Survivalist Forum banner
  • Are you passionate about survivalism? Would you like to write about topics that interest you and get paid for it? Read all about it here!
81 - 100 of 138 Posts

·
Always Loaded
Joined
·
2,718 Posts
I'm waiting to hear all the birdshot haters tell us where they'd take a load of birdshot and shrug it off.

Tell us the location on your body please.
Find me one incident of a justified shooting by a citizen in, their home that passed through a bad guy and killed a innocent person. Not a police officer in a crowd, a citizen. It doesn't exists. The chance of you even firing a weapon at a intruder is insanely minute. The possibility of that rare occurrence then causing a pass through strike is 1,000X MORE unlikely. You are altering your defensive load on a .000000001% chance. You are hell bent on a argument that has no basis in reality. As others have shown you, to no effect, there are hundreds of examples of people be shot by far more powerful loads than bird shot and continuing the fight. Facts bounce off you like logic bounces off of Joe Biden.

I have encountered many hair brained and plain stupid opinions on firearms in my life. I have never before found somoene so dedicated to their stupid ideology.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,806 Posts
I'm waiting to hear all the birdshot haters tell us where they'd take a load of birdshot and shrug it off.

Tell us the location on your body please.

I believe there was a symposium held a number of years ago, where it was decided that the "would you let someone shoot you with __" argument was finally legally banned.......

High time, considering how completely moronic it was.

If you disagree, I have a .177 pellet pistol sitting here..... I'll provide the beer and a band aid.


.
 

·
Comic, not your lawyer!
Joined
·
15,243 Posts
I believe there was a symposium held a number of years ago, where it was decided that the "would you let someone shoot you with __" argument was finally legally banned.......

High time, considering how completely moronic it was.

If you disagree, I have a .177 pellet pistol sitting here..... I'll provide the beer and a band aid.


.
NP, to shut idiots up in the birdshot hating crowd, I'll take a hit with a .177 pellet pistol wearing up to 2 layers of typical clothing of my choice. The trade off is the haters can take a hit with a load of birdshot wearing up to 2 layers of typical clothing they like. I think that resolves the issue handily.

One, leaves a minor sting or wound, maybe a minor laceration. I've been shot with a pellet gun. It stings. I've seen people shot with them. It might break the skin and a pellet dug out. The other is lethal probably on the spot, or on the way to the hospital. This is a MORONIC comparison FYI.

I'm guessing zero takers on this one. lol. You'd be an absolute suicidal fool to do so.

So, outside a direct hit to the face or throat, maybe a few other really unique shots, a pellet gun is an aggravation.

I'd like to hear where you think you'd like to get shot with a load of #6 birdshot from 10' away. I'm waiting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,294 Posts
Find me one incident of a justified shooting by a citizen in, their home that passed through a bad guy and killed a innocent person. Not a police officer in a crowd, a citizen. It doesn't exists. The chance of you even firing a weapon at a intruder is insanely minute. The possibility of that rare occurrence then causing a pass through strike is 1,000X MORE unlikely. You are altering your defensive load on a .000000001% chance. You are hell bent on a argument that has no basis in reality. As others have shown you, to no effect, there are hundreds of examples of people be shot by far more powerful loads than bird shot and continuing the fight. Facts bounce off you like logic bounces off of Joe Biden.

I have encountered many hair brained and plain stupid opinions on firearms in my life. I have never before found somoene so dedicated to their stupid ideology.
I think most people thinking of over penetration are thinking of 2 layers of drywall, not a human body and THEN two layers of drywall. And I think most people are worrying about striking a family member, not just killing them.
 

·
Fenced In
Joined
·
3,415 Posts
As may have already happened over the course of four pages, I will offer up the notion that a not-immediately-lethal gunshot wound will still cause bodily harm, physical pain and (maybe) a psychological response, but none of those three conditions is guaranteed to stop a threat. Even disregarding factors like armor, heavy clothing and other barriers, there are plenty of variables that can reduce the perfect HD ammo choice to "meh" for the very reason that it was designed to perform within a very narrow set of parameters.

What isn't within those parameters is the defender's preference for specific firearm choice, skill with that firearm, and the precise conditions in which it's being used. Among gun owners I know, which is a lot, the absolute least-practiced discipline/scenario is use of a shotgun at feasible HD distances. Most of them use a shotgun for hunting or sporting use, outdoors over relatively long distances. Most indoor ranges (where I live, anyway) won't allow shotguns, or only slugs, and just maybe buckshot, but not birdshot. So, people aren't practicing, and some of them are singing the praises of the HD-oriented shotguns with short barrels and no stocks, which aren't going to react the same way as their long, heavy hunting/sporting gun. The choice of firearm and experience in its use are thus already questionable, and then you introduce a type of ammo that is simply not intended for defensive use. Furthermore, its lack of (over)penetration isn't due to a design consideration of possible defensive use, but rather because it's intended for use against targets that we'll conservatively call "less robust" than a human intruder.

In no way am I suggesting that anyone here advocating the use of traditionally non-defensive ammo in a defensive role is uneducated or inexperienced, but plenty of lurkers or Google detectives reading posts like these may have neither knowledge nor experience. (They're probably also raiding their wife's tampon supply for their BOB because everyone knows that tampons are ideal for treating GSWs, and convinced that ramen is the perfect long-term food option.)
 

·
Comic, not your lawyer!
Joined
·
15,243 Posts
Wow. Your neck is 18 inches in diameter?

That paints a vivid mental picture.......
1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 1/5, 1/8ths, 3/4. Irrelevant error, but all are lethal.

You've also strengthened my point. It's probably closer to 3/4. So, nice try.

Proving again weak attempts at scoring points you think you can score but failing to score them because you plainly miss the point. An ounce of lead with an inch penetration in your throat/neck at 2000 fps is going to ruin your day and probably be lethal. 2-6 inches, you're likely dead on the spot.

Play your fractions games all you want. You aren't scoring points.
 

·
Comic, not your lawyer!
Joined
·
15,243 Posts
As may have already happened over the course of four pages, I will offer up the notion that a not-immediately-lethal gunshot wound will still cause bodily harm, physical pain and (maybe) a psychological response, but none of those three conditions is guaranteed to stop a threat. Even disregarding factors like armor, heavy clothing and other barriers, there are plenty of variables that can reduce the perfect HD ammo choice to "meh" for the very reason that it was designed to perform within a very narrow set of parameters.

What isn't within those parameters is the defender's preference for specific firearm choice, skill with that firearm, and the precise conditions in which it's being used. Among gun owners I know, which is a lot, the absolute least-practiced discipline/scenario is use of a shotgun at feasible HD distances. Most of them use a shotgun for hunting or sporting use, outdoors over relatively long distances. Most indoor ranges (where I live, anyway) won't allow shotguns, or only slugs, and just maybe buckshot, but not birdshot. So, people aren't practicing, and some of them are singing the praises of the HD-oriented shotguns with short barrels and no stocks, which aren't going to react the same way as their long, heavy hunting/sporting gun. The choice of firearm and experience in its use are thus already questionable, and then you introduce a type of ammo that is simply not intended for defensive use. Furthermore, its lack of (over)penetration isn't due to a design consideration of possible defensive use, but rather because it's intended for use against targets that we'll conservatively call "less robust" than a human intruder.

In no way am I suggesting that anyone here is advocating the use of traditionally non-defensive ammo in a defensive role is uneducated or inexperienced, but plenty of lurkers or Google detectives reading posts like these may have neither knowledge nor experience. (They're probably also raiding their wife's tampon supply for their BOB because everyone knows that tampons are ideal for treating GSWs, and convinced that ramen is the perfect long-term food option.)
Lots of words, very little helpful information.

Which part of your body would you like to take a shot from 10' of #6 birdshot. You can wear a leather jacket or denim jacket if it makes you feel invincible. You can duck, tuck, roll, and twist if it makes you feel invincible. You can hold up your hand like a shield too. Which part of your body is taking the 1 oz of lead at 10' moving at 1500 fps? That's the real question to be answered. Your gut, your chest, your neck, your shoulder, your arm, your leg, your groin, your hip. All devastating injuries, probably fight stoppers and, some lethal... How about the followup shot, where would you like to shrug that one off?

You take a shot from this, and you're almost certainly immediately out of the fight. Unless your a trained assassin dedicated to killing someone, you aren't shrugging off a hit from a 12 gauge at this range regardless of whether it's called birdshot or buckshot. It's an ounce of lead traveling extremely fast as a mostly solid unit.

Watch this video of #8 shot against some hung meat. You aren't shrugging this off.
 

·
Always Loaded
Joined
·
2,718 Posts
Leadcounsel. Still waiting on that "helpful information". One, single, incident of a justified shooting by a civilian that caused the death or even injury of a innocent person due to over penetration. 320 million people, hundreds of thousands of self defense situations. Seems pertinent to the argument.
 

·
Comic, not your lawyer!
Joined
·
15,243 Posts
Leadcounsel. Still waiting on that "helpful information". One, single, incident of a justified shooting by a civilian that caused the death or even injury of a innocent person due to over penetration. 320 million people, hundreds of thousands of self defense situations. Seems pertinent to the argument.
Um, if you mean bullets that have overpenetrated thru wall(s) and killed or injured an innocent person? Too easy. There's probably millions of examples. Page 1 of search includes cops killing an innocent man thru walls, several articles of different children killed by errant bullets that came into their homes or exited the houses of the shootings to hit the children outside, etc. It's not clear to me what part of this is confusing. Overly powerful rounds in a urban setting must go somewhere until they exhaust their energy and sadly the high probability of hitting someone in an urban setting exists.

Not interested in your homework assignment beyond proving you're completely delusional and wrong. Almost every article on page 1 of my search, which returned a million hits...

Whether intentional or accidental, bullets go thru common walls quite easily and strike innocents on the other side. That is what we all want to ideally mitigate, which is a large risk in a urban environment. How can you not grasp this concept?





 

·
Swirl Herder
Joined
·
4,037 Posts
I see a bunch of folks REALLY don't like the let me shoot you with it comeback.

Wonder why?
.....because it is dumb.

The .22LR rimfire is a very poor choice for hunting elephants.......most people would also agree it is a relatively poor choice for personal defence.......but I don't want to get shot with one.

See how easy that was?


For those of you who have forgotten, this was a thread about comparing PDX1 ammo to 00 Buck......until it got derailed by the "birdshot is devastating at across the room distances" posters.

For those of us who live rural (rather than in a rental in the suburbs), home defence distances are as far away as the person shooting or about to shoot at you.

I can't speak for others, but bird shot is inadequate for me (except for shooting at birds).

Even if I shot a slug at a bad guy and missed, that projectile won't make it to my neighbors (except maybe if the bad guy is up in a tree.....)

The cause of this derailment is people who can't assess the relative risks of particular adverse outcomes when firing a shotgun at a bad guy.

Trying to mitigate an extremely unlikely risk by creating a very much larger one is unwise.
 

·
Always Loaded
Joined
·
2,718 Posts
Um, if you mean bullets that have overpenetrated thru wall(s) and killed or injured an innocent person? Too easy. There's probably millions of examples. Page 1 of search includes cops killing an innocent man thru walls, several articles of different children killed by errant bullets that came into their homes or exited the houses of the shootings to hit the children outside, etc. It's not clear to me what part of this is confusing. Overly powerful rounds in a urban setting must go somewhere until they exhaust their energy and sadly the high probability of hitting someone in an urban setting exists.

Not interested in your homework assignment beyond proving you're completely delusional and wrong. Almost every article on page 1 of my search, which returned a million hits...

Whether intentional or accidental, bullets go thru common walls quite easily and strike innocents on the other side. That is what we all want to ideally mitigate, which is a large risk in a urban environment. How can you not grasp this concept?





You seem to uptake information, filter out what you don't like, and move one. Not one incident you noted was a civilian involved in a justifiable shooting. Unless drive by shootings are justifieable where you come from. Considering the "millions" of incidents, it's funny you can't find a single one. I'll keep waiting.
 

·
Comic, not your lawyer!
Joined
·
15,243 Posts
You seem to uptake information, filter out what you don't like, and move one. Not one incident you noted was a civilian involved in a justifiable shooting. Unless drive by shootings are justifieable where you come from. Considering the "millions" of incidents, it's funny you can't find a single one. I'll keep waiting.
Um. If you're shot thru a wall by someone's errant bullets, slug or buckshot or buck/ball combination, it's always an unjustified shooting. That's the first and most elementary point. The shooter is likely going to face criminal/civil liability regardless of whether the initial shooting was lawful. This happens frequently where the initial shoot was justified, but the errant rounds were not. I think you should revisit the fundamental rules of gun safety and self defense.

Second elementary point is that bullets don't know and don't care if the shoot is justified, they go thru walls with varying degrees of ability.

The common theme and take-away is bullets going thru walls. And bullets thru walls are probably often unjustified, and certainly dangerous b/c of the fundamental rules of gun safety.
 

·
Always Loaded
Joined
·
2,718 Posts
Discussing this on a another forum, I remembered this video. A kid shot from 10 feet away in the arm, then directly in the chest, and then a grazing head wound, with #6 shot. Messed him up, but remained conscious and walked out of the hospital in a week. If this guy was drugged up, or had any bad intention, he absolutely would have been able to return fire in a defensive situation. Skip to 2:00 for shooting.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,492 Posts
Discussing this on a another forum, I remembered this video. A kid shot from 10 feet away in the arm, then directly in the chest, and then a grazing head wound, with #6 shot. Messed him up, but remained conscious and walked out of the hospital in a week. If this guy was drugged up, or had any bad intention, he absolutely would have been able to return fire in a defensive situation. Skip to 2:00 for shooting.

So what. I'll see that and raise you.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...UQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1Y4rYh_nQ8-KGTgACg_YOb&ampcf=1

Dude was hopped up on dope, dies from a single load of birdshot to the chest.
 
81 - 100 of 138 Posts
Top