Interesting Home Defense Topic

[phade]

Our local radio morning show had two co-owners of a Tactical Supply store on the show. They were purple heart recipients (IEDs) and former special forces of some sort that opened the store that includes a laundry list of trainings. A quick listen confirmed that they really did know what they were talking about.

 

Home defense was one. They got to talking about the best option for home defense and they stated it was the .22. Not the shotgun, not a 9mm, or a .45.....a .22 in either handgun or rifle format.

 

Their logic was that you could quickly engage the target and not lose time for re-alignment of the gun after recoil, and at the same time limit collateral damage as the .22 isn't likely to penetrate even dry wall. Stopping power wasn't their most primary concern, apparently. It does make sense on some level.

 

Interesting, I thought.

 

 

Edited February 27, 2014 by phade

[jjb4900]

I've seen a lot of livestock put down with a .22......although it was all point blank and had to be put in the right spot, it was nothing less than devastating

[GreeneHunter]

Makes a lot of sense !  Almost zero recoil , weapon would never leave the target , cheap and with enough holes in the assailant they will not be going anywhere !

[firehunter48]

as much as the logic behind makes complete and total sense, let me ask you this...........its the middle of the night and someone has just broken into your home where your wife (or husband for you ladies on here) and your KIDS are sleeping. They are there to do GOD ONLY KNOWS WHAT to you and your family. After you call 9-1-1, you decide to engage the "alledged" criminal only to find that they have a knife or something else that they intend to hurt you or your family with. WHat do you want to have in your hand?? A tiny little 22 that MAY or MAY NOT stop them from hurting someone in the house or somethign like a larger caliber handgun with a Glaser safety slug or a shotgun with a turkey load of #4's? You know very well that the later two of 3 will stop them in their tracks neutralizing the threat so why grab a 22?

Im sorry but when it comes to the safety of my family, I will choose the 12ga Ithaca Single Sot Model 66 loaded with a 3" load everytime

 

JUST MY 2cents

[jjb4900]

as much as the logic behind makes complete and total sense, let me ask you this...........its the middle of the night and someone has just broken into your home where your wife (or husband for you ladies on here) and your KIDS are sleeping. They are there to do GOD ONLY KNOWS WHAT to you and your family. After you call 9-1-1, you decide to engage the "alledged" criminal only to find that they have a knife or something else that they intend to hurt you or your family with. WHat do you want to have in your hand?? A tiny little 22 that MAY or MAY NOT stop them from hurting someone in the house or somethign like a larger caliber handgun with a Glaser safety slug or a shotgun with a turkey load of #4's? You know very well that the later two of 3 will stop them in their tracks neutralizing the threat so why grab a 22?

Im sorry but when it comes to the safety of my family, I will choose the 12ga Ithaca Single Sot Model 66 loaded with a 3" load everytime

 

JUST MY 2cents

if you're concerned about a .22 being inefficient, why would you then choose a single shot? unless you're certain there will always be just one unarmed assailant.......

Edited February 27, 2014 by jjb4900

[blackradio]

I am confident that shooting 10 .22 rounds at an intruder will stop them in their tracks.

Edited February 27, 2014 by blackradio

[Lawdwaz]

Plug a few of those .22 shells into a heavy winter jacket or a strung out drug addict and get back to me.

[firehunter48]

if you're concerned about a .22 being inefficient, why would you then choose a single shot? unless you're certain there will always be just one unarmed assailant.......

[Lawdwaz]

Here is a youtube link to a very interesting 40 minute video made on the aftermath of the 1986 Miami FBI shootout.  It is well worth the 40 minutes of your time to watch.

 

It has some relevance here as penetration (or lack of) was a motivating factor in the FBI in changing up much of their thinking on calibers and bullets.

 

It an eye opening video............................................... 

 

[firehunter48]

I choose a single shot because I PERSONALLY do not think that it is good for the spring inside a shotgun tube will hold up over a long period of time and will eventually fail in one way or another. I also choose the single shot as I don't think it is good or safe to keep a round in the chamber of a pump gun nor semi auto for that matter in front of a firing pin being held by a spring or piece of metal that can and will fail at some point releasing the firing and striking the primer like its intended to do. With the single, one is in the chamber but there is no pressure on the firing pin until the hammer is pulled back. I would have gone for the side by side with dual hammers but the single was a housewarming gift

[ants]

I see their logic but I would still go with my .45 or a shotgun. My intention would be to stop an intruder, not to necessarily kill him. To stop someone you would want to deliver as much shock as possible. The bigger rounds will do that far better and faster than a .22. Think of an intruder getting shot in the thigh with 2 or 3 .22 rounds then imagine him getting hit in the same spot with just 1 45 slug or just 1 shotgun blast. Game over.

[Lawdwaz]

I see their logic but I would still go with my .45 or a shotgun. My intention would be to stop an intruder, not to necessarily kill him. To stop someone you would want to deliver as much shock as possible. The bigger rounds will do that far better and faster than a .22. Think of an intruder getting shot in the thigh with 2 or 3 .22 rounds then imagine him getting hit in the same spot with just 1 45 slug or just 1 shotgun blast. Game over.

 

IIRC you're going to WANT to kill him as dead men CAN'T sue you.

[GreeneHunter]

IIRC you're going to WANT to kill him as dead men CAN'T sue you.

Very True !

[Lawdwaz]

IIRC you're going to WANT to kill him as dead men CAN'T sue you.

 

His family might but he won't.

 

[Mr VJP]

Kel Tec PMR 30 handgun with 30 rounds of 22 Mag in the magazine may be a very good choice.  To hell with Cuomo and his mag capacity limits.  If it's only going to be in my home, it's nobody's business how many rounds I can put in it.

 

https://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/pmr-30/pistol/

[hunter49]

His family might but he won't.

 

   A friend of mine just took a class given buy a retired cop & a lawyer.  They said you do not want to be the aggresser, don't shoot if the intruder is leaving,(in the back or driving away), & shoot to kill. But either way your troubles will just begin & you will be getting sued by someone & might be the one going to jail!  And then they want to take our right away to self defense.  WTH!

[hunter49]

Kel Tec PMR 30 handgun with 30 rounds of 22 Mag in the magazine may be a very good choice.  To hell with Cuomo and his mag capacity limits.  If it's only going to be in my home, it's nobody's business how many rounds I can put in it.

 

https://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/pmr-30/pistol/

   How do you like this pistol, I have been considering one myself.

[philoshop]

Lots of good info and good debates out there regarding the issue(s) of HD. Plenty of experts.

 

The one thing that all of the experts will agree on: an individual has to be very comfortable and very familiar with the tactics and equipment they intend to utilize to defend their property and loved ones.

The gun that sits loaded on my desk, two steps from my bed, is a Ruger Mark I .22 that I've put well over 100K rounds through over the 30+ years that I've owned it. Not much stopping power but I practice regularly and I can hit with it.

OTOH, there's also a short, light youth model 20-Ga single-shot with #3 buckshot that sits halfway between the bed the pistol.

 

Most of the time shouting, "I HAVE A GUN!!" will deter an intruder.

If shouting doesn't work: be familiar with your weapon, make sure he's inside you're house and facing you, hit your target with intent to kill, and make sure that you kill him. This from numerous friends in LE. No Castle doctrine in NYS.

 

If you don't intend to kill the intruder, don't worry about even having a gun. Just shout that you have one.

Otherwise, be good with the gun you have and hit what you aim for.

 

[landtracdeerhunter]

Always thought to be a good idea to severely wound an intruder, rather than take them out. That way, you both can go through hell in this state, rather than just yourself. A few .22 rounds threw the body cavity should do that.

 

Their also such a fun little weapon to shoot.

Edited February 27, 2014 by landtracdeerhunter

[Deerthug]

Although I don't handle criminal matters, I thought I'd share with you the jury instructions that are read to a jury about to deliberate on whether deadly force is justified: (It's long but worth the read)

 

CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS 2d (CJI2d-NY)

NY JUSTIFICATION: USE OF DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE IN DEFENSE OF A PERSON

PENAL LAW 35.15 (Effective Sept. 1, 1980)

NOTE: This charge should precede the reading of the elements of the charged crime, and then, the final element of the crime charged should read as follows: “and, #. That the defendant was not justified.”

[With respect to count(s) (specify),] [T]he defendant has raised the defense of justification, also known as self defense. The defendant, however, is not required to prove that he was justified. The People are required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified.

I will now explain our law’s definition of the defense of justification as it applies to this case.

Under our law, a person may use deadly physical force upon another individual when, and to the extent that, he/she reasonably believes it to be necessary to defend himself/herself [or someone else] from what he/she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of [unlawful] deadly physical force by such individual.

Some of the terms used in this definition have their own special meaning in our law. I will now give you the meaning of the following terms: “deadly physical force” and “reasonably believes.”

DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE means physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury.

[serious physical injury means impairment of a person's physical condition which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.]

The determination of whether a person REASONABLY BELIEVES deadly physical force to be necessary to defend himself/herself [or someone else] from what he/she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force by another individual requires the application of a two-part test.

That test applies to this case in the following way:

First, the defendant must have actually believed that (specify) was using or was about to use deadly physical force against him/her [or someone else], and that the defendant’s own use of deadly physical force was necessary to defend himself/herself from it; and

Second, a “reasonable person” in the defendant’s position, knowing what the defendant knew and being in the same circumstances, would have had those same beliefs.

Thus, under our law of justification, it is not sufficient that the defendant honestly believed in his own mind that he was faced with defending himself/herself [or someone else] against the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. An honest belief, no matter how genuine or sincere, may yet be unreasonable.

To have been justified in the use of deadly physical force, the defendant must have honestly believed that it was necessary to defend himself/herself [or someone else] from what he/she honestly believed to be the use or imminent use of such force by (specify), and a “reasonable person” in the defendant’s position, knowing what the defendant knew and being in the same circumstances, would have believed that too

On the question of whether the defendant did reasonably believe that deadly physical force was necessary to defend himself/herself [or someone else] from what he/she reasonably believed to be the use or imminent use of such force by (specify), it does not matter that the defendant was or may have been mistaken in his/her belief; provided that such belief was both honestly held and reasonable.

[Add if there was evidence of a party’s reputation for violence:

Now, you have heard testimony that (specify) had a reputation for violence and engaged in violent acts. Normally, the law does not permit such testimony. The reason is that every person, regardless of that person's relative worth to the community, has the right to live undisturbed by an unlawful assault. The character of (specify) is thus not in issue.

What is in issue, however, is whether the defendant did "reasonably believe" that the deadly physical force he/she used was necessary to defend himself/herself [or someone else] from what he/she “reasonably believed” to be the use or imminent use of such force by (specify).

In assessing that issue, you may consider whether the defendant knew that (specify) had a reputation for violence or had engaged in violent acts. If so, you may then consider to what extent, if any, that knowledge contributed to a “reasonable belief” that the deadly physical force the defendant used was necessary to defend himself/herself [or someone else] from what he/she “reasonably believed” was the use or imminent use of such force by (specify).

Further, provided the defendant believed (specify) had such reputation or engaged in such acts, it does not matter whether that belief was correct.]

Add as applicable:

Notwithstanding the rules I have just explained, the defendant would not be justified in using deadly physical force under the following circumstances:

Select appropriate alternative(s):

(1) The defendant would not be justified if he/she was the initial aggressor.

[Add if applicable:

except, that the defendant's use of deadly physical force would nevertheless be justified if he/she had withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to (specify) but (specify) persisted in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of (unlawful) deadly physical force.]

“Initial aggressor” means the person who first attacks or threatens to attack; that is, the first person who uses or threatens the imminent use of offensive physical force. The actual striking of the first blow or inflicting of the first wound, however, does not necessarily determine who was the initial aggressor.

A person who reasonably believes that another is about to use deadly physical force upon him/her need not wait until he/she is struck or wounded. He/she may, in such circumstances, be the first to use deadly physical force, so long as he/she reasonably believed it was about to be used against him/her. He/she is then not considered to be the “initial aggressor,” even though he/she strikes the first blow or inflicts the first wound. Arguing, using abusive language, calling a person names, or the like, unaccompanied by physical threats or acts, does not make a person an initial aggressor and does not justify physical force.

[A person cannot be considered the initial aggressor simply because he/she has a reputation for violence or has previously engaged in violent acts.]

(2) The defendant would not be justified if he/she knew that he/she could with complete safety to himself/herself and others avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force by retreating.

[The defendant, however, would not be required to retreat if the defendant was in his/her dwelling and was not the initial aggressor.

The term, “dwelling,” encompasses a house, an apartment or a part of a structure where the defendant lives and where others are ordinarily excluded. (The determination of whether a particular location is part of a defendant's dwelling depends on the extent to which the defendant [and persons actually sharing living quarters with the defendant] exercise(s) exclusive possession and control over the area in question.)]

(3) The defendant would not be justified if (specify’s) conduct was provoked by the defendant himself/herself with intent to cause physical injury to (specify).

(4) The defendant would not be justified if the deadly physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

The People are required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified. It is thus an element of [each] count [specify] that the defendant was not justified. As a result, if you find that the People have failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified, then you must find the defendant not guilty of [all] count(s) [specify].

 

 

[Elmo]

Read the book "Stopping Power" by Evan Marshall.  He collected actual data from guns shootings over the course of 25 years.  His data is based on shot that hit the main torso.  Ignoring shot that hit the limbs or shots that completely missed.

 

The 22LR still has an extremely high rate of success (of course not as successful as a 12 gauge shotgun which had the highest).  The reason being is that everyone will bring up the coked out crack addict who is impervious to pain but those incidences are so rare.  Most break ins are opportunist looking for a quick and easy target.  The phenomenon he points to, he calls the psychological stop.  No criminal will take bullet wound and immediately think "oh, that was just a 22LR that hit me, I'm going to continue and go after this guy because I don't really care if my body gets disfigured by a few 22LR bullet holes".  Most criminals will only know they are being shot at and run.  Now, if the criminal is truly so drugged out, a few rounds of 22LR won't stop them but neither will a .380 or 9mm, etc. based on the data he collected.  A 12 gauge shotgun slug though, had a 98% success rate.

[ants]

   A friend of mine just took a class given buy a retired cop & a lawyer.  They said you do not want to be the aggresser, don't shoot if the intruder is leaving,(in the back or driving away), & shoot to kill. But either way your troubles will just begin & you will be getting sued by someone & might be the one going to jail!  And then they want to take our right away to self defense.  WTH!

Thats something I would worry about later. No matter what you do, some scum bag will sue. It easy money. If some pice of $hit comes into my home, with the intent of harming me, my wife or kids I will shoot him in the back, the face, the ass, the neck, the foot, the arm, the leg, the chest, the knee, the ankle, the lip, the ear, the d!#k….. where ever…… let the piece of $h!t  or the piece of $h!t's $hitty scum bag family sue me. What ever..

Edited February 27, 2014 by ants

[Nomad]

Any gun is better then no gun, a gun you shoot well and is simple to operate and always runs ,is the way to go if that's a .22 so be it.

I'm toying with the idea of a 8 shot .22 revolver for my oldest daughter, she shoots but not as much as I'd like,and that seems like a good choice.

That said I've been to well over 100 shootings and I'm inclined to think it may be close to 200 , I've seen a surprising number of shooting victims more worried about their coat and cell phone than the blood leaking from the holes.... Which tend to be small and almost self sealing,the ones where the shell casing are small anyway.

Now when there is shotgun shells and larger shell casings on the ground ,those folks you don't have to tell to get off their phone.

Right now there is a short barreled Benelli with 00 buck and my .40 cal at the ready.

Saying you,have a gun may make many run out,shooting the ones that don't may make them then run out, or maybe towards you ! I'd rather make it so he doesn't have the option . Take running right out of the equation as much as possible.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Larry302

[Five Seasons]

I used to keep my ruger 10/22 under the bed. and was DESTROYED on another forum for not using my 12 gauge.

 

I was watching best defense last night and they were actually talking about a low caliber lever action rifle. The best argument for this choice in my opinion has less to do with recoil and finding the target and more with the drywall/penetration.

 

All that aside, I feel comfortable with my skills and hallow points in my glock 23. It's in a gunvault at my bedside table. loaded and with a flashlight. In the future I'd like to get a .45 (preferably a 1911) with a light attachment.

[Five Seasons]

I am confident that shooting 10 .22 rounds at an intruder will stop them in their tracks.

 

I'm usually on the other side of caliber wars. There's a nice one going on at glocktalk in reference to the .380 in the G42... but a heavy leather coat or eventhough unlikely a light vest... I'm not so sure. It's not that your attacker is left uninjured or able to survive, but did you STOP him? Or was he not wounded enough to prevent him from coming at you with that knife despite those little holes... I've always felt a short tactical shotgun with 5 rounds of buckshot would be best. Even a 20 gauge.