• Life Advice & Visual Arts Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    🌌 Share Your Dreams! 🌌
    📸 15 Years of Photo Contests 📸
  • LAVA Moderator: Mysterier

self defense gun

I lust after the Keltec KSG. The MSRP is <$1k when it finally comes out and it has two feed tubes that hold 7 shells and can be switched at the flip of a switch. It's super short for going around corners compared to others. The shells eject back by the butt in order to maintain proper legal barrel length. It's the center one in this comparison shot.

keltecshotgunsize.jpg


I'll be honest, I want one for the zombie apocalypse, but I feel that the switchable feed tubes lets you use less-than-lethal ammo in one side, with normal shells on the other. If I was using a normal shotgun I would load in-order a blank, a rock salt shot, then actual shells. If they don't leave after the first two, I think then it's time for real shells. You can see the feed tubes better in this shot.

5414231454_57fc43a87f.jpg


If you can't take care of every single muthafuckin' invader in the house with 15 shells, they really want you dead. I can't even imagine having one of those pulled on me. You don't need any special tax stamp or AOW permit for it either.

=D
 
No, it resets after you cock it again. I do know what you are talking about but it definitely doesn't require a field strip. I believe it happens only when the trigger is still depressed on a feed tube switch. As for availability, I've only seen it advertised from less-than-reputable suppliers. Keltec says they aren't available yet and any dealer samples are non-transferrable
 
junglejuice said:
If I was using a normal shotgun I would load in-order a blank, a rock salt shot, then actual shells. If they don't leave after the first two, I think then it's time for real shells. You can see the feed tubes better in this shot.
Click to expand...

No, no, no, no, no-no.

What happens after the blank, as your taking the extra second or two to pump another shot in, and they bring up their 9mm and put 5 shots in your chest?


Shoot to kill, or they will.
 
You think a burglar is expecting armed resistance?

I truly think that's a good strategy. A rock salt round will definitely take it out of you. Being on a drug forum, I'd bet that it's a junkie just needing a fix of opiates or something. Unless you have some really valuable shit like a massive diamond collection, it's not going to be pro's coming after you. These kind of situations are brought up by desperate measures and having empathy for junkies, I don't want to kill them

:)
 
i have one of those Ruger .380s carry it in my purse all the time.

also have The Judge (Taurus) revolver, at home, which shoots five, .410 shotgun shells (or five, .45 shells).
 
You don't know what they are expecting or how 'pro' they are. Safer to err on making a sure incapacitation. Also, in many jurisdictions it can be an issue if you use lethal force (firearm) when you don't suppose you needed lethal force. (less lethal munition)
 
caterva said:
I no longer own any- what I've used in the past, specifically, will not carry over to you as I simply used whatever I had the most training and experience with, and my situation differed from yours. What I will say is this: if you're going to get one, learn how to use it properly. Get professional instruction if possible (Frontsight is one example); if you have family/friends that are current or former LEO/MIL, spend a significant amount of time and ammo at the range with them running through the basic technique and drills. Follow this up with reading up on, and practicing basic tactics that are likely to come into play in your situation; movement, footwork, and situational awareness matters more than you can imagine. Know if/when you need it, it's likely going to be in a low-light situation, so choose your gear and train accordingly. Try to have a partner to at least run through room clearance drills with, at the very least using airsoft/paintball guns to get a "loose" feel for it; learn how to slice the pie, and learn that in general, attempting to clear rooms by yourself is a very risky proposition. I do not recommend you attempt it under any circumstances- I have a few years experience in this specific area and let's just say that I go to great lengths to avoid having to clear rooms by myself, even in full battle-rattle (Level IV plate carrier and a very capable select-fire carbine, among other niceties).

In short, don't get one if you aren't going to put in the time, money, and effort necessary to learn how to use it properly; you could get yourself and other people killed unnecessarily. Also consider this: you live in an apartment, and you plan on keeping it in a locked box. If someone were to kick in your door in while you were sleeping, what makes you think you could get it into action in time- and if you do, where you do think those rounds you manage to get off are going to end up? What are your walls made out of; are you particularly fond of any of your neighbors, because most loads I'd count on to stop a determined attacker would zip right through most modern buildings. Whatever you decide to do, do it smart, because anytime a gun is involved, it ups the ante. Oh, and since this is is bluelight, I thought I'd mention that possessing of a firearm (even if it is legal) while being in possession of drugs is a Federal Crime that carries a Mandatory Minimum 10 year sentence- just something to chew on. Stay safe
Click to expand...

Kudos to this guy knowing his shit. I agree with this dude always be conscious of legal ramifications involving drugs, and firearms the law dont fuck around when it comes to guns
 
Folley said:
No, no, no, no, no-no.

What happens after the blank, as your taking the extra second or two to pump another shot in, and they bring up their 9mm and put 5 shots in your chest?


Shoot to kill, or they will.
Click to expand...
Which is why not having a gun in the first place could arguably be a better self defense strategy than owning one.

And say you get the gun, and you shoot to kill, and you are lucky enough to get the first shots in. You are out of immediate danger but now you got a dead guy in your lounge room. As if the carpet cleaning isnt enough bother in itself, you have a long drawn out period of investigation and court dates to attend. The whole time, not really quite knowing for sure if you are going to end up in jail or not. Fuck your whole life up for years.
 
If you are worried about going through walls..."The Best Defense", a TV show on the outdoor channel, set up 4 stud walls covered in drywall and placed them 4 feet apart and shot common home-defense weapons at them. the only they shot at the walls that did not penetrate throught all 4 studwalls was a 12 gauge shotgun round. so the best weapon for home defense where there is potential for going through a wall and hitting an innocent is a shotgun of some sort. look into a tactical shotgun or if you want a compact profile the Taurus Judge is a 5 shot revolver that will shoot both .45 long colt or 410 gauge shot shells
 
morpher001 said:
Which is why not having a gun in the first place could arguably be a better self defense strategy than owning one.
Click to expand...

Which is why when I was on patrol in Helmand Afghanistan, we walked around un-armed, because you know, that way they would not shoot at us. 8)
 
What the fuck is going on in this thread?
People are talking about assauult riflesfor home defense? One guy even mentioned belt-fed weapons? Serious?

You aren't taking on a small regiment of dudes intent on robbing your house. It is 1 - 3 guys and they are absolutely terrified themselves.sure, there are malicious people out there, but most of the time, the robber is as frightened as you are. This makes it totally unnecessary to use a gun in the first place.

As to the arguement that a well- armed populace is a defense against tyranny, so why not just have a badass gun anyways: a well armed populace is no match against a well-trained army, no matter what arms are brought to bear.
Look at syria: tell me assault rifles are not plentiful and cheap, and yet, without air cover as in libya, they can't get any traction.
You are deluding yourself if you think power in america comes from guns.



As to the topic at hand: get a shotgun. It is easiest to use and absolutely the safest, both in terms of acquiring and hitting your target with the first shot, and in terms of causing less damage and danger to humans and property beyond your home.

Personally, I have one gun I use for everything, hunting, backpacking, etc... and I guess I would defend myself with it. Its a single-shot shotgun/ rifle combo and I would feel way better using this than most handguns. Its just not worth it to kill someone you didn't intend to. Even a robber, I wouldn't want to kill. Someone trying to injure me or my family? Yes, but using a gun in a home invasion is a little excessive imo.
 
Unless you plan on hunting or doing something useful with it. Guns are horrible tools for protecting yourself apart from if you live somewere very very shitty. Just google it and do any small amount of research and theres plenty of evidence against using a gun for self defense. Anyone who swears by it, maybe right in certain circumstances or is just someone who has a general interest in firearms so this clouds there judgment. Or there some gun nut, trust me from my personal and friends personal experience. guns are not good things to have around even in smart, intelligent, safe peoples hands.
 
Well, tazers and other non lethal self-defense guns may be a good thing, no?
 
As to the arguement that a well- armed populace is a defense against tyranny, so why not just have a badass gun anyways: a well armed populace is no match against a well-trained army, no matter what arms are brought to bear.
Click to expand...

Thirteen colonies with a rag tag bunch of militia, managed to defeat the most well trained army in the world during the late 1700s. :p

More on topic. Shotgun would be best IMO. That combined with a good alarm system to let you know when you might need to shoot someone.
 
Well, tazers and other non lethal self-defense guns may be a good thing, no?
Click to expand...

There are people out there that can resist a taser. It is not all that common, most people drop when they get tazed. But a guy all methed up or on PCP could quite possibly ignore the first few shocks and bum rush you.
 
morpher001 said:
Which is why not having a gun in the first place could arguably be a better self defense strategy than owning one.

And say you get the gun, and you shoot to kill, and you are lucky enough to get the first shots in. You are out of immediate danger but now you got a dead guy in your lounge room. As if the carpet cleaning isnt enough bother in itself, you have a long drawn out period of investigation and court dates to attend. The whole time, not really quite knowing for sure if you are going to end up in jail or not. Fuck your whole life up for years.
Click to expand...

Tell me how much of a bother going to court is, when your in your wheel chair after that intruders 9mm went through your spine and you're the key witness... ;)
 
To be honest, if i lived in a country like the states where alot of people have guns and a home invasion is very possible, i would have a silencer on my glock, and if someone intruded, id kill them. I would not report it to the police, id simply chuck his body off a bridge and use any belongings or money on him to pay for the cleaning. Fuck going through the hassle of court.
 
freddy47 said:
Thirteen colonies with a rag tag bunch of militia, managed to defeat the most well trained army in the world during the late 1700s. :p

More on topic. Shotgun would be best IMO. That combined with a good alarm system to let you know when you might need to shoot someone.
Click to expand...

The relative difference in technology was marginal. The Iraqi Army, much better equipped than any group of Mitilia-tards, performed pretty abysmally against NATO and then against Coalition forces twice in a row, having not even one small scale/local or short term tactical success, and suffering complete strategic failure each time.

You tellin me Two tooth Joe with his AR is going to fare better?
 
rangrz said:
The relative difference in technology was marginal. The Iraqi Army, much better equipped than any group of Mitilia-tards, performed pretty abysmally against NATO and then against Coalition forces twice in a row, having not even one small scale/local or short term tactical success, and suffering complete strategic failure each time.

You tellin me Two tooth Joe with his AR is going to fare better?
Click to expand...

The Iraqi Army is doing well the second go around. The US is still bogged down in Iraq. They didn't charge the yanks in the desert, they sucked them into a long term protracted asymmetrical war that has been very expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top