 44mag with a red dot.
To address the discussion that started the thread
357 all the way, 44 is too much gun for any practicle defense. You want to move and shoot, and shoot quickly and accurately. the 44 although goes along way for style points, has too much recoil for me.
Greg
Last edited:
The only weapon that counts is the one between your ears, and it needs to be loaded (trained) and properly maintained on a regular basis. And, depending on your personal circumstances, a citizen may rightly 'clear' portions of his home. A single old curmudgeon, living alone, on the ground floor with an emergency escape, should retreat to his best defensible position, and if scared for his life or safety there, he may be entitled to resort to deadly force.
But Poppa, with defenceless young children not sleeping in the same bedroom as Poppa, (we will assume Poppa is NOT a pervert) is entitled, and morally required, to protect his children by clearing the space between him and his children, gathering those children in a best defensive location, and then, is entitled to use lethal force if, at that point in time, believes he, or his children, (or wife, to be chauvanistic) are in danger of their life or serious physical harm.
And, if he gets charged, convicted, so be it. His wife and kids are safe, what's a little jail time? It's about seeing the sun rise again.
Canada has a terifying rate of home invasions, exceeded I believe only by Scotland, and the home invaders are becoming more violent as the system allows them to get away with murder. One whose home is invaded, and who does not fear for his life or safety, harbours a fantasy from which he will be vilently disabused.
But Poppa, with defenceless young children not sleeping in the same bedroom as Poppa, (we will assume Poppa is NOT a pervert) is entitled, and morally required, to protect his children by clearing the space between him and his children, gathering those children in a best defensive location, and then, is entitled to use lethal force if, at that point in time, believes he, or his children, (or wife, to be chauvanistic) are in danger of their life or serious physical harm.
And, if he gets charged, convicted, so be it. His wife and kids are safe, what's a little jail time? It's about seeing the sun rise again.
Canada has a terifying rate of home invasions, exceeded I believe only by Scotland, and the home invaders are becoming more violent as the system allows them to get away with murder. One whose home is invaded, and who does not fear for his life or safety, harbours a fantasy from which he will be vilently disabused.
Let's just clarify one thing. In case of a home invasion, are we all talking about somebody forcefully breaking your door down? Because if you leave it unlocked and somebody comes in, it's hard to tell the cops you shot a BG when there's no forceful entry.
But if they actually break the door down, then it's fair game to take them down if they threaten you with a weapon. Don't get me wrong, I hate criminals and would love to see them fry, but reguardless I think everybody on this board would feel absolutely terrible to take a human life. That's not something I look forward to doing, but when I start a family, I hope to have the law behind me if I have to make such a decision.
But if they actually break the door down, then it's fair game to take them down if they threaten you with a weapon. Don't get me wrong, I hate criminals and would love to see them fry, but reguardless I think everybody on this board would feel absolutely terrible to take a human life. That's not something I look forward to doing, but when I start a family, I hope to have the law behind me if I have to make such a decision.
Cocked&Locked
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- S. Ontario
I was of course replying based upon my personal situation. If i had children, my tactics would change. Of course if I did, I would have them all on the same floor (upper) if at all possible and I like single access to that floor. Maybe i'm paranoid, but it works.
As to being terrible to take a human life, well yes, but if they are kicking down my front door and/or threatening my family, I'm not sure that mentally I'd still classify them as human. Maybe vermin.....Leagally though, it's still a can of worms.
I had a guy at a local gun store on my case saying "you aren't allowed to shoot anyone ever in canada". This came up after I mentioned that my local club banned the use of IPSIC/IDPA targets.
The reply of a number of us on the other side of the counter was that, well, maybe we would go to jail, but our family would be safe and the perp wouldn't be there with us!
As to being terrible to take a human life, well yes, but if they are kicking down my front door and/or threatening my family, I'm not sure that mentally I'd still classify them as human. Maybe vermin.....Leagally though, it's still a can of worms.
I had a guy at a local gun store on my case saying "you aren't allowed to shoot anyone ever in canada". This came up after I mentioned that my local club banned the use of IPSIC/IDPA targets.
The reply of a number of us on the other side of the counter was that, well, maybe we would go to jail, but our family would be safe and the perp wouldn't be there with us!
Last edited:
- Location
- The taint of Canada
mr00jimbo said:
You sure would have a lot harder time proving that you did everything in your control to not kill a homeinvader if you didn't lock your door. You should always lock your door espicially if you own guns.
