Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
DieChecker

Biden's tip for self-defense: Get a shotgun

65 posts in this topic

Judges and Sheriffs don't "grant" permits for full autos. To legally own a full auto, said full auto had to be registered(transferable) prior to May 19, 1986, full auto needs to be legal in your particular state, you have to get signed off by your chief law enforcement officer(you can skip this step with a revocable trust). pay $200 for your tax stamp and wait several months for your background check to clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which, in any case, why the hell do you need an assault rifle in the home anyway for the purposes of defence? Unless you're intent on shooting anything that comes up the street, why the hell is it necessary?

To intimidate and fight off tyrants. That is the final answer. Call it ridiculous or whatever you want to call it but that is the bottom line. You can ask all the questions you want but ultimately that is it. Plain and simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread seems to have been derailed into a discussion as to which is the more effective firearm. Which is better? A handgun? A shotgun? A semi automatic rifle? I say it is best to own all three and then some. To get back on topic, I think we can all agree that the Vice President is a walking gaffe machine. He tells us that shotguns are more effective at killing than "assault rifles" so let's ban "assault rifles". Even an "anti gun" advocate should be able to see the error in Mr. Biden's argument.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except for the fact that, you know, shotguns wouldn't be nearly as effective as assault rifles if the citizens of the country ever decide to revolt in the future. That's the whole point of the 2nd amendment, to protect yourself from threats foreign and domestic.

If someone doesn't go homicidal with a pistol(which causes far, far more deaths than assault rifles), then they probably won't do so with an assault weapon.

I don't know.... Get 100 guys with a 30-06 with a good scope. And get 100 guys with AK-47s. Place them 1 mile apart. Who wins? The rifles have better targeting and range. And can be reloaded quickly enough to wipe out the AK-47 guys before they get close enough to seriously challenge.

Ciitizens armed with hunting rifles would be a real threat to simple infantrymen.

Have to agree though that in a civil war, a assault rifle would overall be better then a shotgun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread seems to have been derailed into a discussion as to which is the more effective firearm. Which is better? A handgun? A shotgun? A semi automatic rifle? I say it is best to own all three and then some. To get back on topic, I think we can all agree that the Vice President is a walking gaffe machine. He tells us that shotguns are more effective at killing than "assault rifles" so let's ban "assault rifles". Even an "anti gun" advocate should be able to see the error in Mr. Biden's argument.

I know..... :w00t: LOL. It was the irony of his statement that made me start this thread.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New zealanders are lousy at Cricket anyway,he'd probably miss.

We don't know anything about these "Black Caps" although we will agree that they are "quite ****". But as for the rest of NZ? I dunno. I can swing a cricket bat pretty good.

Plus, it has a pointy side especially for cracking skulls. You don't get that with a baseball bat.

To intimidate and fight off tyrants. That is the final answer. Call it ridiculous or whatever you want to call it but that is the bottom line. You can ask all the questions you want but ultimately that is it. Plain and simple.

But people were saying a shotgun would be more effective in terms of intimidation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which, in any case, why the hell do you need an assault rifle in the home anyway for the purposes of defence? Unless you're intent on shooting anything that comes up the street, why the hell is it necessary?

Since I never said anything of the sort, I'm assuming we're just throwing out random extremist rhetorical questions. You went left so I assume you want me to go right... OK:

Why do you want to eliminate all firearms?

But people were saying a shotgun would be more effective in terms of intimidation.

Superior to a pistol and safer than a rifle is what a couple of us have said. Aside from shotguns like the one in the video that was posted, fully automatic weapons exist for basically one reason - to pin troops into place so your side can maneuver and the other side can't. A hundred plus rounds a minute doesn't mean you can spend a morning killing thousands of people, just that you can make enough bullets fly around to keep an enemy hiding. As Diechecker pointed out above, if a guy with an assault rifle and a guy with a hunting rifle decided to kill each other at a hundred yards or more and they're both competent shooters the guy with the assault rifle is dead barring a miracle.

All that said, assault rifles (we'll use the common definition of rifles that look militaristic as opposed to the legal definition of a rifle holding a certain amount of ammo or the informed definition of a fully automatic rifle) actually ARE more dangerous than other guns because idiots think they are. When idiots want a gun that looks tough, that's what they go for. It's a lot like how when idiots want to look tough through their dog they invariably choose a pit bull, making pit bulls the breed most likely to have owners who encourage aggression.

Now the impetus for all the recent anti-gun hysteria is the school shootings. The logic, I think, is fewer bullets in a clip means fewer dead kids. Well, until I hear about how someone tackled a school shooter while he was reloading, that logic is going to remain illogical.

Edited by sam12six
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A shotgun is not ideal for room clearing and does not have "area effect". At typical distances inside a house (20 feet or less), even the smallest size birdshot will only "open up" to an area the size of a human fist. It isn't like the movies. A pistol is much more effective in this situation. With a pistol, you can have one hand free for opening doors, operating a light(weapon mounted lights only let the intruder know where to aim) and for pushing back an assailant. That being said, I still keep a 12 gauge loaded with 7 rounds of #4 buckshot in the bedroom for my wife as her pistol skill isn't the most advanced. Hopefully the sound of the slide racking will be enough to scare off a would be attacker in my absence.

That's not true with all shotguns.

I was a at a private shooting range, and the shotgun blew a perfect 2-foot hole through an inverted garbage can from less than 20-feet.

It had a shorter barrel(though still legal) than long-barrel shotguns used for high flying birds. Not sure of the shot load.

Edited by pallidin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know how many times this needs to be said, but they don't want the AR15's and such for home defense, they're for fighting against a tyrannical government. Another correction; we don't generally have assault rifles, getting an automatic or burst weapon is difficult in this country, and requires permits that are only granted by judges and sheriffs.

With how much you insult people about not "graduating grade school", I figured you would get a simple definition correct, and follow a simple statement made by several members here.

As someone who uses assualt rifles on a fairly regular basis (well I guess its going to be less with these budget cuts). I would fear an army with higher caliber hunting rifles than an army with assault rifles.

They outrange you, they out perform you, they penetrate your body armour. Remember the only benefit of an assault rifle is that it can have a high rate of fire, though only really used for trench clearing.

It is accuracy of round not number of rounds, that win a firefight. Machine Guns are area denial weapons, but the rifle is the person killing weapon.

~Thanato

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no need for an arguement of which gun is better. It all depends on the situation. I prefer to have a pistol for personal protection, however if somone is screwing around in my backyard, a shotgun is effective to go out and fire a round into the air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not true with all shotguns.

I was a at a private shooting range, and the shotgun blew a perfect 2-foot hole through an inverted garbage can from less than 20-feet.

It had a shorter barrel(though still legal) than long-barrel shotguns used for high flying birds. Not sure of the shot load.

That didn't happen.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That didn't happen.

Yes it did, and I remember it very well.

The back end of the large plastic garbage can was suddenly blown-out. About 2-feet in diameter; the very end of the can rim was still there.

We were 20-feet or less from it.

I did not fire the shotgun. My friend did.

This was in the 80's. I assume a legal shotgun. Not sure though. It was a shorter barrel than bird-hunting shotguns.

Edited by pallidin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you buy a 2nd hand Apache Helicopter anywhere ?,if not I'll settle for a couple of Handgrenades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it did, and I remember it very well.

The back end of the large plastic garbage can was suddenly blown-out. About 2-feet in diameter; the very end of the can rim was still there.

We were 20-feet or less from it.

I did not fire the shotgun. My friend did.

This was in the 80's. I assume a legal shotgun. Not sure though. It was a shorter barrel than bird-hunting shotguns.

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that the shot pattern was two feet in diameter. Sounds like it just tore the bottom of the can apart at the seams. I assure you had he fired the exact same shell at the exact same distance, it would have left a hole not much bigger than a fist in a paper target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The inference of his statement was intended to say that the shot spread out in a 12-inch radius from the center point with only 20 feet of travel. Ridiculous.

And if the can was inverted, how did he now shoot a perfect 2-foot hole through the back end of a garbage can?

That didn't happen.

Moreover, I've never seen a plastic garbage can with seams along the bottom of it. Plastic containers are molded, so they don't leak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.