Misfire: Joe Biden’s ‘Shotgun vs. Rifle’ Comments
Vice President Joe Biden believes banning semi-automatic rifles won’t impact your self-defense, because all you need is a double-barreled shotgun:
Vice President Joe Biden said it’s easier to hit a target with a shotgun than an assault weapon during his first-ever “Fireside Hangout” on gun violence Thursday, hosted on the White House’s Google Plus page.
Biden made the remark to defend his position that banning assault weapons will not impede the safety of American gun owners.
“A shotgun will keep you a lot safer — a double-barreled shotgun — than an assault weapon in somebody’s hand who doesn’t know how to use it, even one who does know how to use it,” Biden said. “You know, it’s harder to use an assault weapon to hit something than it is a shotgun.”
Firearms experts do not agree.
Ron Borsch has served in SWAT, and is now lead trainer and Rangemaster for a regional police training academy. Says Borsch:
While there can be crossover use among handguns, shotguns, and rifles, each works better for a particular need. Many law-abiding gun owners possess all three for that very reason. For example: at further distances, there is no question that the rifle is the most accurate (and depending on caliber, more powerful).
Borsch noted that shotguns are generally best at shorter ranges. For sporting purposes, the spread pattern can help when hunting birds, but creates a tactical problem in self-defense: shot may strike something you didn’t want to shoot. Slug loads in shotguns are only accurate out to about 100 yards, but their over-penetration potential threatens innocent bystanders in high-population areas. Also, the length of the average double-barreled shotgun restricts freedom of movement in close-quarter environments like your home.
Borsch cited the modern police trend towards sporting rifles:
SWAT stands for Special Weapons and Tactics. Current SWAT preferences lean toward the 5.56mm rifle, because with appropriate ammunition it is less penetrative than most handguns.
Patrol officers in Marion, Iowa, agree, having volunteered to purchase sporting rifles to enhance their self-defense capabilities:
Half of the 50-member force in Marion, Iowa, will take part in the upgrade, paying for the $2,000 guns in installments deducted from their paychecks, according to Police Chief Harry Daugherty. He said the proposal, expected to be approved by the city’s seven-member City Council late Thursday, will mean initial responders will have enough firepower to deal with heavily armed suspects. Currently, only members of Marion’s 12-member SWAT team carry AR-15s.
Chief Daugherty said there were no murders in Marion last year and this proposal isn’t in response to a specific threat. They simply want to be prepared:
They’re not going to be pulling out this weapon unless they absolutely need it. But if something comes up, it’s nice to know that you’re on the same plane as what you’re dealing with.
Bill Johnson is executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, “a coalition of law enforcement unions and associations from across the United States.” He responded to Chief Daugherty’s actions:
It’s certainly a sound decision by the chief to equip the officers with better weapons to protect themselves and better protect the public.
The Department of Homeland Security considers enhanced variations of the modern sporting rifle to be “suitable for personal defense.” In their announcement of a “Federal Business Opportunity” (bid request), “Part I — The Schedule, Section C — Description/Specification/Statement of Work,” they wrote:
DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.
(To avoid the confusion that media intentionally creates by mislabeling modern sporting rifles, it’s vital to remember that the firearms sought by DHS are banned from civilian commerce by the 1934 National Firearms Act and the Hughes Amendment to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act. Government agencies can buy fully automatic military rifles and call them “suitable for personal defense.” But when a civilian buys the less-functional semi-automatic variant, it becomes an “assault weapon.”)
Well,it could be something as an individual’s comfort level with a particular weapon…I never could hit diddly with a 12 gauge….but I had a dead eye with a .22 rifle from the time I was 15 and always have been a decent shot with various caliber long guns….but just never have felt confident about the idea of my using a shotgun in the same defensive situation as I would a rifle
Biden’s mouth definitely has a sawed off shot gun quality. That may be influencing his opinions.
Heh. Nice.
Biden has a proclivity for engaging his mouth before he puts his brain into gear.
???
He has a brain?
Biden can’t shoot skeet.
Some people think I have an answer for just about everything – and they are right.
One of the illustrations here shows exactly which type of gun you need in which situation.
Okay, I’ll admit it – my name is 1389AD and I’m a blogaholic…
The left gets ahead in the gun control debate by labeling some guns as “assault weapons,” although such weapons are rarely used to assault anyone, and are not the fully automatic military weapons that have been banned in the US since the 1930s. VP Biden does not know or care about self-defense. He knows and cares about the same things his boss does: (1) growing government power and (2) limiting individual rights. Whether its “gun control,” “global warming, a/k/a climate change,” health care or any other issue, the liberal agenda is always about those two goals.
Fully automatic weapons are not banned in the U.S., though some states DO ban them.
All it takes to own one is filling out the requisite paperwork with the BATF, paying a $200 tax, and laying down some long green. They don’t come cheap.
Want a Tommy gun? Fine. Full auto M-16? No problem. M-60 machine gun? Easy.
All it takes is the bucks, and the willingness to fill out the paperwork.
Assuming you don’t live in one of the few states that DOES ban them, of course.
Sort of. H&K MP5 starts around $20,000 at auction. It’s pre-1986 due to federal law.
http://www.gunsamerica.com/Search/Category/162/2/Guns/Rifles/Class-3-Rifles.htm?ltid-all=1&t=&as=365&mn=0&mx=0&ffl=&ca=106&co=&f=&sort=DisplayPrice&numberperpage=50&cid=162&lid=&dn=&ns=0&zipcode=&distance=0&limittostate=&
Just more proof that gun control results in two laws of the land: one for the rich, and one for the not-rich-enough.
“He who defines the argument, controls the argument!”
Or the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.
Mark,
“Fully automatic weapons are not banned in the U.S”
Yes, (and as I’m sure you already know) here’s the “dirty little secret” they’ll never admit as to why that is…
The Fed has known all along it cant “ban” ANYTHING, because of the Second Amendment…
Arms Shall not be infringed. They know (knew) what that meant. Machine guns, silencers, even destructive devices like flame throwers…its all available if you’re willing to submit to the process. That’s been the deal since the 1930’s. They know (or, knew) no outright “ban” on any type of firearm could ever pass constitutional muster
Since they could not Constitutionally BAN them, they created a “tax and paperwork” nightmare to make it unappealing to the squeamish non-masochist types.
Even in the Gun Owners Hell of New F*ckin’ Joisey there is an application process for Class-3 stuff. All you need is to get your local PD chief to EXPLAIN in writing to a State Supreme Court Judge, how you having an M-60 greatly enhances public safety… and for the Judge to AGREE, in writing….and your “rights” to own them ( via the federal tax stamp/fingerprint etc. etc. system) is unimpeded.
See? Its not “banned”, its just an “administrative process”, that’s all
No Second Amendment violations here folks, move along, move along.
It wasn’t till the 1980’s that pure, unconstitutional, outrights “bans” on public ownership of new manufactured full-auto’s became politically viable. Everyone ignored the Second Amendment because there was no “political gain” in defending “machine guns” at the time.
The precedent has been set….the lie has become reality…
And NOW they are politically brave enough to say with a straight face:
“But you ALREADY cant own an M-16, and THAT’S not “unconstitutional” right?”
Followed by:
“Phuulease, a semi-auto AR-15? Who are you kidding, there’s no appreciable difference between them, is there? They are “military guns” and “military guns” are already banned with no Constitutional issues, aren’t I correct?”
So now they press forward with enough “confidence” that:
A) Precedent
B) Emotion
C) Political Correctness
Will AT LAST lead them to the promised land of Government control, designation, limit, ban, and eventual confiscation , of whatever weapons they deem necessary, whenever that “need” arises…
Without ever touching that filthy Second Amendment they hate so much.
Guns banned WITH The Constitution Intact, just because they say it can be so.
Right on target, Root.
Not exactly. All of what you say is true, but to get all the necessary paperwork, fingerprints and photos filed you are likely to have to wait 6 months and may be requested to interview with the BATFE or local police before getting a Class III license. Afterwards you have to be able to account for the whereabouts of the weapon anytime the BATFE requests. And really cheap full-auto sub machineguns of low quality start at about $3,000. A decent M-16 is about $25K. BARs and such run $30K and more.
My point was, they were forced to create a (virtually) impenetrable web of administrative difficulty because they KNEW even Machine guns could not be “banned” under the Second Amendment.
The 1986 ban on private sales of NEW full auto stuff was the first breach..notice no states had semi-auto/mag capacity “assault weapon” bans prior to that…
I think it was Florio in NJ that pushed the first one through, (early 90′s) and he used the “machine gun/semi auto whats the diff, we already ban one why not the other” excuse to help push it along.
Yes, it is. What I said was true. So why are some of you “correcting” me, while agreeing with me?
Bob made the incorrect statement that “fully automatic military weapons … have been banned in the US since the 1930s”.
That’s not true. I corrected that common misconception. I didn’t go into a detailed analysis of the cost of ownership, or the difficulty of the paperwork. I simply corrected a wrong statement. I guess for some of you that’s a difficult concept.
Seems pretty simple to me. *shrug*
and those states with laws have some pretty strange ones. CT will allow you a machine gun, with the proper paperwork and tax stamp. “the crazy”, it can not be select fire, full auto only. really does that make any sense at all
“Sense”? You used that word like it is somehow relevant to gun control advocates!
Biden, Obama, and the left have studied the British method of gun control, filtered through Alinsky and Sun Tzu: divide your enemy (in this case gun-owners), isolate and polarize a portion of the enemy (assault rifles today), and then destroy the opposition piece by piece. (If the left succeeds in banning “assault rifles”, handguns will be next. Single shot smoothbores will be the last to go after everything else has been rounded up and the precedent is set.)
This is what happened in the United Kingdom, where today an individual right to bear arms scarcely exists, and the right to self-defense of life and property is likewise severely curtailed.
When Obama and Biden make appeals to hunters for “sensible gun control” while demonizing the NRA and “assault rifles”, they are applying the same tactics used in the UK of dividing and conquering the opposition. British hunters were told the same thing about their pump shotguns and bolt-action rifles as their government moved to ban private ownership of pistols and semi-automatic rifles. Most British long-gunners sat on their hands and did nothing, and when their turn came it was too late. Those “Fudds” here who say they like duck-hunting but are more than willing to give up their right to own an AR-15 or auto-loading shotgun are making the same mistake.
Some progressives, such as one columnist on the D a i l y K o s, have openly declared that this is their long-term strategy to nullify the Second Amendment. Rather than grab all guns at once, they hope to confiscate and outlaw firearms group by group, making each successive round of confiscation easier.
Liberals love to say they have no problem with hunting, while ignoring or denying the right to self defense against crime and tyranny that is the actual purpose of the Second Amendment. The left’s purpose in neutering the right to individual self-defense is obvious, but this too is only the beginning.
A campaign to stigmatize hunting, already evident in the entertainment industry and media, will serve to make the final stage of firearm confiscation easier to implement, as even hunting will no longer be seen as a legitimate reason to own firearms. Again, see the British campaign against fox-hunting in particular, and hunting in general. The fox-hunting ban was not only really about class war: it was also about negating every imaginable purpose for private ownership of firearms.
Unfortunately, the fact that there is SOME truth to this position, justifies in the minds of many NRAers the idea that one can never compromise on ANYTHING related to firearms, because it could be the first or second step in gun confiscation. Anyway, limiting magazine size and expanding background checks likely will happen. The mental health piece bumps against so many other liberal tenets that not much of real substance will happen there.
As for hunting and self-defense, being an old fart, all my firearms are long, single shot, bolt-action, or pump. One can’t hunt with rifles in my part of the state, anyway, so shotguns, primitive firearms, (and bows) are the pretty much the only relevant hunting tools.
Is it just me, or does the new 2.0 AR-15 gun generation NOT hunt that much anyway. It is too boring for them; they prefer video hunting and ranges. What IS the world coming to?
“SOME truth to this position”?
The divide and conquer/frog in the boiling water/salami strategy (pick your term) is exactly what was used in the UK to enact draconian gun control, and more honest/loose-lipped progressives have stated that is what they will use to ban private ownership of firearms in the US.
There is nothing “unfortunate” about the NRA’s refusal to accept any further curtailing of the right to bear arms.
And hunting is NOT the reason we have the Second Amendment.
Good to see it did not take long for one of the aforementioned Fudds to show up.
Right on, Midnite! It seems that a self-described “old fart” (and fellow “old fart” by the way) like Dwight would be quite familiar with the progressive steps to tyranny as described in “First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew……Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
No, Dwight…I do not see the Gestapo coming to the door. No tin-foil hat stuff here, Dwight. But I certainly, and quite reasonably, see an over-bearing, highly beauracratic, individual spirit crushing, inept, governmental monster headed for our doors just as in “California, here we come”. The NRA, to their great credit, has this vision as well.
We “old farts” need to be asking our grandkids how they like the prospect of working in 7 months servitude out of each year simply to pay their taxes in order to support an inefficient government (and enrich stupid “old farts” like Joe Biden) that will dictate their behavior in every aspect of their lives. As a non-gun owning but fellow NRA member once told me “if we lose the second amendment we will lose all the rest as well”. Simply stated reality.
Yooper
NRA Life Member
I respectfully but completely disagree. It’s naive, trusting souls like yourself that give Alinsky tactics their power. You project your “reasonableness” onto them. You then believe their claims that they’re only interested in limiting CERTAIN rights but not others.
But you must never trust the hard Left. Because the hard Left doesn’t care about you. In fact, they hate you. After all, you own guns. You even hunt, for Pete’s sake. But because you don’t care to own an AR-15, semi-automatic shotgun or 20-round clip, and because you think of yourself as “reasonable,” the Left can and does use you as a political tool against other gun owners. Once those owners are effectively disarmed, however, you or some other group of gun owners are next. It’s how the Left has always operated and always will. It’s how their ideology explicitly teaches then to operate.
If you haven’t already, you should read Alinksy’s “Rules for Radicals.” It explicitly spells out the Left’s tactics, and their usefulness in advancing the Left’s overall strategy. It might make you less trusting and less “reasonable,” and more willing to stand up to an assault on your rights.
@jpl17 ABSOLUTELY. Every free American needs to read Alinsky’s
‘Rules for Radicals’. Obama, Emanuel and Holder damn sure die!
“…20 round clip…”
Could you point me to one of those?
Never saw a clip that held more than 10-rds – 7.62 x 39 on 10-rd strippers, for reloading the SKS, and for AK mags.
But, a 20-rd clip, that might be a bit ungainly.
You know what he meant. I hope they do ban 20 round clips and leave magazine size alone.
Wrong. There will be no action at the Federal level since the filibuster rule remains in place and the House is strongly pro-Second Amendment. There will be no “compromise” solutions since the Republican led pro-Second Amendment forces hold all the high cards. This isn’t the tax bomb where doing nothing results in the worst possible outcome. There will be action at the state level in deep blue states who already have severe restrictions on firearms.
And one more thing, hunters aren’t buying off on the “reasonable” gun control measures. They all know that high powered “sniper” rifles are next on the list.
Wrong.
Republicans will fold. Easily, embarassingly easy.
Gutless RINO’s the most of them anyway.
They well sell us out to the Unstoppable Metrosexual sometime over the next 2 years in a desperate attempt to “gain” some political ground by appearing “reasonable” to the Beautiful People who dance in the blood of children.
Republicans will sell us out on a Magazine Capacity Ban in a futile attempt to “save” some rifles and pistols earmarked for outright bans, and thus fall perfectly (as they always do) right into the maliciously pre-planned checkmate position of the Democrats and the State Media.
Once the “magazine capacity” precident has been set, once they have the “authority” to control HOW MANY bullets will fit into your gun, it will quickly become a “three shot maximum” for ANY long gun of ANY type….
“Because thats ALWAYS been the rule for Bird Hunters, right? And we RESPECT the Privilages of HUNTERS, as outlined in the Second Amendment, dont we?”
Handguns will be six max for revolvers, five for autoloaders (if we are allowed to have them at all)
You can DEFINITELY count on an attempt to have NO detachable magazines permitted on ANY type of firearm in the near future as well.
The RINO’s will cave just before the next Commie Activist get put on the Supreme Court, and then its all over for good.
Just like Obama and the State Media have planned.
I appreciate your service to the nation but your knowledge of the Congressional process doesn’t make the grade. The Republican leadership did not fold over taxes. The bluffed Obama with nothing in their hand into accepting less than Boehner originally offered while at the same time decoupling taxes from the budget wars. That’s a win.
The Republicans are holding four aces on gun control and your going see no more than symbolic action if that. They have the votes in House and maybe even the Senate. They have the filibuster and they have the public. The status quo ante rules the roost. Why do you think the White House has changed the subject and Rahm is throwing a temper tantrum.
tdiinva,
“your knowledge of the Congressional process doesn’t make the grade.”
The “Congressional Process” is pretty simple.
We lose, every time they blink their eyes.
Period.
Republicans are worse than useless anymore, they are actively harmful. Obama steamrolled his way to an un-fundable but un-repealable National Healthcare plan (thanks Roberts, another fine RINO Pick), and a 16 trillion soon to be 25 trillion National Debt without so much as a speedbumps worth of effective resistance.
Bonehead Crybaby just got rolled for a Capital Gains increase AND mountains of new spending, the only thing he “decoupled” was any chance for my sons future.
Look up the word “Chump”, Its an ancient Republicanease term that means:
“they WILL get Amnesty, we WONT get a fence”
I’ve been to this Dance before. Republicans are afraid of being “insensitive” to the “latinos” who never vote for them (and never will) by gosh darn, they keep trying dont they?
RINO’s have failed us so miserably when it comes to money and security, why should I trust them when it comes to guns?
The Media is far more emotional and passionate about gun control than any other particular piece of Obamaness, and you think THIS time they will grow a pair?
Phulease.
They bend over backward to appear “reasonable” and we WILL lose for it.
Its will be another textbook defeat for the Citizenry, brought to you by The Stupid Party That Never Learns.
See: Palen, Sara, Defense of.
See Also: Romney, Nice Guy, electoral consequences
Reference: Lucy, Football, why bother.
Put another way:
Yeah I like Republicans better than Democrats…
Just enought to hang them LAST
Of course, you have some research to back up your claim that Gun Culture 2.0 don’t hunt? Even after the experts said the sporting rifle is becoming more popular for hunting?
Not really research, just a wet finger in the air and its usually pretty close.
Gun Culture 2.0 doesnt hunt AS much as the old timers, thats for sure.
Hunting is access to land, field craft, and damn near butchery and food-prep.
Gun Culture 2.0 are the kids from from the suburbs or “Mcmansions developments in the cornfields” of former rural areas…they spent their youth skateboarding and text messaging, soccer and swim team. They didnt do ‘Tree-forts and clubhouses” or play “army”, they had X-boxes, email and internet games, so they are less connected to the outdoors for “playtime”.
Shooting is a fun activity, an “active” activity for them, that only “happens” to take place outdoors. They like reactive targets, steel plates and “action” thats more game-like and “fun” than just dry bullseye target. They will toss clay birds because its “cool” to watch them explode when hit, not becuase they are tuning up for pheasant season. Light, modern, composite materials…thats their cup of tea
They grew up technology savy, so the newer gadgets and setups like scoped pistols, scout rifles with long eye relief scopes, red dots, range finders and all sorts of “tactical” stuff seems to be more appealing to them.
All of this is a good thing if they are decent, mature and responsible. Most are. But a lot of these “younger kids” are self-taught, having gravitated to the Gun Culture on their own out of curiosity from “game playing” as young adults, in stead of growing up with fathers/uncles taking them afield with a .410 since they were 11 years old. Compared to the “old timers” I see more “questionable” safety/behavioral activities with them on the range, but nothing too aggregious.
If approached or spoken to politely about “best practices” and why, most are very receptive and eager to become better and more knowledgable. They are very open to the idea of “training” because it puts more “activity” into the activity, and concealed carry options are more common today, I believe, than they were 30 years ago.
They like seeing older Military Weapons because their’s a “story” connected with them they may have “heard about” (world war two?) but they’ve never seen an M1 Garand next to a K-98 Mauser before.
They are ones who put Black synthetic stock and “AK-ish” magazine contraptions on their 79 dollar Chinese SKS makes it is “cool” and “fun”, but they would love to shoot that funky old Broomhandle Mauser with the shoulder stock you brought, and are facinated by the evolution of weapons systems it represents if you talk about it with them.
You can really see “the lightbulbs” go on in their heads at times, and thats a good thing, even if they dont ever hunt.
Like many aspects of the grown gun culture, hunting is driven by new people with new firearms. Here’s some quick links to Field and Stream and American Hunter magazines:
F&S Picks the 25 Best AR-Style Rifles
http://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/gallery/hunting/2009/05/fs-picks-25-best-ar-style-rifles
Black Gun, Camo Heart
http://www.americanhunter.org/ArticlePage.aspx?id=1956&cid=58
Giving away your freedoms piece by piece as opposed to all at once has the same net result over the long term: in the end we have no guns.
This isn’t compromise, this is simply surrender. The only compromise is how quickly we get to give everything for ‘the greater good’.
As for if we can compromise in the first place… we can’t. The other side has clearly stated that total confiscation of ALL firearms is their stated goal. Their only arguments are on what timeline to establish and what strategies to adopt.
You can feed a crocodile hoping it will eat you last but in the end it will eat you… unless you shoot it… preferably BEFORE it gets too big to shoot.
You say that like it’s a BAD thing.
Which means, you don’t understand the situation.
+ 5 insightful
WTF?? What does the 2nd Amendment have to do with hunting? I choose to own a modern sporting rifle because police have chosen such rifles as the best tools for their own defense. Some guys still carry a 12gage on patrol, others carry a 5.56 carbine. Look at DHS purchasing 7000 such firearms for “personal defense”.
Frankly whether I choose to hunt with an MSR or whether I choose to shoot NRA high-power matches with it (shooting only paper) is none of your dam* business. Maybe that’s the best reason.
At least Biden is talking about home defense and not just hunting as a legitimate purpose for having a gun in the house. His claim of shotgun as the most effective for that purpose is not substantiated. Lots of people do think a shotgun is best but there is no actual right answer to the question.
We should not get drawn into a discussion about what kind of gun is needed for a particular purpose. If I want to buy a sporting rifle just because it is a great gun to go hit targets at the range that is as good a reason as any. The real issue is that we can all agree that there is some fuzzy line between what civilians can own and military grade weapons. That is the fault line that gun control advocates will push against. We will dicker about magazine size, type of stock and other details that make little difference in the real world but a lot of difference to politicians who must “do something”.
A 12 gauge with three inch magnums puts 25 each #1 buckshot rounds out per trigger pull. #1 buckshot will penetrate a human through and through.
The problem with double barrel shotguns is home invasions average three perps. It doesn’t leave any room for misses, and it is a tough thing to require a homeowner to manage a quick load in the middle of his self defense.
Since I don’t sleep with web gear, I prefer a normal 30 round magazine in my self defense rifle. That gives me a chance to miss and still be able to defend myself.
No, I don’t owe home invasion types a courtesy ‘shotgun rack’ sound.
Yes, but at home defense ranges (inside the house), it puts them all in essentially the same place.
Devastating to the target, yes, but no less in need of careful aim than a rifle.
Exactly. The average shotgun shot pattern, with Cylinder bore or Improved Cylinder (the most common choke on home defense and deer-slug type guns, which are basically the same thing), expands about one inch diameter per linear yard of distance. Meaning, at the typical indoor engagement range (three yards or less) the “scattergun” will only “scatter” its shot to about… three inches. Saboted shot loads, like the common “Power Piston” type, expand even less, acting essentially as a solid slug out to about six or seven yards (which is where the plastic “cup” finally drops away from the shot charge).
Translation; you still have to aim. Carefully.
Also, it’s not enough to just hit the target. The hit must be in a vital spot. Meaning, center chest (heart and lungs), upper chest (aorta), or (sometimes) the head. I say “sometimes” because some of the lighter shot loads recommended for home defense to decrease overpenetration, like No. 4 buckshot or No. 6 or No. 7 birdshot, may not penetrate the skull. (Although a face-full of birdshot, especially hitting the eyes, will definitely impede an attacker.)
Also note that heavy clothing, such as jackets, “hoodies”, etc., can slow down birdshot loads on impact enough to result in low-penetration, relatively minor wounds. “Minor” defined as “the attacker may succumb to internal bleeding, but not before he kills you.” Gang banger “couture’” may be a “fashion statement”, but it also has tactical advantages in a home invasion.
The shotgun is most effective as a close-range “stopper” when loaded with a rifled slug, the eponymous “deer slug”, as it has roughly the ballistics, and power, of a Civil War rifled musket at short range. But unlike the Model 1858 Springfield .58 caliber muzzle-loader, its accurate range is very limited due to a rapid falloff of velocity; the semi-flat-nosed slug is not aerodynamically efficient, and drag takes its toll very quickly.
While the experts may say that a slug load is effective to 100 yards, I have never seen even trained police officers be able to deliver effective, accurate fire with slug-loaded 12-gauges much beyond 30 to 40 yards; handgun range, in other words. However, in a home-defense situation, that is probably twenty yards farther than you will likely have to shoot, especially “in-town”.
In short, the shotgun is effective as long as the attacker is very close to you. If you don’t want to let him get that close, I would strongly suggest either a handgun of adequate caliber (.38, 9mm, or .357 or larger), or a rifle.
clear ether
eon
I’ve seen it. I’ve done it. Sights count, of course. The standard bead front sight with no rear sight is not going to cut it at 100 yards.
But a vent rib does a pretty good job, even with a 20″ barrel. 5 shots in a dinner plate size group at 100 yards. That’s not a rifle, but it’s not buckshot, either.
“A campaign to stigmatize hunting, already evident in the entertainment industry and media, will serve to make the final stage of firearm confiscation easier to implement, as even hunting will no longer be seen as a legitimate reason to own firearms.”
It’s funny that you mention the campaign in those two industries. I was looking at “Jurassic Park I, II, and III the other day and it finally hit me what irritated me about those movies. All of them are situations in which any sane human being would not only be armed to the teeth, but would have powerful weapons always handy (say an armored car with a 20mm auto cannon). But everyone in those movies is relatively unarmed. That started me thinking about how many other movies I had seen where people should be armed (in wild bear country, for example) but no one is. How many times have you seen an after the apocalypse movie and they’re using crossbows? Did they uninvented firearm technology? The firearm replaced the crossbow because it was easier to make and use.
It’s not about hunting. I enjoy hunting, but my reasons for owning an AR and various other firearms is preparing for the inevitable breakdown in society that, I am sorry to say, will come sooner than later as Nerobama fiddles.
I am often asked by progressives why any man needs 30 guns in his safe. My answer is “one man with 30 guns is nothing. On man with 30 guns and 30 motivated neighbors is something”.
When the welfare checks bounce, they are coming to your neighborhood. The security guard will be dead or gone, and they will not use the gate….protect yourselves or die for your progressive principles.
Amen, brother. At minimum have enough arms to equip your loved ones who scoff at your “paranoia.”. Come the day, crow will be the main course on a many tables.
Semper,
In Rome when large parts of the population depended on the state for their food and entertainment it was customary for them to riot and pillage whenever either of these commodities became unavailable. Commonly, this was due to a lack of funds on the part of the government. I really don’t think things have changed in the interval. It was for this reason in this time of huge assumption of debt by our government that caused me two years ago to purchase an AR-15 and lots of ammunition.
And why would I ever take home defense advise from Deleware’s resident Village Idiot? He has lifetime Secret Service protection. I don’t!
I think Amtrak Joe has been playing too many video games. Just press R and your 2 shell shotgun is good to go again when the zombie doesn’t die with the first two shots.
I’m not going to get in an argument about what weapon is best for home-defense (I prefer a pump-action shotgun). But a double-barrel shotgun for home defense? Meaning you get two shots before you have to break it open, remove the cartridges, and reload? Good lord, how dumb is Joe Biden?
And that’s just the point. Your choice. Not somebody else telling you what to choose. If somebody wants to carry a 6 round revolver because that’s all they want to deal with, that’s far better than not being able to carry at all. But if somebody else wants to carry a 19-round Springfield XDm because they understand the possibility of multiple attackers and reduced skill during a real fight, it’s not an “assault weapon” because Gov. Cuomo says it is.
Even when Crazy Joe Biden says a double-barreled shotgun is adequate for home defense, he is subtly under-mining the original purpose of the Second Amendment. That is, by naming the right to self defense from criminals as legitimate, Biden is implicitly rejecting the idea that a well-armed citizenry is the last defense against tyranny.
A pump gun loaded with double-ought buck is indeed my burglar repellent of choice. Biden says he agrees that a shotgun is good for close-quarters home defense against one or two thugs, even if he does not want me to have more than two shots. (I doubt that Biden in his heart believes I should have any right to defend myself at all, but never mind that now.)
However, if I had to face semi-organized groups of looters, in some hypothetical situations I would take a rifle over my 870, preferably a rifle with a capacity to fire more than ten rounds without reloading. I certainly want to have the option. That goes double in a worst case scenario where I have to defend my rights against dictatorial police or militia.
By rejecting that last possibility, however unlikely it might be, Biden is seeking to narrow the definition of self defense, even as he seems to uphold it.
Agreed.
I’ve told many folks that for home defense I would recommend a 12-gauge pump action. Yes, at 10-15 meters, the spread is not big, but it is still bigger than .223 inches across. Also, a lower chance of over penetration and the round going way downrange, AND ….. the audible sound of it being racked could serve as a big deterrent to an intruder
Even dumber is what if there is more than one invader?
The shotgun might take care of one of them, but probably leaves the other person free to hurt you. Of course you could turn the shotgun into a club maybe.
Also, accuracy depends as much on the shooter as the gun. My husband isn’t so good with a shotgun (we joke that the deer are perfectly safe when he is hunting) but he is very accurate with a handgun.
Problem is, a side by side (bird gun?) just isnt BUILT to be a defense gun.
Slender straight and light in the wrist and forend without a lot to “hold onto” to absorb recoil UNLESS its properly shouldered…
And rule number one in close encounters is to keep the gun close…
That barrel gives lots of “leverage” to whoever pushes it upward and sideways with one hand while slashing with a knife (or pointing a handgun) with the other.
Dont get me wrong, I’d grab THAT before a baseball bat, but its a BIRD GUN, not a DEFENSE GUN, Mr. Vive President…
With either weapon for home defense, it all depends on
1. ammo
2. aim
The ammo should be one of those designed for inside the home use. The shotgun has the most variety from #6 to special loads with mixed ball and buck. AR-15 ammo has a few designed for in home use to lessen the chance of you hitting your cousin five blocks over out riding their bike.
While in home you’re only shooting across a room or down a hall, not 100 yards, you DO have to aim either a rifle or a shotgun. Go to a range, mark off 30 feet or the max distance in your home and try hitting targets without aiming.
My favorite in-home weapon would be a GAU-8 but it’s hard to get in the garage. I.E., if you’re being attacked inside your home, you must 100% make sure the threat is stopped. My next favorite weapon would be one of those Star Trek phasers (vaporizing seems about right) but they have a long backorder.
A good rule of thumb to use when considering anything that comes out of Joe Biden’s mouth is that he is so groaningly, eye-wateringly stupid that it can be dismissed as the babblings of a retard. That this cretin ever managed to get elected to any position more august than school board trustee should be a cause for both alarm and deep, abiding shame.
The best thing about Joe is that since he is even more determined than his boss is to prove that he is The Smartest Guy In The Room wherever he goes, he can generally be counted on to do so by blurting out things that The One and his enablers would rather the public didn’t know about. That is, until after the Executive Orders are signed.
Which makes Joe a wonderful “mine canary” to give you advance warning of what idiocy is likely to come from the Font Of Wisdom In The Oval Office next. In this respect, he’s the gift that keeps on giving.
cheers
eon
Biden and Obama, like all liberals, will not be happy until the American public is totally disarmed. The Second Amendment is an anachronistic joke to them, rather than a God-given right that protects us from a tyrannical form of government. According to Biden, if all we need are simple shotguns, why not go all the way and just bring back the single-shot muskets from the Revolution? They seemed to do the trick back in 1776, so why not now? And how about those single-shot flintlock pistols? Sweet, and no Virginia Tech-style shootings with those, right? Of course I’m joking, but the liberals are not. And THAT is the difference.
With freedom comes an element of risk. Liberals never want to admit that, which is why they are constantly pining for the nanny state to treat us like we’re brain-damaged infants. THEY want to do all the thinking for you, THEY want to provide you with what THEY think you need, and THEY will have to right to take anything away from you, since THEY were the ones to give you your rights in the first place. This is a creeping form of tyranny that is both insidious as it is dangerous. A free republic DOES have some risks to it. But we have to weigh those risks against having a totalitarian state, as in Europe which, by the way, has very harsh gun control laws. They were also the same people who gave you Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Franco, to name just a few. I’d rather take our risk with a free republic, rather than a nanny state that is capable of giving you a Hitler.
Indeed. If Sheriff Joe and the Admin weren’t acting like “enemies foreign or DOMESTIC”, they would have nothing to fear from our guns.
As it is, needs have not one thing to do with this argument. The Constitution says, “Shall NOT Be Infringed” in exactly that many words. I don’t know how it could be written any plainer than that.
I’m just wondering, are there moreAR-15′s in civilian hands now than there are M-16′s and M-4′s in US military hands? I would think that indicates pretty common use, and may make the case that the Army is using ‘civilian style sporting weapons’ rather than civilians using ‘military style assault weapons’.
Read the last few paragraphs of my report for your answer.
Yes, I saw 4.8 million rifles in civilian hands. I was wondering if this is more or less than the actual number of Assault rifles in military hands.
It is difficult for me to understand the motivations of those who prefer the AR-15 type rife over the traditional kind, but I do not hesitate to support their preferences. There are few enough gun owners in the U.S. that we must stick together and welcome support from the owners of all types of firearms who are not criminals, of course, if we are to withstand the assault by the “progressives” on our rights. Make no mistake, their vision is a nation where civilian ownership of firearms of any type are banned, because in their view any other arrangement is backward and contemptible. Practicalities are of no concern; the statement is everything.
Just as they have fought and schemed for “national” health insurance for decades, they will continue the fight over guns until they achieve their goals or we as a nation rid ourselves of progressive politics as a viable option. There will be more Sandy Hooks, unfortunately, and each one will be used to limit our freedom another notch.
Recent political history is instructive. Public opinion turned decisively against the gun Nazis in the late ’90s and early’00s, so much so the Democrats completely dropped gun control from their campaigns. Now that the public seems more tolerant of leftist ideas and there has been a few more mass shootings, they have come back with a vengeance. We can never rest on this and other issues where the left wants to limit our rights in favor of “solutions” imposed by government.
It is difficult for me to understand the motivations of those who prefer the AR-15 type rife over the traditional kind
I appreciate your support, but why do you not understand. I can’t speak for others, but I have an Armalite AR-15 6.8 SPC. I can have it for neighborhood defense if it is someday needed, or I can take out hunting, which I do, using it single shot. I prefer the pistol grip style with collapsible stock because I can adjust it perfectly for me. Why is wood better than polymer, that’s really the only question? The barrel of an AR-15 is pretty much the same as the barrel of a rifle with wood stocks. This is what is so infuriating to gun enthusiasts. We like having rails to change out optics, or add a light, or a handle, at a whim.
ARs for hunting:
http://www.americanhunter.org/ArticlePage.aspx?id=1956&cid=58
Field & Stream reviews sporting rifles for hunting.
http://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/gallery/hunting/2009/05/fs-picks-25-best-ar-style-rifles
“It is difficult for me to understand the motivations of those who prefer the AR-15 type rife over the traditional kind…”
The AR-15 was invented in 1957. The idea of an intermediate-cartridge rifle with a pistol grip and detatchable magazine came about in 1944. These aren’t exactly new-fangled guns.
That said, it’s difficult for me to understand why you don’t understand. The AR platform has superior ergonomics, it’s weight and recoil are such that virtually anyone can shoot them, they come in a wide range of calibres and barrel lengths, spare parts are plentiful and customization options are beyond counting.
So our “motivation” is that it’s a good, reliable, fun to shoot rifle that can do a number of things well. What’s not to prefer?
“It is difficult for me to understand the motivations of those who prefer the AR-15 type rife over the traditional kind”
My motivation is I’m 54 years old, I’m a woman, I’m short, and I’m out of shape. In my hands the only way I could defend myself with a double barrel shotgun would be to grab the wrong end and swing the stock at the intruder’s head. An AR, on the other hand…not to mention I can actually practice with it long enough to stay sharp without coming home from the range with a dislocated shoulder. Slow Joe and his pals obviously hate women and love rapists — why else would they be trying to take away our best tools for defending ourselves?
If it required logic or reason, the Progressives couldn’t hit the floor with their hat. Since the public are the first to encounter the criminal, does it not make sense, that we (the public) should be at least as heavily armed as the police?
As a conservative gun owner I have watched our rights erode from the days when you could take your gun to school during hunting season, to get in some time in the woods, and fields, on the way home, or take your gun on public transport to go to the range for practice. Today those practices seem both quaint, and antiquated, but maybe we need to get back to a time, when guns are looked upon as nothing more or less than a tool, to be used for either good or evil, with the understanding that it is the person holding the gun not the gun, that is responsible for the outcome.
What I would like to know; since crime is going down as gun sales increase, does it not make more sense to make it easier for law abiding citizens to exercise their second amendment rights, and if so just what does it say about the gun grabbers and their agenda.
” Since the public are the first to encounter the criminal, does it not make sense, that we (the public) should be at least as heavily armed as the police?”
Forget the police, most officers never fire their weapons in the line of duty. It’s hard enough to get them to fire them on the range for qualification. I want to be at least as heavily armed as the a$$hat coming at me trying to rob or kill me.
How I wish more people understood what you just said.
I come from a cop family. My grandfather, father, brother and five cousins all served in the NYPD. This notion held by so many people that cops just naturally put in a lot of range time and work hard to be as proficient as possible with their sidearms just does not reflect reality. They mostly blow off a couple of magazines once a year to keep their qualification.
I don’t think there will be any federal gun-control legislation that gets passed, that would be political suicide for the Dem’s and they know it. What I suspect they will do is the same thing that was done for cigarettes, remove the restriction against victims of gun violence from suing gun and ammo manufacturers.
This will result in thousands of lawsuits against the manufacturers and bankrupt many of them. Those that aren’t driven into bankruptcy will eventually reach the equivalent of the Master Settlement Agreement that the tobacco companies (that were left) did. End result: A gun that costs $1000 today will cost $15,000 to $20,000. Bullets that cost $0.30 today will cost $5.00 each! It will also further enrich the government and one of the Dem’s favorite constituencies, trial lawyers.
Too bad nobody stood up for smokers when they had the chance.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed in 2005 to prevent these actions. This would have to be repealed or found unconstutitional.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-105
Exactly.
Sort of off topic, but why is PJM hosting links to a leftist site like Salon?
I have been wondering the same thing. Thanks for bringing it up.
It’s really very simple.
They are taking their money.
I like it.
Doesn’t that tarnish their credibility? I mean doesn’t links to such stories imply that they agree/promote their content? The first time I followed one of those links I wasn’t under the impression that it was a Leftist site. Only after reading a few of the stories with the Conservative bashing and insults did I come to that conclusion. Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times, it’s enemy action.
No, and no. The management knows their audience, and *gasp* trusts them to figure it out. Like you did.
Meanwhile, they pocket their money.
joe biteme wouldn’t know his *ss from a hole in the ground, much less anything about self defense. He has bodyguards carrying full automatic weapons to protect his sorry *ss for the rest of his life and we (taxpayers) get to foot the bill. A double barrel shotgun? Two pops and you’re history against several gangbangers carrying even revolvers and they can hit at a greater distance. But they won’t be carrying revolvers, they will be carrying firearms supplied to drug cartels by holder’s incompetent group of clowns. But you say they are competent? Sure… against an unarmed citizenry. joe, at least advise people to wield a shotgun with more than two shots….. idiot.
Let’s be insane for a moment and pretend Biden actually know what he’s talking about and has a valid point. Just for the sake of argument.
Taking the VP at his word his position boils down to this: we need to ban assault weapons because they’re too deadly, but don’t worry about defending yourself because the shotgun we don’t want to ban is even deadlier.
There is absolutely -zero- logic to anything being said today in support of further gun control. There’s not even any internal logic.
The only way to make anything they say make sense is to assume they want to completely disarm the law-abiding population and they’re saying whatever they think they have to in order to get away with it.
Excellent exercise in logic. Of course, it’s about dividing and minimizing the impact of the current push for more control, conveniently ignoring that once these gun owners are criminalized, the shotgun owners are one step closer to the same treatment. Divide and conquer.
Don’t make the same mistake that those in Pre-communist Russia or Pre-nazi germany did! To Paraphrase:
“I did not speak up when the AR-15 and Bushmaster owners were threatened because I didn’t have an AR-15 or Bushmaster and didn’t care to have one.”
“I did not speak up for the High Capacity Magazine owners because I did not own or see the logic behind high capacity magazines.”
“I did not speak up for the Semi Auto owners because I didn’t see the virtue in having semi-automatic rifles.”
“I did not speak up for the handgun owners because I didn’t have a handgun.”
“Now they’re all gone, and no one’s here to cover me while I reload my double barelled shotgun so I can shoot the 28 some odd people robbing my store.”
In all this discussion the very simple fact that needs to be said to the Leftists.
We made murder illegal and in some states it still carries the stiffiest penalty possible. Yet that did not deter people from committing murder 14,612 times in 2011. If this is the case by what stretch of reason will making certain guns illegal prevent criminals from using them to commit crimes?
That is the entire argument in a nutshell. Criminals by definition don’t obey the law. It’s beyond stupid to believe they’ll obey gun laws any more than they obey the rest.
It’s illegal to sell and buy many types of drugs, and yet they’re widely available.
It’s illegal for underage kids to buy and drink alcohol and yet they do it all the time. It’s also illegal for them to own guns and yet the gangs have no trouble getting them.
It’s illegal to break into houses, commit rape, rob banks and commit murder and yet these crimes happen many times every single day.
So how can any rational person possibly believe that outlawing guns – or even a subset of guns – will reduce gun violence?
Beware of gradualism. Look to what happened to cigarette smokers over a period of about 30 years. They didn’t start out trying to ban smoking just about everywhere including in your own home or business. Instead, they started by enacting one restriction after another until we got here. Today, they’ll try to ban high capacity magazines and “assault weapons” (without defining the term). Tomorrow…
Heller raises the issue of the constitutionality of banning “weapons in common use” but the real question is, is it constitutional to ban civilian possesion of weapons commonaly used by the police and therefor suitable for use by a militia? The police are supposed to be prohibited from use of military weapons like aremed helicopters (or drones?) but use autofire M-16s and MP5s. Does not that make these “weapons in common use”?
That’s an interesting question. Under Miller (1939) that would be a valid path of inquiry.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html
In U.S. v. Miller, two men were apprehended with a firearm restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934. They appealed their indictment by claiming the Firearms Act “offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment” against government infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. The United States Supreme Court ruling focused only upon the gun’s “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”
Referencing Constitutional law, the justices discussed the term militia, concluding:
“With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made.”
The Court also referred to the “debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators,” concluding:
“These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”
Since the military was not using short-barreled shotguns at the time, the court decided “we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” But the justices agreed with the Founders that the militia is the people, and that the government cannot abridge the right of the people to be armed, as that would render the militia ineffective. A reasonable deduction of the Miller decision is that the justices believed that while the Second Amendment implied the right to own firearms that were “part of the ordinary military equipment.”
I asked my mentor, David B. Kopel, about that, and he said the test now will be based upon Heller, the latest decision.
Howard: It has long been my contention that the Second Amendment is about militia weapons, weapons suitable for war. As such, the military pattern, semi-automatic, high capacity magazine fed, rifle and pistol, are the modern day equivalent of the revolutionary war, militia weapon, the musket. As such, so called “assault rifles” are exactly the weapons the Second Amendment protects for civilian ownership, and are the weapons the Founders would want in the hands of American citizens. Only recently have I seen that opinion expressed by assorted blog writers. I expect that that interpretation will ultimately end up in the courts, possibly SCOTUS. Unfortunately, with the Robert’s decision on Obamacare, and the possibility of losing one of the conservative justices, I am not confident that SCOTUS will make the right decision.
The antis do indeed have it backwards. The weapons protected by the Militia clause are those in common use by the military. Strictly speaking, that means that only weapons protected by the Second Amendment are the select fire M-16/M-4 and the M-9 Beretta pistol. Everything else could be subject to regulation or restriction. I used to hold to a looser criteria of any 5.56 rifle or 9mm full sized pistol but that would lead to a logistics nightmare. I think we should all be satisfied with a fully automatic M-4. I would have to exchange my beloved 1911 for the new fangled M-9
No, the 2nd protects the right to keep and bear arms. It protects the right to keep military arms but also other arms that could be used for the same purpose. And per Heller it protects arms used for self defense.
There is alway one person in the house who finds a fully automatic weapon as insufficient for his needs.
I am also thinking that the federal government has no authority under the Constitution, to regulate firearms. Militias were traditionally state organizations, during the Revolutionary War and later in the Civil War. The authority to regulate firearms is a state issue not a federal one. Still, “shall not be infringed” stands in regards to that state regulation.
In 1775, the militiaman and tavern keeper Mr. Jones in Concord, Mass. had 3 cannons. I want a cannon.
I’m warm to the ‘militiaman can pack whatever the government’s ordinary groundpounder soldiers are packing’ argument. But a cannon? It’d be great fun but it’s a crew-served weapon.
I like guns. I think guns are good.
I love not the rifle for it’s precision nor the pistol for it’s convenience nor the shotgun for it’s brutality. I love only what they defend.
Joe must have received the memo … I’m hearing this from the left now; the narrative has changed and they’re all on board. Meanwhile, we have a violence problem.
Who needs guns for self-defense–every gun is one more possible threat. I realize science is beyond the comprehension of ignorant, right-wing rubes but it is a scientific fact that the gun in your home will be the one that kills you! What gun killed Adam Lanza and those kids in Newton, CT?
What a deranged,psychotic society the United States is where people have no right to be cared for if they are sick but do have the right to own devices of death. We need to replace our culture of death with a culture of life like the truly civilized countries in Europe have done.
> it is a scientific fact that the gun in your home will be the one that kills you! What gun killed Adam Lanza and those kids in Newton [sic], CT?
You’re batting .038 in the case of Newtown. Only 1 of 26 innocent victims was killed with the gun in their home.
I imagine you would also posit that it’s these “right-wing rubes” that are the misogynist ones among us, yes? If so, why does advancement of your gun control agenda take precedence over a climbing incidence of rape and other violent crimes that statistically results in “truly civilized countries” that remove guns from society?
You’re right, Robbin. So let’s ignore your Argumentum Ad Hominem, and the fact that since you have no reasoned rebuttal, you must rely completely upon ridicule, insult, and the bigoted need to tar millions of law-abiding people who have committed no crime, for a moment.
Go tell police, the army, and all the criminals to disarm. Once you have all those “devices of death” safely destroyed, come back and ask for our self-defense tools. I’ll bring along a video camera and log your efforts with MS-13. That should make me an instant Youtube hit.
If all threats foreign and domestic disarm, I’ll disarm, too. Otherwise, read about the Battle of Gonzalez, Texas.
You are being sarcastic, right? Please tell me you aren’t so I can carefully, and of course slowly, explain to you how completely wrong you are.
“What a deranged,psychotic society the United States is where people have no right to be cared for if they are sick but do have the right to own devices of death.”
Have you considered an alternative, Moon-mist? Have you considered getting the hell out? One less Obama worshiper won’t be missed. We’ll always have Leg-Tingles.
How do you know I haven’t already left? I have. I still have to take an interest in American politics because the corporation known as the United States of America has crushed movements for social justice worldwide for fear of the good example they could provide; the global megacorps are now everywhere protected by the American military industrial complex.
However, I do live in a place (China) that still has enough compassion to prevent the senseless American-style bloodshed with sensible restrictions on guns. It is safer here. A few principles laid down by China’s great founder still linger.
Now we know why he’s “Throbbin”, his foot got run over by a tank in Tiananmen Square while he watched a civil display of Chinese peace keeping with non-lethal means.
I feel a fine fisk coming on.
“How do you know I haven’t already left? I have. I still have to take an interest in American politics because the corporation known as the United States of America has crushed movements for social justice worldwide for fear of the good example they could provide; the global megacorps are now everywhere protected by the American military industrial complex.”
There is no hope for you, then. Just what movement for social justice has the Yankee Hegemon(tm) crushed [i]in China?[/i]
However, I do live in a place (China) that still has enough compassion to prevent the senseless American-style bloodshed with sensible restrictions on guns. It is safer here. A few principles laid down by China’s great founder still linger.
Would that be Dr. Yat-Sen, or Chairman Mao? The Doctor…okay, I could see that. Maybe. The Chairman?
Only responsible for 30 or so million deaths among his own people. One of his most famous quotes from his Little Red Book is “Power flows from the barrel of a gun”. You still sure you want to use him as an example?
How do you say “I beclowned myself and am now known to the world as a miserable troll” in Mandarin, anyway?
The most disfigured man I’ve known was provided food and shelter by the kind Chinese for 25 years because he hadn’t the proper political outlook.
Ah, yes, compassionate China. Do you know why they can make stuff so cheaply? Might have something to do with political prisoners working for “free” as part of their re-education.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2013/0109/Will-China-end-prison-labor-camps
Since you support these forms of “compassion” there’s really no possibility of discourse with you. Your existence is proof that the Second Amendment is necessary to ensure a free state here in America.
China is far from perfect and indeed she is getting worse. The article you cited as no surprise to me. The brutal tyranny of multinational corporations is more evident all of the time here, but it was not ever thus.
The peace-loving Chairman Mao was beguiled by the serpent “Tricky Dick” Nixon to invite the vampire of capitalism into his homeland because he naively thought it would end the CIA aggression destabilizing his country, and that we would to be able to co-exist in peace. Since then, corporate oppression has grown like a cancer. However,the fact remains the small arms manufacturers have yet to take over in China like they have in the United States.
Scientific fact. Bullshit, you have no clue what a scientific fact is.
I’ll have a double of whatever he’s drinking.
The “truly civilized” countries in Europe did such a bang-up job in the last century, didn’t they? Jean-Francois Revel summed it up rather neatly:
From your comments, you seem to hail from the imbecility camp…
While Europe is the ancestral home to the twin Molochs of racism and corporate greed that have devastated the planet, ever since the Holocaust, where the forces of genocidal capitalism that had hitherto been unleashed only against People of Color were used on exterminate Whites, Europe has moved in the direction of compassion.
The United States,by contrast, has only hatred and greed. Corporate power runs unchallenged and unchecked, running roughshod over the 99% who have nothing while the 1% live in idle luxury.
Now, you’re downright knee-slapping funny when you’re off your meds.
Don’t ever change.
“Throbbin Yobbin” and “LovelyEarth” are, without a doubt, two screen-names used by the same satirist: “Throbbin Yobbin” when he posts a mishmash of Marxism that make Ward Churchill into a Republica, and “LovelyEarth” when writing from the viewpoint of a burned-out hippie who hasn’t exhaled since the Summer of Love.
As I recall, the context of the conversation was “after a natural disaster” such as an earthquake. Shotguns weren’t more effective after Hurricane Katrina, considering that all guns were confiscated.
For community defense situations like natural disasters or riots, the carbine makes way more sense then the shotgun.
Not if they’re confiscated.
LA-la land gets more assaults and looting after court verdicts than after tremors.
” And how about those single-shot flintlock pistols? Sweet, and no Virginia Tech-style shootings with those, right?”
Hey, don’t knock those flintlock pistols. My 1807 Harpers Ferry (repro) puts out a .58 Cal. ball and can even be loaded with a Minnie Ball. If you feel adventurous you can even load it with several smaller cal. balls to turn it into a little single shot shotgun. Like the man says, ya use what ya got!
@JPL17. Dunno why this didn’t post before, but here goes. His last comment was right on the money. Every American that can walk, talk, and chew gum needs to read Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals’. I guarantee you that Obama, Holder and Emanuel did.
I keep this bookmark primer. I’d say it should be required reading for all who support the Constitution and want to restore its primacy, but that would be against the First Amendment, as well as smack of communist compulsion (re-education camps).
http://polizeros.com/2009/09/16/saul-alinsky-rules-for-radicals/
Joe Biden’s wisdom, knowledge and leadership talent is one very good reason to pray for the health and long life of President Obama. It is a terrifying thought to consider our line of succession.
Innocents Betrayed: The True Story of Gun Control
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XQDzBK-Yxc&feature=player_embedded
That the Left aims for full disarmament is no surprise, and they will stop at nothing and use any strategy to achieve their goals. This can be fought and conquered.
The terrifying situation though is that of the ignorant, easy to manipulate, inert masses who lap up the Left’s propaganda with no comprehension of why the Second Amendment is really for – definitely not for duck hunting or skeet shooting.
Yup
Published on Dec 7, 2012
SAN DIEGO, CA — The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ran anti-terror drills in which civilians dressed as zombies were gunned down indiscriminately by soldiers and police. Detailed makeup was used as well as pyrotechnics. This exercise was coordinated by the HALO Corporation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwKSJQI3tco&feature=g-user-a&list=PLNhTos49Oq4JHZ5PmBe42JDzhEV97v97z
Um, I’m no great fan of Joe Biden, but at his age he’s “Gun Enthusiast 1.0″ as the article describes it. All of whom believe shotguns are actually safer than rifles … as I did until just about four minutes ago.
Biden is trying to drive a wedge, his actual view on the matter is irrelevent.
I love Joe Biden comments. According to a report in the Daily Rash, during his appearance on CBS This Morning he told Gayle King that the Department of Homeland Security is “crawling with lesbians.” http://www.thedailyrash.com/biden-says-department-of-homeland-security-crawling-with-lesbians
It’s going to be funny in a few years to watch Joe’s smirking self-confidence go up in smoke as he comes in dead last in the primaries.
Frankly, I don’t think DHS or any domestic law enforcement agency has a “need” for select-fire weapons.
The smallest shotgun pellots you should use for self defense are #1 buck. These are hard to find. The more common 00 buck has a fist sized pattern at the longest residential home distances; you basically have to aim it as you would a rifle for self defense. Buckshot loses effectiveness past about 25 yeards, when the pattern opens up so that all 8 or 9 00 pellots are no longer hitting a human sized target. Even at hese distances you need to aim to maximize the number of buckshot hitting the target.
So at short range a 5.56 carbine really gives up very little to a shotgun. And it has much less recoil and is vastly more effective as the range increases past 25 yards.
A 5.56 AR15 carbine is at least the equal of a shotgun for home defense, but it is vastly superior for community defense (LA riots, Hugo, etc) and ranch defense.
Now, compared to most older rifles, particularly manually operated full power rifles, the shotgun is a better home defense weapon.
Biden and McCain are in competition for the Pullitzer Putz Prize.
“Common sense gun control” means no guns. Compromise & reaching across the isle merely prolongs the agony. The goal of DiFi and her crew is a complete ban on civilian ownership of firearms. Progressives believe the Constitution is invalid. The believe rights are granted by government and are subject to restriction or elimination at the whim of our anointed leaders. They understand that without the Second Amendment, the people have to no rights. To Progressives there is no right to self defense let alone the right of the People to dispose of a totalitarian government. They think the First Amendment should to modified to prohibit free speech and suppress thought contrary to the party line. Listen to the comments lauding the ChiCom governments ability to rule by decree. We that believe in the Constitution and Freedom are enemies in the eyes of progressives. We’re not just wrong, we are their enemy. Enemies must be subjugated or destroyed. The is no middle way, no compromise possible. Therefore, I say fight, never quite, never surrender.
To prove the statement wrong, all you really had to say was “Joe Biden said …”
I am fifty two and have been a police officer since I was 28. Before that a Marine and I grew up in a family of competitive shooters. I have trained with Navy Seals, and Delta Force members. Rhodesian Sp. Forces, our own Green Berets, Australian SAS, LAPD SWAT, and Dept of Energy tactical teams. I was the NCOIC for my Departments use of force program for 3 years. My Dept. has 400 Officers. When we had a Dept wide shotgun “challenge” I won it (by a tenth of a second after four events ending in a select slug drill on a distant target). I have at different times in my career competed in pistol (bullseye and IPSC) and rifle (black powder, High Power Service Rifle, and Tactical “Sniper” matches). I did SWAT for more than a decade in every slot from new guy, entry guy, precision rifle, team Sgt, and team leader. And I have been to three SWAT Olympics.
Almost none of my pre-LE shooting career had to do with shotguns. I got handy with them because in 89 they were the available long gun for a cop. But these are the down sides for cop work – and I think they are the same for home defense.
1. The shotgun is far and away the most technically demanding tool available. To run the shotgun professionally you MUST have your best brain in the game. If you hiccup at any time as you are dealing with threats you end up empty, or with a slug where you want buck, or buck where you want slug. All the things you need to be on top of to drive the gun, and deal with whatever problems you might have are not “related” to any other weapons system – they are shotgun specific. (a Glock and an AR-15 conceptually work much the same. Bullet bucket goes here. If it doesn’t go bang you yank out the bullet bucket and fiercely rack the action to clear the “mess”. Etc).
2. They are often “big” which hinders you in a fight with guns in confined spaces.
3. They kick like hell. I don’t have a survey done – but I would ball park somewhere better than 30 percent of cops get to the part where we stop shooting birdshot in training and switch over to meaningful fighting ammo (buck and slug) and don’t want any more. Some of those that are good with the recoil just don’t have the weapons handling “aptitude” to drive the gun so it’s a less than 50 percent answer.
Now – in comparison. . . and AR is light, short and able to deliver precise and decisive fire. Unlike the shotgun you don’t need to be a gunfighter extraordinaire to stay on top of it. The magazine capacity “forgives” you for moments of focus that are lost to the fight. The recoil is so low that tiny or recoil sensitive folks can shoot it well, and if you are a competent and trained gunfighter with semi-auto pistols the way the rifle works, and the things you do to keep it working will be familiar to you.
Shotguns scare folks. Truth. Doubles more than others for some reason. . ha. . and stats show us that a display of firearms “force” is likely to cause the threat to flee – but if you DO have to fight with one weapon. Or defend your home with one weapon. . . . unless you are a gun-dog. . with the love and the aptitude for shotguns. . take the AR every time.
Awesome explanation. Thank you for your service, too!
One big problem area in “running” a shotgun is reloading the tube magazine on your typical pump or semiauto shotgun. You load one round at a time and it would be easy to jam the thing up good while doing so under stress.
The shooter at the San Yasidro McDonalds (early 80s) may have jammed his Winchester Defender shotgun in this manner, based upon what I read in the news reports. He used three guns, the shotgun, a 9mm pistol and a 9mm Uzi carbine, the Uzi was the gun that got the media blame, but I believe he killed most of his victims with the other two guns.
you guys obviously haven’t heard of paw-paws 10 ga., automatic, double barrel shotgun with a scope on each barrel. i haven’t seen it either, but i have heard plenty of stories about it. its said to be the deadliest gun around.
btw, didn’t the coroner’s final report confirm that the sandy hook shooter(s) used only semi-auto pistols? if so, then why would the ‘progressives’ want to use that mass killing with pistols to try to ban the semi-auto rifles? how strange a coincidence that this is probably one of the best weapons for militia to use on a battlefield defending his/her country against tryants or invading armies. hmmmm?
also, i wouldn’t count on any black powder guns for first line self defense. that old saying about keeping your powder dry (among other good reasons) comes to mind.
The stories on the shooting were all over the place, but now it appears he used an AR15 for the killings (except his own suicide). Of course, if he didn’t have the AR15 he would have still had semiauto handguns which would have been just as effective against unarmed and defenseless kids.
Rifles are used in a very small % of actual killings and even in mass killings like this they don’t seem to do more damage then other types of weapons. The Virginia Tech shooting was one of the worst and the shooter used handguns with 10 round mags if I understand correctly. The largest school mass murder was done in the 20s and the killer used a car bomb. The thing that matters most in such things is the person doing the killing, and those who are there to respond to it. The right perp with a machete or fake katana with the right victims could do great damage. It isn’t the weapon, its the people involved.
as i said, the coroner’s report said the pistols were used to kill everyone involved. the long gun, whatever it was, was later shown being pulled from the trunk of a car. i doubt he killed all the people inside and then went out and put the long gun back in the trunk.
that being said, there are many, many things that aren’t adding up in these killings.
1. are photos of some of victims and families photoshopped?
2. where are the videos from inside the school?
3. why are some of the (actor?) parents shown joking around off camera, and then preparing to act sad?
4. this disturbed kid weighed all of 120 lbs. he carried how many guns and ammo as he broke through bullet proof glass/heavy doors?
5. this city kid who didn’t own a gun, was turned down trying to buy one earlier, and probably hardly ever shot one, didn’t wound anybody? that’s a first as there are always wounded, especially when trying to hit running, screaming very small children?
6. why are some of the helicopter pix shown on the news not of the actual event. one blow up shows emergency personnel wearing shorts, in dec.
7. why would the police immediately release that all the killings were done w/ the ar? i watch csi too. it takes extensive autopsies and time to determine these things. our phony baloney kenyan and his lap-dog press immediately grabbed the ‘assault weapons’ story and haven’t bothered to look back in trying to get them banned.
there are a ton of legit questions about all of this. is this like the first (fast & furious) attempt at a gun grab, where the media has to be dragged kicking and screaming into finally start reporting/covering (for) that sorry clutch of idiot criminals the stupid 1/2 of the country worships?
if you are wondering what i am talking about, go to utube and type in sandy hood hoax. looks a lot like criminals protecting criminals, again.
Seems to me that the US is getting more harshly, irreconcilably politically polarized all the time. The government bureaucrats, university professors, PC-ed up multinational corporate titans, and media types who run America know that they would get their butts handed to them were an armed conflict, a second civil war, ever to break out. So, planning ahead, their counterstrategy is twofold:
(1) diversify, politically indoctrinate, and otherwise PC-ify the people who hold the guns in the military and in police forces
(2) ban guns from private citizen – starting with weapons of most military value, and then moving from there. All enforcement efforts will focus on law-abiding ex-military/Christians/NRA/tea party types, the putative “other team” standing across from the Priests of Progressivism. Minimal efforts will be made at enforcement with urban gangs/the criminal underclass, who are the paramilitary militia auxiliary of the progressives.
I don’t think so. I don’t think they seriously consider any real armed resistance from the right. Rather, this is a war on morals, ethics and culture. They are attacking the culture of self reliance and individualism. They want dependent subjects who rely upon the government as much as possible. That’s why they want to ban guns and normalize illegals.
You may be right.
(and it could be that both are true …)
like they say.
today they call your modern sporting rifles “assault rifles” and want to take them.
tomorrow they will call your bolt action hunting rifle with a scope a “sniper rifle”
it will never end if it gets started again. they will want them all, bit by bit.
Biden not only lied about the Amish school shooting, he lied about something that didn’t happen. The story was a hoax.
They did it again yesterday — google “Jimmy Lee Dykes”. It’s another gruesome fairytale dreamed up by psychotics.
I don’t hear Wayne Lapierre speaking out against it. I see any conservative news networks confronting these stories. One can only assume they are all “in” on it, or else being coerced into silence… I wonder which is it?
That’s “don’t see”… I _don’t_ see any conservatives speaking out…
As the Chuck Hagel debacle helps to dramatize, Obama likes to surround himself with thoroughly stupid men, especially ones of the white variety.