Is the Desert Eagle a good self defence weapon

[Pastel_Princess]

its alright i like it but it can be known to jam alot. i would take other peoples advice and get something smaller you dont want to be taking their head straight off do you

 

[LillyE]

Hey i read your post on the Desert Eagle .50 and it is trust me an excellent handgun. The thing you must remember is that the bullet is .50AE only (Action Express). This means your Desert Eagle uses a rare and expensive bullet which isnt very practical when it comes to target practice. It also only holds 7 rounds. The .50 is not a very accurate bullet either and since your first shot must count due to the recoil its not practical. I hate to be so negative but try handling each pistol at the dealer to be sure its what u want. I have shot a desert eagle, .44mags, .357 mags, .45's and other assorted calibers. The .45 has the same stopping power of the .357 (about 800 ft/lbs of energy) the .44 mag has 1500 ft/lbs! The .50 AE has a little more than the .45 at 1000ft/lbs. All in all you want a pistol that has a great grip like a .45, a 2' group from 5 shots at 25 yards and a reasonable magazine capacity like 8+. Try the springfield 1911-A1 or the smith and wesson 1911-A1. These are great guns and very reliable. the Springfield 1911-A1 TRP passed a higher endurance test than the famous Glock 17!!!.

 

[Kerstyne]

The Desert Eagle is a good handgun. Unfortunately, it is just too big for carrying it around to be practical. That's why Special Forces guys don't have it in their issue. It's large, it's heavy, and it makes a lot of noise.

You can get the same results from a 9mm or a .38.

 

[yu3se6]

I'd think that carrying a sidearm as friggin' HUGE as the DE would be like carrying a howitzer to a deer hunt

 

[Crimson]

Seems we have some firearms affectionados here.

Not necessarily, but then again this debate is similar to the which is best for fighting arguments i.e. Throwing a single killer technique or many strikes to wear them down.

Your chances of surviving a hit from a .38 (9mm =.35 caliber) are much better then the chances if your hit with higher calibers and magnums (although mags are prone to overpenetration). Higher calibers have more stopping power and more recoil, meaning you get less accuracy and rate of fire is lower. Lighter calibers less stopping power and greater rates of fire (i.e. more chances to hit).

Hollywood BS aside, the truth is a single hit from a high caliber firearm will result in loss of a limb or permanent damage to vital organs. Most often the victem dies from shock or blood loss before help can arrive.

 

[gh]

new idea, robber and his buddy break in. you either shoot your girl or youself by mistake in the panic of it all, you shoot the robber dead and end up going to jail for a few years like the farmer did.. or the robber and his buddy attack before you find the nerve to kill them and shoot you.

guns are not needed. i'm so glad i live in the uk

 

[AlexisInfectious®]

I am strongly opposed to guns, while there are those who indeed use them for protection, there are also those who feel the need to carry a gun everywhere they go, and have a very itchy trigger finger, which are the people I do not care for and do not want to be associated with. For example a couple of weeks ago, my buddy was baby sitting his 3 yr. old niece at his sisters house while they were out. Around 12 pm 3 guys knocked the door down and held him and his niece at gunpoint, while they tore through his sisters house looking for money. IMO those who use guns to get what hey want are greedy and weak.

 

[Baseballgurl]

What I meant about the 9 mm and the .38 is that when a person is considering on which gun to purchase and use, said person is better of with what I mentioned. Imagine toting a gun the size of the DE. If you can carry a sidearm that size why not get a submachine gun instead?

Higher calibers may have more stopping power but for the average joe who just wants to protect himself, a smaller gun would be more practical.

 

[RashaneeS]

Very true.

I actually prefer 9mm myself, good accuracy, low recoil, adequet stopping power, high capacity clips. It's pretty hard to shoot under pressure so I like being able to get more then one round off to increase my chances of a hit. One shot, one kill is good if you're sniper.

But for home defense nothing beats a shotgun, Why aim if you don't have to? Use 00 buck (go 3" shells if you can) with a slug at the end of the magazine (just in case) if that don't stop 'em then I don't know what will. A Howitzer maybe? (Call an air strike it's a home invasion by Godzilla).

 

[MandyyMalice]

Very true. Also, what's the appeal of disintegrating a man's appendage. It's a hassle to clean and could also turn into a legal nightmare.(Lawyer of other guy:"{put in gender} shot it off your honor! Pulverized it!)



The shotgun is an excellent choice because of its stopping power and the fact that you don't have to aim depending on the shells you use. I think it's also legal in almost anywhere.

 

[BillieS]

I can't believe this conversation is going on. People are way too paranoid. If someone breaks into your house, is it really worth blowing someone away and going in jail for years rather then letting them take some material stuff? Get a house alarm and put the bottom floor on at night or just certain rooms, some decent locks and double glazing, locking windows. The majority of burglars wouldn't bother. Be sensible, look who is at the door first. There is all sorts you can do that will put off most thieves.
If someone came into my house with a gun, they can have whatever. Get insurance. Why risk everything so you can feel like mr. justice/a hero? Eventually, they get caught.
If it's one or maybe two on their own, unarmed or maybe with a blunt object, I would whoop them. Most burglars will be scared away from you just shouting at them. Or lock the door and ring the cops. It all depends on your situation, but I don't think there are many situations that require you to have a gun, especially a damn DE.

 

[IrishSean]

Relax. This discussion started about the merits of DE and made off with the merit of guns over the DE. I hope that I did not come off as gun crazy with my views about guns.

Saying that, I agree with some of your points. However, people who made it their living this way do not tend to scare easily. What if you had people to protect besides yourself? A gun is a great equalizer against opponents of unknown number and unknown ability.

The remark I made about the pulverized appendage relates to the fact of legally defending necessary force in a litigious society. You are defending yurself in your home, but does it require that type of violence? This is why I favor the guns I mentioned.

I myself believe that gun owners should and must be responsible in the care and the use of their weapons. Guns don't really kill people. It's all in the person holding the gun.

 

[kellymora9]

Things are a little different in the States Adam as a matter of fact:


Unfortunately, this is not uncommon.

That's also pretty close to me. There's at least one home invasion robbery per week in Phoenix (That's where armed men kick in your door and rob you at gunpoint - sometimes they let the people live and sometimes...)

I'd rather not have to use a weapon (or fight) for that matter. But when it comes down to it I will do what's necessary.

 

[EricK]

Hey, if it happens once a week round your way, get a damn gun! The large majority of places it doesn't. Also, the text you quoted was talking about some chump in a car with a gun, and a police officer. This has nothing to do with a normal person getting a gun to defend their home. A lot of police officers should carry guns in my opinion. If there were enough responsible and smart police officers who could be trusted to use it right, I would say that they should all carry them.

Whoever said that a gun is a great equaliser - Yes it is. It also gets you put in jail for murder/manslaughter if you kill somebody, and it can also aggravate burglers who just use a gun as a threat, to shoot you because you also have a weapon. It all depends on your situation, but it isn't anywhere near necessary for me.

 

[BestSingerEvrHeard]

I agree. I've got a Glock 26 9 mm, one of the nicest weapons I've ever shot with. Its accurate and easy to conceal. The concealment magazine takes 10 rounds. What's great is it takes any other Glock 9 mm magazine so for home defence buy the larger magazine instead. If you shoot P+ rounds you have more than enough stopping power in a 9mm.

 

[sdouble]

Actually I've got a few. That's what the thread is about. I think most would agree the DE is overkill, but there are always the bigger, badder, stonger, faster types.



I used that story primarily for the date: Instead of telling you, I decided to show you. I knew that I could check the local paper and find at least one gun violence story on the front page (and that's probably only the tip of the iceburg, there are just too many to report all of them). As it happens, the event occurred within a few miles of my home. It also illustrates the mentality of the criminals, he shot an armed police officer (all police in the U.S. are armed). Do you think he'd have any problem shooting an unarmed civilian?



In the U.S. you have the right (in most states) to use lethal force to protect your life or the lives of others.
Great, it's not necesssary for you.
Then why are you complaining about people discussing firearms on a thread about firearms?

Side note: Phoenix is different from many U.S. cities in the zoning ordinances. In most cities there are bad areas set by zoning, the proverbial bad side of town... In Phoenix you can find a $250,000 home, right next to a $50 weekly motel. Go figure! So I don't necessarily live in a bad area.

 

[flutterbypurr]

I'm glad it's not necessary for you. I sold my last gun a couple years back. Not necessary for me either at this point in my life. However, I disagree with the rest of what you said. Shooting someone in self-defense will not land you in jail in the US, or under the old Common Law of England. Maybe modern English law has done a 180. American law hasn't. Everyday across America people successfully use guns to thwart off would-be burglars in homes and businesses. (The NRA magazines devote two pages in every issue for short suofftopicries of the recent stories.) Most of the time no shots are fired because burglars aren't bulletproof. When shots are fired the defenders do not go to jail because self-defense is legal.

As it should be.

 

[Rivkas]

i would definetely take a 9mm to a deagle. that thing like totally razes your arm, not to mention lack of accuracy, unles ur at point blank range. it's definetely better to "persuade" someone to stay away with your hands then with a gun.

 

[rushrocks603]

I am happy that it is not necessary for you. Guns should not be necessary in my opinion, but being that we are in the real world...

The use of a gun also does not necessarily put you into jail. You simply have to prove that you found it necessary to use such force to defend yourself. The remark I made earlier about blowing limbs off rises from the fact that it's harder to prove self-defense when what you have doen is apparently overkill.

About aggravating burglars, it really depends on the situation. There's a saying in the Philippines about combat: "una-unahan lang iyan." Whoever is first....

 

[GeneralDevious]

too many posts, i 'll to read them later. by the way, why would you want a desert eagle? its good in stopping cars. very poor recovery. tremendous knocking power. high velocity. difficult to conceal. how much does it cost there?

good day!