Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 2/7/2006 5:02:38 AM EDT
Reading in recent topics regarding home defense has gotten me thinking:

Would you ever use a silenced or full auto weapon in a home defense scenario? I mean, there are cases when the military and LE use these kinds of weapons, and in house to house/CQB type situations.

But at the same time, that seems like it would be feeding a prosecutor more ammo (no pun intended) to make a case against you, and a lot of juries, even in states with castle doctrines, might not smile upon use of this kind of thing.

So how about it ARFCOM? I do want answers from people who don't have these toys too....which, if either, would you use (silencer or MG) and under what circumstances?
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 5:04:12 AM EDT
you could allways remove the can, before the cops show up.... there is no way to know if it was or wasnt on when u shot...
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 5:06:24 AM EDT
I would argue that using a can was prudent as it protected my ears from the "dangerous" muzzle blast. Can's really don't "silence" a weapon anymore than a muffler silences a car engine. You still have the muffled bang and the sound of the slide racking.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 5:12:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/7/2006 5:12:44 AM EDT by photoman]

Originally Posted By Greenfeet:
Reading in recent topics regarding home defense has gotten me thinking:

Would you ever use a silenced or full auto weapon in a home defense scenario? I mean, there are cases when the military and LE use these kinds of weapons, and in house to house/CQB type situations.

But at the same time, that seems like it would be feeding a prosecutor more ammo (no pun intended) to make a case against you, and a lot of juries, even in states with castle doctrines, might not smile upon use of this kind of thing.

So how about it ARFCOM? I do want answers from people who don't have these toys too....which, if either, would you use (silencer or MG) and under what circumstances?



Serious answer, my home defense gun is a short barreled rifle(should have a cn for it in a month or two). It's the best tool for the job IMO and a good shoot is a good shoot regardless of the type of weapon used.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 5:16:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By Greenfeet:
Reading in recent topics regarding home defense has gotten me thinking:

Would you ever use a silenced or full auto weapon in a home defense scenario? I mean, there are cases when the military and LE use these kinds of weapons, and in house to house/CQB type situations.

But at the same time, that seems like it would be feeding a prosecutor more ammo (no pun intended) to make a case against you, and a lot of juries, even in states with castle doctrines, might not smile upon use of this kind of thing.

So how about it ARFCOM? I do want answers from people who don't have these toys too....which, if either, would you use (silencer or MG) and under what circumstances?



Serious answer, my home defense gun is a short barreled rifle(should have a cn for it in a month or two). It's the best tool for the job IMO and a good shoot is a good shoot regardless of the type of weapon used.



I agree with you; I'm just brining into question whether or not a jury would.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 5:18:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:
Serious answer, my home defense gun is a short barreled rifle(should have a cn for it in a month or two). It's the best tool for the job IMO and a good shoot is a good shoot regardless of the type of weapon used.



And this is what most people forget. Would I use an SBR with a can? Sure. It would make a handy little room clearer and would help protect my ears if I did have to fire in a confined environment. MJD
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 5:26:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Greenfeet:

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By Greenfeet:
Reading in recent topics regarding home defense has gotten me thinking:

Would you ever use a silenced or full auto weapon in a home defense scenario? I mean, there are cases when the military and LE use these kinds of weapons, and in house to house/CQB type situations.

But at the same time, that seems like it would be feeding a prosecutor more ammo (no pun intended) to make a case against you, and a lot of juries, even in states with castle doctrines, might not smile upon use of this kind of thing.

So how about it ARFCOM? I do want answers from people who don't have these toys too....which, if either, would you use (silencer or MG) and under what circumstances?



Serious answer, my home defense gun is a short barreled rifle(should have a cn for it in a month or two). It's the best tool for the job IMO and a good shoot is a good shoot regardless of the type of weapon used.



I agree with you; I'm just brining into question whether or not a jury would.



A man was aquitted by a jury after using a FA H&K rifle on a road-rage asshole who came at him with a knife. The flip side is he was prosecuted BECAUSE a used a FA weapon. So yes, by law, if I use a JDAM and I was justified I'm good, but in practice it can be more complicated. He had large legal bills from the incident, and it was clear-as-day he was in the right. It was in a more anti state though as well I think.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 5:28:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/7/2006 5:28:42 AM EDT by buckfever34]
This topic was discussed here as well:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=17&t=192747


ETA: someone make it hot, I don't know how
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 5:29:18 AM EDT
Me thinks it's a really bad idea to give the shepard a better reason to lop off your head for killing the wolf with a bear claw.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 5:33:18 AM EDT
I think a suppressor for a short barreled 5.56 carbine to be used indoors is a VERY good idea.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 5:46:52 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 5:52:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By Greenfeet:
Reading in recent topics regarding home defense has gotten me thinking:

Would you ever use a silenced or full auto weapon in a home defense scenario? I mean, there are cases when the military and LE use these kinds of weapons, and in house to house/CQB type situations.

But at the same time, that seems like it would be feeding a prosecutor more ammo (no pun intended) to make a case against you, and a lot of juries, even in states with castle doctrines, might not smile upon use of this kind of thing.

So how about it ARFCOM? I do want answers from people who don't have these toys too....which, if either, would you use (silencer or MG) and under what circumstances?




Serious answer, my home defense gun is a short barreled rifle(should have a cn for it in a month or two). It's the best tool for the job IMO and a good shoot is a good shoot regardless of the type of weapon used.



+1
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 6:04:05 AM EDT
The real question is, do you want your $10,000+ firearm being monkeyed with by a bunch of goobers at the police station?

In some states it may not be a huge deal, though in MA, the gun, and even more likely if it is NFA will be confiscated on the spot. Then you may or may not be arrested, as in MA you are guilty until proven innocent. Then some asshole lawyer will select a bunch of hippie MAsshole jurers that don't know the difference between airsoft and machineguns. Then you get stuck paying big $ to defend yourself.

The law does not see what weapon you used, only the situation that you used it in, its everyone else who sees the weapon.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 6:06:10 AM EDT
someone's probably said this by now: if there is more than one intruder, and they are in different rooms, a silencer would be imperative to secure your house.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 6:06:26 AM EDT
I make sure that i'm legal. and if i have to shoot someone then i will make sure that i'm morally right, everything else will have to fall where it will.

My near term plan is to get a suppressor for my HD handgunat some point i will go to using a SBR with a can. My thinking is that i'd hate to lose my hearing in addition to all of the other bad stuff that would come from killing someone. Plus, just because i've stopped one threat there is no reason to believe that there is not another threat that i may need my hearing for.

Full-auto- i would not use as a primary HD weapon unless i thought there may be some reason that i may have to deal with multiple armed intruders with little concern for collateral damage, which i don't.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 6:07:12 AM EDT
and of course nothing says home defense like a crew-served weapon


seriously though, I wouldn't think it would affect the criminal trial.
But the invariable "civil" trial where the deceased dirt-bag is made out to be a choir boy- etc, etc...
thats where you might run into a problem
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 6:07:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FunYun1983:
The real question is, do you want your $10,000+ firearm being monkeyed with by a bunch of goobers at the police station?

In some states it may not be a huge deal, though in MA, the gun, and even more likely if it is NFA will be confiscated on the spot. Then you may or may not be arrested, as in MA you are guilty until proven innocent. Then some asshole lawyer will select a bunch of hippie MAsshole jurers that don't know the difference between airsoft and machineguns. Then you get stuck paying big $ to defend yourself.

The law does not see what weapon you used, only the situation that you used it in, its everyone else who sees the weapon.



Well in that case, the real question is really, "Is your life worth more than $10,000?"

I say, use the most effective device you have, within reason, make sure it's a good shoot, and deal with what comes later, later. You have to be alive to be tried.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 7:54:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Greenfeet:

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By Greenfeet:
Reading in recent topics regarding home defense has gotten me thinking:

Would you ever use a silenced or full auto weapon in a home defense scenario? I mean, there are cases when the military and LE use these kinds of weapons, and in house to house/CQB type situations.

But at the same time, that seems like it would be feeding a prosecutor more ammo (no pun intended) to make a case against you, and a lot of juries, even in states with castle doctrines, might not smile upon use of this kind of thing.

So how about it ARFCOM? I do want answers from people who don't have these toys too....which, if either, would you use (silencer or MG) and under what circumstances?




Serious answer, my home defense gun is a short barreled rifle(should have a cn for it in a month or two). It's the best tool for the job IMO and a good shoot is a good shoot regardless of the type of weapon used.



I agree with you; I'm just brining into question whether or not a jury would.


A good judge will let the jury know that the gun isn't important and shouldn't play a rol in thier decision. See the Gary Faddencase(HK employee used a AC556 in self defense situation), the prosecuter tried to make a the gun being FA an issue to the jury the judge told the jury it didn't matter what type of gun was used and what was at question was the circumstances of the shooting and if it was a good shoot or not, at least one round hit the dead guy in the back that was the major issue. Also two ADAs declined to charge him, it was the third that charged him and the issue wasn't so much the MG as Fadden thinks but the rounds that hit the guy in the back(he spun around as he was shot). If it's a good shoot from the go, then the chances of it getting to a jury are slim top none.

I personally don't care what a jury might say or think, to me it comes down to me or my family surviving a violent encounter in our own home, I will take the best tool for the job to use, and will make it a point to point out that I used the exact same type of weapon that the local police department SWAT team uses for thier work in entry situations/warrent executions/active shooter situations/etc.. and also that I have training in the use of said rifle.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 7:59:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FunYun1983:
The real question is, do you want your $10,000+ firearm being monkeyed with by a bunch of goobers at the police station?

In some states it may not be a huge deal, though in MA, the gun, and even more likely if it is NFA will be confiscated on the spot. Then you may or may not be arrested, as in MA you are guilty until proven innocent. Then some asshole lawyer will select a bunch of hippie MAsshole jurers that don't know the difference between airsoft and machineguns. Then you get stuck paying big $ to defend yourself.

The law does not see what weapon you used, only the situation that you used it in, its everyone else who sees the weapon.



I don't care honestly if my SBR sits in a PD eveidance locker for 6moths as long as I'm a live and my family is safe and the BG has assumed room temp all is how it should be. If it's deemed a good shoot they have no choice in the matter they have to give it back.

And no matter where you live, yer always guilty until proven innocent, the only place you are given the presumption of innocents is in the court room, it doesn't matter what state you are in, because it's the state's/city's/counties' job to prove you guilty not you to prove innocents, the burden of proof is on them not you. But I do get what you are saying...
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 8:00:59 AM EDT
Who cares what gun you used? You're gonna lose it, along with everything else, in the civil suit.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 8:11:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/7/2006 8:12:08 AM EDT by Tanker06]

Originally Posted By Grunteled:
It was in a more anti state though as well I think.


No, was here in Virginia, which is as pro-gun as they get, pretty much. Big sticking point was an ADA
who wanted to make a name for himself, and all he did was end up looking like a total tool in court.

Gary ended up with a good-sized chunk of legal fees, but he was free, and did get his rifle back.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 8:17:30 AM EDT
My main motivation would be to not have a $10 k gun taken from me...especially since full auto in home defense, I would think, is very, very rarely needed.

SBRs and cans on the other hand, are much cheaper and if they get taken for a long while, I think the benifit of using them at home greatly outweights the loss financially in the event they are taken. Muzze blast in a house can give you permanent hearing damage, and at the very least will hinder your hearing for the moment (to hear your family or the cops at the door...or the other perps..). Short bbls on shoulder fire guns are classic good house clearers...

Link Posted: 2/7/2006 8:22:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Unicorn:

Originally Posted By FunYun1983:
The real question is, do you want your $10,000+ firearm being monkeyed with by a bunch of goobers at the police station?

In some states it may not be a huge deal, though in MA, the gun, and even more likely if it is NFA will be confiscated on the spot. Then you may or may not be arrested, as in MA you are guilty until proven innocent. Then some asshole lawyer will select a bunch of hippie MAsshole jurers that don't know the difference between airsoft and machineguns. Then you get stuck paying big $ to defend yourself.

The law does not see what weapon you used, only the situation that you used it in, its everyone else who sees the weapon.



Well in that case, the real question is really, "Is your life worth more than $10,000?"


I say, use the most effective device you have, within reason, make sure it's a good shoot, and deal with what comes later, later. You have to be alive to be tried.



This comes up from time to time.
If a $10,000 weapon is all you have and you need it to defend yourself, then but all means use it. You'd be a fool not to.
But few people who own NFA weapons do not own other weapons which would suffice just as well in 99.9999% of self defense situations.
The truth is, few of us defend just our lives; in spite of how much as some of us argue to the contrary. And this becomes even more true the older one gets and the more material wealth one owns. For myself, I don't kid myself for one minute that if I were to shoot a violent burgular that I'm ONLY defending my life. I'm also defending EVERYTHING I've worked all my life to acquire. And this includes my gun collection (as modest as it is).
It's easy for a young guy who owns nothing to argue that one only defends one's life. For those of us who are older and have earned a lifetime's worth of things which we use to make our lives worth living, things look a bit different.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 8:25:22 AM EDT
<dweeb>
It is Title II, not Class III
</dweeb>

I like the can idea.. so one can hear other possible zombie mongbats in the house.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 8:33:04 AM EDT
If I was going to have a firearm confiscated during an investigation of a shooting in my home, it sure as hell ain't 'gonna be a $10,000 M16...

A $200 Mossberg maybe, but certainly NOT anything that has a $200 tax stamp in the safe.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 8:39:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tanker06:

Originally Posted By Grunteled:
It was in a more anti state though as well I think.


No, was here in Virginia, which is as pro-gun as they get, pretty much. Big sticking point was an ADA
who wanted to make a name for himself, and all he did was end up looking like a total tool in court.

Gary ended up with a good-sized chunk of legal fees, but he was free, and did get his rifle back.



I was thinking it was in Boston for some reason. Photoman gave the better description of the event. My point was, use what you have and are familiar with and can employ with great effect. If that's a M16A2, so be it. If that's a break action shotgun, ok. If thats a FN PS-90 go for it. Just know that you can use it like an extension of your body.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 8:42:17 AM EDT
An SBR and Can will serve you much better in HD/SD scenarios that are not SHTF, than will FA.
YMMV
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 8:51:17 AM EDT
Cans, SBR/SBS - Yes
M16 (do have one) - No

If you haven't yet, read about the Harry Beckwith incident:


High Volume Shootout: The Harry Beckwith Incident

Situation: A gun dealer faces robbers, again. Tonight the odds are seven to one against him.

Lesson: When the wolf pack has you, an armed citizen needs high capacity defensive weapons.

Harry Beckwith's Guns in Alachua County, Florida, is probably my favorite gunshop. It isn't just that smell of gun oil, cigar smoke, and old, worn leather that reminds me of the gun shops of my youth. It isn't just the fabulous Luger collection that resides there, nor the excellent buys, especially on collectibles. Harry's place has a karmic touch of the armed citizen about it that you don't find in the atmosphere of your average firearms emporium.

The revolver always visible at Harry's belt is nothing new for the gunshop habitude. Sometimes he wears a modest Charter Arms .44 Bulldog, and sometimes a Smith & Wesson Model 60 .38 Special with the fabulous Tiffany silver grips that you normally only see in the coffee table gun books.

No, what's different about Harry's is that as soon as you step out of your car in the spacious parking lot, you notice the bullet holes in the concrete outer walls of the building. Inside you see more holes in the walls.



clicky for the rest of the story
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 8:55:06 AM EDT
Why does anyone assume that if a shooting occurs in your home they will only take the firearm you used? You will have EVERY SINGLE ONE TAKEN, at least "temporarily". How many you ever actually see again is a whole other matter.

Another point, you shoot someone, even in your home, with a $10,000 FA weapon, or even a tricked out SBR, when you had access to something more plain and cheap, the lawyers in the civil suit will own you. You will be portrayed as the armchair commando who was itching to kill someone.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 9:01:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By midwinter:
and of course nothing says home defense like a crew-served weapon


seriously though, I wouldn't think it would affect the criminal trial.
But the invariable "civil" trial where the deceased dirt-bag is made out to be a choir boy- etc, etc...
thats where you might run into a problem




Thats the nice thing about Florida's "Castle Doctrine" If you shoot a scumbag home intruder in your house the intruders family has NO civil/Legal recourse. Gotta LOVE the Gunshine State
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 9:11:30 AM EDT
Thanks for that link parshooter Very good story, will also check out rest of the site
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 9:11:53 AM EDT
Use a compound bow and forget about it.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 11:07:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmedAggie:
Why does anyone assume that if a shooting occurs in your home they will only take the firearm you used? You will have EVERY SINGLE ONE TAKEN, at least "temporarily". How many you ever actually see again is a whole other matter.

Another point, you shoot someone, even in your home, with a $10,000 FA weapon, or even a tricked out SBR, when you had access to something more plain and cheap, the lawyers in the civil suit will own you. You will be portrayed as the armchair commando who was itching to kill someone.




Very good point.

And isn't this just a wonderful situation. If one is forced into the unfortunate and traumatic experience of having to defend oneself using lethal force, one also puts oneself at real risk of:
1) Being sued into penury by the goof's survivors.
2) Having one's valuble personal property confiscated and probably damaged and devalued by the State's bureaucracy with very little recourse for compensation. Property which was acquired legally and honestly, slowly over time through hard work.

How did a "free" people ever get into this wretched condition?
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 7:18:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Coolio:

Originally Posted By Unicorn:

Originally Posted By FunYun1983:
The real question is, do you want your $10,000+ firearm being monkeyed with by a bunch of goobers at the police station?

In some states it may not be a huge deal, though in MA, the gun, and even more likely if it is NFA will be confiscated on the spot. Then you may or may not be arrested, as in MA you are guilty until proven innocent. Then some asshole lawyer will select a bunch of hippie MAsshole jurers that don't know the difference between airsoft and machineguns. Then you get stuck paying big $ to defend yourself.

The law does not see what weapon you used, only the situation that you used it in, its everyone else who sees the weapon.



Well in that case, the real question is really, "Is your life worth more than $10,000?"


I say, use the most effective device you have, within reason, make sure it's a good shoot, and deal with what comes later, later. You have to be alive to be tried.



This comes up from time to time.
If a $10,000 weapon is all you have and you need it to defend yourself, then but all means use it. You'd be a fool not to.
But few people who own NFA weapons do not own other weapons which would suffice just as well in 99.9999% of self defense situations.
The truth is, few of us defend just our lives; in spite of how much as some of us argue to the contrary. And this becomes even more true the older one gets and the more material wealth one owns. For myself, I don't kid myself for one minute that if I were to shoot a violent burgular that I'm ONLY defending my life. I'm also defending EVERYTHING I've worked all my life to acquire. And this includes my gun collection (as modest as it is).
It's easy for a young guy who owns nothing to argue that one only defends one's life. For those of us who are older and have earned a lifetime's worth of things which we use to make our lives worth living, things look a bit different.



And you'd be a fool to not use the most effective weapon at your disposal. Your STUFF means nothing if you are dead. If you need belongings to make your life worth living, then you have other issues to resolve.
I'm not actually saying that full auto is better than semi though. In fact I feel that unless it's belt fed, FA is pretty pointless.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 7:20:28 AM EDT
A good shoot is a good shoot. You will just have to prove that to the jury!
Top Top