TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:The problem is that a situation like a BG holding your child or spouse could happen. They might have a gun pointed at them or a knife up against them. Then you have a choice. Do you let them go with your child or do you take that shot? The probability of any one of us being in that situation is so remote that we shouldn't really worry about it or practice those head shots, should we? There's also some pretty slim chances of each one of us being in a violent crime or having to use our firearms to defend ourselves, yet we still have our guns and CHLs and carry as often as we can. So, if and when it happens, what will your choice be?

As you mention... the members of this forum all prepare to some degree for a very low probability event (a life threatening attack). I think that a bad guy using a friendly as a hostage is certainly a scenario we should consider. Sure, it's less likely than a car-jacking... but the stakes are so much higher! I can live with a bad guy driving off with my car. I can't live with a bad guy driving off with my kid.

I don't want to have to consider the problem for the first time in the middle of a crisis, so I've sent a lot of lead downrange with this exact situation in mind and I know the distances at which I would take that shot under various circumstances. Outside of those distances, my focus would be on closing the distance to a point where I could act.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply TxStar13. I think you are absolutely correct that people should be very familiar with the behavior of whatever weapon they choose to use for home defense. And if that weapon is a shotgun loaded with buckshot, then understanding the typical pattern at various ranges is indeed important.

Heck, familiarity with the weapon is why my go to gun would be my .45 instead of an AR or shotgun. I've shot many thousands more rounds and had significantly more training with the handgun. I recognize that a long gun is probably the inherently superior weapon for the task, but I know that when adrenaline takes over and I am in full fight mode, the muscle memory is there with the .45, and not with my other guns.

At any rate, while I still think that you may have made some mountains out of shotgun molehills in the article, the tone of my critique was probably far more harsh than intended. As you mentioned, face to face discussions are so much better for hashing things like this out. I apologize if it came across as an attack. My critique was meant to challenge some of the points you made, not as a mean-spirited attack.

As I mentioned before, I think it is a great question to consider. I'll go back and read your other articles in the series to see what else you have to say on the point!

It is a thought provoking question, but I have a few issues with the author's analysis.

The biggest bone I have to pick is that in an effort to promote a rifle's superiority over a shotgun for home defense, the author poses the following question:

I ask the hunters how well they know their pattern size and relationship between point of aim and pattern distribution at 7 yards with their home defense load, then ask if they’d be willing to put one of their children downrange and shoot around the child to hit a paper “shoot” target simulating a bad guy that’s in their house near their child.

Of course no sane person would put their child downrange and shoot a paper target. Not with a shotgun. Not with a carbine. Not with a scoped rifle. Refusal to use your child as a "no shoot" target for a shotgun doesn't imply a shotgun's inferiority... it implies sanity

I realize that the author doesn't actually suggest doing that... but it is an example of intellectual dishonesty used to prove a point. Another example from the article was complaining about having to change ammo (between birdshot, buckshot, and slugs) as distance to the target changes. Really? To quote a favorite TV show character, "I don't think so, Tim!" Birdshot shouldn't be in the self defense conversation. Buckshot is viable for the ranges at which any self defense scenario inside the home will take take place, and slugs are good anywhere from the end of the barrel out to over 100 yards. So put slugs or buckshot in that bad boy and you're done. No need to change ammo on the fly and in the middle of a shootout as the author implies.

I read the article hoping to get some good perspective about the pros and cons of different weapon choices. I was really disappointed to see the author use such illogical arguments to make his point. A carbine might actually be the nest choice... but the author does a disservice by making up silly arguments against the shotgun to skew the discussion. It is a question worth asking. But I found no answers there.