That just circles back to why you can't use birdshot in the first place. It is a nightmare for first responders, impossible to remove all pellets and will guarantee infection at best, and a slow, agonizing death at worst. The use of firearms is always from a self defense perspective, and only within reasonable means to stop a threat. Aim center mass, use regular ammunition types. I'm not trying to be patronizing, nor do I have all the answers, but there are a lot of new firearm owners who have not received training or education, not even from any fault of their own.
Disagree. Statistically, although dwarfed by handguns, semi automatic rifles are regularly used in self defense across the nation. Shotguns are also valid. I understand that it is easy to view the tenuous situation our country is in as an excuse to lower standards, but the exact opposite is true. Causing undo harm is always unacceptable. Furthermore, while I can't fault those who are in a moment where they are faced with a hard decision, premeditating breaking the law is unacceptable as well.
No, you don't decide between maiming or killing. The only goal when identifying a situation which requires the reasonable use of a firearm is to stop the threat. That is the fullest extent you can go, full stop.
That just circles back to why you can't use birdshot in the first place. It is a nightmare for first responders, impossible to remove all pellets and will guarantee infection at best, and a slow, agonizing death at worst. The use of firearms is always from a self defense perspective, and only within reasonable means to stop a threat. Aim center mass, use regular ammunition types. I'm not trying to be patronizing, nor do I have all the answers, but there are a lot of new firearm owners who have not received training or education, not even from any fault of their own.
Disagree. Statistically, although dwarfed by handguns, semi automatic rifles are regularly used in self defense across the nation. Shotguns are also valid. I understand that it is easy to view the tenuous situation our country is in as an excuse to lower standards, but the exact opposite is true. Causing undo harm is always unacceptable. Furthermore, while I can't fault those who are in a moment where they are faced with a hard decision, premeditating breaking the law is unacceptable as well.
No, you don't decide between maiming or killing. The only goal when identifying a situation which requires the reasonable use of a firearm is to stop the threat. That is the fullest extent you can go, full stop.