-=> Quoting Cloyce Osborn to Matt Smith on 06-08-96  09:39 <=-
 Re: Re: Dusters?
 CO> anything again."  I respectfully put the H&H back in its case then CO>
 CO> went and found a model 1897 Winchester which I amputated to 20 inches.
 MS>     A double isn't even good against _one_ intruder.
 MS>     If you miss the first round, you only get one more
 MS> chance...he won't give reloading time.
 CO> The idea is to NOT miss with the first round. :-)
I thought the idea was not to even fire as long as that remained a viable
option. Once you were past that point - no matter what the gun - then the
idea was not to miss. There are no warning shots.
A double is especially good at preventing you from getting to step 2. And
if you do get to step 2, any shotgun ought to be decent at not missing.
Now, if you're facing a gang of thugs and step 1 fails, a double might
not be good enough. Then again, unless they're armed with contact weapons
only, any gun might not be good enough!
As we both know, the idea is to stop the guy. If you can do it without
firing, that's the best possible outcome. And if you do have to fire, I'd
think that a double might go better in court if it comes to that. A
pistol-gripped Mossberg (or whatever) just looks more dangerous, and a
typical ignorant jury would probably consider that. While a double
pointed at you is very intimidating, something which looks like a hunting
gun and has a lower capacity is less likely to be presented as an "evil"
gun - or so I'd guess.
Steve
... One man with courage makes a majority. - Andrew Jackson
 * Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 *
--- GOMail v1.1 [92-0793]
---------------