View Single Post
Old July 9th, 2012 #64
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,896

No. It's not apples and oranges. He went out of his way to discuss a shell that no one would ever use for self-defense to kill the idea of using a .410 revolver for self-defense.

Who here shoots to blind someone using any caliber firearm? Really, who in their right mind shoots an attacker to blind him? That WILL get you murdered.

If your life is in imminent threat of bodily harm or death you shoot to kill. You don't shoot to blind or wound.

Originally Posted by Mr A.Anderson View Post
OK - apples and oranges? The birdshot was for "deterrant" at close range, incapacitate, or as Roy said, ".....a blinding effect" in non-lethal. Roy also went on to say that the ballistics for such a load is complete trash for killing.

You jumped his shit - when all you really did was expand on why the ballistics for such a load is complete trash for killing, and said to use 000 buck shot for real self defense (lethal) in close quarters. Basically, you agreed with him, explained why, and called him and idiot in the process?


I've repeatedly heard the "bird shot" theory from liberal artards who are proponents for "non-lethal" self defense. Problem is - like you both said - it's non-lethal for the perp, but will probably end up getting you killed in the process.

Or am I totally missing something here?