07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 4344454647 ...
tools
  1. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    That's a good question Kevin, and to tell you the truth, I'd say no to a pistol being adequate. Want to know why?

    A pistol can be lightweight and easily concealed. Lots of thieves and burglars could conceivably carry a pistol due to it's size. A pistol fires small caliber rounds.

    On the other hand, a homeowner doesn't need to move their weapon around because they are in one spot. They have space to store the shotgun. A shotgun has granular pellets that explode out in a conical trajectory, covering more area in a shorter range. So you don't need to be as accurate with a shotgun as a pistol, because of the ammunition.

    I wouldn't argue that all homeowners would feel safe carrying just a small caliber pistol. Based on the facts it doesn't appear reasonable. But it does seem reasonable that a larger, pump action shotgun with multiple rounds would be sufficient against the large *majority* of threats, and that's why I support what Biden is saying.



    Sent from my LS670 using Android Central Forums
    Can we agree that 10 yards is about the average distance you'd shoot in a home? My living room is about that long, so is a hallway. The spread for 00 buckshot at 10 yards is about 10 inches. You clearly can't just "spray and pray" and accuracy is needed just as much. When you start talking about multiple rounds you also need to factor in recoil. Far less recoil in an AR than a shotgun (I do know from experience). I also know that I personally can handle an AR far more confidently and am a far more accurate shooter with one than I am a shotgun. So for ME, personally, an AR is a better choice. But what it boils down to, and what no one has touched on, is that fact that the CHOICE is being taken away if "assault weapons" are banned. Why the quotes? Because a .223 hunting rifle will still be perfectly legal to own and purchase, but can and will do just as much damage. How a weapon looks shouldn't determine legislation. If you're going to ban one .223 rifle then ban them all, or ban none.

    Oh, my information about the spread of 00 buck? Right HERE. WIth pictures. One could also argue that you have to be MORE accurate, or risk even more projectiles flying past your intended target.
    Live2ride883 and Etios like this.
    02-21-2013 03:16 PM
  2. gollum18's Avatar
    Point made, laws won't stop someone from illegally obtaining a firearm.

    Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
    02-21-2013 03:16 PM
  3. Live2ride883's Avatar
    While gun ownership/use can of itself be inherently dangerous it is also extremely unforgiving of inattention, ignorance, incompetence or stupidity.
    rexxman likes this.
    02-21-2013 03:24 PM
  4. Markster1's Avatar
    That's a good question Kevin, and to tell you the truth, I'd say no to a pistol being adequate. Want to know why?

    A pistol can be lightweight and easily concealed. Lots of thieves and burglars could conceivably carry a pistol due to it's size. A pistol fires small caliber rounds.

    On the other hand, a homeowner doesn't need to move their weapon around because they are in one spot. They have space to store the shotgun. A shotgun has granular pellets that explode out in a conical trajectory, covering more area in a shorter range. So you don't need to be as accurate with a shotgun as a pistol, because of the ammunition.

    I wouldn't argue that all homeowners would feel safe carrying just a small caliber pistol. Based on the facts it doesn't appear reasonable. But it does seem reasonable that a larger, pump action shotgun with multiple rounds would be sufficient against the large *majority* of threats, and that's why I support what Biden is saying.



    Sent from my LS670 using Android Central Forums
    You show your ignorance of handguns as well as previous posts showing your ignorance of shotguns and rifles.

    Handgun calibers go all the way up to .500 meaning that some are very stout. Reference this to the caliber of the AR15 which is .223, less than half the size of a S&W 500 revolver.

    There are very good choices in handguns, rifles, and shotguns for self defense but having a shotgun able to only fire 2 rounds is not prudent for self defense.

    Unless you are a highly trained individual practicing in high stress scenarios against bad guys everyday, you don't know how you will react with adrenaline coursing thru your body in a life or death situation. You certainly could miss with those two shots and failing to scare the person off would you declare a time out to reload assuming you had even the clarity of thought to put a few extra shells in your pockets. What if you are only in your underwear?

    Biden's shotgun of choice is great for skeet not SD. Self-defense shotguns hold a minimum of 5-6 rounds. Handguns and rifles with a few exceptions hold at least 5 rounds. This would be a good minimum to start with and certainly 30 rounds would not be too much.

    I'd rather have too many rounds and not need them than need them and not have them and be a statistic of CD's.
    02-21-2013 03:37 PM
  5. droidmyme's Avatar
    Can we agree that 10 yards is about the average distance you'd shoot in a home? My living room is about that long, so is a hallway. The spread for 00 buckshot at 10 yards is about 10 inches. You clearly can't just "spray and pray" and accuracy is needed just as much. When you start talking about multiple rounds you also need to factor in recoil. Far less recoil in an AR than a shotgun (I do know from experience). I also know that I personally can handle an AR far more confidently and am a far more accurate shooter with one than I am a shotgun. So for ME, personally, an AR is a better choice. But what it boils down to, and what no one has touched on, is that fact that the CHOICE is being taken away if "assault weapons" are banned. Why the quotes? Because a .223 hunting rifle will still be perfectly legal to own and purchase, but can and will do just as much damage. How a weapon looks shouldn't determine legislation. If you're going to ban one .223 rifle then ban them all, or ban none.

    Oh, my information about the spread of 00 buck? Right HERE. WIth pictures. One could also argue that you have to be MORE accurate, or risk even more projectiles flying past your intended target.
    I'm not disputing your knowledge of firearms. I agree that the AR-15 is superior in firepower, recoil, and control than a shotgun.

    Still, you say that all Americans have the right to "choose" their weapons? If that is the case, as someone mentioned earlier, then I should have the choice to put landmines in front of my house, because that's what I feel more confident with. Heck, I don't even want to shoot, just kill them outside, thank you.

    My point is that the choice of weapons is not an absolute right, it is superceded by other responsibilities to society at large.

    Banning, restricting, or regulating assault rifles may reduce your choices. It doesn't endanger your right to bear arms or defend yourself.

    Sent from my LS670 using Android Central Forums
    02-21-2013 03:44 PM
  6. Markster1's Avatar
    Can we agree that 10 yards is about the average distance you'd shoot in a home? My living room is about that long, so is a hallway. The spread for 00 buckshot at 10 yards is about 10 inches. You clearly can't just "spray and pray" and accuracy is needed just as much. When you start talking about multiple rounds you also need to factor in recoil. Far less recoil in an AR than a shotgun (I do know from experience). I also know that I personally can handle an AR far more confidently and am a far more accurate shooter with one than I am a shotgun. So for ME, personally, an AR is a better choice. But what it boils down to, and what no one has touched on, is that fact that the CHOICE is being taken away if "assault weapons" are banned. Why the quotes? Because a .223 hunting rifle will still be perfectly legal to own and purchase, but can and will do just as much damage. How a weapon looks shouldn't determine legislation. If you're going to ban one .223 rifle then ban them all, or ban none.

    Oh, my information about the spread of 00 buck? Right HERE. WIth pictures. One could also argue that you have to be MORE accurate, or risk even more projectiles flying past your intended target.
    I'm glad you brought up that website. I've been to his site many times. Elsewhere there, you can find out how much penetration there is with 223 ammo and shotgun ammo. It could enlighten some people's minds if they took the time to read.
    02-21-2013 03:48 PM
  7. Live2ride883's Avatar
    I'm not disputing your knowledge of firearms. I agree that the AR-15 is superior in firepower, recoil, and control than a shotgun.

    Still, you say that all Americans have the right to "choose" their weapons? If that is the case, as someone mentioned earlier, then I should have the choice to put landmines in front of my house, because that's what I feel more confident with. Heck, I don't even want to shoot, just kill them outside, thank you.

    My point is that the choice of weapons is not an absolute right, it is superceded by other responsibilities to society at large.

    Banning, restricting, or regulating assault rifles may reduce your choices. It doesn't endanger your right to bear arms or defend yourself.

    Sent from my LS670 using Android Central Forums
    Once again you are comparing military hardware IE landmine to a civilian firearm.

    when you said: Banning, restricting, or regulating assault rifles may reduce your choices. It doesn't endanger your right to bear arms or defend yourself.

    Thats exactly what it does...
    02-21-2013 03:57 PM
  8. droidmyme's Avatar
    You show your ignorance of handguns as well as previous posts showing your ignorance of shotguns and rifles.

    Handgun calibers go all the way up to .500 meaning that some are very stout. Reference this to the caliber of the AR15 which is .223, less than half the size of a S&W 500 revolver.

    There are very good choices in handguns, rifles, and shotguns for self defense but having a shotgun able to only fire 2 rounds is not prudent for self defense.

    Unless you are a highly trained individual practicing in high stress scenarios against bad guys everyday, you don't know how you will react with adrenaline coursing thru your body in a life or death situation. You certainly could miss with those two shots and failing to scare the person off would you declare a time out to reload assuming you had even the clarity of thought to put a few extra shells in your pockets. What if you are only in your underwear?

    Biden's shotgun of choice is great for skeet not SD. Self-defense shotguns hold a minimum of 5-6 rounds. Handguns and rifles with a few exceptions hold at least 5 rounds. This would be a good minimum to start with and certainly 30 rounds would not be too much.

    I'd rather have too many rounds and not need them than need them and not have them and be a statistic of CD's.
    No, you've got a point. My knowledge of firearms is not as extensive as yours.

    There's lots of things I'd rather have too, Markster1. I'd rather not have to pay my speeding ticket. But, I have to abide by the law, or go to jail.

    Sent from my LS670 using Android Central Forums
    02-21-2013 03:57 PM
  9. Markster1's Avatar
    I'm not disputing your knowledge of firearms. I agree that the AR-15 is superior in firepower, recoil, and control than a shotgun.

    Still, you say that all Americans have the right to "choose" their weapons? If that is the case, as someone mentioned earlier, then I should have the choice to put landmines in front of my house, because that's what I feel more confident with. Heck, I don't even want to shoot, just kill them outside, thank you.

    My point is that the choice of weapons is not an absolute right, it is superceded by other responsibilities to society at large.

    Banning, restricting, or regulating assault rifles may reduce your choices. It doesn't endanger your right to bear arms or defend yourself.

    Sent from my LS670 using Android Central Forums
    There isn't anything in the market to compares to owning landmines so that is a superfluous analogy.

    If you compare the caliber of the AR15, .223, with other rifles on the market you will see that there are many that overpower it in penetration, range, speed, damage, etc.

    There are handgun calibers that out perform it in all characteristics so you have to take performance off the table.

    That leaves ease of use with the pistol grip and collapsible stock. Again there are handguns outperforming it.

    Next would be high capacity mags. Once more, outdone by a pistol. The secret service carry Glock 18's which are fully automatic and which can use a 33rd mag.

    So what do we have left? It looks like a military weapon and it's scary because of that. Makes no sense why you're seeking to ban them.

    Yes they were used in homicides but handguns are used in far greater numbers.

    So the ? that begs to be answered is, Why ban this type of weapon.

    Let's ban the criminal. Guns don't fire themselves.
    TheOtherBill likes this.
    02-21-2013 04:00 PM
  10. Live2ride883's Avatar
    No, you've got a point. My knowledge of firearms is not as extensive as yours.

    There's lots of things I'd rather have too, Markster1. I'd rather not have to pay my speeding ticket. But, I have to abide by the law, or go to jail.

    Sent from my LS670 using Android Central Forums
    But you are punishing legal, lawful gun owners for the crimes of a few people that operated this hardware in an illegal action.
    02-21-2013 04:02 PM
  11. droidmyme's Avatar
    Once again you are comparing military hardware IE landmine to a civilian firearm.
    You don't like that comparison, do you?

    when you said: Banning, restricting, or regulating assault rifles may reduce your choices. It doesn't endanger your right to bear arms or defend yourself.

    Thats exactly what it does...
    Flatly denying a statement is not equivalent to refuting it, Live2ride

    Sent from my LS670 using Android Central Forums
    02-21-2013 04:02 PM
  12. Markster1's Avatar
    No, you've got a point. My knowledge of firearms is not as extensive as yours.

    There's lots of things I'd rather have too, Markster1. I'd rather not have to pay my speeding ticket. But, I have to abide by the law, or go to jail.

    Sent from my LS670 using Android Central Forums
    We should ban Corvettes because they can travel to speeds three times faster than the speed limit. Speed kills and you will die in that fiberglass car. You should only be able to own a Prius. It doesn't matter that there are cars faster or more dangerous than the vette. It looks fast.

    Makes sense right?
    02-21-2013 04:05 PM
  13. backbeat's Avatar
    Once again you are comparing military hardware IE landmine to a civilian firearm.
    I suppose landmines made up their own minds to be purely military-issued, right? Or did government decide that for you?
    02-21-2013 04:05 PM
  14. droidmyme's Avatar
    We should ban Corvettes because they can travel to speeds three times faster than the speed limit. Speed kills and you will die in that fiberglass car. You should only be able to own a Prius. It doesn't matter that there are cars faster or more dangerous than the vette. It looks fast.

    Makes sense right?
    We don't ban Corvettes because there is a speed limit.

    And plus, it'd be bad for domestic automakers eh? Lol



    Sent from my LS670 using Android Central Forums
    02-21-2013 04:07 PM
  15. threepackape's Avatar
    it's 2013, not 1813.... why isn't there an Android app that will incapacitate criminals robbing your house yet?
    or do we have to wait until 2113?

    since most crimes against smartphones are committed against iPhones, I'm putting up stickers telling
    criminals that I have not iOS devices in my home.

    I know someone who once kept a pet python at home... right there in the living room. It got up to be
    about 11 feet long... best deterrent against everything. (unless the thief happens to be a snake
    lover)
    02-21-2013 04:16 PM
  16. Markster1's Avatar
    We don't ban Corvettes because there is a speed limit.

    And plus, it'd be bad for domestic automakers eh? Lol



    Sent from my LS670 using Android Central Forums
    There are more than a few gun manufacturers here in the US that only solely produce the AR15. Do you care about keeping them in business?

    The Corvette is only one car of many GM produces, surely it wouldn't put them out of business.
    02-21-2013 04:18 PM
  17. Markster1's Avatar
    We don't ban Corvettes because there is a speed limit.

    And plus, it'd be bad for domestic automakers eh? Lol



    Sent from my LS670 using Android Central Forums
    And yet there are people who disregard that speed limit so instead of holding those people responsible let's ban those vette's.
    02-21-2013 04:20 PM
  18. droidmyme's Avatar
    And yet there are people who disregard that speed limit so instead of holding those people responsible let's ban those vette's.
    But a Corvettes primary function is not to kill people. It doesn't pose the same threat as an assault rifle would...

    Sent from my LS670 using Android Central Forums
    02-21-2013 04:29 PM
  19. Live2ride883's Avatar
    So when the department of homeland security orders 7,000 ar-15's they are referred to as "personal defense weapons." Yet when responsible gun owners have them and people like yourself want to take them away they are assault weapons????

    I should also point out that these have been manufactured to be fully automatic.

    Homeland Security orders 7,000 AR-15's for domestic use | jacksonville.com
    02-21-2013 04:34 PM
  20. Live2ride883's Avatar
    An ar-15 is not a piece of military hardware, it is the civilian version of the M4 Carbine.
    02-21-2013 04:40 PM
  21. Markster1's Avatar
    But a Corvettes primary function is not to kill people. It doesn't pose the same threat as an assault rifle would...

    Sent from my LS670 using Android Central Forums
    And yet there are millions of gun owners who don't kill people with their ar15's so why take them?
    02-21-2013 04:44 PM
  22. Live2ride883's Avatar
    I would argue that more people are killed by corvettes than by an ar-15, just by the sheer number of deaths in cars versus shootings.
    02-21-2013 04:47 PM
  23. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    That's a good question Kevin, and to tell you the truth, I'd say no to a pistol being adequate. Want to know why?

    A pistol can be lightweight and easily concealed. Lots of thieves and burglars could conceivably carry a pistol due to it's size. A pistol fires small caliber rounds.

    On the other hand, a homeowner doesn't need to move their weapon around because they are in one spot. They have space to store the shotgun. A shotgun has granular pellets that explode out in a conical trajectory, covering more area in a shorter range. So you don't need to be as accurate with a shotgun as a pistol, because of the ammunition.

    I wouldn't argue that all homeowners would feel safe carrying just a small caliber pistol. Based on the facts it doesn't appear reasonable. But it does seem reasonable that a larger, pump action shotgun with multiple rounds would be sufficient against the large *majority* of threats, and that's why I support what Biden is saying.



    Sent from my LS670 using Android Central Forums
    A 9mm round which is a common carry self defense firearm has a heavier round than the AR 15 shoots.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Android Central Forums
    02-21-2013 04:47 PM
  24. underdonk's Avatar
    An ar-15 is not a piece of military hardware, it is the civilian version of the M4 Carbine.
    I'm a gun owner and enthusiast myself, but that logic is a bit flimsy. Functionally, it is the same/similar and every bit as "deadly" in the right hands.
    02-21-2013 04:48 PM
  25. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    But a Corvettes primary function is not to kill people. It doesn't pose the same threat as an assault rifle would...

    Sent from my LS670 using Android Central Forums
    Its primary purpose is to go fast. To speed. Which makes it capable of breaking a law. What you're saying is that one thing has the capability of performing an illegal act and should be banned, but the other thing shouldn't.

    I also get this feeling that you're real close to being convinced that the AR-15 is not as bad as you first thought it was.
    cdmjlt369 likes this.
    02-21-2013 04:49 PM
4,617 ... 4344454647 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD