Yanno what? Nevermind. I've read everyone else's replies and it's clear none of you have ever handled a firearm.
That's actually pretty funny. Almost everything you've said is wrong, whereas we've been right, so your experience is the only one in question.
And to the man who "did Navy time" (as if volunteering for the armed forces was like prison, lol): fuck you too buddy. Preferably with a supermodel. Really, I thank you for your service, but your attitude could use some work.
But back on everyone else, I'm not going to watch this thread and respond any more, this is all I'll say.
1) Barrel length is irrelevant and you're wrong anyway. Nobody shoots sporting clays with anything less than a 28" barrel, and usually a 32" if you can afford it. Length narrows shot pattern and makes the spread tighter,
false. Longer barrels are preferred because they get more muzzle velocity and longer sight radius(important for hitting moving targets) not to effect spread, spread is effected by the choke.
and helps you hit clays. That said, the barrel length of an AR isn't relevant because, if it isn't a bullpup, the stock sticks out at least 9" to 13" past the chamber, farther on some models, while a shotgun is often as low as 5".
Barrel length is important because barrel is much heavier than stock. Bullpup or not doesn't matter, civilians are limited to weapons with an overall length of 26 inches
The shorter barrel doesn't mean a shorter weapon. And if you're buying a shotgun FOR home defense, you could easily go with a 20 or 28 guage, or even a .410, and the weapon will weigh less than a 9mm M92.
a 20 guage would still kick far harder than a carbine rifle, requiring a heavier weapon. Further, the ammo would be far heavier, adding even more weight to the loaded weapon. While it's true that a 9mm carbine(which would not be a M92) would weigh less, the limited stopping power makes it unideal for home defense. You further prove your ignorance because the M92 is a rifle carbine firing 7.62x39, not 9mm. The Baretta 92 fires 9mm, but that's a handgun and no 4.10 shotgun in the world weighs more than even that full frame 9mm handgun.
2) Spread on a shotgun is a function of the choke used. With a Skeet or Improved Modified choke, yes, you could easily keep the spread pattern as narrow as 2-3 feet at 80+ yards.
with an improved modified choke you'd be lucky to have that spread at 40 yards. At 80 yards even a turkey choke is going to have a spread of five feet or more, if it's even still moving in pattern.
However, for a home defense weapon, a full choke will rapidly expand to a 3 foot diameter at as little as 20 feet.
a full choke is designed for a narrow spread . . . it would have a 3 foot spread at between 35 and 40 yards. Not 20 feet. The widest spread is accomplished with improved cylinder choke, and at 20 feet an improved cylinder choke would have a spread of about 1 foot. Even that choke wouldn't get a 3 foot spread until it was at over 20 yards, long past expected home defense range
As above, this is a matter of buying the right tool for the job. If you want to shoot clays, Skeet (or in my case, an Improved Modified). If you want to kill an intruder, full choke.
It is about tool for the job, but typically home defense shotguns are equipped with a tight pattern choke, to ensure the shot does sufficient damage to stop an attacker, and because they typically use buckshot and since each buckshot pellet is similar in mass and energy to the bullet fired from a handgun, even one missed pellet could punch through several walls potentially killing a neighbor or a family member, and you're legally responsible for every single pellet.
3) Velocity on a shotgun pellet is very low compared to a handgun or rifle.
compared to a rifle yes. You're average centerfire rifle will boast a muzzle velocity of about 2000 feet per second(fps) and magnum rifles top in at a wopping 3000 fps, compared to a shotgun that boasts between 1200 and 1500 fps depending on barrel length and load size. However, the popular self-defense handgun calibers(9mm parabellum and .45acp) boast muzzle velocities much lower than shotgun rounds, 700-1000 fps for .45acp and 1000-1200 fps for 9mm. So even the fasted self-defense handgun load will barely overtake the slowest shotgun load.
That doesn't mean it's slow, and I wasn't saying it was. Whereas a rifle bullet will simply pass right through a wall, and a 9mm or .357 pistol round will richchet if it hits a wall stud
actually they'll punch clean through a wall stud no problem[/quote], a standard Size 8 or 9 buckshot will simply embed itself in the sheetrock.[/quote]now you're just being ludicrous. I can put my fist through sheetrock, are you really suggesting I punch harder than buckshot hits it's target? Buckshot will tear through both pieces of sheetrock for several walls.
This I know from my cousin's encounter with the intruder. While he did shoot the guy through a door, it was a hollow plyboard door. The man had to have about 30 splinters pulled out of him at the hospital, but he was very much alive. I wish he hadn't been on some level, but he was. The intruder had filed down a Mac-10 to fire full auto and showered my cousin's living room with 31 9mm rounds (a 30 round extended mag, plus the chamber round) which fortunately woke him up. They found a lot of pockmarks but all of the bullets eventually settled on the floor, albeit some on the floor in adjacent rooms. Pistol rounds ricochet like crazy. This is a fact.
see why didn't you lead with that? Now I know you're lying. Unless your cousin lives in a metal house. 9mm rounds will punch through several walls, and will in no way ricochet around after hitting sheetrock.
So that's all. I'm not going to check back here or counterpoint yall any more. Argue or don't. My opinion remainds: revolutionary war era weapons, including shotguns. Nothing else should be legal.
Well, after discovering that you are obviously lying only at the end of this post, I feel like I can only justify the time I spent on it if I post it anyway.
I believe we should use a method of gun ownership more similar to car ownership. You'd need to get a gun license after you can prove that you're responsible enough to possess a gun. Of course I would also allow a non user gun owner status, in case you collect antique firearms or inherit any guns.
This is a poor analogy for 2 reasons.
1) You don't need a licence to own a car, you only need a licence if you're going to drive it on public roads.
2) The majority of car deaths are caused by irresponsible or unsafe use. In contrast, only a very small number of gun deaths are caused by irresponsible or unsafe use. The majority of gun deaths are caused intentionally, proving that you know how to use the gun safely won't stop you from harming yourself or attacking others with it.
The vast majority of deaths by guns come from handguns and almost none from anything else. It would make more sense to ban handguns first, but people don't like thinking so they decide to ban the scary looking guns first. The scary looking guns (other names could be "military grade" "assault" and so on) are by and large owned by trust worthy law abiding citizens who say they use them for self defense or hunting but really (and there's nothing wrong with this imo) are just gun enthusiasts who like shooting cool guns at the range.
The reasoning in the OP should be reversed, it should be concerned about the small concealable weapons, unless the OP just doesn't like people who like guns because he has some kind of twisted, not-based-in-reality, squeaky clean, totalitarian society in mind. Hey OP, just because you don't like someone's hobby doesn't mean you get to ban them from participating in it, hoplophobe.
I personally think if a person doesn't seem to be mentally unstable or criminally inclined they should be allowed to have anything they want, short of a nuclear bomb I suppose.
The problem with this logic is that the majority of handguns are also owned by trustworthy law abiding citizens. Also, small concealable weapons are also the only guns that can really be used for self-defense outside the home, and evidence would suggest that they are used for self defense many many times more often than they are used to commit crime.