Best gun for home defense for a novice shooter?

[Jayhawk]

Yeah, give him a few days to see if he cools down.

I have to agree that a simple revolver is going to be the best option for a novice home defense gun.  However, I also have to agree that it sounds like he thinks buying a gun will make everything better.  Though it might provide a sense of security, hopefully he takes the time to realize it takes much more than just buying a gun (as others have specified).

No need to repeat some of that advice but I'll tell you what I have.  I carry either a Glock 19 or  Kahr PM40.  The Kahr is definitely not a beginners gun but a Glock isn't bad.  I'd still advise a revolver but Glocks are still simple to operate, disassemble, and offer a decent level of forgiveness in the cleaning and maintenance areas.  Their lack of external safety has it's ups and downs for beginning shooters, but I'm getting off topic.  I do have a concealed carry permit.  I shoot as often as finances allow, and I'm lucky enough to have a wide open place to go shooting.  If you have no other options a range is better than not shooting, but I have the freedom to draw, move, double-tab, rapid fire, move some more, reload, etc.  Something many ranges may not offer.  So my CCH training, my practice, and a lot reading is where I'm at, and honestly, I know there is a lot more training I would like to take. Maybe it would be best to sit down, price a gun, price training, price a safe, price ammo per month, range fees, and anything else you can think of.  That security system might look more inviting then.


As for Golfer and the kill thing.  I would just change everything to 'incapacitate'.  You're shooting to render that threat unable to harm you.  As long as you understand your laws, shoot to incapacitate as quickly as possible.  Put as many in center body mass until the threat is no longer a threat.

[Golfer]

As for Golfer and the kill thing.  I would just change everything to 'incapacitate'.  You're shooting to render that threat unable to harm you.  As long as you understand your laws, shoot to incapacitate as quickly as possible.  Put as many in center body mass until the threat is no longer a threat.

This.

[2bighorn]

 I've been in several situations where law enforcement during a string of home invasions, while people were home, advised the homeowners exactly of what I passed on.

You don't ask cops for legal advice, they're not legal experts.

You don't ever shoot to injure, you shoot to destroy.

In self defense you shoot to protect yourself from being harmed.

That isn't bad advice.

Legally (and morally), it is, even though sometimes killing someone during self defense is unavoidable (but we have legal provisions for such cases - fortunately).

I never said go kill the guy who isn't a threat to you, far from it.

Correct, I've misread it.

[68ZooM]

when your taught to shoot, it's center mass, double tap, empty clip, now at nightime you don't have the time to pick a shot that won't kill them, you center mass, shoot to kill, one thing i was taught up front is that you don't pull your firearm unless you plan on using deadly force, it's not a toy to scare them with, ya shoot to kill

[Jayhawk]

Jayhawk, when your taught to shoot, it's center mass, double tap, empty clip, now at nightime you don't have the time to pick a shot that won't kill them, you center mass, shoot to kill, one thing i was taught up front is that you don't pull your firearm unless you plan on using deadly force, it's not a toy to scare them with, ya shoot to kill

I think we're arguing semantics here.  I'm not advocating precise shot placement to only injure the person, I'm arguing that once that person is no longer a threat, there is no need to continue firing.  So if you put a couple rounds into the person and they are on the ground no longer threatening you, you stop shooting, regardless if they are alive or not.  But by all means, like I said in my last sentence, shoot until the threat is gone.  Though incapacitate often equals kill, that's not always the case.  Whether you look at it from a moral standpoint, or more prudent, a legal standpoint; I don't want to establish the precedent that I intend to kill in a self-defense situation.

So I think we're pretty much on the same page, just using different language to describe it.

*EDIT*  I agree with your second point, I draw with the willingness to kill this person, because that might be what happen.  I'm not drawing with the intent to kill, but the willingness to.  Again, semantics, but that little difference could mean a world of difference if your fate is in the hands of 12 other people.

[Masherbrum]

There is a THICK LINE between self-defense and Mayhem.  Only moron would take some of the advice being given out in this thread.

[Jayhawk]

There is a THICK LINE between self-defense and Mayhem.  Only moron would take some of the advice being given out in this thread.

Thinner than you'd think.  I don't have the book but one case comes to mind in one of Massad Ayoob's books.  I can't remember the specifics of the case but a man used his car defense gun to shoot someone.  Prosecutors argued that because the man was carrying multiple magazines for his gun, he was looking for trouble.  Sometimes one more shot can separate self-defense from murder, at least in the eyes of a jury.

[Shuffler]

Morally:
It's wrong to kill unless in self defense. If you disabled the intruder and you're in no imminent danger, you call 911. You don't go and murder.

That is why you always shoot to kill, never to wound. If the person is wounded and is absolutely no threat, then call 911. Be careful though as anyone you do not know that is in your house without permission is a threat unless they are completely unconcious.

If you have any qualms shooting someone then do not get a gun for protection. Even shooting a bad person can be life changing. If you pull a gun and are not ready to use it, it may be used on you.


On the other hand.... if you get sued and the perp wins... then you can take that into consideration if it ever happens again.

[2bighorn]

That is why you always shoot to kill, never to wound. If the person is wounded and is absolutely no threat, then call 911.

I think Jayhawk explained it better than I did.

Be careful though as anyone you do not know that is in your house without permission is a threat unless they are completely unconcious.

So you suggest I go and knock a neighbors kid I didn't recognize at first, unconscious?

If you have any qualms shooting someone then do not get a gun for protection.

Everybody should have qualms about shooting someone, whether you're actually do it or not.

On the other hand....

On the other hand, you guys are all such experts when it comes to killing, I'll just shut up 

[fbWldcat]

I'll admit that NOT LOCKING the car was a mistake on his part...
A gun WOULD be a nice addition to ADT, not for sole defense.

[Shuffler]

I think Jayhawk explained it better than I did.

So you suggest I go and knock a neighbors kid I didn't recognize at first, unconscious?

Everybody should have qualms about shooting someone, whether you're actually do it or not.

On the other hand, you guys are all such experts when it comes to killing, I'll just shut up 

Sounds more like you run a great risk of being a victim. Good luck with that.

If your neighbors son is a crook and theif.......

[Belial]

Just get a 22 revolver...easy to load...easy to tell if its really empty....easy to hit with as they are more accurate than a 45.


oh and they are 120$

[LLogann]

The important question is what does his place look like?  Railroad style with long hallways, or square box type of house?  A shotgun only benefits from long, non-intersecting types of layouts where you have cover at your 6.......

If he's a novice, Desert Eagle is most definitely a bad idea.....  Caliber & kick would greatly inhibit his ability to hit the chest.  

A shotgun may get him killed instead of protecting him by impeding his movements, even though it gives him better coverage, he'll also wind up destroying several possessions per shot.  He should get a shotgun bird call or something if he needs the sound........

... I would suggest a .380 automatic, small enough to provide the ability of close quarters hand to hand (heaven forbid) yet still a 9mm round.  A Walter PPKs would be great but at this point, it's more of a collector gun.  

Not to sound like a downer, but maybe a gun is just wrong in the first place....  As many law enforcement agents would agree, a killshot is the only form of protection, of course with a direct threat to the life of you, or family.  Shoot a burglar in the leg and the next thing you know he is "stealing" your house completely.  

Maybe he should just have a tazer?

Friend of mine had his condo recently robbed, and he's really mad and is talking about getting a gun to protect his house.

Note that he was not home when the robbery occurred.

He asked me what he should get for a gun. Originally he was talking about a desert eagle, but i talked him off _that_ ledge. I would think that's the last thing he wants for home defense. Note tho that neither he or I are gun owners, tho i was in the rifle team in college which is why he asked me.

I suggested a shotgun, for several reasons.

1: The cha-chink cocking sound is farking intimidating, and may scare a thief away so he does not need to shoot.
2: Scatter shot has a better chance for hitting if he has to aim and shoot in a hurry
3: I also told him to get bird, not buck shot. Not because of lethality issues, but because i would think they would be less likely to go through the walls into the condo next door to him and possibly hurt an innocent neighbor.

Thoughts on this?

Belial
.22 doesn't have any stopping power...... go with a short 9, .380 baby!!!!   

[LLogann]

My Brother, you are far from sane here.......  If you put somebody down, but not kill them, there is a high likelyhood that they will be able to turn around and sue you.  If you are victim of a home invasion, and your life is threatened, shoot to kill, always...  And make your shots count....  You put 5 rounds into somebody and the cop will ask you why 5. 

As for Golfer and the kill thing.  I would just change everything to 'incapacitate'.  You're shooting to render that threat unable to harm you.  As long as you understand your laws, shoot to incapacitate as quickly as possible.  Put as many in center body mass until the threat is no longer a threat.

[Yeager]

.380 Winchester silvertips have a great street record for one shot stops.  Something like 85%, which is damned fine for such a light bullet wielded in weapons with such compact frames.

http://www.winchester.com/Products/handgun-ammunition/super-x/silvertip-hollow-point/Pages/default.aspx