first time gun buyer

[TwinOaks]

Plus the object is to STOP the BG not blow him to smithereens.

What, rapidly accelerating the BG in several directions doesn't count as stopping the threat?

+2 on your ammo choices Bree. The Fed. EFMJ is some impressive stuff.

[Shorts]

Not allowed to carry pineapples here in NY. Restrictive state you know!! Plus the object is to STOP the BG not blow him to smithereens!!!

I know we're not talking about fruit, but that's the first thing that comes to mind. Especially when referencing NY and guns

[TexasJack]

... If my firearm ever comes out, it is because use of deadly force is justified to stop a theat. And if that use is justified, I am immediately and without hesitation going to stop the threat. ...

Trust me, in Texas the law is very much on the side of the homeowner. Chances are very good that anyone breaking into a house (or even breaking into a car) in Texas is likely to be shot. I have no sympathy for the bad guys and I don't have to reach far to get my hands on a firearm anywhere on my property.

The point I was trying to make was that the shotgun is a much easier defense tool than a pistol. Not as sexy, but extremely effective.

In the case of being behind the door, it's entirely possible that the sound on the other side is a 'friendly' - maybe her son. Warn first, then shoot if necessary.

Wounded burglars can sue you. Shotguns make VERY big holes. (12 ga. 00 buck is the equivalent of being shot by 22 pistols at the same time.) You don't have much worry about that basketball-sized spread missing vital organs.

Keeping a gun around with a round in the chamber is a very bad idea, unless you really know what you are doing. (In this case, Mom is getting a first gun.) If there are kids or grandkids around, it's even more dangerous.

I'm not arguing against you; just illustrating some points to consider in the decision.

[Bree]

Trust me, in Texas the law is very much on the side of the homeowner. Chances are very good that anyone breaking into a house (or even breaking into a car) in Texas is likely to be shot. I have no sympathy for the bad guys and I don't have to reach far to get my hands on a firearm anywhere on my property.

The point I was trying to make was that the shotgun is a much easier defense tool than a pistol. Not as sexy, but extremely effective.

In the case of being behind the door, it's entirely possible that the sound on the other side is a 'friendly' - maybe her son. Warn first, then shoot if necessary.

Wounded burglars can sue you. Shotguns make VERY big holes. (12 ga. 00 buck is the equivalent of being shot by 22 pistols at the same time.) You don't have much worry about that basketball-sized spread missing vital organs.

Keeping a gun around with a round in the chamber is a very bad idea, unless you really know what you are doing. (In this case, Mom is getting a first gun.) If there are kids or grandkids around, it's even more dangerous.

I'm not arguing against you; just illustrating some points to consider in the decision.

Yep... familiar with the Texas law and defense of property rights there... the fortunes of old Joe Horn who shot two guys robbing the neighbor's home. Too bad we don;t have that here in NY.

And I agree 100% about the shotgun. It is the home defense weapon of choice. The best load is slugs but if you are urban then you have to ratchet down because of overpenetration. I am in a tightly packed urban environment and I have ratcheted down to #1 buckshot in my shotty.

There is a debate about the shooting thru walls and doors issue and I have always sided with the not shooting unless I absolutely know what my target is. That isn't possible shooting thru doors or walls in 99% of cases. I can imagine some circumstances were I might do so but they would be something like the BG's shooting at me through the walls. Other than that kind of thing I just don't see myself shooting at a blind target. I am too fearful of harming an innocent.

We have no kids in the house or coming over to the house so the issue of unintended use by kids doesn't exist for us. If you have children, new ballgame. It is essential to protect against unintended use of your firearms. There is no disagreement there.

With kids around only the firearms concealed on my immediate person would be in condition 1. All others would be in a gun safe that the kids have no access to. Kids make self defense much more difficult. Planning and process are critically important when kids are around. For example, they must not ever see you open the safe lest they get the combination and gain access. Your gun handling process must preclude this from happening.

A new gun owner should get training and a lot of it... good quality training from professionals... so that he or she understands the operation of the firearm and responsibilities of gun ownership. Trained people can and should carry in condition 1 as it is the best state of readiness. Every second saved in a deadly force situation can mean the difference between life and death. But if you are more of a danger to yourself and others in condition 1, then the person should ratchet down to a lower state of readiness and train for the higher state.

I don't think that we really disagree.

[TexasJack]

I don't know how Joe Horn was portrayed elsewhere. The rag thats barely fit to line birdcages - Houston Chronicle - did their best to bury him. Probably 99% of the people in Texas consider him a hero.

For those who didn't hear the story, Joe Horn is an older fella that lives in Pasadena which is just east of Houston. Largely industrial/blue collar area. One day he spotted 2 guys carrying stuff out of his neighbor's house. (Both turned out to be illegal aliens with long rap sheets.) He called 9-1-1 and reported it, then took a gun over and ordered them to put the stuff down and put their hands up or he'd shoot. They didn't comply, so he did. What he did isn't really covered under Texas laws, but the grand jury refused to indict him.

While I totally support what Joe did, the poor guy was hit with all sorts of legal problems, was threatened by gangs and such, and was completely harassed by the press. He would have been far better off not shooting, even though that would have been worse for the rest of us.

[Shorts]

Probably 99% of the people in Texas consider him a hero.

Which is exactly why he was no-billed - the people.

Mr Horn made decisions I would have done differently, but I wasn't there that particular night. And I have had my own nights chasing BGs from our property. But this very case is a prime example of "Rather be judged by 12...".