Quote:

---

NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Vice President Joe Biden said Tuesday that Americans don't need semi-automatic weapons to protect their homes because a couple of blasts from a shotgun will scare off intruders.

"Buy a shotgun, buy a shotgun," the vice president encouraged those worried about defending themselves. He was speaking in an online video as part of a Facebook town hall hosted by Parents Magazine on the administration's strategy for reducing gun violence, which he has led at the direction of President Barack Obama.

Biden said he keeps two shotguns and shells locked up at home and he's told his wife, Jill, to use them if she needs protection. He presumably was speaking about before he became vice president, a position that gives the couple full-time Secret Service protection.

"I said, 'Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony ... take that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house,'" Biden said. "You don't need an AR-15. It's harder to aim, it's harder to use and in fact, you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself."

Biden's answer came in response to a question posted by a Facebook user about whether the administration's proposal to ban military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines would make law-abiding citizens more of a target of criminals since they wouldn't have a sufficient way of protecting themselves. Biden bristled at the question, saying he's never heard such sentiments in the pages of Parents Magazine.

"But I'm delighted to answer them," he added quickly.

Biden said he learned his lessons on gun safety from his father, who was a hunter. He said as a child, he wasn't even allowed to point a cap gun at other children while playing cops and robbers. He said most gun owners are very responsible, but parents should make sure guns are locked up to keep children safe, just like pool gates and liquor cabinets.

He also said he doesn't think the Second Amendment's right to bear arms should be changed. He said limits on the use of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines is compatible with that right.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GEEZER:
So, anyone here who's familiar with gun safety think its a good idea to "... just walk out on the balcony ... take that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house..."?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Personally, though, I'd recommend a pump-action shotgun myself, rather than a double-barrel model. I also recommend loading shells in sequential order: blank (no shot pellets at all, just powder and wadding), followed by birdshot (very small pellets), followed by buckshot (larger pellets), followed by slugs.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Certainly it's safer than using an AR-15 with metal-jacketed rounds to try to "defend" your home in an urban environment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Certainly it's safer than using an AR-15 with metal-jacketed rounds to try to "defend" your home in an urban environment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
Also, its likely illegal. Most Cities and towns have ordinances against things like 'Discharging a Firearm Within City Limits'. Many States also have the Castle Doctrine (which requires you to be inside your home and bars premptive action or pursuit). Self defense is a pretty good defense, but it requires an actual threat, not the percieved threat the Vice President suggested. In effect the Vice President has advised millions of Americans to commit a crime if they feel nervous.

---

Quote:

---

Who the hell is Biden to tell American citizens what they do or don't NEED ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
So, yeah, I find that a whole lot better than an assualt rifle that could punch through the walls of a house a few blocks away.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Who the hell is Biden to tell American citizens what they do or don't NEED ?

---

'American citizens' asked him the question... When will you start reading the relevant information in threads?

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GEEZER:
Hmm. So in your mind firing a couple of rounds of 00 buckshot - 30 pellets with about the same weight (ETA) each as an individual .223 round - at random into the night as a first response in the hope of scaring off an intruder is safer for your family and neighbors than firing .223 rounds at an identified target, or asking the intruder to leave rather than get shot.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GEEZER:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Certainly it's safer than using an AR-15 with metal-jacketed rounds to try to "defend" your home in an urban environment.

---

Hmm. So in your mind firing a couple of rounds of 00 buckshot - 30 pellets with about the same weight (ETA) each as an individual .223 round - at random into the night as a first response in the hope of scaring off an intruder is safer for your family and neighbors than firing .223 rounds at an identified target, or asking the intruder to leave rather than get shot.

Please never come around me with a gun, Mike. Your concept of gun safety is suspect, to say the least.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

Who the hell is Biden to tell American citizens what they do or don't NEED ?

---

'American citizens' asked him the question... When will you start reading the relevant information in threads?

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

I don't have to, knowing full well this VP and this administration want nothing less than to take guns away from the citizens, and it starts w/ this phony ban on " assault " rifles.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Tactical quibbles aside Geezer, do you maintain that 'military-style assault weapons' are essential to home defence?

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

How about that being up to the people, and not the govt, to decide ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Tactical quibbles aside Geezer, do you maintain that 'military-style assault weapons' are essential to home defence?

It's not personal. It's just war.

---

How about that being up to the people, and not the govt, to decide ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Tactical quibbles aside Geezer, do you maintain that 'military-style assault weapons' are essential to home defence?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Oh, look, he's playing psychic again. Adorable.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Tactical quibbles aside Geezer, do you maintain that 'military-style assault weapons' are essential to home defence?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GEEZER:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Certainly it's safer than using an AR-15 with metal-jacketed rounds to try to "defend" your home in an urban environment.

---

Hmm. So in your mind firing a couple of rounds of 00 buckshot - 30 pellets with about the same weight (ETA) each as an individual .223 round - at random into the night as a first response in the hope of scaring off an intruder is safer for your family and neighbors than firing .223 rounds at an identified target, or asking the intruder to leave rather than get shot.

Please never come around me with a gun, Mike. Your concept of gun safety is suspect, to say the least.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
So, yeah, I find that a whole lot better than an assualt rifle that could punch through the walls of a house a few blocks away.

---

That is a very good point. The rules for shooting in self defense begin with 'hit what you are shooting at' and end with 'don't hit anything else'.

I prosecuted a road rage case where a plumber felt he was cut off by another driver. He follwed him for a bit and both got stuck at a long red light. Plumber gets out of his van confronts the other driver and then returns to his van and then turns around and charges the other car with a large pipe. The driver of the other car saw the man screaming obsenities and coming at him with a pipe and he pulls his Colt 1911 handgun (he had a licensed gun and CCW permit) and fires two rounds over his shoulder at point blank range. He misses both times (so close plumber had powder burns on his arm). The rounds strike a vehicle passing by in the other lane headed the opposite direction (boy was that lady surprised and upset).

Good news was nobody hurt. I charged the plumber with Agg Assault, a felony. I charged shooter with Discharge In City Limits, a misdemeanor, (and could have charged with Improper Handling of a Firearm in a Motor Vehicle, a felony) and Criminal Damaging (for the bullet holes).

The moral of the story is this. He shoots plumber and kills him...its self defense, we give him a medal, parade, etc. He misses, we charge him with a crime and self defense does not absolve him of injury he recklessly or negligently causes others...he kills the passing motorist...Negligent Homicide is a crime in Ohio.

Also, he kills the passing motorist, plumber gets the Felony Murder charge. So I guess the other moral is...'pipe down'?

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Certainly it's safer than using an AR-15 with metal-jacketed rounds to try to "defend" your home in an urban environment.

---

Who the hell is Biden to tell American citizens what they do or don't NEED ?

Isn't that kinda up for them to decide ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:


And who the hell do you think America is to tell Iraqis what they do or don't NEED, or to tell Iran what weapons it does or doesn't NEED?

---

Quote:

---

If you say that we have that right because of the damage their weapons might do to others, then welcome to the real discussion. Your right to defend yourself ends at your property line, and it ends with weapons that will create a threat to your neighbors.

Your "freedom" to swing your fist ends at my nose.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Oh, look, he's playing psychic again. Adorable.

---

There are no such things as real psychics.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GEEZER:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Tactical quibbles aside Geezer, do you maintain that 'military-style assault weapons' are essential to home defence?

---

Are Corvettes essential to drive to work?

Are Porterhouse steaks essential to eating?

Are Rolexes essential for knowing what time it is?

Very few things are absolutely 'essential'. Do you want to do without all the things that aren't?

In many cases, a short, easy to handle, moderately powerful semi-automatic rifle can be useful for home defense and other sorts of self-defense. That's why police and folks like the Secret Service carry them to protect folks like Joe Biden. You think Joe will ask the Secret Service to replace them with double barreled shotguns?



"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Certainly it's safer than using an AR-15 with metal-jacketed rounds to try to "defend" your home in an urban environment.

---

Who the hell is Biden to tell American citizens what they do or don't NEED ?

Isn't that kinda up for them to decide ?

---

And who the hell do you think America is to tell Iraqis what they do or don't NEED, or to tell Iran what weapons it does or doesn't NEED?

If you say that we have that right because of the damage their weapons might do to others, then welcome to the real discussion. Your right to defend yourself ends at your property line, and it ends with weapons that will create a threat to your neighbors.

Your "freedom" to swing your fist ends at my nose.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
Shotguns have a short effective range.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Come now, we all now that paralleling concepts (like analogies and metaphors, and well, most rhetorical devices used in discussion) hurts poor rappys head. It always sets off a little tantrum.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Your AR-15 tends to shoot THROUGH people with that .223 round, which is entirely what it was designed to do, since a grievously injured enemy is much more desirable for a war weapon than a dead enemy.

For someone who claims to have been in the military, you know fuck-all about tactics or weapons.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GEEZER:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
Shotguns have a short effective range.

---

Yep. 00 buckshot is lethal out to about 100 yds

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:


PS - Oh, and storybook - Geezer completely nailed it in his response to kpo's post. For some reason, it pissed you off so much , as you know it was dead on, that you cowardly took to insulting him and his service.

Bravo Geezer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Sure Storybook. Just ignore the fact that DEMOCRATS gave us a meaningless, useless gun ban, back in the 90's, and also ignore the fact that it's DEMOCRATS , in the state of WA, who want to enter into the homes of honest American citizens and " check " to see if guns are being stored properly, safely.

Safely by whose standards ? And what BUSINESS is it of the got to check up on law abiding citizens in the first place like that , with forced entry into their homes, under penalty of a year in prison?

Care to dance around that issue ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GEEZER:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Tactical quibbles aside Geezer, do you maintain that 'military-style assault weapons' are essential to home defence?

---

Are Corvettes essential to drive to work?

Are Porterhouse steaks essential to eating?

Are Rolexes essential for knowing what time it is?

Very few things are absolutely 'essential'. Do you want to do without all the things that aren't?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GEEZER:
Yep. 00 buckshot is lethal out to about 100 yds as opposed to a .223 which is good to maybe 600.

---

Quote:

---

In many cases, a short, easy to handle, moderately powerful semi-automatic rifle can be useful for home defense

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GEEZER:
Yep. 00 buckshot is lethal out to about 100 yds as opposed to a .223 which is good to maybe 600.

---

The effective range is about 25 yards. Its still lethal to 100, but the odds of hitting a target are greatly diminished and the odds of a kill are very small since your shot pattern is about eight feet.

One pellet is not going to kill you. It can...but then again you could also be hit by an meteor and a lightning strike at exactly the same time.

Also, if the shot hits siding, windows, etc its either going to stop or be slowed so much its no longer lethal.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Sure Storybook. Just ignore the fact that DEMOCRATS gave us a meaningless, useless gun ban, back in the 90's, and also ignore the fact that it's DEMOCRATS , in the state of WA, who want to enter into the homes of honest American citizens and " check " to see if guns are being stored properly, safely.

Safely by whose standards ? And what BUSINESS is it of the got to check up on law abiding citizens in the first place like that , with forced entry into their homes, under penalty of a year in prison?

Care to dance around that issue ?

---

Was this in response to something in particular, or just more ranting? You're language skills are so poor (what business is it of got, indeed??), its impossible to tell.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Son, one must have substance before it is skipped. And you are, as always, severely lacking.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Tactical quibbles aside Geezer, do you maintain that 'military-style assault weapons' are essential to home defence?

---

It depends on what you are defending against.

Guns are like other tools. You want to knock a tiny hole in your wall, you use a hammer and nail. But if your project involves tearing the wall out...then using the hammer and nail isn't going to get it done quick enough or in an effective way.

The best approach to home defense is a balanced approach. In confined spaces at short range against one or two attackers...NOTHING beats a shotgun. The downside is limited range and limited ammunition capacity. A good example is Walking Tall starring The Rock. In two scenes we see the advantage and disadvantage of shotguns. At the house his dad kills a dude at close range with a shotgun. At the police station The Rock is armed with a shotgun and completely unable to defend the station against an attack with an assault weapon.

My solution is this. I have a small handgun for concealed carry, a shotgun and larger 9mm semi-auto (15rd clip) for home defense, a .357 Magnum revolver cause it belonged to my dad and also because its damned reliable and will pretty much knock down anybody, and lastly I'm getting a Sig M400 as my JIC (Just in Case) weapon.

So while you may not forsee a need an assault weapon for everyday home defense, you NEVER want to be in a situation where your thinking, 'I REALLY need an assault rifle right now...I wish I had one'. Cause that would be bad.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GEEZER:
Yep. 00 buckshot is lethal out to about 100 yds as opposed to a .223 which is good to maybe 600.

---

The effective range is about 25 yards. Its still lethal to 100, but the odds of hitting a target are greatly diminished and the odds of a kill are very small since your shot pattern is about eight feet.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

In many cases, a short, easy to handle, moderately powerful semi-automatic rifle can be useful for home defense

---

'Can be useful.' Hmm. A more interesting question is, would you, as a knowledgeable gun-owner, in good conscience, advise a typical family concerned about home safety that a combination of shotguns/handguns really would not be enough to protect themselves in their home?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Yes, firing a shotgun - even one with buckshot - into the air is preferable to firing a weapon that will penetrate your exterior walls on its way to penetrating your neighbor's exterior walls. I've explained this to you more than once, and you seem to still be too stupid to fathom it.

---