EPT![[image loading]](http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson2/upload/images/firearms/detail_md/109004_01_md.jpg)
Buying a Handgun - Advice - Page 2
| Blogs > Psyonic_Reaver |
Rekrul
Korea (South)17174 Posts
| ||
|
Game
3191 Posts
On April 21 2012 05:55 Karliath wrote: I agree with you in principle, though I don't see how a handgun would more appropriately address this concern. The choice to shoot is up to the person with the gun, and has nothing to do with what gun he has. I would just suggest the OP to scrutinize and memorize the gun laws and Castle Doctrine of his state, and to make sure he has full understanding of his rights and limitations if someone were to intrude his house illegally. This way, if someone were to intrude, he wouldn't have to question the amount of force he can use. In many states, if there's an intruder in your house, you can shoot him without hesitation. This is because some state laws require that you sincerely believe the someone is trying to harm you, but, legally, the mere act of illegal intrusion gives you enough proof that he is trying to harm you. In other states, the conditions are harder to satisfy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine Edit: Just as a side note to the OP, when you call 911, the responder is never allowed to tell you, "yes, you can shoot him/her," even if you can (legally). Edit 2 @Game: Wait, I just read your first post, and now I don't understand what point you were trying to make. Were you just unhappy that I didn't mention that he should understand the laws of his state? That is such a flawed and neanderthal understanding/explanation of the Castle Doctrine. Yes, I agree that people trained in firearms should be wielding a shotgun, and more so someone who understands the technicalities of gun laws. My point about grabbing my Mossberg was that I am not only qualified to operate a weapon and have it openly carried, nor am I not only a Criminal Justice major with years of bodyguard and high level security work under my belt, but that I am intelligent enough to not shoot anyone who walks into my house. I've walked into someone's house accidentally and they were just kinda like "wut" at 11PM before going to a party, if they had shot me, they'd be indicted on 2nd degree murder IN THE STATE that was the first to enact the Stand Your Ground policy. My point was specific that he'd be best getting a pistol because you have to identify all the aesthetics and potential danger of someone before you can start blasting at them, and one pop of a shotgun is GG, heavily weighing towards misuse by someone who (if they need advice on a gun) is clearly ignorant to firearms and most likely the statutes surrounding them, inevitably landing them in prison. | ||
|
Wortie
Netherlands212 Posts
Then again, the use of guns to protect your house sounds just really weird to me. Maybe it is because in Holland nobody actually is allowed to carry firearms (except the police ofc.) Also, if a person really wants to inflict harm on you, he could just ofcourse shoot you trough the window? idk. Maybe thats impersonal? | ||
|
Karliath
United States2214 Posts
On April 21 2012 06:18 Game wrote: That is such a flawed and neanderthal understanding/explanation of the Castle Doctrine. Yes, I agree that people trained in firearms should be wielding a shotgun, and more so someone who understands the technicalities of gun laws. My point about grabbing my Mossberg was that I am not only qualified to operate a weapon and have it openly carried, nor am I not only a Criminal Justice major with years of bodyguard and high level security work under my belt, but that I am intelligent enough to not shoot anyone who walks into my house. I've walked into someone's house accidentally and they were just kinda like "wut" at 11PM before going to a party, if they had shot me, they'd be indicted on 2nd degree murder IN THE STATE that was the first to enact the Stand Your Ground policy. My point was specific that he'd be best getting a pistol because you have to identify all the aesthetics and potential danger of someone before you can start blasting at them, and one pop of a shotgun is GG, heavily weighing towards misuse by someone who (if they need advice on a gun) is clearly ignorant to firearms and most likely the statutes surrounding them, inevitably landing them in prison. Okay, I understand and agree with your concerns with the legality of shooting someone in your house, but I still don't see how a pistol would be better than a shotgun. As you said, " he'd be best getting a pistol because you have to identify all the aesthetics and potential danger of someone before you can start blasting at them, and one pop of a shotgun is GG." What I'm trying to say is that you have to "identify all the aesthetics and potential danger" regardless of what firearm you are carrying. Again, the decision to shoot is based on the person with the gun, and not what gun they are using. Are you saying that a shotgun is more dangerous (to the OP) because one shot is "GG," likely landing the OP in serious legal trouble? In this sense, the OP would be better off going with a handgun, in hopes that shooting with a handgun would not result in a "GG?" While I agree that an appropriate amount of analysis has to be conducted before firing the first shot, once I decide to shoot, I make sure the threat is stopped, and not, "well, I think I hit him once in the arm and once in the abdomen--I hope he'll not shoot at me anymore." | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
On April 21 2012 05:30 Pokebunny wrote: I don't know why you're trying to derail a blog about someone's past history, and history that isn't even related to StarCraft or the topic at hand. Seriously? If anything, I'd say teamliquid staff should be held to higher posting standards too -_- especially about someone that is a bit known in the community. how is it not relevant? he has anger issues, he shouldn't have a gun. i respect psy for his contributions to the BW youtube/vod scene but he shouldn't have a gun.. | ||
|
Game
3191 Posts
Karliath, I get your point. But in the mindset of someone who is getting a gun strictly to keep in their house, they have a shoot first mentality strictly because it's not something they carry everyday and think about the true power they are holding and operating every day. People fire one shot when they are scared, and then suffer from temporary shock that they fired their own gun (if they don't regularly shoot it) and to then retain a comprehensive judgment of the scene he's now in. In that case, a pistol is so much better, and you have the general idea of my point, but I don't think you understand why I made it. If someone is not armed and breaks into your home, the second they hear any gunfire, they are going to run. For that reason alone, a shotgun is worse for an inexperienced shooter not only for the potential legal trouble, but for the damage of their own household. Only in the rare case that they don't end up running and pooping their pants is a shotgun a more viable option. | ||
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9164 Posts
On April 21 2012 07:06 Endymion wrote: how is it not relevant? he has anger issues, he shouldn't have a gun. i respect psy for his contributions to the BW youtube/vod scene but he shouldn't have a gun.. Respectfully, unless you are a relevant government official, a doctor, a psychologist, or a psychiatrist with privileged knowledge of his personal case, you are derailing this thread with your polarized opinion. | ||
|
ampson
United States2355 Posts
On April 21 2012 06:38 Wortie wrote: You should buy a chaingun, if you shoot at someone, I'm pretty sure you'll hit some limbs too. I don't think buying a gun is a good idea. If you ever come in a situation which would require the use of a gun, I'd doubt it, that you would actually point at limbs. Unless you're a trained expert ofcourse. Then again, the use of guns to protect your house sounds just really weird to me. Maybe it is because in Holland nobody actually is allowed to carry firearms (except the police ofc.) Also, if a person really wants to inflict harm on you, he could just ofcourse shoot you trough the window? idk. Maybe thats impersonal? The chaingun suggestion got a good laugh out of me. In the United States, automatic weapons (such as fucking CHAINGUNS) require licenses to own. Also, a chaingun would be far too large to comfortably operate for defense purposes without being mounted somewhere, he wants to protect his home from intruders, not zombies. And many intruders break in while you are sleeping, and never get the chance to shoot you through the window. Besides, unless they intend to murder you and leave your house alone, firing a pre-emptive shot through the window would just give them away to the neighborhood and leave them no time to rob you. @OP I think that shotguns are the best tool for home defense, but as far as pistol rounds go, 9mm v. .45 is largely a matter of preference. | ||
|
Pokebunny
United States10654 Posts
On April 21 2012 07:06 Endymion wrote: how is it not relevant? he has anger issues, he shouldn't have a gun. i respect psy for his contributions to the BW youtube/vod scene but he shouldn't have a gun.. You're comparing rage in a video game to real life situations...? | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On April 21 2012 09:57 Pokebunny wrote: You're comparing rage in a video game to real life situations...? Yeah... because don't you know, everyone acts the same in real life as they do online! You can't tell me you bought the hype about internet anonymity... | ||
|
Psyonic_Reaver
United States4339 Posts
As I posted earlier, I'm getting engaged and as such, I feel the need to protect my future family. I own a shotgun and I will be using that as my first source of home defense in a serious encounter (Cocking a shotgun scares about 90% of intruders away) but as Game has stated, a handgun means you have to really size up what is going on before using it. Anna, my fiancee, is also a smaller woman. She can't handle shotguns very well. So a handgun would be optimal again. I should have included that in my OP. My bad! | ||
|
Game
3191 Posts
| ||
|
Psyonic_Reaver
United States4339 Posts
Edit: No. She's not north korean. She's south. =) | ||
|
dontforgetosmile
87 Posts
a bullet to the chest is a bullet to the chest no matter what caliber. if you're comfortable shooting a .45 go for it. | ||
|
Zariel
Australia1285 Posts
 If ya going to shoot someone, might as well shoot him with some style. | ||
|
MooMooMugi
United States10531 Posts
| ||
|
50bani
Romania480 Posts
9mm is for chumps. .45 is for goons | ||
|
Psyonic_Reaver
United States4339 Posts
It's also a known that in most cases that police can not respond to a break in before a burglar has taken what he wants and has fled. | ||
|
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9164 Posts
On April 21 2012 16:38 Psyonic_Reaver wrote: A handgun, used properly and with practice, can disable an intruder and still keep them alive so they can serve their time in jail. Use of a firearm against another person is application of lethal force. If you shoot to disable or maim, and not to kill, your self-defense justification for lethal use of force can be very easily called into question in a court of law. | ||
|
dontforgetosmile
87 Posts
On April 21 2012 16:38 Psyonic_Reaver wrote: I have a dog which is the best alarm system you can have. That will deter most intruders, more stalwart ones can and will easily disable a dog. A shotgun cock is the next best thing but isn't good to use because you can blow somebody apart, which isn't my goal. A handgun, used properly and with practice, can disable an intruder and still keep them alive so they can serve their time in jail. It's also a known that in most cases that police can not respond to a break in before a burglar has taken what he wants and has fled. on second thought, don't get a gun. you have no reason to have one. | ||
| ||
