An interesting subject, and not one I usually expect from my learned
colleagues of the Bar. But, if Professor V allows it, excellent,
because I think I know more about handling guns than handling legal
treatises on constitutional law.
I see that the consensus seems to be that handguns are superior to
shotguns for home defense due to ease of handling and difficulties with
recoil. In reality, the key is this:
"If someone has some preexisting skill level with shotguns, it might be worth
considering for them, but for them only."
Whether it is a shotgun or a handgun, a pre-existing skill is
mandatory. In other words, if the average homeowner has no pre-existing
skills with firearms, it matters little which weapon is selected, the
homeowner is going to have difficulties if the need arises. On the
other hand, pointing and shooting a shotgun loaded with birdshot has a
far more likely hit percentage than a handgun if the user is lacking
shooting skills. So, with no skills whatsoever, assuming such a
person's family wants them anywhere near a firearm, I submit the shotgun
is the better choice.
With respect to recoil, I submit that shotguns loaded with birdshot have
marginal recoil at best - their reputation for recoil is legendary but
that presupposes buckshot, not birdshot. In a home, buckshot is a
liability - it too easily pierces walls and windows. Birdshot will do
the job needed if defense is required and penetration is very much
diminished although I assure you that it will most definitely penetrate
barriers. But, then again, so will handgun bullets, so the tradeoff is
only a matter of volume, to wit, the quantity of possible penetrations
from one fired shot.
Shotguns of limited length are NOT AT ALL difficult to handle, not for
any person, man or woman, of average strength and stature. In my
experience, which is far from limited, I assure you, the recoil from a
standard bird load, be it in 12, 16, or 20 gauge, is neither severe nor
particularly uncomfortable, even with an 18" barrel. After 50 to 100
rounds of sporting clays with a 12 gauge pump and a long barrel you will
be bruised and tired but after 24 rounds of 12 gauge, assuming 4 shots
per stage, at a six stage cowboy action match, which also includes
rifles and handguns, you will neither be bruised nor particularly tired
from shooting. Little kids do it, small women do it, it is simply not a
big deal to handle a shotgun with the lighter loads.
The larger issue is portability. If a homeowner finds that s/he has to
move from room to room, any long gun is a liability unless s/he trains
for this. Moving through narrow halls and doorways in the dark or in
panic mode is problematic with a long arm and, worse yet, a
confrontation face to face can easily cause the defending homeowner to
be disarmed. It can happen with a handgun as well but it is not as easy.
On the other hand, if you have a shotgun in your bedroom, and that's
where you'll probably be late at night, in the event that there is a
break in, and if you choose to NOT confront the perpetrators, sitting
in the dark with a loaded shotgun pointed at your bedroom door (for this
discussion we will presume you know where your family is, or you live
alone) is far more effective than a handgun. The whole issue of the
racking sound of a pump gun being a deterrent is foolish for two
reasons. One, as mentioned, it gives your position away and two, far
more importantly, long before anyone invades your home your shotgun,
regardless if it is a pump gun or has any other action, should be loaded
AND racked - if the chamber is empty you are wasting one round. Your
handguns wouldn't have the chamber empty (I hope); why does your shotgun?
I didn't see Gran Torino yet so I do not know what they showed but the
theory of using your shotgun in your home as your primary defense weapon
is not at all faulty provided you know how to use it. But that was my
first premise, anyway.
Let's discuss one other interesting comment, the one that suggests the
shotgun is intimidating if the perpetrator sees it. My friends, if you
keep a gun in your home for self defense and are not prepared to use it
please sell it immediately. It is a useless piece of wood/metal/plastic
if you cannot pull the trigger. If you are face to face with a
perpetrator and you're playing "Freeze or I'll shoot!" you are beyond
help because at that distance you can be reached in fractions of a
second. Even if you fire your weapon you can be reached. If you are
face to face with death or bodily injury and you have a gun you are
supposed to pull the trigger.
"However, I suspect that most people who are confronted in their home by an
armed, or
otherwise threatening stranger are, for better or worse, going to shoot
first and ask questions later."
I certainly hope so! Use both hands and find your phone later when you
don't need to hold a gun any more!
I don't want you to think, however, that I specifically advocate the
shotgun over the handgun for home defense. Some experts like to remark
that you use your handgun to fight to get to your long gun but the
typical home defense situation doesn't go that far. I keep handguns as
my primary defense tools at home because of the ease of putting them
into action; that is where a handgun is superior - ease of use. I keep
both a loaded shotgun and a loaded rifle available (the rifle is a .44
caliber lever gun with ten rounds in it; the shotgun is a 12 gauge pump
with six rounds and six more in a shell saddle on the buttstock; I don't
fool around with my home defense preparations) but the primary defense
tool is a handgun. At night, it is always a revolver. When I am awake
I might keep an automatic pistol handy instead but if I am forced to
awaken from sleep I want the easiest, most reliable, yet safest tool to
use and that is a wheelgun. But if someone told me they prefer a
shotgun I'd not scoff at the choice.
The fact that a brief was submitted in the _Heller_ case with respect to
handguns being the best choice for most people for home defense was
unknown to me but I suppose the writer's point was that banning that
which is best is, somehow, a legal issue because of the ease of
keeping and bearing the things but since I didn't read the brief I can
only speculate on its contents. The commonality of the handgun is
obvious; that is an argument I might have expected in light of the RKBA,
but why it is the best choice legally is unknown to me. It is superior
to a shotgun solely due to ease of use indoors; otherwise, a shotgun is
quite obviously the more effective weapon.
Since we have at least a few law enforcement experts here, not to
mention military men, I conclude by posing the following well known
question:
If you KNOW you are going to a gunfight, and can only take one gun, what
gun would you choose first?
***GRJ***
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
