Mr. Vice President... I presonally apologize

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from FaolanofEssex. Show FaolanofEssex's posts

    Re: Mr. Vice President... I presonally apologize

    Just one ??

    What does presonally mean?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Mr. Vice President... I presonally apologize

    just walk out on the balcony ... take that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house,"'

     

    Joe, you'd better have more shells handy because if you fire two blasts from your double-barreled shotgun you are now holding an expensive club.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Mr. Vice President... I presonally apologize

    A good number of firearm experts agree with Biden that a shotgun is the most effective home defense weapon.  Notable for its psychological effects, particularly when chambering a round, a shotgun is an intimidator and simply wielding one is enough to scare off intruders.  No one really wants to argue with a shotgun.   

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Mr. Vice President... I presonally apologize

    That's the point, when a society allows it's citizens their right to protect themselves by the most effective means possible (meaning any firearm including shotguns) it automatically creates a deterrent for criminals by taking away an advantage that they might otherwise have.

    It's not a coincedence that mass murder events most often take place in "gun-free" zones.

     

     

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Mr. Vice President... I presonally apologize

    In response to FortySixAnd2's comment:

    But wait...I thought assault weapons were intimidating and scary looking? I thought assault weapons did major damage? If the argument of a weapon is to be intimidating where no one would want to argue with it then doesn't an assault weapon fit that bill?

     




    Shotguns are not assault weapons, and the current issue surrounding weapons like the AR 15 (traditionally considered an "assault weapon") are the large capacity magazines, rate of fire, and other aspects like the fact that it is engineered to be more lethal when used. 

    Any gun is intimidating, but the point home defense experts are making is even an armed intruder is going to think long and hard before confronting someone with a weapon like a shotgun that tends to have the last word in an argument. 

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Mr. Vice President... I presonally apologize

    OT

    FortySixAnd2: nice screen name bro!

     

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Mr. Vice President... I presonally apologize

    What did Biden say that was wrong?

    I seem to recall the story about the woman who was on the phone with 911 as intruders were trying to break into her house.  She blew them away with a shot gun.

    My 90 year old grandma had a nice little .410.  And a .38 by her bed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: Mr. Vice President... I presonally apologize

    it is illegal in most states to fire a weapon from the balcony of your house and really irresponsible but if dems and the VP say its okay then it must be...

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Mr. Vice President... I presonally apologize

    In response to FortySixAnd2's comment:

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAnd2's comment:

     

    But wait...I thought assault weapons were intimidating and scary looking? I thought assault weapons did major damage? If the argument of a weapon is to be intimidating where no one would want to argue with it then doesn't an assault weapon fit that bill?

     

     




     

    Shotguns are not assault weapons, and the current issue surrounding weapons like the AR 15 (traditionally considered an "assault weapon") are the large capacity magazines, rate of fire, and other aspects like the fact that it is engineered to be more lethal when used. 

    Any gun is intimidating, but the point home defense experts are making is even an armed intruder is going to think long and hard before confronting someone with a weapon like a shotgun that tends to have the last word in an argument. 

     



    Didn't say shotguns were assault weapons.

     

    And an intruder is going to think long and hard before confronting someone with a weapon like an AR-15 that tends to have the last word in an argument, no?




    Probably, but the thing is no one goes on shooting rampages with shotguns, hence why there is no push to ban shotguns.  Regardless, the argument home defense experts were making is not relevant to the larger gun control discussion. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: Mr. Vice President... I presonally apologize

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to FortySixAnd2's comment:

     

    In response to macnh1's comment:

    it is illegal in most states to fire a weapon from the balcony of your house and really irresponsible but if dems and the VP say its okay then it must be...

    DING!

     




     

    And the UN-DING!: There is a "necessity defense" which is the same as self-defense in another skin. If it were necessary to fire a weapon from the balcony of your house in order to defend yourself or another, then a law making it illegal to do so in normal conditions would not nail you.

     

     



    in self defense a lot of things are legal.....Biden's comments were odd, and bad advice.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Mr. Vice President... I presonally apologize

    In any event, I believe the point that Biden was making is that a shotgun is all you need to defend your home someone trying to get in.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Mr. Vice President... I presonally apologize

    In response to FortySixAnd2's comment:

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAnd2's comment:

     

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAnd2's comment:

     

    But wait...I thought assault weapons were intimidating and scary looking? I thought assault weapons did major damage? If the argument of a weapon is to be intimidating where no one would want to argue with it then doesn't an assault weapon fit that bill?

     

     




     

    Shotguns are not assault weapons, and the current issue surrounding weapons like the AR 15 (traditionally considered an "assault weapon") are the large capacity magazines, rate of fire, and other aspects like the fact that it is engineered to be more lethal when used. 

    Any gun is intimidating, but the point home defense experts are making is even an armed intruder is going to think long and hard before confronting someone with a weapon like a shotgun that tends to have the last word in an argument. 

     



    Didn't say shotguns were assault weapons.

     

    And an intruder is going to think long and hard before confronting someone with a weapon like an AR-15 that tends to have the last word in an argument, no?

     




     

    Probably, but the thing is no one goes on shooting rampages with shotguns, hence why there is no push to ban shotguns. 

     



    Wrong. Here is a list a mass shootings where a 12 gauge was used

     

    Northern Ill U

    San Ysidro

    Lockheed Martin

    Wakefield

    Amish School

    Red Lake

    Navistar

    And if shooting rampages is the reason for banning assault weapons then 9 mm handguns should also be banned since those have been used in about 24 mass shootings.



    While some could reasonable argue that handguns are the true menace, the fact is handgun capacity limits the lethality of the weapon.  In addition shooters firing with one hand are going to be less accurate than they would with a AR15 type rifle which the shooter will have better control over and likely more firing discipline to keep the barrel of the weapon on target because they can manage recoil better.  

    San Ysidro shooting, the shooter had a shotgun in addition to an Uzi and a 9mm.  The uzi and 9mm were the weapons used to kill most of the people in the restaurant, and he fired those weapons over 200 times.

    Red Lake shooting, the primary weapon used was a glock, the killer committed suicide with the shotgun.  Also the shooter tried to use an assault rifle, but jammed the weapon while loading it and he left it at home.  The FBI commented that had he used the assault rifle the death toll would have been higher.  Teh FBI counted 45 shots the shooter made with handguns, 8 with the shotgun. 

    Northern Ill, the shooter fired six times with his shotgun before switching to a handgun and firing 50 more times. 

    Lockheed Martin, though the shooter had several other weapons, his primary weapon was the shotgun which he used to wound and kill all of his victims.

    Wakefield shooting, the perpetrator had several weapons, but he used a AK 47 to kill his victims. 

    The killer in the Amish shooting did have a shotgun among his weapons but used a pistol when he started shooting his hostages

    The point of all of this should be apparent, shotguns are generally not the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  While many killers may have one amond the weapons they utilize for their attacks, typically smaller more agile weapons end up being used and it is plainly obvious why: faster rate of fire, easier to wield, ability to dump ammo faster than with a shotgun. 

     

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Mr. Vice President... I presonally apologize

    In response to FortySixAnd2's comment:

     

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAnd2's comment:

     

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAnd2's comment:

     

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAnd2's comment:

     

    But wait...I thought assault weapons were intimidating and scary looking? I thought assault weapons did major damage? If the argument of a weapon is to be intimidating where no one would want to argue with it then doesn't an assault weapon fit that bill?

     

     




     

    Shotguns are not assault weapons, and the current issue surrounding weapons like the AR 15 (traditionally considered an "assault weapon") are the large capacity magazines, rate of fire, and other aspects like the fact that it is engineered to be more lethal when used. 

    Any gun is intimidating, but the point home defense experts are making is even an armed intruder is going to think long and hard before confronting someone with a weapon like a shotgun that tends to have the last word in an argument. 

     



    Didn't say shotguns were assault weapons.

     

    And an intruder is going to think long and hard before confronting someone with a weapon like an AR-15 that tends to have the last word in an argument, no?

     




     

    Probably, but the thing is no one goes on shooting rampages with shotguns, hence why there is no push to ban shotguns. 

     



    Wrong. Here is a list a mass shootings where a 12 gauge was used

     

    Northern Ill U

    San Ysidro

    Lockheed Martin

    Wakefield

    Amish School

    Red Lake

    Navistar

    And if shooting rampages is the reason for banning assault weapons then 9 mm handguns should also be banned since those have been used in about 24 mass shootings.

     



     

    While some could reasonable argue that handguns are the true menace, the fact is handgun capacity limits the lethality of the weapon.  In addition shooters firing with one hand are going to be less accurate than they would with a AR15 type rifle which the shooter will have better control over and likely more firing discipline to keep the barrel of the weapon on target because they can manage recoil better.  

    San Ysidro shooting, the shooter had a shotgun in addition to an Uzi and a 9mm.  The uzi and 9mm were the weapons used to kill most of the people in the restaurant, and he fired those weapons over 200 times.

    Red Lake shooting, the primary weapon used was a glock, the killer committed suicide with the shotgun.  Also the shooter tried to use an assault rifle, but jammed the weapon while loading it and he left it at home.  The FBI commented that had he used the assault rifle the death toll would have been higher.  Teh FBI counted 45 shots the shooter made with handguns, 8 with the shotgun. 

    Northern Ill, the shooter fired six times with his shotgun before switching to a handgun and firing 50 more times. 

    Lockheed Martin, though the shooter had several other weapons, his primary weapon was the shotgun which he used to wound and kill all of his victims.

    Wakefield shooting, the perpetrator had several weapons, but he used a AK 47 to kill his victims. 

    The killer in the Amish shooting did have a shotgun among his weapons but used a pistol when he started shooting his hostages

    The point of all of this should be apparent, shotguns are generally not the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  While many killers may have one amond the weapons they utilize for their attacks, typically smaller more agile weapons end up being used and it is plainly obvious why: faster rate of fire, easier to wield, ability to dump ammo faster than with a shotgun. 

     

     



    The weapon of choice in majority of mass shootings (35) has been handguns. You say "handgun capacity limits the lethality of the weapon", tell that to the victims of the V Tech massacre. 33 people were killed, most in any of the mass shootings in US. All by 9mm and .22 handguns.

     

    There have been six double digits killings from mass shootings involving non-assault weapons (handguns), versus four double digit killings where assault weapons were used. I don't know, seems to me based on the facts, handguns have done more damage than assault weapons.

     

     




     

    In aggregate, yes.  handguns are more widely available and thus would be used in more gun assaults yielding a higher total number of deaths than say assault rifles that are significantly more expensive than handguns and thus less common.  An AR15 can set you back nearly 2 grand in some places versus a few hundred bucks for a handgun.  I think the stats would back up that VTech was an outlier and I am sure there were particular circumstances that led to the shooter being able to kill so many people with a couple of handguns.

    Personally, I think the assult weapons ban misses the mark a bit because the majority of gun violence isn't related to mass shootings or assault rifles, but result from generic criminal activity (drugs, gangs, etc) or domestic situations gone awry and most involve handguns.  That said, I still think we should rethink allowing military style weapons to be sold to the general population, close gun show loopholes, and implement better strategies for dealing with straw purchases which lead directly to gun running and the transfer of legit legal firearms to criminals who would otherwise have a more difficult time getting their hands on the weapon to begin with. 

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Mr. Vice President... I presonally apologize

    In response to FortySixAnd2's comment:

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

     

     

     

    In aggregate, yes.  handguns are more widely available and thus would be used in more gun assaults yielding a higher total number of deaths than say assault rifles that are significantly more expensive than handguns.  An AR15 can set you back nearly 2 grand in some places.  I think the stats would back up that VTech was an outlier and I am sure there were particular circumstances that led to the shooter being able to kill so many people with a couple of handguns.

    Personally, I think the assult weapons ban misses the mark a bit because the majority of gun violence isn't related to mass shootings, but result from generic criminal activity (drugs, gangs, etc) or domestic situations gone awry.  That said, I still think we should rethink allowing military style weapons to be sold to the general population, close gun show loopholes, and implement better strategies for dealing with straw purchases which lead directly to gun running and the transfer of legit legal firearms to criminals who would otherwise have a more difficult time getting their hands on the weapon to begin with. 

     



    The only problem with the assault weapons ban the way it's was written for the 1994 ban is a joke. And AR-15 is only considered an "assault" weapon if it has two or more of: 

     

    So as long as an AR-15 has none of those features it's not an assault weapon. Forget the fact that it still has the shooting power and accuracy of an assault weapon. But hey...it doesn't have a pistol grip or flash suppressor so it's cool.

    Also, a weapons ban is only in regards to manufacturing of said weapons. The millions that are currently owned are still going to be out there. Guns can last several generations when properly cared for. 

     

     

     




    All true, which is what makes confronting the issue very tricky.  If there is an assult weapons ban (doubtful) the gun manufacturers will simply build around it and third party mod experts will make a mint by doing the pretty easy modifications to add in the features that were banned.  And yes, the ban won't do anything about the existing weapons already floating around out there, and no one is going to even try and deal with that wrinkle because if they did, I suspect the looniest owners of those weapons would start shooting people. 

     

Share