airsoft bb's in a shotgun shell?

supernova said:
Its deeper than that, not as simple as cause and effect. Read through my post, if you could get those points across to a judge and jury, you would stand a chance against the government gun-owner-slaughtering-machine. Lawyers have a tendency to pick everything apart so your side of the story is no different. You cant just say "he pointed a gun at someone, so he automatically wanted to hurt and destroy that person" otherwise cops would be vicious outlaw murderers. Theyre not, and neither am I and apparently Uchi too. That doesnt mean you cant get buried by a fat-paid lawyer, but it means you do have a chance. And FWIW I'd have one less-lethal round in the chamber and a mag-tube full of lead. One chance...
Click to expand...

So what happens if you have multiple attackers??? You give one guy a chance but not the rest???? Heartless and inconsiderate. Inequality at it's worst. How will the courts view that??

I think that comparing police shootings to civilian shootings is a bad idea especially based on what they do and what you do (need to attend, high % of offender contact, etc) - we can mitigate most of our risk by not going to bad places or dong bad things (play stupid games, win stupid prizes). LE does not have that choice.

It's apples and oranges...
 
Wow, what? If you have multiple attackers than you have very little chance to defend yourself, youre going to have to use more force. Surely not everyone will run into shotgun fire after watching a buddy go down. The group gets one chance, the first attacker gets slammed. Any further attackers get slammed. Me and my family get to live, and my T.V. stays where it is. Tell me how you would like me to sort out the group as per who has a remaining chance, who has used that chance and needs buckshot and which ones get to go free? Will you stop by and keep tabs on chances and attackers so I dont get overwhelmed by attackers and accidentally shoot too many people? Or at least help them load the T.V. into my truck and find the keys for them... That would be the Canadian thing to do right? And yes, comparing police shootings is necessary, but only if you pay attention. I mentioned the use of less lethal rounds specifically, not lethal ammunition. Police use less lethal ammo to drop unruly individuals without killing them. Its called attempting to preserve human life and shows compassion and care for others, even when they mean you harm. Anyone see the episode of Guinea Pig where a swat team "tested" their less lethal weapons on him? He got severely f**ked up like Johnny Knoxville vs. 12 ga. bean bag. No intent to resist further after being hit. It takes one screwed up individual to continue attacking after that. Its not like youre spraying him with confetti, youre causing serious blunt force trauma. Or maybe you just want all gun owners to go to jail and pay for trying to defend themselves? Maybe you want everyones guns taken away? Sounds pretty anti-gun to me. Your second last sentence has me completely stumped though. I dont know how to answer. We are talking bout home defense. Are you saying we should stay away from our homes because they are bad places? And what stupid games and prizes? :confused: That one really has me confused. Like a carnival? Carnivals are dangerous places prone to shoot-outs? Sorry for being so harsh but man, I'm not letting myself believe all that anti-gun B.S.


mudgunner49 said:
So what happens if you have multiple attackers??? You give one guy a chance but not the rest???? Heartless and inconsiderate. Inequality at it's worst. How will the courts view that??

I think that comparing police shootings to civilian shootings is a bad idea especially based on what they do and what you do (need to attend, high % of offender contact, etc) - we can mitigate most of our risk by not going to bad places or dong bad things (play stupid games, win stupid prizes). LE does not have that choice.

It's apples and oranges...
Click to expand...
 
supernova said:
Wow, what? If you have multiple attackers than you have very little chance to defend yourself, youre going to have to use more force. Surely not everyone will run into shotgun fire after watching a buddy go down. The group gets one chance, the first attacker gets slammed. Any further attackers get slammed. Me and my family get to live, and my T.V. stays where it is. Tell me how you would like me to sort out the group as per who has a remaining chance, who has used that chance and needs buckshot and which ones get to go free? Will you stop by and keep tabs on chances and attackers so I dont get overwhelmed by attackers and accidentally shoot too many people? Or at least help them load the T.V. into my truck and find the keys for them... That would be the Canadian thing to do right? And yes, comparing police shootings is necessary, but only if you pay attention. I mentioned the use of less lethal rounds specifically, not lethal ammunition. Police use less lethal ammo to drop unruly individuals without killing them. Its called attempting to preserve human life and shows compassion and care for others, even when they mean you harm. Anyone see the episode of Guinea Pig where a swat team "tested" their less lethal weapons on him? He got severely f**ked up like Johnny Knoxville vs. 12 ga. bean bag. No intent to resist further after being hit. It takes one screwed up individual to continue attacking after that. Its not like youre spraying him with confetti, youre causing serious blunt force trauma. Or maybe you just want all gun owners to go to jail and pay for trying to defend themselves? Maybe you want everyones guns taken away? Sounds pretty anti-gun to me. Your second last sentence has me completely stumped though. I dont know how to answer. We are talking bout home defense. Are you saying we should stay away from our homes because they are bad places? And what stupid games and prizes? :confused: That one really has me confused. Like a carnival? Carnivals are dangerous places prone to shoot-outs? Sorry for being so harsh but man, I'm not letting myself believe all that anti-gun B.S.
Click to expand...

In no particular order...

"Maybe you want everyones guns taken away? Sounds pretty anti-gun to me."

Wow - I've never been accused of being "anti-gun" before. First time for everything I guess. Let me break it down a little more succinctly for you:

"Tell me how you would like me to sort out the group as per who has a remaining chance, who has used that chance and needs buckshot and which ones get to go free?"

I was merely giving an indication of how the court would view the alleged "non-lethality" of your initial round. Ever wonder why LEO's don't fire warning shots any more?? That's a rhetorical question BTW.

"Police use less lethal ammo to drop unruly individuals without killing them. Its called attempting to preserve human life and shows compassion and care for others, even when they mean you harm."

Yes they do, in very specific instances and within very closed parameters. Not because they "care" (not that they don't, don't get me wrong...), and not that it's some sort of panacea. If you think that it works all the time you're delusional - having seen chemically elevated individuals take multiple hits of bean bags and/or OC, enough that it is not an aberration I tend to not trust them for anything approaching serious use. To say nothing of the fact that nothing that you as a civilian can get your hands on will cause "serious blunt force trauma" - especially airsoft bb's.

"It takes one screwed up individual to continue attacking after that."

There are an inordinate number of those folks out there, usually assisted by the aforementioned chemical elevation. Unfortunately they're may very well be the ones likely to be breaking into your house...

"Your second last sentence has me completely stumped though. "

Merely pointing out that we can mitigate much of our risk unlike the police who, based on their job requirement which compels them to actively pursue law-breakers. Not suggesting that home is a stupid place or that going/staying/being there is stupid either. Nothing too deep there - sometimes a chocolate milkshake is just a chocolate milkshake. Don't over-think it...

"Sorry for being so harsh but..."

That's not harsh - the Interweb can't hurt me...



cheers

blake
 
Blake I believe you are the one over thinking this. Sure we can avoid trouble outside the home, but anyone can get broken into. No one ever sees it coming, it can be as random as a tweaker suddenly needing money for his fix. The less lethal round is the first step after producing a weapon. By this point youve got some s**tbag in your house uninvited. Arming yourself and drawing down on him is step 1. If hes stupid enough to attack, less lethal ammunition is step 2. If he continues on to get to you, you have 2 options remaining: let him attack you, risking your life OR fire lethal ammunition to save your own life. That process gives him as much lead to correct himself before dropping him. And hey, he might see the gun and give up. Guns are very imposing to a sober individual. Every step has a good chance for success, but keeps you in a defensive position that will keep you alive. Im not implying to stake your life on less lethal, and not implying you should go straight to lethal ammo. No one knows what state of mind he will be in and how effective these things will be until it happens, but this way makes the most sense for me. Having the decency to give him the chance for a peaceful end, and the means to ramp up the pressure to bring it to an end alive. Argue away but thats my outlook on home defense, I wont lay down and take it, but I wont make irrational decisions either.
 
If I can't de-escalate the situation using my voice, somebody gets shot .... Life is that simple.

supernova said:
Blake I believe you are the one over thinking this. Sure we can avoid trouble outside the home, but anyone can get broken into. No one ever sees it coming, it can be as random as a tweaker suddenly needing money for his fix. The less lethal round is the first step after producing a weapon. By this point youve got some s**tbag in your house uninvited. Arming yourself and drawing down on him is step 1. If hes stupid enough to attack, less lethal ammunition is step 2. If he continues on to get to you, you have 2 options remaining: let him attack you, risking your life OR fire lethal ammunition to save your own life. That process gives him as much lead to correct himself before dropping him. And hey, he might see the gun and give up. Guns are very imposing to a sober individual. Every step has a good chance for success, but keeps you in a defensive position that will keep you alive. Im not implying to stake your life on less lethal, and not implying you should go straight to lethal ammo. No one knows what state of mind he will be in and how effective these things will be until it happens, but this way makes the most sense for me. Having the decency to give him the chance for a peaceful end, and the means to ramp up the pressure to bring it to an end alive. Argue away but thats my outlook on home defense, I wont lay down and take it, but I wont make irrational decisions either.
Click to expand...
 
supernova said:
Blake I believe you are the one over thinking this. Sure we can avoid trouble outside the home, but anyone can get broken into. No one ever sees it coming, it can be as random as a tweaker suddenly needing money for his fix. The less lethal round is the first step after producing a weapon. By this point youve got some s**tbag in your house uninvited. Arming yourself and drawing down on him is step 1. If hes stupid enough to attack, less lethal ammunition is step 2. If he continues on to get to you, you have 2 options remaining: let him attack you, risking your life OR fire lethal ammunition to save your own life. That process gives him as much lead to correct himself before dropping him. And hey, he might see the gun and give up. Guns are very imposing to a sober individual. Every step has a good chance for success, but keeps you in a defensive position that will keep you alive. Im not implying to stake your life on less lethal, and not implying you should go straight to lethal ammo. No one knows what state of mind he will be in and how effective these things will be until it happens, but this way makes the most sense for me. Having the decency to give him the chance for a peaceful end, and the means to ramp up the pressure to bring it to an end alive. Argue away but thats my outlook on home defense, I wont lay down and take it, but I wont make irrational decisions either.
Click to expand...

I trust that you never have reason to test you logic in the real world. I don't think that you have much experience with real world close range interpersonal crisis intervention. That's not a slam at all as I think you're actually demonstrating your decency by your willingness to give a second chance to someone probably not deserving.

"I'm not implying to stake your life on less lethal..."

That is exactly what you're doing - what happens if the only shot you get off is your less-lethal round and it doesn't work??

"Having the decency to give him the chance for a peaceful end, and the means to ramp up the pressure to bring it to an end alive."

He/she/it did not have the decency to stay out of my house. I'm not bound by any code to exhibit decency on my end.

"anyone can get broken into..."

Absolutely - but if you are home when it happens, that demonstrates a certain element of savagery on the part of the perpetrator that needs to be dealt with in a definitive manner...

We'll obviously have to agree to disagree.

peace and hair grease

blake
 
Agree to disagree we can do. But my final point regards your first one, my experience is based on being able to diffuse situations peacefully. Not inexperience. I like to give people a chance, but stand fully prepared (as much as I can be) to take more aggressive action. Infact now that youve said that I believe I see the difference. Attitude of approach. You take a more aggressive approach off the bat while I work towards a simple peaceful end. Works for me, but not for all. Lets put this one to bed so Uchi can play airsoft with his shotgun :D
 
mlehtovaara said:
"Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

Might want to take that into consideration, before typing such things.

As far as the shotgun, under the bed goes. What shotgun under the bed? Refer back to my previous quote. The only way that would be known is if you open your mouth, which you just did.;)
Click to expand...

You can store a non restricted shotgun under our bed with a trigger lock.
 
mudgunner49 said:
1. Once again, bad idea. If you have made the decision to pull the trigger, you have decided that lethal force is the appropriate option. The correct terminology is not non-lethal, it is less-lethal - lots of that $hit can still kill - just ask the chick who was killed a couple of years back in (I think Chicago) when she got whacked in the brain-cage by a baton round that bounced off the pavement.

You are into a whole different fix when you try to explain that you only intended to scare the dude who is laying on you living room floor dead. Do you know what that is classified as by the courts????

Negligence. Causing death. Easily upgradeable to homicide by an aggressive Crown.:eek:

You want to shoot potential bad guys with airsoft BB's, wax bullets, shotgun shells stuffed with unicorns and fuzzy purple bunnies, whatever - go ahead. I'm pretty sure that I won't be contributing to your legal defense fund (and you will need it) as you will be in fix of your own making...:rolleyes:

2. don't assume that you know what others are thinking - that also is a recipe for disaster if you try it as a defence...;)


blake
Click to expand...

good points. will you contribute to the buy uchi a bigger more efficient shovel fund? :D
 
supernova said:
Agree to disagree we can do. But my final point regards your first one, my experience is based on being able to diffuse situations peacefully. Not inexperience. I like to give people a chance, but stand fully prepared (as much as I can be) to take more aggressive action. Infact now that youve said that I believe I see the difference. Attitude of approach. You take a more aggressive approach off the bat while I work towards a simple peaceful end. Works for me, but not for all. Lets put this one to bed so Uchi can play airsoft with his shotgun :D
Click to expand...

lol you know the thought had crossed my mind to bring it to the field but i quickly came to my senses and realized it might not go over so well. lol. thats a joke so that people dont get freaked out.
 
its funny how messed up our government really is. as stated in a previous reply, the gov wants us to lay there take it up the ass and get killed by an intruder so that we dont kill them first. seems to me as if some leos dont wanna go through the trouble of searching out these crack heads and arresting them and figure if the home owner is dead he cant give a description of who killed him. as was stated in a previous post. my safety and my familys comes well before that of any piece of crap who breaks into my house. what i might do once my larger capacity saddle comes in, load that with lethal rounds, load the small one with none lethal and depending on how saucy im feeling if i ever get broken into i may choose to or not to spray the intruders insides all over my kitchen.

and yes the bean bag jackass thing was great. probably comparable to being hit with a hammer
 
supernova said:
Agree to disagree we can do. But my final point regards your first one, my experience is based on being able to diffuse situations peacefully. Not inexperience. I like to give people a chance, but stand fully prepared (as much as I can be) to take more aggressive action. Infact now that youve said that I believe I see the difference. Attitude of approach. You take a more aggressive approach off the bat while I work towards a simple peaceful end. Works for me, but not for all. Lets put this one to bed so Uchi can play airsoft with his shotgun :D
Click to expand...

Sure - I'm an aggressive guy. Good luck...
 
Doc M said:
The wad is still potentially lethal at close range - make sure you keep that in mind. Doing a flat cardboard or pasted tissue wad may help with this, though.

For my money, they'll still charge you with every firearm offense if you discharge a firearm in self-defense... so, frankly, going with the most lethal option and employing it ONLY WHEN ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY is the best course of action IMO. Rock salt or airsoft BBs will still see you charged with pointing a firearm, careless use of a firearm, unlawful discharge of a firearm, etc. if you run into the "right" (read: wrong) kind of LEOs investigating your case.

And, frankly, I don't like the odds of finding a LEO in Canada who's sympathetic - or a Crown Prosecutor who's sympathetic - to that situation... so you might as well go "all or nothing" IMO.

-M
Click to expand...

i agree with this, also the bad guy is still alive and able to sue you for personal injury and likely win.

with a lethal round there is only your side of the story.
 
I feel that anyone that breaks into my house and threatens my family or I deserves to get rusty nails and screws fired through them from a 12 gauge. Just my opinion.
 
Aries- said:
i agree with this, also the bad guy is still alive and able to sue you for personal injury and likely win.

with a lethal round there is only your side of the story.
Click to expand...

not to mention theyre gonna go on to do it again and again.

rusty nails and screws might scratch the inside of your barrel. dont wanna risk doing that :D
 
I tried this with salt loads when I was a kid and when tested against plywood and sheet metal at close range they blasted right through, too powerful for the intended task.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom