Susan,

One of the main reasons society prefers that people hunt fowl with shotguns is that it's safer for people, property and those animals (including hunting dogs) that are not the objects of the hunt.

Shotgun pellets (compared to rifle bullets) are relatively small, not terribly aerodynamic projectiles. After a short distance, say a 100 yards or so for upland birdshot, they loose their speed and most of their capability to do harm. (Ask any experienced shotgunner if he's ever been "rained on" at a dove field or a public hunting grounds.)

Conversely, imagine a duck pond or lake, or a dove field, with hunters around the perimeter firing rifles at flying birds. How'd you like own property near that one? Or be within a couple miles? All those bullets gotta come down!

Also, it's comparatively earier to take a flying object out of the air with pattern of small projectiles than with a single projectile.

None of which makes wingshooting or "shooting flying" exactly easy. It is, IMHO, every bit as fun as handgun or rifle shooting, but an entirely different game based on nearly entirely different gunning skills.

Mark

Oh, I think people are misunderstanding what I'm saying.

IF I'm using a 12ga, there will be less lethal in the tube, yes. And I can pull buckshot out of the sidesaddle PDQ. IMHO, there is no reason to use a shotgun if you aren't going to take advantage of the versatility. Buckshot? Slug? A good carbine will stop someone just as well, and with less danger to others. If you miss with shot, even one pellet (and that is pretty easy), who knows where it will go. And slugs can measure thier penetration in the number of houses, not walls.

If people had read all my posts, they would know I accept the fact that if I shoot someone, I will be sued. It is a given for me. And I take it on very safe odds I will be charged with manslaughter, even if the judge tosses it out.

Also, if they had been reading them all, they would have noticed what I use- a mini-14 with ulta-light varmit bulltets. They expand all they can expand in 3-4 inches, and by that point they are moslty just slivers and bits. Do you really think I'm going to risk my neck for thiers? When I lived in my one room "efficency" (officailly, Vermont doesn't have slums) that was 15x20, I slept with a SHARP broadsword at my bedside.

Maybe I over estimate the legal ammunition that might be gleaned from using rubber shot by the private individual. But I know it helps covers cops backsides a couple of times a year; if my system can handle something like that, I use it. Every tool, every chance, every thing helps you survive if you use it.

It doesn't me squat if you don't.

That was what I was trying to do. But I won't bother to try to argue about who started the arguement, becuase it takes to dance.

And in any case, as I said, you are the first person in a while to really get my goat. Should have known you were a lawyer. <img src="/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

It's all good, man. And I want to figure out that trick, of telling loads that close by weight.

Years ago my grandfather slept with a police riot shotgun under his bed loaded with rock salt shot (laced with Cayenne pepper) shells made by a buddy of his. That was considered "less than lethal" 30 years ago. Now they put you behind bars for even owning shells like that. Now instead you can buy rubber bullets, bean bags, slugs,flechette rounds, flares, buck shot, bird shot, steel shot, tungston shot, basically, anything you want in varying degrees of lethality and legality. That is the one reason why you can't beat a shotgun, it can do a bit of everything, nothing perfectly I guess, but it can do way more then any other firearm.

Anyway, I guess what I am saying is no matter what, if you use a shotgun (or any firearm for that matter) on another human you better be prepared to take a life, both for the mental aspect and the legal aspect. It doesn't matter if you are loaded with rubber bullets or depleted uranium rounds, if you fire the weapon for defense you are shooting to kill and you have a good reason to do that. Whether or not the person you shot lives, is an after thought to be sorted out after the threat is gone.

I hate to hijack this, still. Josey when you say:

"... But if you must make a stand, IMHO and the NRA instructors who lead our course in home defense, if you draw your gun, you'd better shoot to kill. If you didn't want to kill him/her, then your life was not in danger. It is much more difficult to defend an attempt at wounding someone, than it is to defend your actions in an attempt to kill them, or in fact, killing them. If you attempt to wound, then your life must not have been in danger...and they'll eat you alive!"

Don't you mean that you must shoot Center Of Mass to STOP assailant. That you knew death or serious bodily injury would be the result of your actions, but the situation required you to attack in such a way. STILL your intent was to STOP not to KILL. If a cop hears you say -at 3AM- that you wanted to KILL your assaillant I would think that would trigger the 'nod and wink' between the cops present, who would then promptly escort you to the local lockup.

If you say you shot the perp because you wanted to STOP him, that would seem more reasonable.

1 Deadly force was justified
2 You chose to use it.

If you say you wanted to KILL.

1 Deadly force was justified
2 You wanted to KIlLL
3 Maybe deadly force was NOT justified (cops shakes his head as he can't beleive you just said out loud that you wanted to KILL perp). As situation is not crystal clear he has to take the case to local DA (and you to jail).

The way I hear it from Masaab Ayoob, (and my firearms instructor and a local state judge who attended my last class) is closer to the above than yours; he is often part of that afore-mentioned $70,000 legal defense team, as he testifies as an expert witness in justifiable shooting cases.

What do you say.

[color:"purple"] And to get back to the local program..I own a 590. Would buy another one! [/color]

Orange Joe is correct.

(1) A lawful shooter employs deadly force to put an end to the attacker's deadly force. At the point one is forced to employ deadly force, the outcome (wound or death) is a concern for later. Seconds or minutes later, perhaps, but later.

(2) You shoot for center mass because that (A) is where you have the best chance of hitting an individual in the hyper-stressed moment and (Aa) center mass has the best collection of vital organs/nervous system components likely to incapacitate the attacker and end the actions that forced one to employ deadly force in the first place.

(3) In many locales, deadly force can only legally be applied to protect life, not property.

Where did I learn these tidbits? From reading (including Ayoob) and from police instructors, at least one of them a survivor of a gunfight.

Finally, appreicate the low-cost, sincere, well-intended and generally useful training available from NRA instructors, but don't confuse them as a group with full-time professionals ... either in law or weapon handling.

I can tell you that you don't have to be a lawyer, a cop, a crack shot or a mental giant to become an NRA instructor. Heck, I took all the training and was certified at one time to be an NRA instructor (pistol, rifle, safety). Enjoyed it, learned a lot and glad I did it, but the simple truth is, it really doesn't make me an expert on much.