OT: Guns recommendation

250vertical

Newbie
Dec 16, 2011
34
29
18
The advantage to a hand gun is size. It can be secured more easily and secured in a spot where you can grab it fast. If you are inexperienced and were to get a hand gun, get a double action revolver. If God forbid you were ever in a situation in your home where you needed it (and the odds are slim to none) you are probably going to be scared. You do not have to remember anything with a double action revolver. You do not have to cock it and you certainly do not have to work a slide to chamber a round as you would if you had a automatic and there is no jamming variable. Just pull the trigger. Get a large caliber. You are probably going to hit nothing but your house, unless he is right on you, and the noise alone could cause the threat to shit himself and run whereas you will shit yourself but hold your ground. The police will ask you if you are all right. Tell them you are fine but that you have fouled yourself. They will know this. Ask if you can shower. They will endorse this request fully. Do so, break out a fresh triple pak of Jockeys, then make your statement.
 

BigBL87

Blackshirt
Sep 11, 2006
3,330
622
113
As long as you aim for the leg...
Terrible advice. You should always aim center mass, reduces possibility of stray shot passing through barriers behind your target and endangering others. Also gives the highest probability of incapacitation by way of the central nervous system.

If you are in a situation where you are willing to discharge a firearm in the direction of a person, then you should not be firing warning shots or shooting to wound. If you can shoot to wound, you are not justified in using deadly force and should not pull the trigger. The goal is to incapacitate your target, which may or may not end in death. You should not fire a weapon at all unless you are absolutely willing to destroy what it is pointed at.
 

otismotis08

Assistant Head Coach
Jan 5, 2012
10,016
4,255
113
parts unknown
Terrible advice. You should always aim center mass, reduces possibility of stray shot passing through barriers behind your target and endangering others. Also gives the highest probability of incapacitation by way of the central nervous system.

If you are in a situation where you are willing to discharge a firearm in the direction of a person, then you should not be firing warning shots or shooting to wound. If you can shoot to wound, you are not justified in using deadly force and should not pull the trigger. The goal is to incapacitate your target, which may or may not end in death. You should not fire a weapon at all unless you are absolutely willing to destroy what it is pointed at.
RollingLaughRollingLaughRollingLaugh
https://news.yahoo.com/biden-sugges...n-the-leg-instead-of-the-heart-201750470.html
 

dinglefritz

College Football Hall of Fame
Jan 14, 2011
24,581
18,732
113
A gun didn't help that situation at all. It wasn't the only contributing factor in that incident, but it was one of them.
So you're blaming the gun for a guy tackling the bar owner? You're blaming the gun for the initial attack by the other couple? The man was trying to protect his business and was tackled by a thug. Bad choice. Businesses in downtown Sioux Falls SD hired armed security guards when they heard through social media about a planned "protest" on the street in front of their businesses. Guess what. The protestors saw multiple armed guards on that block downtown so they drove to the Empire mall and proceeded to break windows and taunt cops and national guard troops. Go ahead and protest during the daylight if you want but the last time I checked the right to free speech and assembly doesn't include the right to break laws including blocking streets and damaging property.
 
Last edited:

dinglefritz

College Football Hall of Fame
Jan 14, 2011
24,581
18,732
113

mwulf

Graduate Assistant
Dec 15, 2013
5,089
2,980
113
Thigh Land
That bar and building would have been a shit show. People live in that building it's probably for the best if he leaves. He will probably be sued civilly and may have misdemeanor gun charges for an expired permit. He would be wise to move on if that's possible. Plus he kinda sounds like a bit of a bad dude but that's not punishable by law.
 

oldjar07

All-American
Oct 25, 2009
4,216
2,615
113
So you're blaming the gun for a guy tackling the bar owner? You're blaming the gun for the initial attack by the other couple? The man was trying to protect his business and was tackled by a thug. Bad choice. Businesses in downtown Sioux Falls SD hired armed security guards when they heard through social media about a planned "protest" on the street in front of their businesses. Guess what. The protestors saw multiple armed guards on that block downtown so they drove to the Empire mall and proceeded to break windows and taunt cops and national guard troops. Go ahead and protest during the daylight if you want but the last time I checked the right to free speech and assembly doesn't include the right to break laws including blocking streets and damaging property.
Every one of them involved was a total idiot. If even one of them had an ounce of common sense, no one gets hurt. The biggest idiot of all was the girl who grabbed the bar owner from behind and tried to tackle him to the ground.
 

bigboxes

College Football Hall of Fame
Sep 4, 2004
22,987
8,261
113
Arlington, TX
So you're blaming the gun for a guy tackling the bar owner? You're blaming the gun for the initial attack by the other couple? The man was trying to protect his business and was tackled by a thug. Bad choice. Businesses in downtown Sioux Falls SD hired armed security guards when they heard through social media about a planned "protest" on the street in front of their businesses. Guess what. The protestors saw multiple armed guards on that block downtown so they drove to the Empire mall and proceeded to break windows and taunt cops and national guard troops. Go ahead and protest during the daylight if you want but the last time I checked the right to free speech and assembly doesn't include the right to break laws including blocking streets and damaging property.
I hear you, dingle. But our nation was founded on such protest. And it wasn't peaceful. Don't kid yourself.
 

bigboxes

College Football Hall of Fame
Sep 4, 2004
22,987
8,261
113
Arlington, TX
The advantage to a hand gun is size. It can be secured more easily and secured in a spot where you can grab it fast. If you are inexperienced and were to get a hand gun, get a double action revolver. If God forbid you were ever in a situation in your home where you needed it (and the odds are slim to none) you are probably going to be scared. You do not have to remember anything with a double action revolver. You do not have to cock it and you certainly do not have to work a slide to chamber a round as you would if you had a automatic and there is no jamming variable. Just pull the trigger. Get a large caliber. You are probably going to hit nothing but your house, unless he is right on you, and the noise alone could cause the threat to shit himself and run whereas you will shit yourself but hold your ground. The police will ask you if you are all right. Tell them you are fine but that you have fouled yourself. They will know this. Ask if you can shower. They will endorse this request fully. Do so, break out a fresh triple pak of Jockeys, then make your statement.
I would recommend a semiauto over a .357. If you don't have the strength to rack the slide, then you are better off with a shotgun. Anyone can use it and you just point in the general direction. It worked for Granny on the Beverly Hillbillies! I have a .357 and it's a beast. But my VP9 is so much more comfortable in my hand and easier to control. It's got the tritium sights so no need to turn on the lights.


 

dinglefritz

College Football Hall of Fame
Jan 14, 2011
24,581
18,732
113
I hear you, dingle. But our nation was founded on such protest. And it wasn't peaceful. Don't kid yourself.
Protest fine. Carry your signs. Chant your chants. Do it in broad daylight and keep your f'n hands off of other people's property. The rioters have the right to vote. They have a say especially in their local government. This turns to just plain criminal activity after dark.
 

bigboxes

College Football Hall of Fame
Sep 4, 2004
22,987
8,261
113
Arlington, TX
Protest fine. Carry your signs. Chant your chants. Do it in broad daylight and keep your f'n hands off of other people's property. The rioters have the right to vote. They have a say especially in their local government. This turns to just plain criminal activity after dark.
What do you think the colonists did after the Boston Massacre? I'm pretty sure they were blocking traffic. When they were throwing that tea overboard, I'm fairly certain it was someone's property. Have some empathy, man.
 

BigBL87

Blackshirt
Sep 11, 2006
3,330
622
113
What do you think the colonists did after the Boston Massacre? I'm pretty sure they were blocking traffic. When they were throwing that tea overboard, I'm fairly certain it was someone's property. Have some empathy, man.
The Boston Tea Party analogy doesn't hold that well when you break it down. The colonists threw overboard (i.e. didn't steal) a shipment of tea belonging to the East India Company. The East India Company had a government enforced monopoly on tea in the colonies, meaning colonists could only legally purchase tea from them and must pay taxes on said tea without any representation in parliament. They had a direct grievance with the company and as an extension England.

That being the case, to me it actually made sense when rioters burned the 3rd precinct in Minneapolis. It was a direct representation of that which they had a grievance with. I don't think it was right, but it made sense. On the other hand, retail stores and other businesses in the community make no sense as an outlet for rage.

Excusing rioting and looting is really an example of the soft bigotry of low expectations. Setting aside the fact that a fair share of the rioters are not actually black if you watch the videos, people are essentially saying they can't help themselves (because they are so angry) or don't know better when they rationalize and justify the theft and destruction taking place. How does that not sound insultingly paternalistic, and borderline racist?

The simple fact is, the people that are looting and rioting (NOT the people protesting) are evil. What happened just provides them a convenient justification and opportunity to do what they already had a desire to do. The cop(s) involved in the incident that sparked this whole thing is/are also evil. Recognizing both does not diminish one or the other.
 
Last edited:

bigboxes

College Football Hall of Fame
Sep 4, 2004
22,987
8,261
113
Arlington, TX
I'm not supporting looting. But you can understand the rioting. At least I can. And yes, the colonists did indeed destroy someone else's property. They did practice civil disobedience. They did overthrow their government when it treated them like 2nd class citizens.
 

litespeedhuskerfan

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Aug 27, 2006
18,148
9,495
113
Protest fine. Carry your signs. Chant your chants. Do it in broad daylight and keep your f'n hands off of other people's property. The rioters have the right to vote. They have a say especially in their local government. This turns to just plain criminal activity after dark.
I would argue these images we're seeing the next morning are great campaign commercials for the big guy...which is ironic because i'm pretty sure that's the exact opposite of what they intended.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dinglefritz

BigBL87

Blackshirt
Sep 11, 2006
3,330
622
113
I'm not supporting looting. But you can understand the rioting. At least I can. And yes, the colonists did indeed destroy someone else's property. They did practice civil disobedience. They did overthrow their government when it treated them like 2nd class citizens.
Like I said, they also destroyed the property of the direct entity with which they had a grievance (a la the police station connection). I'm all for civil disobedience and protesting for a worthy cause, which I think is the case for most of the people protesting.

The problem comes with the fact that these protests get painted with the image of the looting and rioting, which isn't most of them but it becomes the face. Then, people for some reason feel the need to excuse the looting and rioting instead of condemning it as antithetical to what the protests are trying to accomplish.

I'm also one to recognize that the peaceful protests of MLK were accompanied by the sometimes violent activism of Malcom X. Being realistic, some of the progress MLK made was made possible by Malcom X's actions. Plenty of them were morally questionable at best, but looking at them within their context they at least make sense. But, that was also targeted and organized rather than free for all looting, destruction of uninvolved businesses, and beatings of non-involved innocent people.

The ironic thing to me is that most of the people I see justifying and excusing the rioting and looting on social media are white. Kind of goes back to the insultingly paternalistic thing...
 
  • Like
Reactions: dinglefritz

dinglefritz

College Football Hall of Fame
Jan 14, 2011
24,581
18,732
113
I'm not supporting looting. But you can understand the rioting. At least I can. And yes, the colonists did indeed destroy someone else's property. They did practice civil disobedience. They did overthrow their government when it treated them like 2nd class citizens.
They destroyed the British government's property. As a whole other than the colonists who were cowering in fear of the British, they were done with the tyranny of the British government. They had ZERO say in their local governance. Watch the f'n videos of the looting and tell me that has anything to do with police "brutality". Just stop man. You're better than that. Again, this is HURTING the cause of race relations. It's COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. IF you don't want people to be suspicious and prejudiced, don't do this crap. It just justifies the prejudice.
 
Last edited:

Huskerfan2112

Sophomore
Dec 7, 2009
1,469
2,268
113
I would recommend a semiauto over a .357. If you don't have the strength to rack the slide, then you are better off with a shotgun. Anyone can use it and you just point in the general direction. It worked for Granny on the Beverly Hillbillies! I have a .357 and it's a beast. But my VP9 is so much more comfortable in my hand and easier to control. It's got the tritium sights so no need to turn on the lights.


The Shield EZ models are made for people who may lack the strength to rack a slide. Worth a look for anyone in that boat
 

bigboxes

College Football Hall of Fame
Sep 4, 2004
22,987
8,261
113
Arlington, TX
They destroyed the British government's property. As a whole other than the colonists who were cowering in fear of the British, they were done with the tyranny of the British government. They had ZERO say in their local governance. Watch the f'n videos of the looting and tell me that has anything to do with police "brutality". Just stop man. You're better than that. Again, this is HURTING the cause of race relations. It's COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. IF you don't people to be suspicious and prejudiced, don't do this crap. It just justifies the prejudice.
They were British citizens. I'm pretty sure the British viewed them as thugs who just needed some correction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldjar07

NikkiSixx

Graduate Assistant
Sep 14, 2013
5,741
3,960
113
The only downside to this, is you are sort of inviting this type of thing into your life.

I go back and forth about getting another gun all the time, but somehow feel like if I do, I'm just inviting gun trouble into my life... in whatever form that arises in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: little a

little a

Junior
Jul 4, 2001
1,870
1,153
113
The only downside to this, is you are sort of inviting this type of thing into your life.

I go back and forth about getting another gun all the time, but somehow feel like if I do, I'm just inviting gun trouble into my life... in whatever form that arises in.
yea I hear ya
 
  • Like
Reactions: NikkiSixx

BigBL87

Blackshirt
Sep 11, 2006
3,330
622
113
The only downside to this, is you are sort of inviting this type of thing into your life.

I go back and forth about getting another gun all the time, but somehow feel like if I do, I'm just inviting gun trouble into my life... in whatever form that arises in.
When I think about getting another gun, I feel like I'm inviting marital trouble... It isn't a cheap hobby. Though I've gotten to the point where she can't remember everything I have, so I can pass it off as "Oh, I've had that one for awhile now..."

All jokes aside, my wife did have me teach her how to load the revolver and shotgun the other day. She doesn't dislike guns but just isn't into them like I am. With everything going on, she wanted to know just in case. Think In may have talked her into actually going shooting with me a time or two to hone her skill.
 

husker2612

Graduate Assistant
Nov 29, 2010
5,988
5,114
113
All this crap going on looking for recommendations for home defense (no dog recommendations please)-

1) shotgun
2)handgun
3)rifle

thanks
I have never owned a gun. Have shot many different kinds. After all this I am getting a gun asap. Was debating which one to get. As of now I don't want one for recreation. 100% only for protection. As a friend stated, if you want it for only protection go with a shotgun. They are much easier to hit your target in a stressful situation. Aim for the knees with a shot gun odds are you hit them. Also about half the cost of a hand gun from what I see.
 

BigBL87

Blackshirt
Sep 11, 2006
3,330
622
113
They are much easier to hit your target in a stressful situation. Aim for the knees with a shot gun odds are you hit them. Also about half the cost of a hand gun from what I see.

They aren't THAT much easier. At home defense distances, the spread of buckshot will be about the size of a human fist. While that is certainly a larger margin for error than a single 9mm or 45 projectile, you still have to be pretty competent and accurate. The biggest advantage is that you have a longer sight radius than a handgun and as such it is much easier to aim (yes, you should try to aim in a home defense situation even if you end up primarily point shooting), well and the extra power from the number of pellets. The first one, however, is an advantage they share with rifles. Your point about cost is valid too if someone is on a budget.

It sounds crazy, but in many cases rifles (specifically those chambered in 5.56/.223) make a better home defense weapon than a shotgun for several reasons. Up front, the biggest disadvantage to rifles is how loud the blast is indoors. Any gun is loud, but rifles even more. That aside though, a semi auto rifle has a higher capacity, lower recoil, less manual manipulation neccessary, and less penetration through building materials. That last one sounds counterintuitive, but due to the speed and light weight of 223 projectiles, they tend to yaw and tumble going through building material and actually penetrate less. If you use frangible ammo, it's an even more pronounced reduction in penetration. People also have a tendency to short stroke pump shotguns under stress, especially if they aren't experienced, a problem you don't have to worry about in a semi auto rifle. Pop a light and a red dot on top of a semi auto rifle and you have a great home defense weapon.

Never, and I mean never, should you shoot someone in the leg in a home defense situation. Doing so increases the chance of the projectile(s) missing your target and harming or killing someone else in the dwelling. You want to aim center mass to A) Increase your chances of a central nervous system incapacitation and B) Decrease your chance of pass through that you can't control. You should not be shooting at someone unless you are willing to end their life. If you aren't willing to do that, you shouldn't be shooting. The femoral artery is in the leg, and you stand a good chance of killing them anyway if your intent is to injure.

I apologize for the wall of text. Home/self defense and firearms are an important thing to me in no small part due to my profession. If anyone is seriously looking at options and would like help or insight, I'll gladly do what I can. I'm no professional, but I'm an enthusiastic enough amateur that I've learned a thing or two.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: otismotis08

husker2612

Graduate Assistant
Nov 29, 2010
5,988
5,114
113
They aren't THAT much easier. At home defense distances, the spread of buckshot will be about the size of a human fist. While that is certainly a larger margin for error than a single 9mm or 45 projectile, you still have to be pretty competent and accurate. The biggest advantage is that you have a longer sight radius than a handgun and as such it is much easier to aim (yes, you should try to aim in a home defense situation even if you end up primarily point shooting), well and the extra power from the number of pellets. The first one, however, is an advantage they share with rifles. Your point about cost is valid too if someone is on a budget.

It sounds crazy, but in many cases rifles (specifically those chambered in 5.56/.223) make a better home defense weapon than a shotgun for several reasons. Up front, the biggest disadvantage to rifles is how loud the blast is indoors. Any gun is loud, but rifles even more. That aside though, a semi auto rifle has a higher capacity, lower recoil, less manual manipulation neccessary, and less penetration through building materials. That last one sounds counterintuitive, but due to the speed and light weight of 223 projectiles, they tend to yaw and tumble going through building material and actually penetrate less. If you use frangible ammo, it's an even more pronounced reduction in penetration. People also have a tendency to short stroke pump shotguns under stress, especially if they aren't experienced, a problem you don't have to worry about in a semi auto rifle. Pop a light and a red dot on top of a semi auto rifle and you have a great home defense weapon.

Never, and I mean never, should you shoot someone in the leg in a home defense situation. Doing so increases the chance of the projectile(s) missing your target and harming or killing someone else in the dwelling. You want to aim center mass to A) Increase your chances of a central nervous system incapacitation and B) Decrease your chance of pass through that you can't control. You should not be shooting at someone unless you are willing to end their life. If you aren't willing to do that, you shouldn't be shooting. The femoral artery is in the leg, and you stand a good chance of killing them anyway if your intent is to injure.

I apologize for the wall of text. Home/self defense and firearms are an important thing to me in no small part due to my profession. If anyone is seriously looking at options and would like help or insight, I'll gladly do what I can. I'm no professional, but I'm an enthusiastic enough amateur that I've learned a thing or two.
Thank you for all the info. Much appreciated
 

husker2612

Graduate Assistant
Nov 29, 2010
5,988
5,114
113
No problem. I was hoping I didn't come across as a jerk because after I read it I thought it might have come across that way.
No not at all. If you had to recommend a gun for self defense only and under $500 what are my best options, if any? After looking it appears $500 doesn't get much. Or what is the least priced gun you would recommend.
 

otismotis08

Assistant Head Coach
Jan 5, 2012
10,016
4,255
113
parts unknown
No not at all. If you had to recommend a gun for self defense only and under $500 what are my best options, if any? After looking it appears $500 doesn't get much. Or what is the least priced gun you would recommend.
Last time I checked, Mossberg 500 is < $500. Maverick88 is even cheaper. Buds gun shop, cheaper than dirt, or DE guns if you're in Lincoln.
 
  • Like
Reactions: husker2612

Crazyhole

Junior
Jun 4, 2004
1,991
2,846
113
No not at all. If you had to recommend a gun for self defense only and under $500 what are my best options, if any? After looking it appears $500 doesn't get much. Or what is the least priced gun you would recommend.
Potato guns are cheap and have a lot of stopping power
 

husker2612

Graduate Assistant
Nov 29, 2010
5,988
5,114
113
Potato guns are cheap and have a lot of stopping power
Can't tell if you are being serious. lol But yes they would. Have also though about just getting a tazzer, pepper spray, rubber bullets. While I have no problem taking a life to protect my family. I would worry about the potential of jail time. It seems there is a very very fine line on self defense and murder. In the heat of the moment Im not going to care about that line. You come into my house in the middle of the night you are getting shot.
 

leodisflowers

Graduate Assistant
Feb 25, 2011
5,638
3,327
113
North Carolina
No not at all. If you had to recommend a gun for self defense only and under $500 what are my best options, if any? After looking it appears $500 doesn't get much. Or what is the least priced gun you would recommend.
Lot's off good guns under $500, just have to look. Also, no shame in getting used guns or factory refurbs. I have a Sig P320 refurb and it is awesome. It is modular and you can switch calibers pretty easy. That gun is one of my favorites! CDNN, an online store, always seems to have good deals for refurb Sigs, and I actually got mine in Grand Island at Boops.
 
  • Like
Reactions: husker2612

Latest posts