I can somewhat understand the point the Lawyer is trying to make. It isn't about legality in regards to the law, it's about the perception of the jury......and more specifically what the Lawyer can make them see. Some States have laws on the books that state that if a defensive shooting is considered justified, either by the investigators or by a trial, than you are not open to civil suits concerning the case. Some states don't have that law......and Civil suits play a different set of rules.
Stopping the armed crack-head kicking your front door in at 3am with a tac'd out Mossberg 500 will probably be ruled a justifiable shooting by investigators......But if the "fine, upstanding, young man, who was a good boy and turning his life around"s family is able to take you to civil court the lawyer will try to swing the Jury to see that your 500 was clearly designed to kill humans.......the defendant obviously had spent a considerable amount of time and money assembling this weapon that was modified as heavily as anything the Navy SeALs use.......Waiting for the opportunity to use this Assault Shotgun on any suspected burglar, with no plan on scaring the offender away, simply the plan to live out a video-game fantasy and kill the bad guy.
Complete Horsecrap? Yup.......
Could it actually happen? Yup.......God forbid you didn't kill the intruder with the 500 and only paralyzed him.....
Would it make me change how I was setting up a defensive shotgun? Nope......most of the tactical type add-ons for shotguns are used because they work, and they make the gun a better tool for defending me and my loved ones. I would much rather lose everything I owned in a civil suit than to have to stand at the funeral of someone in my home because the third intruder got a shot off as I was in the process of reloading my double-barrel.
What do you call 10,000 lawyers chained to a boulder on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean?
A good start......