Shotguns won't wake you up at night when a prowler comes around.

Shotguns won't walk with you around the neighborhood to improve your aerobic fitness and acquaint you with your perimeter.

Shotguns won't delay the bad guy while you get a shotgun

And shotguns won't crap on the floor, vomit on the comforter, and track mud into the kitchen, all of which my pack did today.

Maybe a balanced approach: a dog and a shotgun. Better yet, a dog with a shotgun, carried around his neck like a st. bernards brandy barrel. You would need wide doorways...

I'm going to take the opposite approach of most others who have posted. I think your primary concern, first and foremost, should be stopping power. You don't get something for nothing. The only way to accomplish low recoil is by taking away power.

It doesn't matter how easy a gun is to shoot if the person you shoot with it doesn't go down. And I've seen enough videos of liqour store thieves getting shot and not going down to believe this happens a lot.

Find a gun that will devestate your target, and then practice with it and learn to control it.

That would be dweste's 12 gauge shotgun.

"...Sorry, but the only reason to shoot something is to kill it..."

Don't EVER say that in court! Assuming of course you are talking about a shot badguy here. You shoot to stop, the fact that he/she died, while always possible, is not the reason you fired. You fired to make him/her stop before you or someone else got hurt...

Good food for thought. In my experience, racking the round did nothing to scare the perp away on the other side of the door. My wife and I stayed as quiet as possible (whispering to the 911 dispatcher, etc.)during the whole episode.

My Dad asked me why I didn't yell out, "Hey man, I've got a shotgun and you'd better git!"

My answer: That would tell the perp exactly where I was and how I was armed. Nothing like giving your enemy all the intelligence he needs for free!

Look at everything through the eyes of a potential prosecutor deciding whether or not to charge you.

Then look again through the eyes of a potential jury.

That's why I have a lawyer.

I've seen too many outrageous verdicts for me to presume to know what anyone is thinking.

I'll just stick with the old rule "never point a gun at anything you don't intend to kill."

I've spent a total of about 20 years prosecuting (and for a while defending) persons charged with crimes. Whenever one person fires a gun at another person, the law presumes knowledge that a likely consequence is serious physical harm or death. This is true whether it is a single-barrel .410 loaded with birdshot or a .223 semi-automatic rifle with a full clip of FMJs. Intent, on the other hand, depends more upon the surrounding circumstances. That is where the gun used can be suggestive. In my example, the .410 is not strongly indicative of a specific intent to kill, while the .223 is more indicative.

In many states, if there is evidence of an intent to kill and the claim is that self defense justified that intent, then the threat faced by the person must have been such that it would cause a reasonable person to respond with that degree of force. Most court decisions with which I am familiar recognize that you can't always pause to carefully consider the "correct" amount of force with which to counter an attack.

The "unknown intruder in the middle of the night" scenario is not one that poses a problem for a prosecutor. The breaks typically go to the homeowner, not the burglar. It is the far more frequent shooting "in self defense" following an argument or series of arguments between the parties that turns the black and white of the law into shifting shades of gray.

Thank you, Frank.

And in states where they have "castle doctrine" laws, it is quite amazing how far the law will support the homeowner. IIRC, my state just passed a homeowner civil lawsuit protection if the home invader is shot.

Here is my state's law: (1) A person is justified in using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his habitation; however, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if:
(a) the entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth, and he reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person, dwelling, or being in the habitation and he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence; or
(b) he reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony in the habitation and that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

If one leaves the front door open, and the person announces that they are coming in...no, you can't shoot them (duh!) but if they open the door "quietly" to sneak in, all bets are off. No forced entry must be proven.