Guns : A simple solution

[spartan231490]

The reason those bullets shattered in mythbusters was because of the angle of impact.

If you want to discuss things properly, please take your time to learn about them. It has nothign to do with the angle of the impact buy the violence of the negative acceleration.
snip

Really, because I actually watched the episode, did you? They shot straight down into water and all of their bullets were in-tact at the bottom. However, when they shot at a 20 degree angle, they disintegrated almost instantly. It's not the negative acceleration that's the problem, that causes mushrooming and deformation not disintegration. What caused the bullets to tear themselves apart was hitting the water at an angle which decelerated the bullet unevenly, slicing it apart with it's own inertia.

Any hunter can tell you that bullets don't break apart when they hit a body, it's common to pull said bullets out of the body more or less in-tact. Hell, I've pulled a shot-gun slug out of a tree(much more dense than water), and out of snow-men(we made them to catch our bullets) in tact before. I've known people who keep all the bullets out of their deer kills, my cousin has the bullet that killed his first buck on a necklace in tact.

http://www.nosler.com/bullets/ballistic-tip.aspx
did you think mushrooming is a term that was invented, did you think that the geneva convention banned the use of hollow points and other expanding or fragmenting ammunition for no reason? Most bullets do not shatter on impact with flesh, even bones won't usually cause sever shattering.

 

[spartan231490]

Shotgun is not the best home defense tool, that's a myth. As he says in shooter "that shotgun's a little long to bring up fast" You're best home defense tool is a tactical semi-auto shotgun, followed by a semi-auto assault style rifle, followed by a semi-auto handgun, then you're average everyday shotgun. But that's assuming you somehow have forewarning of the home invasion, since you usually don't, the best home defense weapon is a handgun. You also completely ignore self-defense outside of the home, which is more common, and requires a handgun.

You have the wrong idea, further restricting guns would not reduce crime rates or death rates, and so you have absolutely no justification for infringing upon my right to have them.

I suppose that's more a matter of preference. I won't disagree that a Tac Shottie would be better (but I'm pretty sure is illegal in California), I'm not so sure on the assault style semi-auto rifle. You might want to give a few pros/cons on that.

Handguns have the advantage of being small an maneuverable and are excellent as a PDW, but in a home invasion type scenario I gotta think that the aim required to be effective is a little too demanding.

Neither are necessarily illegal in california, they would just need to have only one of the accessories on their list. God the "assault weapon" bans in this country are so stupid. The difference between legal and banned is completely unrelated to function

The aim to use any weapon in a real self-defense situation is demanding, it requires thousands of practice shots. Most self-defense instructors recommend firing at least 1000 rounds of your preferred expensive ammunition through the gun before you can be sure it's reliable enough and you're comfortable enough to use it in a real self-defense situation.

That said, if you do that you will be accurate enough that the faster sighting and faster follow up shots far outweigh the slight benefits offered by a shotgun. In a home invasion scenario multiple, armed attackers isn't beyond the norm, and with a typical shotgun you're follow-up shots(due to long reload and heavy recoil and long barrel) are way too slow. Realize, the average attack occurs at around 7 yards, even poor accuracy at that range is usually enough to hit center of mass, even with a handgun. If you do miss, it's because you're panicking, and you'd have probably missed with the shotgun anyway, and you'll get a second chance to hit your target much faster with a handgun. You can also keep a handgun in more places(cuz of it's size) including on you're person, making it easier and faster to get to. It's also small enough that the attackers might not notice it until you start shooting, you're average shotgun on there other hand is much bigger.

You can't exactly lean a shotgun against your favorite recliner , company might complain. Having a handgun in the desk-drawer next to your recliner, however, is fairly easy. Also, with a double-action handgun you get the advantage of being able to shoot without chambering a round or flicking a safety first, but the gun isn't going to go off accidentally, and small children can't fire it if they manage to find it(though if they do you had it in the wrong place). None of that is true for shotguns.

Hmm...you make good points. I wish there was information on DGUs that are comparative but so far as I know, none exist. 'Course my bedroom is a long way from my front door, separated by a long hallway. It's a pretty effective chokepoint with any weapon, but I would think that the shotgun would get the fastest, most reliable results given the practical guarantee of multiple hits.

You're right though, shotties have a high action:fire ratio, but once they fire - they're devastating. Further, the best defense weapon is the weapon you're most comfortable with. I'm a freaking surgeon with a shotgun and a rifle, not so good with a pistol though.

You never said anything about a choke point. I'll take the shotgun with a choke point, that maximizes it's advantages and minimizes it's disadvantages. It really depends on what you're comfortable with and what you need. If you only have to worry about home invasions at night, a shotgun is fine because you'll probably have a few seconds of warning(hearing them break down the door/window) and something of a choke point(bedroom door or hallway). If however, you need something to protect you against possible day-time home invasions, or for self-defense on the street, the handgun is the only practical option. I was just pointing out that just saying you only need a shotgun for self-defense is a rather inaccurate statement. It depends on the situation, I say handguns are best because they're the most versatile because you can take them with you and store them in more places, but sometimes shotgun is best. Maybe you live in the middle of nowhere where wall penetration isn't a big concern and you want to be able to shoot your attackers through your door, then a small rifle is probably best, something like a AR-15, or a short-barreled .243.

 

[the December King]

I think you should have the 'right to bear arms'... if you can, and do, make your own hand guns or shotguns!

Actually, I'm not sure about that, but it is an interesting premise. It would never work in a capitalist society - too much money is at stake - but it would mean that the owners would know their weapons well, because they made them, and know how to properly take care of them. You would get a license to build it, then construct it, and then it would be evaluated and registered by an appropriate, or delegated, authority.

It's just a thought, mind you.

 

[senordesol]

You never said anything about a choke point. I'll take the shotgun with a choke point, that maximizes it's advantages and minimizes it's disadvantages. It really depends on what you're comfortable with and what you need. If you only have to worry about home invasions at night, a shotgun is fine because you'll probably have a few seconds of warning(hearing them break down the door/window) and something of a choke point(bedroom door or hallway). If however, you need something to protect you against possible day-time home invasions, or for self-defense on the street, the handgun is the only practical option. I was just pointing out that just saying you only need a shotgun for self-defense is a rather inaccurate statement. It depends on the situation, I say handguns are best because they're the most versatile because you can take them with you and store them in more places, but sometimes shotgun is best. Maybe you live in the middle of nowhere where wall penetration isn't a big concern and you want to be able to shoot your attackers through your door, then a small rifle is probably best, something like a AR-15, or a short-barreled .243.

Well then it sounds like we agree that all options should be open and available to any law abiding citizen who wants them. Because that's the thing: Self defense is all about effectiveness for your given circumstances. So I was, indeed, incorrect in saying 'nothing beats a shotgun'; more accurately it should have been 'nothing beats a shotgun for my house'.

Self defense is a very personal choice which is why I think gun owners/supporters are prone to defend our decision.

 

[ElPatron]

Really, because I actually watched the episode, did you?

No because Discovery. I never got to see what bullets they fired off straight.

Any hunter can tell you that bullets don't break apart when they hit a body

Because hunting rounds were specifically designed not to ruin meat. Same can't be said for much cheaper ammunition.

And I honestly, hunting rifles which are hard to conceal aren't that common in crimes.

Hell, I've pulled a shot-gun slug out of a tree(much more dense than water)

If that kind of wood floated in water, then it was less dense.

Plus, independently of density we also have the problem of tensile strengths. You can make a block of ballistics gel with the same density as flesh but have the mechanical properties all wrong.

and out of snow-men(we made them to catch our bullets) in tact before.

Frozen water is less dense than water (that's why it floats and full bottles burst in the freezer) and besides, snow has air pockets.

did you think mushrooming is a term that was invented, did you think that the geneva convention banned the use of hollow points and other expanding or fragmenting ammunition for no reason? Most bullets do not shatter on impact with flesh, even bones won't usually cause sever shattering.

1. Geneva convention never banned hollow points. The Hague Convention did. The US never signed it.

2. I said that many kinds of bullets will break apart in water, not "on impact" (that's quite drastic)

3. 5.56 NATO is a fragmenting round. It was never banned by the Hague conventions and is used by many European and Asian countries.

My point was to disprove the myth that bullets will retain their shape and conveniently give a gun's serial number. Which honestly is stupid.

I admit I was wrong on the Mythbusters thing and it was a poor example. But my main point stands.

I think you should have the 'right to bear arms'... if you can, and do, make your own hand guns or shotguns!

Actually, I'm not sure about that, but it is an interesting premise. It would never work in a capitalist society - too much money is at stake - but it would mean that the owners would know their weapons well, because they made them, and know how to properly take care of them. You would get a license to build it, then construct it, and then it would be evaluated and registered by an appropriate, or delegated, authority.

It's just a thought, mind you.

It is legal in the United States (in some states it's not) to create your own firearms as long as they are not built with "intent to sell" or a NFA item. I.E. someone from your family might inherit it if you can no longer own it.

However, if you kill anyone with home-made weapons or ammo, it's possible that the family sues you for "malicious intent". Then some lawyer will claim in court that you're such a nut that you don't think that commercially available good are "lethal enough".

 

[Guybythestreet]

-snip-

Ah, a gun-nut. Well actually the figures I was looking at were deaths per 100k so the total population of the country doesn't really matter. The US was 10.27 per 100k, Canada at 4.78 and England and Wales at 0.46. Trending towards... guns are bad. Interestingly enough in the US, 68% of murders are with firearms and approx 70% of those are handguns. Trending towards... handguns are bad. But I am fully aware that solid facts and figures can't win over crazy so feel free to ignore all that because Jesus didn't kill the devil with a knife...

Though I sort of agree with the non-Americans shouldn't complain about laws in the United States. The only reason we would have to complain is if there should be a need for "the voice of reason" anywhere in the arguement. I mean, there's no way that a sane solution would occure locally now is there?

First, what % of gun related deaths are suicides and accidents (people being idiots about gun safety, children accidentally firing a gun).

Second why does 60% of murders being gun related make it any worse than 40% of deaths being gun related? Less % of deaths being gun related isn't necessarily any better than ALL the deaths being gun related. The idea, as far as I'm aware is that with gun control you will see the TOTAL AMOUNT OF DEATHS go down by some %.

Third, you're an asshole, I made a point that people should bring up statistics, and you did and I applaud you for such. But then you go and make it out as if I will just call your statistics wrong which I am not. But why don't you give me relevant statistics.

I will concede to you that 70% of gun related deaths being via handgun a strong point for more control for handguns. But I would still like to know (relating to the first point) what % of handgun related deaths are suicides and accidents. Also important is what % of civilian owned guns in the united states are handguns. If (for an imaginary example) 99% of guns owned by civilians were handguns then it would seem natural. On the hand if only 1% of civilian owned firearms were handguns it would be a truly eye-opening statistics. And to be specific, since you seem totally willing to look for research like a proper person should, I am asking what % of civilians that own guns own A handgun.

Lastly, "The only reason we would have to complain is if there should be a need for "the voice of reason" anywhere in the argument." Whether or not people living in other countries like American policies that apply only in American is arbitrary. I can make critical comments about China, Iran, Greece, Turkey and any other country I want to. "Oh hur I don't like England because they have gun-control, I believe people should have a right to own a handgun and the English should heed my comments because I claim that my side is the "voice of reason". You're an asshole.

 

[Smagmuck_]

FRONT END OF BULLET LIGHTER THAN BACK. BACK OF BULLET HAS MORE MASS, THEREFORE MORE INERTIA. WHEN FRONT OF BULLET HITS SOFT TARGET, PHYSICS SAY WHEN YOU CHANGE MEDIUM YOU CHANGE DIRECTION. IF YOU DRIVE CAR FAST ON ROAD AND ENTER A BEACH, CAR WILL TURN. WHY? FRONT WHEELS DO NOT HAVE AS MUCH GRIP AND LOSE VELOCITY.

LET'S TALK BULLETS AGAIN. WHEN BULLET HITS SOFT TISSUE, FRONT END OF BULLET WILL GO SLOWER. BACK OF BULLET HAS MORE INERTIA SO IT WILL KEEP GOING FURTHER. SO BULLET WILL CHANGE DIRECTION VIOLENTLY AND TUMBLE. WHEN SOFT LEAD IS BENT, THE CANNELURE IS CRITICAL WEAK SPOT. BULLET WILL BREAK APART.

Oh man, this takes me back, I remember Ivan. Damn shame he's dead. I'm gonna miss him.

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

First of all, I appreciate that you're not one of those:
"I HATE GUNS AND THEREFORE YOU'RE WRONG!" or "I LIKE GUNS AND THEREFORE YOU'RE WRONG!"
kind of guy.
You have some nice argumentation there. But I agree and disagree with you.

People pro guns say :
We want to defend ourselves.
Weapons protect as much as they attack.
When we sell the guns we know who owns them(meaning crime should be easier to detect).
Guns don't kill people, people kill people
Owning guns can be a Hobby
I like to hunt hunting is not illegal, for hunting I need guns.
I like to shoot at the shooting range, it's a hobby

Any solid arguments to add here I will consider but none will change the outcome of the discussion.

People anti guns say :
Guns should not be freely available
Guns cause death
Civilians do not need assault rifles
Guns are nothing but tools of destruction (they serve no other purpose)

Any solid arguments to add here I will consider but none will change the outcome of the discussion.

Pretty much this. I'd like to add this one as "anti gun" argument:
You don't need tons of guns to "defend yourself". (See further down for a detailed explanation what I'm up to)
Besides that the "crime should be easier to detect" is not a "pro-gun" argument, as blackmarkets and legal markets coexist anyway and it's just an assumption from you side. It does not really speak for guns.

The moot point here seems to be : I want to protect vs I don't want people to get hurt.

I think the conclusion should be its absurd to own anything other than a shotgun(People have pointed out this is the most effective and least obscure Home defense tool) unless you're a licensed huntsman which should allow you a rifle, or a soldier which should allow you any weapon you've been trained to use as long as you're on duty.

And there the problems start.
You know, I assume that you have enough common sense to realize that the majority of people have no idea what they're talking about. That's not meant offensive, but I think the both of us wouldn't choose some random persons if we'd be given the power to replace certain politicians. Another example is the nuclear-power debate (here in Germany very prominent). The people who are against it say that they're against it and it's accepted. If one says he's not against it, people will flame the shit out of him if he doesn't have some good arguments. The people against it can have no clue what they're talking about, because people won't ask anyway.

To get back on the gun-debate.
Those "hobby-rambos" and "keyboard-warriors" don't understand that life is NOT like movies/games at all. Yeah, most people know that, but don't understand to what degree they differ.
What I'm up to is that no-one (99% as there are always special cases) can argue that he needs a shotgun purely for self-defense when you tell him that you can easily kill people with a 9mm or even a smaller hand-gun. It doesn't take a shotgun to stop an attacker. One shot to the legs with a small pistol and he won't go anywhere anymore. If he still is a threat, you can take another shot. But using a shotgun for self-defense is literally an overkill. And saying that you "NEED" one is a lie. Those people (mostly) don't "need" a shotgun, but simply want one and just use the "self-defense" as cheap excuse for some arbitrary reason.
Most people don't know how much the human body can really take unless they:
a) studied medicine or something like this
b) already got shot/experienced its limits
c) do martial arts and experienced its limits that way.
While you often hear that the human body is capable of much more than the ordinary person believes, Hollywood, etc. give people a wrong idea in which way.

My point being : Banning all guns just like banning all drugs and all alcohol only leads to people obtaining them illegaly and overpowering people with ease who wouldn't ever dream of stepping into that world.
Gun sales to civilians should be limited to Shotguns/Rifles. Well documented,Well registered and fairly supplied.

This is true. Banning, won't stop the blackmarket. If you want't guns, you'll get them one way or another.

Nice examples though.
Probably the biggest problem is the storage. Who needs an entire armory at home? Besides that you cannot control if people store their guns safely, or they're just lying around at home.

I Concur, but when we take a look at both sides in the argument and want to reach a conlusion then sometimes the line is drawn closer and sometimes the line is drawn more distant than we want.

I found the man who argued for shot guns as homedefense tools to have a compelling argument so that's what I took into account (the reasoning behind it etc.)

I do also agree on the storage issue , it's just there nobody can deny it.

That Sam keeps his guns safely behind lock'n key in a strongbox doesn't mean David does it as well.
(What I'm seeing here in this thread is that gun owners tend to generalize themselves for their benefit : "All gun owners store their guns safely we aren't stupid" would be an example of that.

 

[senordesol]

If one is proficient with any gun that's alright. However, how do you expect somebody who's not proficient with a pistol to be proficient with a shotgun? The shotgun is just more forgiving because of the spread. It's still random shooting, but even more dangerous for others, as the weapon is more dangerous.

That's like asking how someone can be effective with a sword if they're not effective with a knife. Two different weapons, two different fighting styles.

I'm way better with my shotgun than a pistol. Mainly because I practice with my shottie more. There are different types of shotguns and there are different types of pistols. I have a 12 Gauge Mossberg. The only pistols I've practiced with are an M9 Barretta and a .22 deringer. I'm crap with both of those, but an expert with my shotgun. I might not be as effective with a 10ga from a different manufacturer though, it's all about the feel and control of the weapon.

 

[TheMann]

Completely avoiding the main topic of gun control, so apologies in advance.

and the majority of Americans are rightfully unwilling accept false promises of safety in exchange for their personal liberties.

I just had to pick up on this part.

What exactly do you consider the Patriot Act, and the 2012 NDAA? I see or hear nothing about Americans rising up in mass protest at the prospect of indefinite military detention just because you said something the Govt doesn't like. (Honestly, anyone that believes the powers that be wouldn't abuse this, or any other method open to them in a heartbeat to suit themselves are incredibly naive, that applies to any Govt, not just in the US)

Ah yes, you raise a very valid point here. First off, the Patriot Act isn't quite as extreme as that, the government doesn't lock people up merely for saying things that they don't like. Many people, including myself, have publicly said some very unkind things about the government and I'm sure as hell not writing this from a cell in Gitmo. But regardless, here's the thing about the Patriot Act. A good deal of Americans are extremely pissed about what it has done, however, you have to consider the time when it was put into effect. The Patriot Act was put into effect very soon after the September 11th attack and emotions were running very high in this country.

I don't know if you're American, but if you're not I'll tell you in a nutshell what happened. We generally don't have knee-jerk reactions to things like this killing in Colorado, as horrible as that was. However, 12 dead is nothing compared to 3000 people dead. The fact that this was the worst attack on US soil in history, combined with the fact that the perpetrators were foreign aggressors, only gave rise to increased fear in the public. Therefore, the belief was this might protect us from from pissed off foreign extremists that just to kill people and fuck shit up. And yes it was a form of naivete and more importantly a simple failure to read the fine print.

However, gun control is a completely different animal, in a sense. Unlike the Patriot Act (which our government has indeed abused the shit out of), most US citizens know for a damn fact that gun control doesn't work, and will never work here. We have read the fine print and are very aware of crime statistics, and know that the proposed bans on certain weapons will do nothing to reduce violent crime as these sorts of firearms are almost never used by criminals. There actually was a bullshit "assault weapons ban" between 1994 and 2004, but after it failed to reduce gun crime at all, Congress decided not to renew it. Handguns are overwhelmingly the weapons of choice in crime, and even then those shouldn't be banned because we feel that people have the right to protect themselves on the streets where, let's face it, they're far more likely to be attacked. in fact, so many people are spared being the victims of violent crime because they were armed (primarily from rape) that banning those is unjustifiable. That sort of thing is never on the news simply because it's so common that it's hardly news. Not to mention the fact that when someone pulls a gun on an assailant, they never have to pull the trigger over 90% of the time.

Another great example of people shooting something down here is SOPA. One of the major reasons it got permanently shelved is because there was immense public pressure not to pass it. Many people wrote letters to their representatives saying, in so many words, that if they voted for SOPA they'd be out of a job come the next election cycle.

So, sometimes we let bullshit slip by, but we try not to. You brought up a good point so I did my best to address it... in a post that is way too long.

 

[ElPatron]

No, but if you'd be learning some kind of martial art that is meant for self-defense, you would know that (given that the school isn't crap) you'll actually learn how to handle such a situation.
Because in the end of the day, it doesn't matter if you defend yourself with a shotgun, rifle, submachine-gun or your fists once you start to panic and loose control of the situation and yourself.
You learn how to prevent that. And staying calm in such a situation is beneficial no matter if you use guns or not.

Who the hell uses a submachine gun for self defense? Whoever does that deserves a *****-slap.

1. Low powered calibers does not equal low powered, because everything is relative. You won't bring down an elephant with a 9mm, but it's more than enough for a human.

http://vimeo.com/31172405
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/01/11/man-survives-9mm-head-shot/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords (shot in the head)


Handgun rounds will some times not stop a person.

2. You don't shoot/put/give cancer on your attacker. In fact, you don't even defend yourself with it. So it's an unnecessary comparison.

It is a fair comparison. Cancer kills slowly. You want the enemy to stop, not his death. So

3. There will be no 100%. NEVER!

Thanks for repeating what I said. I said "as closest to 100%" as possible. Shotguns have the highest rate of "one-shot-stops" compared to any other home defense firearms.

If somebody cannot handle handguns, that person should learn it.

I.E. if a woman does not have enough strength to handle a handgun, instead of giving her a pistol caliber short-barrel rifle you prefer that she stays defenseless.

If that somebody is too stupid/handicapped/old to learn it, that person should get no handgun for the sake of damage-control.

I.E. Handicaps and old people have no rights to self-defense.

You wouldn't give somebody who failed to get his driving license too often a big car so it's not that bad anymore if he drives on the sidewalk.

So if a person can't drive a car (handgun) you also take his ability to ride a bicycle?

1. It's all a question of what you've learned. If one learns to only shoot at the lower body, he will say the direct opposite.

>Police
>military
>concealed carry licensees

None are trained to shoot at the legs.

2. They're no small target. Take a look on that picture: LINK [http://www.tptherapy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Run_Front.jpg]

Yes they are. Not only I have to change my stance to aim low, which might cause me to miss, but you also chose a pic of runners, which have developed muscles.

The guy in the middle is like an attacker running directly towards you. Cut off the arms and the head and you'll see that the legs are a little bit smaller than the upper body and, by no means, a veeeeeery small target. But I do get your point. You just exaggerated a fair bit.

Because they have muscular legs. Not only that, but any hit could break the femur or sever important arteries.

3. Yeah, but if you hit the head, throat, solar-plexus, heart (directly),... you won't? That was kind of my point when I said that people have no idea how much the human body can take. You know that you kill someone when you shoot his femoral artery. However, the upper body has much more critical points, because it contains your organs (unlike your legs).

When you shoot someone, you have to use lethal force. If you do not use lethal force, you're admitting that the situation was not serious enough to warrant the use of a firearm.

By shooting at the legs, you might kill someone while at the same time admitting that you had no excuse to kill that person. If the accusation has a good lawyer, you can get prison time for homicide.

Like I said, in the Netherlands they are very strict when it comes to firearms in self-defense.

Try to explain if court that you feared for your life when you took a perfect shot on someone's leg. If I am not mistaken, in the Netherlands if you actually use a gun for self-defense your shots have to be CENTER-MASS, not anywhere else or you might lose in court.

Again, if you're in panic what you and I said here doesn't apply anymore, as the outcome of such a "fight" is more than just uncertain. But given that you're calm and the attacker is NOT already standing in front of you*, it's about aiming a little bit further down and shooting. As you see on the image from earlier, the legs are no small target.

If you are not in panic then the situation does not warrant lethal force.

Cops are in panic when they shoot in self-defense. One thing is being in the military, having a rifle and shooting at people 300m away - it's tense, you're in fear from your life but you're trained for it.

When someone jumps at you and you have to decide weather or not to shoot, draw the gun and fire, you're in panic. If cops feel it when they shoot in self-defense then I don't think civilians should be trained to become emotionless hitmen/hitwomen.

*If he's already in front of you, no shotgun or pistol will help. In VERY close combat a knife or your fists are more practicable, as your attacker won't let you point your gun at him.

I know you won't believe this, but people actually able to shoot at point blank. Most self-defense cases do not even involve iron sights because they are very close ranged shots.

You can shoot a handgun close to your hip. I can move my firing hand back and grab a shotgun by the barrel. Don't even need to point it if someone is close enough to be almost stabbing me.

Yeah, but you're hunting to kill. And you're defending yourself to survive and not to kill.

Are you serious?

Again, why don't we hunt with diseases? You use calibers suitable for hunting not only for the purpose of killing, but also prevent unnecessary suffering. That's why you shoot center mass. Not the head, not the ass, but where the vitals are.

A .22LR will kill a lot game in Europe, and you're hunting to kill. However, just missing by an inch might cause the animal to run away with a small wound.

As stated earlier: The outcome depends more on your mentality and the situation than your weapon of choice. Instead of giving you a weapon that might add 1% to your "efficiency", you should focus on improving yourself, because that's what matters in the end. No weapon will safe you if you're in panic and to afraid to use it.

Wrong. Different weapons have different effects.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/handgun-stopping-power

If one is proficient with any gun that's alright. However, how do you expect somebody who's not proficient with a pistol to be proficient with a shotgun?

Because stock and higher shot count/shot. Pistols do not have stocks.

The shotgun is just more forgiving because of the spread.

WRONG. The weapon ensures a high hit probability and more stopping power.

The spread of a shotgun is not "forgiving" in home-defense ranges. Like I said, it's about 1" for every yard.

The longest distance in my house is 7 yards. That's 7 inches and just enough to cover the center mass of a human.

Plus, unless you are using plated buckshot normal pistol caliber Jacketed Hollow Points will penetrate trough more walls, posing a higher danger to innocent bystanders. Your argument about the spread being a danger is not always true.

Fun-fact 2: So this won't stop an attacker? [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYPjblOPMZE]

Fun fact: watermelons are not human tissue.

But how nice of you to include .357 Mag, .44 Mag and .50 AE

Revolver calibers? Revolvers are harder to use than semi-automatic pistols, and if you want to fire .44 Mag in a dark and silent night, you'll end up blinding and deafening yourself. Not to mention the poor recoil recovery of those calibers, and the higher bore-axis of a revolver (which causes more muzzle flip).

Nothing against .357 Mag, it's a fine caliber if you want to defend yourself, but most women and elderly can't even shoot it properly.

I understand how you look at this. However different self-defense instructors say/believe in different things.

There is no firearms instructor in the world that will tell you "don't get a shotgun" unless you specifically tell him that you have any kind of disability to use them.

Besides that I don't believe in death-penalty and also cannot respect self-defense when it's meant to kill.

I never said anything about the death penalty. But killing in self-defense can happen. Don't want to kill anyone? Don't defend yourself, because even a strong kick to the chin has a slight change of fucking up the spine.

You're asking for incapacitation. As soon as possible.

SOME gun-owners have a tolerance for killing people that is so big, that I'm literally afraid of meeting them IRL. I don't care if they call it self-defense or whatever. I'm afraid of people who say that they have no problem killing people if "some situation here".

They are also some of the nicest people I have ever met.

When you live in a world where people will break into your house and rape you just so that you become too embarrassed to report to the police (there is an estimation of 52% of rapes not being reported in the US), you start to feel that people breaking into your house are not just looking for money.

You just defended the use of torture as means of self-defense. GG.

No, I didn't.
That's not torture, as I'm not doing it for the sake of it, but because I was fearing for my life. Besides that it's one of three outcomes when you shoot somebody:
1. Instant death
2. Slow death
3. Pain, but survive

Thing is... after being shot pain doesn't kick in quickly. Even if you're not on drugs. I have contacted with police officers and shooters who had NDs and it seems like most people won't feel the pain for the first minutes. Which are enough for an attacker to keep running at you.

Once I almost lost a finger in the EH-101 hook mechanism and the only thing that hurt was being stitched in parts I had not been anesthetized. If I wasn't bleeding so much I wouldn't even notice the cut that reached bone.

So if you're not shooting to incapacitate, it's like hunting and aiming for the butt of the animal - it's inhumane as the only thing it causes is unnecessary pain.

You're the kind of person that doesn't be allowed guns.

Don't care, as I don't want to have one anyway. ;P

So why are you pretending to have any knowledge in a field you hardly know?

 

[Royas]

Canada doesn't allow the sale of any but hunting-type guns, really (there are exceptions), but people still get shot here all the damn time. My city is full of guns (not Toronto) and people are killed all the time. Banning guns doesn't work - it's all a societal and social issue. Most crimes wouldn't happen if the poor and marginalized people were better taken care of and given the same respect as everyone else. ... That gets into big issues, especially here in my city, though, as my city is incredibly racist. It's hard to deal with, how badly we treat certain peoples. I would go so far as to say we're as bad as the south 50 years ago - except it's all done under the guise of "political correctness". It's no wonder we're the murder capital of Canada.

I never said ban all guns I voted for restrictions to satisfy both sides

For example : A M1911 with 1-3 clips is by law acceptable and registered to the person that owns it, an AK74 is now banned under all circumstances.

So my question is, what happens to those of us who own an ak74/47?

Originally I wanted to quote that crazy ole bastard Charlie Heston and say "From my cold dead hands" but I own a semi-automatic AK-47 clone. I don't want to kill scores of people, I want to target shoot with my family and hunt deer for their delicious meat. Sure there are other firearms for that purpose but this is the one I chose. Maybe people fear the firearm I own but I've followed the letter of the law.

this is the only viable reason I could accept to own such a weapon although my counterpoint would be that in my opinion Hunting is either a proffesion or a sport and you should restrict that to guns that were meant for hunting in the first place (Not oldskool soviet military kit)

Please pardon my inability to properly explain my opinion because I don't have that kind of vast knowledge of guns because we simply don't have them here.

All I wanted was to put a halt to the eternal debate and conclude that in a simple solution:
Allow the usage of guns that is sensible and then stop complaining.
Meaning : A Huntsman is allowed to own a rifle, A civilian a Handgun and Law enforcement/Military their standard kit.

Honestly can anyone PROPERLY explain to me why you'd need a rifle a shotgun an assault weapon or anything other than that in an urban environment?

Has nothing to do with need, my friend. It has to do with want. First, assault weapons (Odin's blood, I hate that term, there really is no such thing outside of made up definitions in some stupid laws) are just plain fun to shoot targets with. Some states, semi-automatic military style rifles are legal to hunt with. Some people prefer them for home defense, and as any sensible person knows, the best gun for home defense is one you are comfortable with.

Second, shotguns. The single best home defense firearm available. Deadly at short to medium ranges, requires less practice to be effective, the rounds generally will not penetrate walls to threaten people outside the home, and they are intimidating as all hell. Also, most commonly used for hunting of everything from deer to quail. You seriously want to ban those? I can honestly say that of all the gun bans I've heard suggested, that's probably the least common, such an idea isn't going to get a lot of traction. Even suggesting that will get not just the self-defense crowd howling, but also the hunters and the clay shooters. That would be ugly, because that's a helluva lot of people, literally tens of millions.

The most important point people forget when suggesting any kind of gun ban is this: Who is going to try to collect all of these guns? There's over 200 million guns in the USA, many owned by people who would be hostile to the idea of giving them up. Do you want to be the police officer who comes knocking at the door? A lot of people would end up getting dead, on both sides of the line. In the USA, we are past the point of being able to get rid of firearms, there are too many of them and they are too ingrained in our culture. You'd have an easier time outlawing meat.

 

[mirage202]

*snip*

First off, thanks for the response, much appreciated over the usual chest beating to be found on the internet.

I may not get this in order, as I'll just write it down as my mind forms it.

1/ I do agree in part, that the Patriot Act, at the time, was viable, and vital. It was however the indefinite extension of the act, also signed by Bush, that gives first cause for concern.

2/ You didn't actually pass any comment on the 2012 National Defence Authorisation Act, that is the one that allows the US Govt to swear, without burden of proof, that a US Citizen is a terrorist and can then be detained indefinitely by the US military without trial.

3/ Sept 11th 2001 I remember all too well the death count, I was just home from a half day at school, turned on the TV which was left on Sky News the previous night, just in time to hear the announcement that a plane had crashed into the WTC, and everyone frantically trying to figure out what could possibly have gone wrong for this to happen. I then sat dumbstruck as live on TV the second plane smashed into the south tower and the realisation dawned that this was a deliberate attack.

4/ I am not an American, my wife however is, coming from NE Philly. I am a Londoner through and through, and as such, I grew up in a city that was subjected nightly to Luftwaffe bombs, though thankfully I missed that by many decades. I did however grow up in the city, at a time when the threat, and the execution, of terrorist bombings from the IRA, Real IRA and Provisional IRA were ongoing. The fear was real, but it wasn't encouraged and fed by the state. I will admit here I am a little peeved with the "With us or against us" attitude displayed by a large number of Americans over 9/11, yet the IRA held public fundraisers in the US to fund their bombings in the UK, and to pay for their arms shipments from Libya, where was the support and outrage for our plight during that time? That though isn't really relevant.

I suppose my point with this particular part is that, not even during the blitz, did the government attempt to keep the people living in fear, while slowly eroding our freedoms. I guess I'm wondering what has changed, that now they think they can, and much worse are, getting away with it.

5/ Following on from #4. Here in Europe, over thousands of years we have suffered our share of despots, facists, tyrants, whatever else you can think of. I dislike the EU for a few reasons, and yet support it for many others, most notably the way the EU courts will stand up for the common man almost without fail, even if sometimes misguided to benefit the criminal and not the victim. (Unless you of course believe the conspiracy theorists who think this is the Germans, creating the Fourth Reich trying once more to take control but this time through economic rather than military means.)

I can't help but wonder if the US, despite having mostly all come from Europe at some point, is doomed to repeat our mistakes instead of learning from them. (Not to mention a startlingly large number of similarities to Imperial Rome, and we all know how that turned out.) The more control a government exerts, the less democratic it becomes. At what point does the line get crossed from democracy, to authoritarian or even facist dictatorship? It seems to me personally, that every so called western democracy has forgotten that they are supposed to govern for us, not dictate to us. Take the Olympics for example, all forms of dissent has been swept from London's streets. During the run up, posters were plastered everywhere basically saying "Support London for the Olympics? call this number with your yes vote!", not a single shred of option was given to any of us opposed to the idea.

6/ As for the main topic. I hold a simple view, people should be free to make their own decisions. Pro Gun forcing views on Anti Gun, or vice versa, is no better than trying to force religious views down some ones throat. It's all moot any way, if a person is determined enough to procure a firearm to start gunning down random strangers, no amount of laws or control is going to stop them from acquiring and using a weapon.

/Wall of text.

 

[Scow2]

*snip*

First off, thanks for the response, much appreciated over the usual chest beating to be found on the internet.

I may not get this in order, as I'll just write it down as my mind forms it.

1/ I do agree in part, that the Patriot Act, at the time, was viable, and vital. It was however the indefinite extension of the act, also signed by Bush, that gives first cause for concern.

2/ You didn't actually pass any comment on the 2012 National Defence Authorisation Act, that is the one that allows the US Govt to swear, without burden of proof, that a US Citizen is a terrorist and can then be detained indefinitely by the US military without trial.

3/ Sept 11th 2001 I remember all too well the death count, I was just home from a half day at school, turned on the TV which was left on Sky News the previous night, just in time to hear the announcement that a plane had crashed into the WTC, and everyone frantically trying to figure out what could possibly have gone wrong for this to happen. I then sat dumbstruck as live on TV the second plane smashed into the south tower and the realisation dawned that this was a deliberate attack.

4/ I am not an American, my wife however is, coming from NE Philly. I am a Londoner through and through, and as such, I grew up in a city that was subjected nightly to Luftwaffe bombs, though thankfully I missed that by many decades. I did however grow up in the city, at a time when the threat, and the execution, of terrorist bombings from the IRA, Real IRA and Provisional IRA were ongoing. The fear was real, but it wasn't encouraged and fed by the state. I will admit here I am a little peeved with the "With us or against us" attitude displayed by a large number of Americans over 9/11, yet the IRA held public fundraisers in the US to fund their bombings in the UK, and to pay for their arms shipments from Libya, where was the support and outrage for our plight during that time? That though isn't really relevant.

I suppose my point with this particular part is that, not even during the blitz, did the government attempt to keep the people living in fear, while slowly eroding our freedoms. I guess I'm wondering what has changed, that now they think they can, and much worse are, getting away with it.

5/ Following on from #4. Here in Europe, over thousands of years we have suffered our share of despots, facists, tyrants, whatever else you can think of. I dislike the EU for a few reasons, and yet support it for many others, most notably the way the EU courts will stand up for the common man almost without fail, even if sometimes misguided to benefit the criminal and not the victim. (Unless you of course believe the conspiracy theorists who think this is the Germans, creating the Fourth Reich trying once more to take control but this time through economic rather than military means.)

I can't help but wonder if the US, despite having mostly all come from Europe at some point, is doomed to repeat our mistakes instead of learning from them. (Not to mention a startlingly large number of similarities to Imperial Rome, and we all know how that turned out.) The more control a government exerts, the less democratic it becomes. At what point does the line get crossed from democracy, to authoritarian or even facist dictatorship? It seems to me personally, that every so called western democracy has forgotten that they are supposed to govern for us, not dictate to us. Take the Olympics for example, all forms of dissent has been swept from London's streets. During the run up, posters were plastered everywhere basically saying "Support London for the Olympics? call this number with your yes vote!", not a single shred of option was given to any of us opposed to the idea.

6/ As for the main topic. I hold a simple view, people should be free to make their own decisions. Pro Gun forcing views on Anti Gun, or vice versa, is no better than trying to force religious views down some ones throat. It's all moot any way, if a person is determined enough to procure a firearm to start gunning down random strangers, no amount of laws or control is going to stop them from acquiring and using a weapon.

/Wall of text.

1, 2, & 3 are why I carry a gun, and ardently believe that "Gun Permits" are a gross abuse of legislative power. People label the Militia as "Domestic Terrorists", while supporting a government that permits such atrocities as the first three things on your list. I know communities where the "Police" are more dangerous and oppressive than any civilian crime ring - nightly raids into innocent peoples' homes with "No-Knock Warrants" and other things that judicially deny us "due process", the ability to freely kill anyone (even at traffic stops!) with flimsy justifications... and that's not even touching on sexual abuse of power. Yes, you always lose if you end up on the wrong side of police abuse... but at least you have a chance of taking the bastard with you when you go.

We need handguns because they're the only weapon capable of being carried comfortably (My uncle carries one where everyone else carries their wallets... it's saved his kids from turning into Batman several times). And you need to be able to carry a gun anywhere you go, since you never know when someone might decide to shoot you.

I feel I should talk a lot more about Batman, and relate that to the situation. A shotgun in the house wouldn't have protected Bruce's father, but a pistol in his back right pocket would have changed everything. I may use a fictional example, but only because it's VERY well-known, and has strong basis in reality (Yes, people DO get gunned down during street robberies.)

 

[Unit1219]

Now I may be a bit late to this shindig, but my state does not require a permit for concealed carry and you may purchase any firearm type you wish with little hassle.
The only restriction is suppressors and night-scopes, and only because people use those to "jack" deer on other peoples property at night.
The state only has about 100 deaths a year by firearm: most of which are hunting accidents and the others are often perpetrated by people from New York, Chicago or other crime-ridden states. You are most likely to be killed by someone you know and often with kitchen knives or other household utensils. We are a very liberal state but the average person owns about seven guns. My hippie friend does not and he has been stolen from two times in the last five years (mostly because we can leave are doors unlocked without being too worried) but most people on the outskirts of our cities are packing and yet our gun-crime rate is one of the lowest in the US.

On the other hand I cannot tell you how many times we have had bank robbers escape on bicycles after threatening a cashier with a knife, or a rag they claim hides a gun.

 

[Evil Smurf]

While I agree that guns should only be used domesticity for hunting and farmers, I feel this video is relevant

 

[Smagmuck_]

While I agree that guns should only be used domesticity for hunting and farmers, I feel this video is relevant

What does ye need a fucking assault rifle for?

Has no idea the 2nd amendment means we are allowed to be on par, firepower wise with the US Gov't. And the fact he acts like he knows how they would react is far more idiotic.

If you really need something that you can buy without a back ground check..

Obviously has no idea about FFL transfers, ATF tax stamps, etc.

10/10 for rage factor
8/10 for effort and editing
2/10 for logic

 

[Thaluikhain]

1. Geneva convention never banned hollow points. The Hague Convention did. The US never signed it.

2. I said that many kinds of bullets will break apart in water, not "on impact" (that's quite drastic)

3. 5.56 NATO is a fragmenting round. It was never banned by the Hague conventions and is used by many European and Asian countries.

Not true, NATO members do not use fragmenting bullets in their militaries because it's prohibited by the 1899 Hague convention. Yes, you can get 5.56 NATO rounds that fragment for police or civilian use, though.

Though I agree completely that "fire one shot at the legs with a 9mm handgun, wait and see if they go down and fire again if they don't" is ludicrous.