LA Bans Possession of Standard Capacity Magazines

Which is contingent upon the person seeking to defend themselves, being physically able to actually utilize a shotgun. There are many everyday reasons for which this is not a ready possibility for everyone by default. It is also dependent upon using the correct type of ammunition, such as buckshot, rather than birdshot.

 

A shotgun is an excellent home defense weapon. However, what does that have to do with the issue of magazine capacity?

1. There are shotguns that hold 30 shell magazines.
2. Nor is the issue merely home defense, is it?
3. A shotgun is not concealable nor easily carried or usable within a vehicle.
4. Shotguns lack range
5. Shotguns lack penetration ability
6. Shotgun are not suitable for a ready-access home safe

 

I've wondered why used offshore private boats sell for significantly - sometimes dramatically - less in California than on the East Coast, and offshore boats on the NE Coast sell for less than on the SE Coast.

Magazine capacity limiting laws may be a real reason. When offshore a person is on their own. When offshore either you can defend yourself or you can't.

We go blue water offshore often. For women there are bullpup 5.56s with 42 round magazines. For men .308 with 20 round mags plus at least one 50 cal. If overnight travel or anchoring (a larger boat) we'll also put a belt fed 30.06 mounted visibly and on one occasion of multi-day travel a mounted belt fed 50 caliber. We've never had trouble. But, then, we can never know the intentions of another boat approaching us changing course within range of seeing we are heavily armed either. If your boat is taken the only thing you can then hope for is that they kill you quickly.

Everyone who is rational knows do not be deep blue water overnight unless heavily arms and capable of showing that you are should an boat be approaching. You're on your own. This is so understood that even most Caribbean countries with strict anti-gun laws allow blue water travels to carry essentially any firearms, only requiring they be kept in a sealed locker upon arrival. If not, virtually no one will travel there and they want the tourist money.

Granted, anti-gunners require people to agree to be raped and murdered for their own ethics. Sadly, there are millions of victims - fools - for accepting this. We don't.

If high capacity magazines were unnecessary for self defense and defense of others, police would not carry 15 round magazine side arms. Of course, government/police exempt themselves from their own self defense limitations.

 

A shotgun is THE home defense weapon. Even a child can use a 410 or a 20 gauge.

They are easily carried in a vehicle if you put in a small horizontal or vertical rack. Hunters and police do it all the time.

Shotguns don't lack range or penetration ability. Slugs in particular.

The other benefit of a shotgun in home defense is the option of using non-lethal rounds for those who want to stop someone hard without necessarily killing them (bean bags, rubber rounds, etc). And then you have rounds you can use to make sure they're extra dead if you want to make damn sure they're stopped.

Why are they not suitable for a home safe? There are many options for that.

 

You obviously know nothing about stopping power and range. You don't give guns to your family and children nor do you own any.
Your entire argument is nothing but opinion, and not even an educated opinion at that .

 

Well, yes and no. I've experimentally tried maneuvering through my house with my shotgun. It's easier said than done. (and I have the need to do more than hole up in my bedroom in case of a break-in, because we have a split bedroom house plan, and most of the house is in between me and my sons). I can much more easily maneuver with my 9mm semi-automatic pistol. that is a better choice for me. Your results may vary.

 

Really. Where did I go wrong G.I. Joe?

 

If you have a pickup or SUV, yes. Not so good for an econo car.

If I have to shoot somebody, I'm not wasting my time with non-lethal weapons. That's for police with backup.

For a readily accessible home safe. That's one of these:
http://www.gunsandammo.com/ga-lists/best-bedside-gun-safes-every-price-point/

 

I'd argue thats not the only problem with an econo car "Truck gun"

I personally couldn't agree more, particularly in a home defense scenario. I offered this up because there are people out there that would rather die themselves than kill someone. For people of that mentality, they might be able to wrap their heads around a non-lethal self defense tool.

Yeah lots of options. Under bed, beside bed rack, etc.

 

It would also be fair to like wise assume that it would be contingent upon the person seeking to defend themselves being physically able to utilize a handgun as well. Using the correct type of ammunition is solely up to the owner of the shotgun, but I would concur that buckshot would be much more effective as opposed to birdshot.

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed.

 

That much is correct. But physical impairments that would preclude someone from utilizing a shotgun would not necessarily preclude someone from utilizing a handgun.

 

There are those that would argue a carbine is far more suitable than a shotgun.

That much is correct.

This, however, is outright stupidity being presented. And it will be explained why.

In law, a firearm is a deadly weapon. Using it is exercising deadly force, even if it is not actually discharged; brandishing a firearm can still lead to a charge of assault with a deadly weapon. Use of a firearm is only allowed when one has reasonable fear for their safety. If you choose to utilize less-than-lethal ammunition, it can be used against you in court, and the prosecutor can argue that you were not in reasonable fear of your life, and you were not justified in the use of force.

Balance, recoil intolerance, and magazine capacity are three primary reasons that render the shotgun less than optimum as a home defense option.

 

There are those that argue the merits and calibers of guns all day. What is suitable is what you're comfortable with. The shotgun has a LONG history as a reliable and effective self defense weapon, is easy to maintain and understand even for someone that has limited knowledge. They're also in most people's affordability range.

The purpose of self defense is to stop the attacker. Non lethal rounds can do that. This satisfies people that are concerned about taking a life, concerned about penetration and harming others accidentally, live in a trailer park, whatever. It's an alternative that opens it up to people who refuse to use lethal ammo. No one is making anyone do it.

If you live in a state with castle doctrine, no, they can't do a damn thing about it. If you don't live in a castle doctrine state, and even if you kill them, you can still get sued by the family.

I didn't say it was the best option, or even a good one, but it's there for someone that wants to use it.

A shotgun with an 18" barrel is well balanced, you have options of 20 gauge if you can handle a 12 gauge, and 6 rounds from a 12 gauge or a 20 gauge going off are going to outright kill or make the perp flee the scene. Besides, the shotgun isn't the only thing I have handy.

 

Oh I thought you were agreeing with me, I didn't look at your link.

I'd say this is pretty accessible:

http://www.amazon.com/American-Security-Products-DV652-Defense/dp/B0063263R8

 

take this la counsel [video=youtube;hMLENHhjHE8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMLENHhjHE8[/video] and shove it where the sun doesn't shine LOL THATS RIGHT!