Biden says a shotgun will scare off intruders by GEEZER

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by GEEZER:
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.

Perhaps because it's not true?

Interesting test of various .223, pistol, and shotgun loads against drywall here. http://how-i-did-it.org/drywall/results.html Seems that most .223 tends to fragment after one or two walls of drywall, whereas handgun ammo above .380 and 00 buck generally cruise through three with no trouble.

Here's another interesting test against a mockup exterior wall..."This piece of wall was sheeted with ½" wafer board, covered with a 2nd piece of ½" wafer board to simulate siding. This wall was built using a 2x4 frame and finished on the inside with ½" sheet rock. The interior [of the wall] was lined with fiberglass insulation."
http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15
%3A223-penetration-testing&catid=13%3Atechnical-info&Itemid=26
Both .40S&W and a 12 gauge slug had much more penetrating power than a .223 round.

It really is funny to watch you just make stuff up, or parrot the "high-powered assault weapons" crap in your attempt to cover up the fact that Biden's advice to fire a shotgun off the balcony at nothing in particular is dangerous to innocent bystanders, probably illegal in most jurisdictions, and pretty stupid tactically. Gotta protect your idol, I guess.

What did I make up? And why do you stupidly assume that all assault rifles are .223 caliber? And why are you comparing .223 frangible ammo to jacketed pistol ammo?

And why did you leave out the 7.62x39mm results for the typical AK variant, the most common assault rifle on the planet?

http://230grain.com/showthread.php?65428-Ammunition-Drywall-Penetratio
n-Analysis-Test-(Adpat)

You'll note that it easily went through all three full walls - it was tumbling by the time it went through the third wall, making it the equivalent of the "dum-dum" bullet that was banned for warfare because they just devastate any living thing they hit.

And why did you choose to leave out any mention of some of the .223 ammo that went through all three walls?

Because you're desperate? Because you're making shit up? Because you're making shit up out of desperation?

"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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:42 PM

Here's the full results for all the ammo they tried.

Note that they left out 7.62x54r, .308, 5.45x39mm, and quite a few other common assault rifle calibers.

Also note that nearly all of the ammo penetrated three walls, quite clearly illustrating the danger of firing off multiple shots.

The "Hornady TAP 55 and 60 grain" ammo is that "frangible" ammo of the type that Geezer here is extolling for home defense use. Note that it penetrates three walls as well.

And remember, we keep being told that sometimes you just really, really NEED a full 30-round magazine to fend off those evil intruders. Seems to me if you're firing off 30 rounds in a home invasion situation, you're probably not aiming very well, and you're almost definitely going to be sending a storm of lead your neighbor's way, probably to more than one neighbor's house.

I'd also note that even most right-wing gun nuts tend to favor shotguns and small-caliber handguns for home defense, and eschew assault weapons for that purpose. I've never known any serious gun person to make the case that assault rifles are the ideal self-defense weapon in the home.

I am certain that in a home-defense situation, I would not reach for my AK, MAK-90, or PSL. Nor would I grab my FN-FAL, because I realize that none of them are home-defense rifles. There's a reason they're called ASSAULT rifles, and not SELF-DEFENSE rifles, after all...

"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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 22, 2013 4:12 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Why is "Big effing Deal " Joe telling his wife to fire off a shot gun from the back deck of their home if they have secret service protection ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 22, 2013 4:23 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Depends on the circumstances. Depends on where the home is. Depends on who is doing the shooting and their skill level with each type of weapon.

I sense you're being evasive.

Not really. You're posing a question that has several possible answers depending on conditions, and requiring me to provide only one answer without knowing those conditions. When you tell me whether a family should have a Civic or a minivan, I'll answer your question.

"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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 22, 2013 4:45 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
What did I make up?

That all .223 rounds just zip thorugh wall after wall, and body after body.

Quote:
And why do you stupidly assume that all assault rifles are .223 caliber? And why are you comparing .223 frangible ammo to jacketed pistol ammo?

And why did you leave out the 7.62x39mm results for the typical AK variant, the most common assault rifle on the planet?

Because both Biden ("You don't need an AR-15..."), and yourself ("Certainly it's safer than using an AR-15...") specifically mention the AR-15, and the overwhelming number of AR type rifles are chambered in .223. Note that in many cases jacketed hollowpoint .223 disintegrated, but 9mm JHP penetrated.

And once again you fail to address the stupidity of Biden's suggestion that "...if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony ... take that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house."

"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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 22, 2013 5:04 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Here's the full results for all the ammo they tried.

Note that they left out 7.62x54r, .308, 5.45x39mm, and quite a few other common assault rifle calibers.

Any of these commonly used in an AR-15 platform?

You and Biden, as noted above, specified an AR-15, but now you want to run in pretty much any semi-auto rifle.

Besides, since you slipped up and used the term "assault rifle" I can quote the definition that leaves pretty much any 7.62X54r and .308 you can buy without a Federal license out of the category for a couple of reasons.
"An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine."

The 5.45x39 is so ballistically similar to the .223 that there's little difference, and it's not really that common in the U.S. as compared to .223.

BTW, let's hear your take on the stupidity of Biden's suggestion that "...if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony ... take that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house." I notice that you've failed to answer this request the several times I've made it.

"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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 22, 2013 6:38 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
you tell me whether a family should have a Civic or a minivan, I'll answer your question.

Gladly. For a regular suburban family with 2 kids a Civic would do very well. But a large family with 5 kids would likely find that a Civic was insufficient, and would better suit a minivan.

Now regarding home safety, and my question to you. Kindly give me an example of when shotguns/handguns would be insufficient for a typical* family protecting their home.

*Or as typical as you can think of for the purposes of your example.

Quote:

I sense you're being evasive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not really.

We'll see...

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 22, 2013 7:08 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

What a coincidence, Biden paid $2-million for paper targets so Dept of
Homeland Security cops can practice instantly shooting homeowners with
shotguns, "without hesitation"...while telling citizens to defend
themselves from shooters with plastic scissors!
http://www.infowars.com/dhs-contractor-apologizes-for-selling-shooting
-targets-of-children/

New Homeland Security Video Urges Americans to Resist Shooters…With Plastic
Scissors: “If you are caught out in the open, and cannot conceal yourself
or take cover, you might consider trying to overpower the shooter with
whatever means are available.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/31/new-homeland-security-video
-urges-americans-to-resist-shooters-with-scissors/

Department of Homeland Stupidity Says Huddle like Sheep and Die in
DHS "Options for Consideration Active Shooter Training Video"
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/02/department_of_homeland_inc
ompetence_huddle_like_sheep_and_die.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 22, 2013 7:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

See? That's why I'm putting all my spare money into booby traps and truck bombs. I never want to be in a situation to think "Gee, if only I'd have lined the entryway with Claymores!"

I'll be installing a Minuteman missile silo in the back yard, too. Y'know, just in case of... tyranny!

And yes, you really do sound that stupid, "Hero".
>

Boobytraps, even ones as simple as the old shotgun and string are all illegal.

As for a minuteman, go ahead...i say you should have as many as you can afford. They aren't much good without warheads anyway. Check your local zoning codes since missie solos are usually not an approved use.

H

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 22, 2013 7:22 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Boobytraps, even ones as simple as the old shotgun and string are all illegal.

Not if you shoot, shovel, STFU.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 22, 2013 9:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by PIRATENEWS:
Not if you shoot, shovel, STFU.

Still illegal. The trap is illegal, but you would not get a murder charge. Likely Manslaughter and ten years. Unless you set the trap and somehow invited someone to set it off. In your scenario you can tack on a few more years for Obstruction of Justice and Abuse of Corpse.

Knowing you, we could probably up that to Gross Abuse of Corpse which is a felony.

If I were you I would not rely on getting away with such a thing. You need to play to your stengths and avoiding the attention of law enforcement is definately outside your zone. You already know we're watching...hell I keep the PirateNews channel on live feed in my office all the time and, just between us, you've got to give yourself a break with the..you know. You could go blind or get carpel tunnel or something. I'm saying it for your own good...if nothing else we at the International Conspiracy Against You (ICAU) care about your well being.

H

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 22, 2013 11:50 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
you tell me whether a family should have a Civic or a minivan, I'll answer your question.

Gladly. For a regular suburban family with 2 kids a Civic would do very well. But a large family with 5 kids would likely find that a Civic was insufficient, and would better suit a minivan.

But the family I was speaking of has seven members, including Granny in a wheelchair, so neither a Civic or minivan would be suitable for them. They need a larger van with a wheelchair lift. See how undisclosed circumstances can make almost any answer wrong? But at least you tried, so...

Quote:
Now regarding home safety, and my question to you. Kindly give me an example of when shotguns/handguns would be insufficient for a typical family protecting their home.

Handguns are amazingly hard to hit anything with unless the user has considerable practice. I've seen folks trying to qualify as security guards completely and repeatedly miss lifesized silhouette targets at 15 feet. Even for experienced pistol users, anything outside 25 yards is difficult, especially in a stressful situation.

Shotguns generally have limited ammunition capacity, and also require practice - especially pump actions, which may get 'short-stroked' in stressful situations and not load a new round. They also have much more recoil than an intermediate power rifle, so are harder for women or teens to control.

Dispite Biden's claim that "You don't need an AR-15. It's harder to aim, it's harder to use..." a AR-15 type rifle is pretty instinctive to use. It provides a better sighting platform and is easier to hold on target. Lower recoil than a shotgun makes it easier to keep on target and reduces flinching. So a 'typical family' with limited time for practice could become accurate with it in a shorter period of time. And, as noted above, with the right ammunition selection, penetration of interior walls can be greatly reduced over that of either handgun or shotgun.

A rifle could suit almost any self-defense situation, and would probably be particularly suitable for a rural setting such as a farm or ranch, where one might expect to have people attacking from longer range, or over a longer period of time (hence more ammo capacity), since police response over distance would be slower.

"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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 22, 2013 12:00 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

BTW, at least someone gets it.

Quote:
Joe Biden's Shotgun Advice Could Land Jill Biden in Jail

Felony aggravated menacing, reckless endangering charges could result from shooting gun in air

By Steven Nelson
February 20, 2013 RSS Feed Print

Vice President Joe Biden might want to have a talk with his son, Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, before he makes another public statement about guns.

In a Facebook "chat" Tuesday, the vice president said that he had advised his wife, Jill, to fire a shotgun in the air from their Delaware home's porch if she was concerned for her safety.

"I said, 'Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put 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," he added, "it's harder to use, and in fact you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun!"

However, Delaware law would likely make his suggestion illegal—unless the shots were fired in self-defense in a truly life-threatening situation.

A sergeant with the Wilmington, Del., police department explained to U.S. News that city residents are not allowed to fire guns on their property.

The sergeant, who preferred not to be identified, said that Wilmington residents are also not allowed to shoot trespassers. "On your property you can't just shoot someone," he said. "You have to really feel that your life is being threatened."

Defense attorney John Garey—a former Delaware deputy attorney general—agreed, and added that several criminal charges might result if Jill Biden took her husband's advice.

"In Delaware you have to be in fear of your life to use deadly force," Garey said. "There's nothing based on his scenario alone" indicating a reason to fear imminent death, he noted.

Garey said that under Biden's scenario, Jill Biden could be charged with aggravated menacing, a felony, and reckless endangering in the first degree.

"You cannot use deadly force to protect property" in Delaware, added Garey.

"It is not uncommon" for people to be charged with crimes under similar circumstances, he said. "I've seen cases where lawful citizens have used guns outside their homes and they end up arrested."

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/20/joe-biden-shotgun-advic
e-could-land-jill-biden-in-jail

Also here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/joe-biden-shotgun_n_2735779.h
tml?utm_hp_ref=politics

"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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 23, 2013 4:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

See? That's why I'm putting all my spare money into booby traps and truck bombs. I never want to be in a situation to think "Gee, if only I'd have lined the entryway with Claymores!"

I'll be installing a Minuteman missile silo in the back yard, too. Y'know, just in case of... tyranny!

And yes, you really do sound that stupid, "Hero".
>

Boobytraps, even ones as simple as the old shotgun and string are all illegal.

The Second Amendment says nothing about that. How can they be illegal?

"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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 23, 2013 7:44 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
But the family I was speaking of has seven members, including Granny in a wheelchair, so neither a Civic or minivan would be suitable for them. They need a larger van with a wheelchair lift. See how undisclosed circumstances can make almost any answer wrong?

Perhaps you didn't understand but I was asking you to create the circumstances yourself. Any circumstances where a homeowner would be significantly disadvantaged if they didn't have the option of a gun like the AR-15 to protect themselves in their home.

Quote:
A rifle could suit almost any self-defense situation, and would probably be particularly suitable for a rural setting such as a farm or ranch, where one might expect to have people attacking from longer range,

I think here we really come down to it - where guns like the AR-15 really come into their own: outside. Forget about Biden's tactical advice for a second. The argument that a shotgun is sufficient (and indeed well-suited) to protect yourself inside your home is, it seems to me, a sound one.

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 23, 2013 7:46 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
BTW, at least someone gets it.

Quote:
Joe Biden's Shotgun Advice Could Land Jill Biden in Jail

Felony aggravated menacing, reckless endangering charges could result from shooting gun in air

By Steven Nelson
February 20, 2013 RSS Feed Print

Vice President Joe Biden might want to have a talk with his son, Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, before he makes another public statement about guns.

In a Facebook "chat" Tuesday, the vice president said that he had advised his wife, Jill, to fire a shotgun in the air from their Delaware home's porch if she was concerned for her safety.

"I said, 'Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put 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," he added, "it's harder to use, and in fact you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun!"

However, Delaware law would likely make his suggestion illegal—unless the shots were fired in self-defense in a truly life-threatening situation.

A sergeant with the Wilmington, Del., police department explained to U.S. News that city residents are not allowed to fire guns on their property.

The sergeant, who preferred not to be identified, said that Wilmington residents are also not allowed to shoot trespassers. "On your property you can't just shoot someone," he said. "You have to really feel that your life is being threatened."

Defense attorney John Garey—a former Delaware deputy attorney general—agreed, and added that several criminal charges might result if Jill Biden took her husband's advice.

"In Delaware you have to be in fear of your life to use deadly force," Garey said. "There's nothing based on his scenario alone" indicating a reason to fear imminent death, he noted.

Garey said that under Biden's scenario, Jill Biden could be charged with aggravated menacing, a felony, and reckless endangering in the first degree.

"You cannot use deadly force to protect property" in Delaware, added Garey.

"It is not uncommon" for people to be charged with crimes under similar circumstances, he said. "I've seen cases where lawful citizens have used guns outside their homes and they end up arrested."

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/20/joe-biden-shotgun-advic
e-could-land-jill-biden-in-jail

Also here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/joe-biden-shotgun_n_2735779.h
tml?utm_hp_ref=politics

"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."

This article seems to equate firing 'in the air' with using 'deadly force'. Seems like a strange conflation to me.

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 23, 2013 4:30 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I think here we really come down to it - where guns like the AR-15 really come into their own: outside. Forget about Biden's tactical advice for a second. The argument that a shotgun is sufficient (and indeed well-suited) to protect yourself inside your home is, it seems to me, a sound one.

This despite the drawbacks of a shotgun in recoil, limited ammunition capacity, possibility of failure in a stress situation, and overpenetration of interior walls?

If I didn't know better, I'd suspect that you're trying to suggest that since no one 'really' needs an AR-15 type weapon for self-defense, because a shotgun - in your opinion as final arbiter of what's suitable - is sufficient, it's perfectly reasonable for the government to restrict sale or ownership of them.

But different people are more comfortable with different weapons - people with different physical abilities, and different amounts of time to practice. One size, or one weapon, does not fit all. Saying the shotgun is always the solution is like saying every family only needs a Civic.

"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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 23, 2013 4:40 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
This article seems to equate firing 'in the air' with using 'deadly force'. Seems like a strange conflation to me.

"Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house."

In the air? Biden doesn't say that.

"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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 23, 2013 4:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
The Second Amendment says nothing about that. How can they be illegal?
>

There's case law on the subject.

Technically you can set all the traps you want, but if anyone is injured or killed your criminally and civilly libel.

H

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 24, 2013 5:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Well, assuming one is a extreme pedant who takes everything literally - even then, I don't see a huge problem. If it's fired into the air to intimidate intruders, worse case scenario is some pellets raining down harmlessly.

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.

Ummmmmmm....

I might be mistaken about this, because I wasn't the best High School student when I had Physics class, but brushing up on physics for a hopeful job opportunity, I'm pretty sure you're wrong here about "pellets raining down harmlessly".

I'm a little fuzzy about the math, but I'm pretty certain any effect the friction of the atmosphere has on something as heavy as those little "pellets" is of very little consequence because A) They're HEAVY for their size and B) They're perfect spheres and ideal for traveling through the air without much loss of speed from friction. As I understand it, the 9.82m/s that the buckshot would lose in velocity on its upward trip would be mirrored and added on the downward trip. So... whatever speed the buckshot left the barrel on its upward trip would be the same speed it fell at when at the same height on the downward trip.... Since it would be fired on a balcony, it would actually be just a bit faster than when it was fired if it hit somebody not on a balcony of the same height.

Granted, it would likely be spread out quite a bit, but I wouldn't want to be some innocent bystander walking 2 blocks away that got hit in the head with one of these pellets.

At the same time, I certainly wouldn't want to be the super unfortunate individual who was walking in that same spot when a round fired in the air from an M4 rained down on my head.... so I'm not being obtuse here. I get the underlying message he was trying to relay.

I'd just submit that this was yet another Gaffe on the VP's part, even though I know he has good intentions.

What he SHOULD have said, was to fire the shotgun out the balcony right into the ground. There's ZERO benefit to firing up in the air like the "dirty Mexicans" did in the Three Amigos movie out in the middle of the desert while swilling gallons of Tequila. If all we are saying here is that the "sound" of the blast would be enough to scare people off, which I'm VERY inclined to believe is the truth in 99.99% of scenarios, there's no reason to lose sleep for weeks wondering if you accidentally killed some poor bastard or shot a baby in the face with buckshot 2 blocks away because you recklessly fired a gun in the air in the middle of a suburban area.

Honestly, this foolish thing he said makes me wonder if he really learned gun safety from his dad, or if his dad was an idiot. One of the above must be true.

If anything, this entire interview with Biden makes me think that maybe the Dems are on to something with this gun control thing. After reading this article, I know I certainly wouldn't want to live within a few blocks radius of Mr or Mrs Biden. Or even his "hunter" dad, for that matter......

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 25, 2013 6:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
The Second Amendment says nothing about that. How can they be illegal?
>

There's case law on the subject.

Is there no case law on banning certain types of other armaments from private ownership by the average citizen? Rocket launchers, anti-aircraft missiles, newly-manufactured full-auto machineguns, hand grenades, etc.?

Your point is that if there's case law, then you absolutely CAN ban certain types of arms from the average citizen. On that, we agree. Of course, you have to have a law in order to have case law...

"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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 25, 2013 6:34 AM

Quote:

I'm a little fuzzy about the math, but I'm pretty certain any effect the friction of the atmosphere has on something as heavy as those little "pellets" is of very little consequence because A) They're HEAVY for their size and B) They're perfect spheres and ideal for traveling through the air without much loss of speed from friction. As I understand it, the 9.82m/s that the buckshot would lose in velocity on its upward trip would be mirrored and added on the downward trip. So... whatever speed the buckshot left the barrel on its upward trip would be the same speed it fell at when at the same height on the downward trip.... Since it would be fired on a balcony, it would actually be just a bit faster than when it was fired if it hit somebody not on a balcony of the same height.

Simply put... No.

Once the pellets reach their apogee (the highest point in their upward travel), they start at zero velocity on their downward trip. On the way up, they had a powerful accelerant used to launch them upward. On the way down, they have no such accelerant, only gravity accelerating them toward the ground and the aerodynamic drag acting against that pull. Hence, terminal velocity. A sphere isn't the most aerodynamic shape, either.

Even if you fired the shotgun from the height the pellets would reach, firing downward toward the ground, the pellets wouldn't carry the same muzzle velocity when they hit the ground as when they left the barrel. The second they leave the barrel, they're slowing down because of aerodynamic resistance.

"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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 25, 2013 6:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
This article seems to equate firing 'in the air' with using 'deadly force'. Seems like a strange conflation to me.

"Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house."

In the air? Biden doesn't say that.

He also didn't say "You don't need a .223 caliber AR-15", did he? But you still ASSumed that's what he meant, right?

If you aren't smart enough to figure out that when someone says to fire off a couple blasts with a shotgun, they mean "in the air", then I really don't want you anywhere around me with your guns, because you're also stupid enough to go around aiming your penis substitute at everyone else's face.

"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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 25, 2013 6:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

What he SHOULD have said, was to fire the shotgun out the balcony right into the ground. There's ZERO benefit to firing up in the air like the "dirty Mexicans" did in the Three Amigos movie out in the middle of the desert while swilling gallons of Tequila. If all we are saying here is that the "sound" of the blast would be enough to scare people off, which I'm VERY inclined to believe is the truth in 99.99% of scenarios, there's no reason to lose sleep for weeks wondering if you accidentally killed some poor bastard or shot a baby in the face with buckshot 2 blocks away because you recklessly fired a gun in the air in the middle of a suburban area.

At which point, a pump shotgun becomes even more useful, and not just for its increased ammo capacity; if the sound is enough to scare someone away, the distinctive sound made by racking a round into the chamber should be more than sufficient to make a would-be intruder seek more hospitable climes (and a change of underwear).

Quote:

Honestly, this foolish thing he said makes me wonder if he really learned gun safety from his dad, or if his dad was an idiot. One of the above must be true.

Or both. He could have learned "gun safety" from someone who doesn't have a good grasp of it.

"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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 25, 2013 7:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Simply put... No.

Once the pellets reach their apogee (the highest point in their upward travel), they start at zero velocity on their downward trip. On the way up, they had a powerful accelerant used to launch them upward. On the way down, they have no such accelerant, only gravity accelerating them toward the ground and the aerodynamic drag acting against that pull. Hence, terminal velocity. A sphere isn't the most aerodynamic shape, either.

Even if you fired the shotgun from the height the pellets would reach, firing downward toward the ground, the pellets wouldn't carry the same muzzle velocity when they hit the ground as when they left the barrel. The second they leave the barrel, they're slowing down because of aerodynamic resistance.

Again, I'm not a physics professor, so I can't say for sure if what you say is right or wrong. Obviously, friction in our atmosphere alters the basic math of physics in a vacuum and what would or would not fall as fast as it was propelled.

If you have some solid facts about the downward fall not being equal to the upward ascent, I'd like to read them though.

Sure, the velocity from the barrel was Xupwards!

As it traveled upward, it lost 9.82m/s until it came to a stop at the "Apogee".

Then it traveled down. Originally at an initial speed of 0, but it picked up a speed of 9.82m/s (minus the same friction it faced on its way up) on its downward path.

Given the outside influence of friction on the upward path, I would assume the same friction influence on the downward slope, so whatever impedance to that 9.82m/s on the upward motion would be mirrored on the downward trail.

Bottom line, unless you can actually prove me wrong here, if you're at the same level I am when that buckshot rains on your head, give or take a few feet, I'm quite certain that they will impale your skull at roughly the same velocity at which I shot the gun off at. The only saving grace is that as it spread you would only be hit by one or two "pebbles" instead of being shot at the top of your head with a full casing.

As much as I'm fully vested in finding out the TRUE facts about this, I still stand firm that the suggestion by a VP to fire a shotgun in the air blindly to ward off intruders is sophomoric.

Seriously.... Obama, and even the entire country, would be better served if his running mate was Michelle's vibrator.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 25, 2013 7:33 AM

I should probably state this again just so you don't think I'm a mindless gun-nut Kwick.

I've NEVER fired a REAL gun in my life. NOT. ONE. TIME.

When I bought it, used, it came with 20 rounds. Do bullets have a shelf life? (I'm sure they do, and they're likely way expired).

I wasn't even comfortable holding it until my Army bro taught me how to take it apart and clean it.

Being a "recluse" sure ups the non-robbery thing too. I spend anywhere from 2-5 nights a week at work away from my house. My tech and leisure items are so outdated that it's not worth it, for sure, but I have some badass tools I'd really miss. In fact, even my outdated stuff would be missed simply because I can't currently afford to replace it. The block behind me has had 3 burglaries in the last year.

Not only does my block have a badass neighborhood watch, but in the 18 months I've been here, only 2 people really know anything about me. When we talk, we're cool, but I know that even though everyone on the block is so happy that I bought this house and rehabbed it instead of letting it fall to the ground that they are worried about me because I make ZERO noise and I'm not married.

I'm cool with that....

When I am paying attention, and/or doing dishes in the kitchen, I notice that all the people, even the kids, walk on the street now and not on my property. When I first moved in, I would be washing dishes and be spooked by somebody walking 2 feet away from my front window to cut across my lawn to get home.

I don't have sidewalks, so I would be cool with people walking outside of the perimeter of my Maple trees, but nobody even tries that. Sometimes I sit on my front porch watching the kids come home from school, always walking on the street around my corner. Sometimes I just look out my window, and they do the same thing. Black/White, Male/Female, they all follow the same pattern.....

Really, I'm a friendly person. I'd probably be cool with anyone on my block if the situation was raised.

I'm just the guy on the end of the block. My house hasn't been broken into in 2 years come August.

I don't own a shotgun. I only own a compact Colt .45

I've NEVER fired it, and if I did to scare away intruders, I would shoot it into the ground outside of my 2nd story window.

Firing ANY gun in the air in a suburban area is idiotic, and only an idiot who NEVER held a real gun would tell millions of idiots to do that.

GAFFFFFFFFFFFFFEEEEEE!

Biden is a f'king idiot....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 25, 2013 8:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I should probably state this again just so you don't think I'm a mindless gun-nut Kwick.

No worries. Of all the things I may think about you, gun-nut isn't one of them.

Quote:

I've NEVER fired a REAL gun in my life. NOT. ONE. TIME.

You probably should. If you're going to own a gun and not be a liability to yourself with it, it pays to know how to shoot it. If nothing else, just to know how it sounds and feels. First time my wife shot one of my handguns, she jumped and flinched so bad she dropped it. The recoil caught her off guard, despite watching me shoot it just moments earlier.

Dropping a gun after the first shot is less than ideal, for many reasons.

Quote:

When I bought it, used, it came with 20 rounds. Do bullets have a shelf life? (I'm sure they do, and they're likely way expired).

Probably not. If they've been kept fairly dry so they don't corrode, they're likely fine. They're sealed, after all, so the powder is dry as long as the shell casing is intact. I buy military surplus rounds from old Soviet weapons, packed away decades ago and put in doomsday bunkers. Lots of this stuff has manufacture dates in the 60s, and I've never had a round fail to fire for me.

Quote:

I wasn't even comfortable holding it until my Army bro taught me how to take it apart and clean it.

As noted, if you're going to have it and keep it, better to be comfortable with it, if not proficient. If there's an outside chance you'll ever need it, you need to be able to operate it in the dark without really thinking about it, since that's likely when you'll most need it. I'm not saying you'll be FIRING in the dark (ask Blade Runner Oscar Pistorius about the wisdom of doing that without knowing who or what you're shooting at. Allegedly.), but you'll likely be grabbing it out of your nightstand and putting a round in the chamber in the dark before venturing out to see what that strange noise was in the living room...

"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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 25, 2013 8:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Firing ANY gun in the air in a suburban area is idiotic, and only an idiot who NEVER held a real gun would tell millions of idiots to do that.

Point taken, but I'm not sure anyone who would say that has never fired a gun. It's a popular form of celebration in some cultures, it seems. I don't get it, but that's just me...

But yes, firing any gun in the air is likely against the law in most urban areas. Of course, firing a gun into a person is likely against most laws. In either case, you can be charged with discharging a firearm inside city limits, and if you shoot someone, you can likely be charged with more than that.

Even if you're firing blanks, you're still discharging a firearm, so it's still illegal.

And for the ultra-pedantic Geezer here... did Biden ever say to fire non-blanks? Since you're so hung up on what he said, did he say to fire shotgun rounds loaded with shot?

"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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 25, 2013 8:31 AM

All I read man was that he said to his wife to fire a shotgun in the air......

If we were living like nomads in the desert with no neighbors, that isn't bad advice.

Having less than zero experience with REAL guns, I know enough not to do something stupid like that.

Seriously Kwick....

It seems like we might even be coming close to agreement on an issue here...

Don't let a false defense of a stupid VP stand in our way!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 25, 2013 8:37 AM

Can someone please show me exactly where I've "defended" Biden on this issue? Disagreeing with one group of morons isn't the same as defending another moron.

I've pointed out some facts and shown where what he said to do might be preferable to actually shooting another person. Apparently saying "I agree that shooting a person is undesirable" is tantamount to saying "I'm 100% on Joe Biden's side, and will defend to the death anything he says."

I guess those things are perfectly equal to anyone who's a fucking moron.

But I digress...

*IS* shooting a shotgun, even one loaded with blanks, into the air or ground a good idea? If you had a choice between shooting a person and shooting into the air to scare said person off, would shooting a shotgun into the air still be a bad idea? Or would it be the least bad of the choices at hand?

"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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 25, 2013 8:58 AM

So I'm a moron then?

On this issue Kwick?

I know you're smart enough not to spend your Karma chips convincing others that I'm wrong here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 25, 2013 10:03 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
If I didn't know better, I'd suspect that you're trying to suggest that since no one 'really' needs an AR-15 type weapon for self-defense, because a shotgun - in your opinion as final arbiter of what's suitable - is sufficient, it's perfectly reasonable for the government to restrict sale or ownership of them.

Well now you're starting to sound like Auraptor. To a lot of people it's an important question whether banning guns like the AR-15 endangers homeowners; and so public discussion on the subject is healthy. And I stated my own opinion as just that - an opinion. Hence the words "it seems to me". I'll ditch the word 'sufficient' because I didn't quite mean that; but I did mean 'well-suited', and I think Biden was correct in making that point.

Quote:
Saying the shotgun is always the solution is like saying every family only needs a Civic.

It's not about shotguns being 'always' the solution. It's about guns like the AR-15 being very, very rarely the solution.

I doubt that you, even though you've been extolling its virtues, would reach for a gun like the AR-15 if you woke up and there was an intruder in your house at 3am. Now, undoubtedly for a FEW people this would be their weapon of choice. But the question for me and a lot of folk is, would those few people be significantly endangered in those circumstances, if they were limited to other types of gun? My suspicion is that an AR-15 would sometimes give home-defenders an advantage, but might just as often be a disadvantage when speed is of the essence, due to its weight, unwieldiness and the fact that it can't be stored somewhere very easily accessible (like a handgun).

In short, my claim is this: banning guns like the AR-15 would NOT lead to a sizeable increase in people being killed in their homes, and/or burglary. I think the effect of an assault weapons ban, in this respect, would be negligible; and that this is an important message for the public to hear.

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 25, 2013 10:06 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
This article seems to equate firing 'in the air' with using 'deadly force'. Seems like a strange conflation to me.

"Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house."

In the air? Biden doesn't say that.

The article does.

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 25, 2013 10:09 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Note that in many cases jacketed hollowpoint .223 disintegrated, but 9mm JHP penetrated."

But are we talking about damaging walls or are we talking about hurting - or killing - people who might be innocently behind them? B/c biologically-speaking, the size of the hole made makes a big difference. Biologically-speaking, I'd rather be hit with a couple of pellets than a bullet.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 25, 2013 10:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
So I'm a moron then?

On this issue Kwick?

I know you're smart enough not to spend your Karma chips convincing others that I'm wrong here.

If you think that my saying that Biden's "solution" is preferable to shooting someone with 30 rounds from an assault rifle equates to me "defending" him or him being my "idol" (Geezer's quote), then yes, you're a moron.

I can also point out the benefits of the interstate highway system without defending or idolizing Adolf Hitler.

"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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 25, 2013 10:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Is there no case law on banning certain types of other armaments from private ownership by the average citizen? Rocket launchers, anti-aircraft missiles, newly-manufactured full-auto machineguns, hand grenades, etc.?

Your point is that if there's case law, then you absolutely CAN ban certain types of arms from the average citizen. On that, we agree. Of course, you have to have a law in order to have case law...

My point was that there is case law regarding both civil and criminal liability for booby traps. You seem to want to read more into that statement in order to support your larger proposition.

Generally the law regarding each of your examples varies from state to state and often from one city to the next. For example, in New York you can't mount a full auto machinegun on a helicopter...but in certain other states...that's fine.

Here's the anatomy of getting case law. First you need law as in a statute or ordinance duly enacted under the laws governing such things. For example, lets say the State of Obamasylvania decides to pass a law barring hand grenades. Somebody gets arrested and convicted of possession of a hand grenade and challenges the law as unconstitutional under the State and/or Federal Constitution. Step three, a court decides. Then...appeal, appeal, appeal and voila, you have caselaw which can be either for or against.

H

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

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 25, 2013 10:16 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"case law"

So, is there a Supreme Court ruling on such things specifically? If there is, cite and link please. If not, then you're talking about laws of limited jurisdiction. And your point would be moot.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 25, 2013 10:28 AM

So, in the Heller decision, the SCOTUS mentioned that there very well CAN be limits on the kind of weapons citizens may possess, and those limits could be ruled constitutional. So even in the "case law" striking down the DC gun ban, the SCOTUS left room for gun control laws and allowable limits on certain kinds and types of guns, ammo, and magazines.

Quote:
My point was that there is case law regarding both civil and criminal liability for booby traps. You seem to want to read more into that statement in order to support your larger proposition.

My "larger proposition" is that case law comes from laws made which are then challenged. Sometimes those laws are overturned, and sometimes they're upheld, but it always starts with a law being passed.

"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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 26, 2013 4:23 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
This article seems to equate firing 'in the air' with using 'deadly force'. Seems like a strange conflation to me.

"Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house."

In the air? Biden doesn't say that.

He also didn't say "You don't need a .223 caliber AR-15", did he? But you still ASSumed that's what he meant, right?

Given that the overwhelming number of AR-15 type guns sold in the U.S. are .223, seems a reasonable assumption. Then again, many of the alternative calibers are ballistically equivalent or inferior to the .223, so it's mostly a difference without a distinction.

Quote:
If you aren't smart enough to figure out that when someone says to fire off a couple blasts with a shotgun, they mean "in the air"...

You mean you want me to make that ASSumption? Kind'a inconsistent in your opinion of ASSumptions today, aren't you, Mike?

Actually, you might worry about Jill Biden being smart enough to know this. I've got better sense than to fire a weapon without knowing what my target is, and what's behind it. Also, even if you assume "in the air", that covers a lot of scenarios. everything from right above the horizon to straight up. Now, based on the calculator here, http://www.ctmuzzleloaders.com/ctml_experiments/rbballistics/rbballist
ics.html a 00 buck ball launched at 1450fps, a common velocity for that load, is still going 795 fps at 100yds, with energy of 76 foot-pounds. This is about the energy of a .22 long rifle at the same distance. There are 15 shot in the average 00 buck load. So if Mrs. Biden fires "two blasts" 'in the air' just above the horizon, she's putting more lead, with more energy, 'in the air' than if she'd shot three 10-round magazines from a Ruger 10/22. And it's going to come down somewhere.

Quote:
, then I really don't want you anywhere around me with your guns, because you're also stupid enough to go around aiming your penis substitute at everyone else's face.

And as usual when you get backed into a corner, out come the insults. But falsely maligning my gun safety practices doesn't make Biden's advice any less stupid on several levels, and you've still never come out and said whether you think firing a shotgun, even just 'in the air,' as a warning is a good or bad idea.

"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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 26, 2013 5:11 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
To a lot of people it's an important question whether banning guns like the AR-15 endangers homeowners; and so public discussion on the subject is healthy. And I stated my own opinion as just that - an opinion. Hence the words "it seems to me". I'll ditch the word 'sufficient' because I didn't quite mean that; but I did mean 'well-suited', and I think Biden was correct in making that point.

This gets back to the "need" argument. Does anyone "need" an AR-15? Does anyone "need" a Porterhouse steak? Does anyone "need" a car that goes over 70mph? Does anyone "need" alcoholic drinks? Should all these things be banned, along with anything that might hurt someone?

Quote:
I doubt that you, even though you've been extolling its virtues, would reach for a gun like the AR-15 if you woke up and there was an intruder in your house at 3am. Now, undoubtedly for a FEW people this would be their weapon of choice.

Given that there's several million AR-15 type weapons in the U.S., I'd say more than a FEW.

Quote:
But the question for me and a lot of folk is, would those few people be significantly endangered in those circumstances, if they were limited to other types of gun?

Apparently a number of folks who oppose banning such weapons think so, else you wouldn't be having this conversation.

Quote:
My suspicion is that an AR-15 would sometimes give home-defenders an advantage, but might just as often be a disadvantage when speed is of the essence, due to its weight, unwieldiness and the fact that it can't be stored somewhere very easily accessible (like a handgun).

And once again, ARs are generally lightweight, being made largely of aluminum and plastic; aren't unweildy, being smaller than most shotguns; have much less recoil than a shotgun; and are more accurate in stressful situations than a handgun (unless you have a serious amount of practice). You continue to ignore these points.

Ever shoot an AR-15? A shotgun? a handgun? Any experience with any of them in a relatively stressful situation, say a competition? If not, on what do you base your suspicion? The word of Joe Biden?

Quote:
In short, my claim is this: banning guns like the AR-15 would NOT lead to a sizeable increase in people being killed in their homes, and/or burglary. I think the effect of an assault weapons ban, in this respect, would be negligible; and that this is an important message for the public to hear.

I suspect that you're determining the outcome you want, and then crafting your message to promote it. You continue to ignore facts that disagree with your message, and provide none of your own to support it.

I'm also kind of disturbed by your acceptance, if your assumptions were correct, of a 'negligible' increase in deaths if people didn't have AR-15 type weapons for protection. Don't know how the innocent folks who would presumably be sacrificed for your greater good would feel about that.

"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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 26, 2013 7:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:
If you aren't smart enough to figure out that when someone says to fire off a couple blasts with a shotgun, they mean "in the air"...

You mean you want me to make that ASSumption? Kind'a inconsistent in your opinion of ASSumptions today, aren't you, Mike?

Certainly no more than you are.

Quote:

Actually, you might worry about Jill Biden being smart enough to know this. I've got better sense than to fire a weapon without knowing what my target is, and what's behind it.

So you're ASSuming - again - that Jill Biden doesn't know a thing about gun safety. I guess you're one up on me on inconsistencies in your ASSumptions now. Touché. That's top-notch trolling.

Quote:

Quote:
, then I really don't want you anywhere around me with your guns, because you're also stupid enough to go around aiming your penis substitute at everyone else's face.

And as usual when you get backed into a corner, out come the insults. But falsely maligning my gun safety practices doesn't make Biden's advice any less stupid on several levels, and you've still never come out and said whether you think firing a shotgun, even just 'in the air,' as a warning is a good or bad idea.

"Backed into a corner"? Really? Hardly. Disagreeing with you and refuting your ASSumptions point by point is hardly being "backed into a corner". I think you're mistaking your own behavior for mine; seems to me you have a habit of insults and namecalling when a debate isn't going your way. Do the words "sick fuck" ring a bell? All I'd done in that debate was suggest that, from a tactical point of view, a U.S. military base was a fair target in a "war", whether declared or not, and that a terrorist wanting to strike at personnel or civilian employees on that base was targeting a fair target in doing so.

Now, as to whether or not I think it's a good or bad idea to fire a shotgun, even into the air, you'd have to look up and actually read my responses to see where I specifically addressed that. I know comprehension has never been your strong suit, so I can understand how you completely missed it.

"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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 26, 2013 8:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Ever shoot an AR-15? A shotgun? a handgun?

Yes, yes, and yes.

Quote:
Any experience with any of them in a relatively stressful situation, say a competition?

Does pistol match competition count?

Quote:
If not, on what do you base your suspicion? The word of Joe Biden?

Experience. At close ranges, like those within a house, I'm much better with a handgun, having been trained in combat shooting from a young age. At ranges of 100 yards or more, I'm better with a rifle, as most people are. My home is less than 100 yards long, and no room is more than 10 yards across, so a handgun makes much better sense for me personally over a rifle, but a shotgun makes better sense overall.

"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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 26, 2013 8:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Actually, you might worry about Jill Biden being smart enough to know this. I've got better sense than to fire a weapon without knowing what my target is, and what's behind it. Also, even if you assume "in the air", that covers a lot of scenarios. everything from right above the horizon to straight up. Now, based on the calculator here, http://www.ctmuzzleloaders.com/ctml_experiments/rbballistics/rbballist
ics.html a 00 buck ball launched at 1450fps, a common velocity for that load, is still going 795 fps at 100yds, with energy of 76 foot-pounds. This is about the energy of a .22 long rifle at the same distance. There are 15 shot in the average 00 buck load. So if Mrs. Biden fires "two blasts" 'in the air' just above the horizon, she's putting more lead, with more energy, 'in the air' than if she'd shot three 10-round magazines from a Ruger 10/22. And it's going to come down somewhere.

And why are you ASSuming that every shotgun is loaded with double-ought buckshot? Or that Jill Biden's shotgun is? Is 00 buck the most common shotgun load, or just the one that supports your ASSumptions?

"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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 27, 2013 4:01 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Actually, you might worry about Jill Biden being smart enough to know this. I've got better sense than to fire a weapon without knowing what my target is, and what's behind it.

So you're ASSuming - again - that Jill Biden doesn't know a thing about gun safety.

If she follows her husband's advice, its pretty apparent she doesn't.

Quote:

Do the words "sick fuck" ring a bell?

Yep. they're the words you trot out when you've got nothing else.

"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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 27, 2013 4:03 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And why are you ASSuming that every shotgun is loaded with double-ought buckshot? Or that Jill Biden's shotgun is? Is 00 buck the most common shotgun load, or just the one that supports your ASSumptions?

Even birdshot can do a good bit of damage. Dick Cheney put his hunting buddy in the hospital with over 200 pellets imbedded in his body, some in or near his heart. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney_hunting_incident

"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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 27, 2013 4:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Actually, you might worry about Jill Biden being smart enough to know this. I've got better sense than to fire a weapon without knowing what my target is, and what's behind it.

So you're ASSuming - again - that Jill Biden doesn't know a thing about gun safety.

If she follows her husband's advice, its pretty apparent she doesn't.

Quote:

Do the words "sick fuck" ring a bell?

Yep. they're the words you trot out when you've got nothing else.

"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."

Actually, they're the words YOU trot out when you're "backed into a corner", aren't they?

"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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 27, 2013 4:09 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Do the words "sick fuck" ring a bell?

Yep. they're the words you trot out when you've got nothing else.

"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."

Actually, they're the words YOU trot out when you're "backed into a corner", aren't they?

If so, then I haven't been "backed into a corner" in what? Five or six years?

"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."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 27, 2013 4:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
If you think that my saying that Biden's "solution" is preferable to shooting someone with 30 rounds from an assault rifle equates to me "defending" him or him being my "idol" (Geezer's quote), then yes, you're a moron.

I can also point out the benefits of the interstate highway system without defending or idolizing Adolf Hitler.

Haha..... Point taken.... no. Of course that "solution" isn't better than straight up shooting 30 holes through a stranger and asking questions later.

My point(s) were about shooting a shotgun in the air......

Why not into the ground, if sound is all that matters?

Let's just go around shooting Roman Candles haphazardly in Chuckie Cheezes while we're at it, huh?

That's just one example of the difference between GWB and Biden. GWB only pretended to be dumb while passing a lot of anti-constitutional things his SUPER-intelligent VP wanted passed.

Obama got to keep all of those powers, and expand on them, and whenever big issues like this came up he could send his loveable idiot VP "Joe" to be friends with all of us.

Still though..... I'm glad I don't live anywhere near him or his wife if that's their idea of gun "safety".....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 27, 2013 4:29 AM