Can anyone provide a reason for more than 3 rounds?

[Yo_Mama]

63. In the real world

Massively outgunning the opposition is the best way to avoid having to kill them.

You want them to run off. You want to be able to let loose a spray of fire that sends them running.

Three rounds may let you put a bullet through the home invader's chest or head as they round the corner of the living room, but it certainly won't let you use a spray of fire to back them out of the house.

Regardless of your apparent belief system, those who have guns for the purposes of self-defense don't actually want to have to shoot someone. It's the nutcases who go out to murder who do.

The more undergunned you are, the more likely you are going to have to actually shoot someone. Maybe that's better than letting Granny or the kids run the risk, but it still sucks to high heaven.

You've probably never known anyone who actually had to shoot and kill in a home invasion. I have. He saved the lives of the girls involved, but he killed three people to do it, and it has always haunted him. That's something I would never wish on anyone. But it was a gang of five guys and all he had was a shotgun, and yes, they were armed. When they were just robbing the kids (this was an apartment of two young students and they were having a party, so there were girls there plus another guy, I believe), he didn't do anything. But when it became clear that it was going further, he acted.

The grand jury had no doubts as to the rightness of his action. He faced no legal liability, and indeed the others involved are sure that he saved all their lives. In his hometown he is considered something of a hero.

But all that doesn't make him feel better about it.

A shotgun is a great way to kill a person who has broken into your house. And anyone who knows weapons and sees one should think twice, but you'll have to expose yourself to the criminal generally in order to do that.

Life sucks - sometimes all your options are very bad.