Light or no light.

[Kentactic]

Actually returned here to offer a more distilled and simple ".02":

In essence, a soldier is bound by "rules of engagement."
As civilian firearm owners, we are bound by "rule of law."

So that is why I am a bit leery of analogies or scenarios reliant on military tactical doctrines and so on. At the end of the day, a defensive use is a gun fight brought to us, while soldiers and a good many cops too get sent out in the expectation that they may have to go to a gun fight or even full-scale combat. Does this make sense?

The analogy of war is being used in the hypothetical that the shotgun would be used in a SHTF scenario. There is no rule of law.

Im a bit leery of our police being seperated from the general public like they have some license to kill. How a person can seperate a civillian with a badge and a civillian without a badge as to one being potentailly in combat and the other not dosent make much sense. Were both in the same country, with the same bad guys. If ones in "Combat" then so is the other. Bad guys dont use all their best skills when they attack people without badges? Only when the guys with badges show up do the real bullets start flying? Badge or not a gunfights a gunfight. Call it combat or dont... dosent really matter to me. They must follow the same laws as to justifiable use of lethal force as any other civillian. You be amazed how many of these military style police have no clue when it is or isnt ok to use lethal force. They think they are in a war zone. They have been trained this way.

[Synchronizor]

Badge or not a gunfights a gunfight. Call it combat or dont... dosent really matter to me. They must follow the same laws as to justifiable use of lethal force as any other civillian.

Actually, law enforcement do have slightly different standards regarding when lethal force can be justifiably used. For example, police have the authority to employ lethal force to stop a fleeing combatant if they believe it necessary, while a civilian is only justified in employing lethal force against someone who presents a clear and immediate threat of death or great bodily harm to them or someone else. Due to their training and more complete understanding of the situation, police officers are permitted to make that judgement call; while a civilian who does the same thing is likely to be brought up on criminal charges for using lethal force on someone who was not an immediate threat.

Of course, when bullets (or shot) are flying, it's kill-or-be-killed; whether you have a badge or not. I just wanted to point out that there are differences between law enforcement and civilians for how and when it is justifiable to use lethal force.

As to the topic of the thread; weapon lights have their place in combat, especially as a means to identify the target. Bringing up theaters like Vietnam or the world wars has little relevance to this discussion, as flashlight technology was quite primitive even as recently as the 1980's. Modern weapon lights are available that have little effect on the handling characteristics of a long gun, and modern military organizations make frequent use of them.

For a defensive long gun employed in any low-light environment where target identification may be required, a light is a useful tool to have available. Just because it's installed doesn't mean you have to use it if you feel it would be a tactical disadvantage.

[Kentactic]

Badge or not a gunfights a gunfight. Call it combat or dont... dosent really matter to me. They must follow the same laws as to justifiable use of lethal force as any other civillian.

Actually, law enforcement do have slightly different standards regarding when lethal force can be justifiably used. For example, police have the authority to employ lethal force to stop a fleeing combatant if they believe it necessary, while a civilian is only justified in employing lethal force against someone who presents a clear and immediate threat of death or great bodily harm to them or someone else. Due to their training and more complete understanding of the situation, police officers are permitted to make that judgement call; while a civilian who does the same thing is likely to be brought up on criminal charges for using lethal force on someone who was not an immediate threat.

Of course, when bullets (or shot) are flying, it's kill-or-be-killed; whether you have a badge or not. I just wanted to point out that there are differences between law enforcement and civilians for how and when it is justifiable to use lethal force.

As to the topic of the thread; weapon lights have their place in combat, especially as a means to identify the target. Bringing up theaters like Vietnam or the world wars has little relevance to this discussion, as flashlight technology was quite primitive even as recently as the 1980's. Modern weapon lights are available that have little effect on the handling characteristics of a long gun, and modern military organizations make frequent use of them.

For a defensive long gun employed in any low-light environment where target identification may be required, a light is a useful tool to have available. Just because it's installed doesn't mean you have to use it if you feel it would be a tactical disadvantage.

Despite popular belief by many LEO's they are almost never justified in using lethal force on a fleeing suspect. The exceptions being hes running away and shooting or pointing a gun in a threatening manner as a couple examples. They are to be held to the same standards as any other civillian. LEOs are civillians too. The badge isnt a license to kill. Where a cops legal abilities vary is in that they can arrest suspects for any arrestable offense and can legally pursue suspects for less serious crimes or even suspected crimes among other things. But to say they can legally kill people who didnt pose any serious risk to others is a scary idea to bring up. I seriously hope your not a LEO. Morals trump badges.

[DaveC]

ad ho·mi·nem
/ˈad ˈhämənəm/
Adverb
(of an argument or reaction) Arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.

Kentactic: I don't think Synchronizor made claims that police have a license to kill. The reason I included police/LEOs with soldiers insofar as they might reasonably expect to get sent into harms way was not to offer an apologia or justification of excessive force or that police should properly be "judge-jury-executioner." I have travelled to countries where that is exactly how the police conduct themselves and view their role...

We don't have to like militarized police forces to note that that is what we have? SWAT/ERT police teams that are literally dispatched to an ongoing crime scene of some kind, or perhaps a so-called "dynamic entry" or "no knock" drug bust, etc. yes? So in that sense the police do perform a quasi-military and perhaps paramilitary role that a typical civilian does not? That was my point.

Combat is combat, a gun fight is a gun fight. I tried to explain that as a civilian, I am bound by the "rule of law" and your response is that you are preparing for some kind of unspecified "SHTF" where the rule of law is somehow null and void. Which of these seems like a more likely scenario to you? A home invasion by ruthless, determined criminals who know you've got a firearm and want something you have, or some kind of anarchic Hobbesian "war of all against all?" What happens when the state and its agents [cops and soldiers] reimpose the rule of law? We won't face legal consequences for actions during the Great "SHTF-Zombie-pocalypse-armageddon?" You are right to hold police to particular standards and to defend our civil liberties. I share those concerns myself. What I am driving at is that even with castle doctrine and so on, there are various state laws concerning justifiable self-defense. Civilian self defense typically involves training with handguns and shotguns or carbines, which are suited to a gunfight you could not get out of. Folks that are intentionally getting into a gun battle bring rifles and lots of friends with rifles and much else besides... Check out the FBI crime statistics about gun fights sometime. I prepare for an extreme close-quarter confrontation that will be unbelievably quick and rapid... I don't prepare much for some kind of scenario where I'll need lots of magazines and a functioning radio and all that at hundreds of yards. That's all I'm trying to get at. Good day to you, sir. And do be careful and stay safe.

[Kentactic]

ad ho·mi·nem
/ˈad ˈhämənəm/
Adverb
(of an argument or reaction) Arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.

Kentactic: I don't think Synchronizor made claims that police have a license to kill. The reason I included police/LEOs with soldiers insofar as they might reasonably expect to get sent into harms way was not to offer an apologia or justification of excessive force or that police should properly be "judge-jury-executioner." I have travelled to countries where that is exactly how the police conduct themselves and view their role...

We don't have to like militarized police forces to note that that is what we have? SWAT/ERT police teams that are literally dispatched to an ongoing crime scene of some kind, or perhaps a so-called "dynamic entry" or "no knock" drug bust, etc. yes? So in that sense the police do perform a quasi-military and perhaps paramilitary role that a typical civilian does not? That was my point.

Combat is combat, a gun fight is a gun fight. I tried to explain that as a civilian, I am bound by the "rule of law" and your response is that you are preparing for some kind of unspecified "SHTF" where the rule of law is somehow null and void. Which of these seems like a more likely scenario to you? A home invasion by ruthless, determined criminals who know you've got a firearm and want something you have, or some kind of anarchic Hobbesian "war of all against all?" What happens when the state and its agents [cops and soldiers] reimpose the rule of law? We won't face legal consequences for actions during the Great "SHTF-Zombie-pocalypse-armageddon?" You are right to hold police to particular standards and to defend our civil liberties. I share those concerns myself. What I am driving at is that even with castle doctrine and so on, there are various state laws concerning justifiable self-defense. Civilian self defense typically involves training with handguns and shotguns or carbines, which are suited to a gunfight you could not get out of. Folks that are intentionally getting into a gun battle bring rifles and lots of friends with rifles and much else besides... Check out the FBI crime statistics about gun fights sometime. I prepare for an extreme close-quarter confrontation that will be unbelievably quick and rapid... I don't prepare much for some kind of scenario where I'll need lots of magazines and a functioning radio and all that at hundreds of yards. That's all I'm trying to get at. Good day to you, sir. And do be careful and stay safe.

The OP expressed his use for this shotgun to potentially involve a SHTF scenario. Wether you think its likely or not makes no difference. You entered a discussion where thats the use for the shotgun. The odds are not very relivant. But in my opinion a major crisis happening is more likely then my home out of the many in my area being singled out for a home invasion while under rule of law.

[lockoutmonkey]

Everyone is off topic and we now have a pissing contest!

Back to the light or no light subject please!

[Kentactic]

Everyone is off topic and we now have a pissing contest!

Back to the light or no light subject please!

Agreed. I just ordered a mount and surefire handheld light. Its not ideal but now ill have some sort of light source. It has 15 and 340 lumens so i can do indoor and outdoor tasks.

[DaveC]

Everyone is off topic and we now have a pissing contest!

Back to the light or no light subject please!

Yes to light. [rotate your batteries, have an extra, etc...]
Keep it off unless you need it. Do determine when you need it, use your judgement.


Cheers.

[pump-it-up]

Have a light. Make sure it strobes.

[pump-it-up]

Wow. Some people need to get the sand out of their vaginas. Just Sayin.