Suppressor use for home defense.

rob_s · Post by **rob_s** » Sun Jan 17, 2010 9:17 am

ArevaloSOCOM wrote:NFA weapons have been used multiple times in multiple self defense incidents.

One example.
http://www.afn.org/~guns/ayoob.html

OkieSnoop · Post by **OkieSnoop** » Sun Jan 17, 2010 2:19 pm

Great example - Harry Beckwith lost his job and went several thousand dollars in debt defending himself in a perfectly righteous shooting because he used a Ruger Ac 556 instead of an AR or since he worked for HK at the time - an HK semi-auto rifle.
Not worth it to me to have my collection confiscated by my brother officers and a DA that wants to make stats on his conviction rate.
We had an old retired security guard here in Tulsa that shot this methed-uped aggressive, POS in a city park after telling the guy no less than 3 times 'I'm sick, I'm old, I've got a gun....I don't want to fight you, leave me alone"

He got sentenced to 5 yeqrs probation and his concealed carry permit revoked, and his gun confiscated - Hell! I;d give him a new snubby .38 if he could legally own it
Some asshat kick my front door - I'm going to have enough problems without shootin his ass W/a SIG226 & A Trident!!
I;ll keep my 870 as a house gun and my NFA toys to play with at my leisure

gunham · Post by **gunham** » Sun Jan 17, 2010 2:26 pm

I would definitely use one if I needed to. But I would be willing to bet that a legally owned suppressor has been used to stop a home invasion, but the Main Stream Media will not report it.

rob_s · Post by **rob_s** » Sun Jan 17, 2010 2:36 pm

OkieSnoop wrote:Great example - Harry Beckwith lost his job and went several thousand dollars in debt defending himself in a perfectly righteous shooting because he used a Ruger Ac 556 instead of an AR or since he worked for HK at the time - an HK semi-auto rifle.

That wasn't Harry Beckwith. I linked to the Harry Beckwith story in the post above yours.

Post by **silencertalk** » Sun Jan 17, 2010 2:42 pm

The guy fired 105 rounds of suppressive fire. That is a lot. Also it was 1976. Those were dark ages for gun ownership. There was almost no legal CCW then.

Conqueror · Post by **Conqueror** » Sun Jan 17, 2010 2:47 pm

Kramer wrote:No, you do not want to change the barrel because they will always check the slug to make sure they have the correct gun. Just remove the can and put it in a dresser drawer.

Uh, what? This is rarely done. If the cops arrive and you are standing over a dead BG with a pistol in your hand, and you say "I just shot this guy," they aren't doing any CSI: Las Vegas bullshit with forensic bullet matching. They're going to say "Yep, it looks like you did indeed shoot him" and move on.

My answer would be "I'm a target shooter, this is the way I shoot the gun at the range, and I only had time to grab it out of my range bag."

ArevaloSOCOM · Post by **ArevaloSOCOM** » Sun Jan 17, 2010 4:54 pm

rsilvers wrote:The guy fired 105 rounds of suppressive fire. That is a lot. Also it was 1976. Those were dark ages for gun ownership. There was almost no legal CCW then.

This.

Gun ownership right have vastly improved since the use of those NFA weapons, now with Castle Doc, I'd be even easier to defend thier use.

rob_s · Post by **rob_s** » Sun Jan 17, 2010 5:22 pm

You guys crack me up. Read the whole article.

The night of November 12, 1990

Twinsen · Post by **Twinsen** » Sun Jan 17, 2010 5:56 pm

That guy was lucky to not have been shot at.

Good old full auto putting heads down. Oh no, I mean it kills babies.

JohnDS · Post by **JohnDS** » Sun Jan 17, 2010 5:56 pm

Wasn't there a guy a while back that was attacked by some drugged up family (brother, brother, sister) after some road rage incident. Followed him for miles, somehow he was stopped (don't remember) and he used an M16 in defense (killed 1 of the brothers). If I remember his story correctly it wasn't going well in court due to a machine gun being used but the family kept shouting death threats from the prosecution bench so it was dismissed or some such nonsense.

Also - voted yes. Not because of this story I vaguely remember, but because they're legal for me to own and I'm going to use them legally - as is my right.

rob_s · Post by **rob_s** » Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:03 pm

JohnDS wrote:Wasn't there a guy a while back that was attacked by some drugged up family (brother, brother, sister) after some road rage incident. Followed him for miles, somehow he was stopped (don't remember) and he used an M16 in defense (killed 1 of the brothers). If I remember his story correctly it wasn't going well in court due to a machine gun being used but the family kept shouting death threats from the prosecution bench so it was dismissed or some such nonsense.

Also - voted yes. Not because of this story I vaguely remember, but because they're legal for me to own and I'm going to use them legally - as is my right.

Sounds like you're thinking of the HK employee that used the Ruger that was mentioned above.

Gary Fadden Incident

jackson · Post by **jackson** » Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:10 pm

as i have read most people ,s post that say they would rather risk there hearing ,you have no fucking idea of what your talking about.i sit here at this computer typing with non stopping tinnitus from shooting a 44 mag 7 years ago.you have no idea what it is to have a loud hissing or a loud high pitch 24/7 in your ears non stopping.every where you go it goes also, there is no escaping it no matter what you do.i purchased a silencer and would with out question use it for home protection because i fucking know what it is to have tinnitus.it isnt just a matter of losing a little hearing there is something much worse than that and believe me you dont want it.its like a guy explained it to me shooting a gun with out some sort of protection is like dropping a bottle on cement,you just dont know when it will break.

midcountygunshop · Post by **midcountygunshop** » Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:45 pm

I don't keep a can readily available for that situation, so I wouldn't. I have my extended tube 12ga ready to go and is my first choice in home defense. However, I don't see why it should be a problem to use a legal suppressor for home defense. One reason I may not want to use the suppressor though, the loud gunshots would be a deterant in the still of the night and possibly scare a would be attacker more than a silent thud. Ofcourse this is assuming there is more then one thug, or that I somehow missed my target with the first shot.

trwalsh · Post by **trwalsh** » Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:52 pm

Just because you have to shoot some dirtbag in the middle of the night, doesn't mean you have to wake up the neighbors.

That's just rude !

st33ve0 · Post by **st33ve0** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 12:23 am

I would consider it if I had one for a defensive caliber firearm [working on it] because I value my hearing and in TN it [should] be just fine. Last time I checked according to TN code as long as the shoot is clean and you legally owned the item(s) used to defend yourself there's no legal problem with it.

Nuclear · Post by **Nuclear** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 12:46 am

I'm working on suppressors for all of my guns, so one day I can have one on each (except for the shotgun). So if I had one on my HD gun, I'd use it in a HD situation. Until that day, I'll throw on the electronic muffs. I figure the semi-auto handgun with a "high capacity" magazine and a laser would doom me in a legal situation anyways, if I didn't live in Florida with its Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws.

A suppressor would make no difference in whether it was a "good shoot" under the law, criminal or civil, at least not in this state. I'll bet suppressors have been used in HD situations, and just never reported by either side.

Diomed · Post by **Diomed** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 3:49 am

I'd have no problem using NFA for defense, though a SBR or SBS would give me pause and I would not use a machinegun (expense, and unfavorable state law).

The issues of deafness, flash blindness and disorientation afterwards are worthy of serious consideration.

OkieSnoop · Post by **OkieSnoop** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 4:03 am

Rob_S,
You're right, I'm wrong - It was Gary Fadden, not Beckwith, but the point is the same. Oklahoma has a 'make my day' law, but it won't matter if you get into a political pissing contest with a DA that wants to make stats - had a bar owner that was killed with a piece of pipe by a transient outside his own bar - DA thought it was self defense on the bum's part - no charges! The family had to take it to a grand jury to get an indictment. I don't think it should matter if you shoot the BG with a bb gun or a MAC 10, but, like a friend of mine used to tell me - 'Reality has no bearing on this, perception is everything".

continuity · Post by **continuity** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:13 am

No problem using NFA stuff at home to deal with a miscreant that is threatening my life. Would be more comfortable in that scenario with the 870 that is bedside though.

No matter what weapon I was forced to use, I would NOT change one thing relative the weapon, or any other element of the event prior to or after LE arrival. The event will be etched on ones concience/subconcience for lifes duration. What actually happened may be different than ones perception, but any intentional change in the story line will come out eventually. It's the nature of things, count on it.

It would suck to be involved in a clean shoot and go to the big house for tampering with evidence.

OkieSnoop · Post by **OkieSnoop** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:23 am

continuity wrote: It would suck to be involved in a clean shoot and go to the big house for tampering with evidence.

I agree 1K% - no messing with the scene afterwords - and as a police officer, I can't count the number of citizens that have asked me "My no-brother-good-in-law told me to shoot him and drag him inside the house".....Sure Dude! If you really, really want to go to jail!!

One more time - I wouldn't intentionally cause myself the added liability of using an NFA weapon for home defense. In other words, I would if it was the first thing at hand, but it won't be.

Chondro · Post by **Chondro** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:42 am

Diomed wrote:I'd have no problem using NFA for defense, though a SBR or SBS would give me PAUSE and I WOULD NOT use a machinegun (expense, and unfavorable state law).

The issues of deafness, flash blindness and disorientation afterwards are worthy of serious consideration.

OkieSnoop

'Reality has no bearing on this, perception is everything".

This is exactly the point.. the individual perception of what is considered within reason and what's not..This thread is also very useful as well in many other areas, one of which is the value of some of the opinions shared here for future topics.

An AR is a suitable HG only if you live alone in a home a good distance from any others..So for the other cases you would have to then assume we are talking mostly about boostered cans except for a few 3 lug fixed barrel weapons..given no one truly concerned with protecting their loved ones or themselves would do anything to a weapon to jeopardize its reliability then you have your answer there as to why they would use it..

Which also leads to another issue which is that many just aren't shooting there cans enough to realize this..I won't even touch on the flaw in the thinking then about the ammunition choice..

As for trying to hide the fact of if a can was used or not used continues to be covered..It doesn't change the ballistics or the intent nor the outcome (assuming the gun doesn't jam and you get beat to death with it)..So why would it matter if you failed to mention if it was on there..Would you be guitly of anything if you didn't mention you had on a watch or a ballcap and then took it off after the shooting? See the problem with this argument..

Ahh since its still being discussed..

continuity · Post by **continuity** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:56 am

Chondro wrote:...if you didn't mention you had on a watch or a ballcap and then took it off after the shooting? See the problem with this argument...

These elements are not generally "relative evidence". (Although if asked about and intentional obfuscation takes place they become so.) Modification of an involved weapon, by removal of a suppressor, is specifically and definately tampering with evidence.

That would seem obvious as even my nutcase neighbor thinks so.

Chondro · Post by **Chondro** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:10 am

Why I mentioned the problem with the argument..It all goes back to perception is reality and the underlying theme of the thread.

jlwilliams · Post by **jlwilliams** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:21 am

I don't generally keep a suppressed weapon handy. When I have had indications of predators around my bird coops I do bring a suppressed weapon out and keep it handy. That's a little off topic, but only a little. It's still protecting my property with a suppressed weapon. No point in waking the neighbors over a fox. Besides, it's legal to shoot a domestic dog if it's killing your animals, but the owner can still sue you for it in civil court. All the more reason to leave them sleeping while I dig a hole. But I digress.

I voted no. My primary defensive weapon is a Glock 21 or at times a 19. One reason I prefer the handgun over a shoulder arm is that sometimes, I want to investigate what's going on outside my house without "brandishing" a gun. My house being close to the road means that I may hear things outside, but not on my property. I have gone out to find a couple arguing in their car at the stop sign. A kid with a broken down car. All examples where I went outside with a gun accessable to me, but not visable. No need to escalate the situation by having a guy come out with a shotgun in hand. I'm armed if I need it, and not brandishing. Anyway, a can puts a handle on the end for someone to grab and slows the draw. It's not so much that I don't want a jury to see the silencer (though I don't think that would go well in liberal CT) it's just that my preferred weapon is a pistol, in part because of it's concealability and it's inherent handiness. I'm not philosophicly opposed to silencers for home defense, I just don't use one for such.

continuity · Post by **continuity** » Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:22 am

Chondro wrote:Why I mentioned the problem with the argument..It all goes back to perception is reality and the underlying theme of the thread.

My nutcase neighbor has nothing over you. He talks like this all the time and I can't understand him either. I will go with; do what seems right to you and always have your attorneys number in your pocket.

Suppressor use for home defense.

Use a suppressor for Home Defense