That last point is what I had always thought made shotgun a better option for a home defense situation -- less over penetration.
Assuming it's a stray shot, not one that already went through the threat, doesn't an AR-15 penetrate walls much more easily?
Where I live (the Soviet Euro Union), ironically, having a *less* deadly option is a real consideration. Shit is bad enough if you dare use your legal gun to defend your home (which is illegal in all cases where I live).
No, because shotgun slugs (or even buckshot) are so much heavier than a .556 bullet. The tiny .556 bullet tends to tumble when encountering light barriers like drywall and wood. Large, heavy slugs, even if they tumble, have a shape and mass that continues in the same direction. Look at the shape of bullets designed for elephant hunting - they are very similar in shape to shotgun slugs, and are designed to penetrate very thick (many cm) of bone to reach the brain, in a straight line.
If there isn’t any legal deadly force, I would have a plan to dispose of the body. Difficult if there are witnesses, so maybe a 300 blackout with a can, instead of .556. Much more difficult if you live in a densely populated area - if that was the legal reality where I live, I would probably move somewhere with a little more land and privacy.
