Rifles for home defense
Maybe it's just me, but it seems that Americans tend to forget history rather easy. Now, back in the 1800's and early 20th century, a lot of folks kept rifles for home defense because they were more versatile. In rural areas, rifles served the purpose of hunting and for defense. Even in cities of the early 20th century, most homes and apartment houses were made of brick (due to disasterous fires in the late 1800's, most cities wanted brick used) and so overpentration was not the issue it is today. However, in the early 1960's, new building materials came about that were lighter, cheaper (key word), and still almost as fire-resistant as brick. However, these new materials are not as bullet-resistant than brick. And in Southern California, the climate allowed for less insulation between walls. Even handgun bullets are not very safe in the apartments of today. And, so, that's when the shotgun came to be suggested for city-dwellers. At that time, loads of #6 or #4 birdshot were suggested for folks with real flimsy drywalled apartments. Even with lighter buckshot, such as #1 or even #4, the penetration will not be as drastic as a high-powered rifle bullet. Another reason the shotgun was advised is because it was allegedly easier to master than a handgun. That is debatable, but there is some merit to that theory. As far as overpenetration, a high-powered rifle bullet can penetrate several apartments before stopping. Therefore, how can any rifle be suggested as a "one-size-fits-all" homne defense weapon? A rifle might be fine for locales like an isolated farm in Bent Twig, Arkansas. But I certainly cannot see it as a choice in a 300+ apartment building in Los Angeles that was built in the 1970s. The argument is that because police use .223 rifles, that justifies civilian use. That is not a proper argument. In California, for example, the police may use batons, blackjacks, and electric weapons for a less-lethal method to subdue suspects and these weapons are felonies for an average civilian to possess without proper registration. Weapons such as blackjacks are simply illegal period in many states. Further, police are justified in using deadly force in situations that a civilian may not be. And police also use armored vehicles (even tanks and APCs if one looks at Waco) and automatic weapons that civilians cannot possess. And also, once police are using a .223 rifle, it is often because they are, or might possibly be, facing suspects who are heavily armed with similar weapons and so need to neutralize that threat as efficiently as possible. However, that, in and of itself, does not justify the replacement of shotguns with .223 carbines in every police cruiser. The lessons of the 1920s and 1930s shows that city police armed with Thompson submachine guns and BAR fully-automatic rifles also injured quite a number of innocent bystanders. True, those weapons were neccesary at that time among some special police details, but certainly not among the rank-and-file. And this is why shotguns were chosen for the police cruisers.
Another point .223 advocates make is that it is allegedly less penetrative than heavy 00 buckshot loads and .357 magnum rounds. Oh? Years back, we heard these same advocates claim that the .308 has nothing really over the .223 and that the .223 is just as good. We all know the penetrative power of a .308 round. So, how, then, is the .223 at once adequate for military use to include defeating the skin of a vehicle but does not peetrate drywall? We hear it is all due to ammo selection. John Q. Citizen, told to use a .223 for home defense, is going to buy the ammo he finds at his local sporing goods store which will either be FMJ ball or high-velocity hunting ammo, both of which will go right through a man and through drywall. Advocating the .223 as a home defense weapon is not only ridiculous, but it completely ignores the historical lessons of self-defense in American homes. As an addendum, when facing a possible gunfight, most Old West lawmen did not grab a Winchester rifle. They grabbed a shotgun. That they wanted the shotgun with its two rounds as opposed to the "tactical" firepower of a Winchester rifle with 10 to 15 rounds of ammo in the magazine speaks volumes about the esteem the shotgun held for stopping bad guys fast. The long gun brought to the famous (and infamous) "Gunfight at the OK Corral" by the forces of Earp was a shotgun. Of the Clanton-McLaury forces, the one shot with the shotgun was the one who immediately fell out of the fight and did not return fire after being hit. These men learned the value of the shotgun early and did not forget or discount it, even when the frepower of the Winchester rifle became available.
In closing, the current laws shaping as they are, an AR-15 could quite possibly become illegal one day. Shotguns are here to stay and even nations that have banned handguns outright still allow shotguns. Shotguns are not going to be banned or licensed anytime soon (or ever.) Shotguns are the best choice for home-defense long arms.
