Duck Hunting Shotgun Proven To Be more Dangerous Than A Huldra AR-15

[Inthemiddle]

No it's not.

Shotguns don't have the same range or accuracy as an AR-15.

Shotguns have different characteristics than an AR-15. It does little good to simply say that they don't have the same range or accuracy because that's a superficial analysis. And as with anything in life we have to look deeper to find meaningful information. For example, motorcycles don't have the same range (miles per tank) or safety measures as a sedan. But that doesn't mean that they are less suitable modes of transportation.

Now, I know that you're probably thinking that this is an odd comparison, but hear me out for a minute because it's actually a good one. Their different characteristics make motorcycles not less ideal, merely optimal for different circumstances and usages. Setting aside for a moment the fact that most people who ride do so for the sheer enjoyment of it, the improved gas mileage make motorcycles superior for shorter range travel, especially for daily commuting to work and back. Their maneuverability contributes to this if your commute often involves heavily trafficked roads and highways. Their superior vision range and acceleration, again in connection with their maneuverability yield a set of safety features that aren't available with a car. Avoiding a collision can be much easier on a motorcycle. The better gas mileage, cheaper insurance, and less complicated construction (which lends itself to easier self repair work) make a motorcycle overall cheaper to maintain. All in all, a motorcycle can be superior mode of transportation if the circumstances fit what you are looking for and/or need.

This same concept can be applied to firearms. An AR-15 and a shotgun have different characteristics that can make either or more effective for a different set of purposes. We need to consider their unique specific qualities and apply them to different scenarios. Shotguns use ammunition where each round produces a powerful spray of several projectiles across an area. By contrast, an AR-15 uses ammo involving a single projectile per round designed for precision accuracy. When shooting at moving targets at medium range, a shotgun will be more effective. Even though their pinpoint precision is not the same, the spread will serve the shooter better than a single precision projectile. Also, when shooting stationary targets at very close range, a single shotgun round will be much more damaging by peppering a target with multiple projectiles all at the same time. By contrast, an AR-15 offers less chance of hitting a moving target, and inflicts a slower rate of gross damage against targets it does hit. A single bullet in the leg extremely unlikely to be lethal at all. Even a single round to the chest has a relatively low chance of being instantly lethal.

So let's consider the scenario of mass shootings, such as classroom shootings, ect. These are relatively close quarter attacks at a range where a shotgun can still provide a powerful punch, but where the projectiles can still possibly spread enough to hit multiple targets at once while causing significant damage to each person hit. A quick flurry of shotgun rounds can subdue a room of scrambling people much more quickly and assuredly than trying to pick people off one by one with an AR-15. Sure, at longer distances an AR-15 is going to be more likely to hit a stationary target with enough force to do significant damage. But that also depends on you using it the right way. (Down in the prone, I have a good chance of hitting targets as far away as 300 yards. But in a standing position, the weapon becomes alot more difficult to control and chances of hitting a target aren't as good.) Of course, long distance scenarios don't really come into play in terms of mass shootings.

 

[Dubya]

You obviously have reading problems because certain restriction on some guns aren't all guns.

Except that I never said all guns, so you are the one with reading issues.

In fact, there are already laws prohibiting some people from owning guns. That's just part of your mental state to rant on like a fool.

So a well constructed argument is a rant? Yes, there are laws that prohibit criminals from owning guns. That's a long way from only allowing "responsible" people from having them. And therein lies the majority of your problem. You're advocating for a vague concept that could easily be defined a thousand ways by asking a hundred different people. Such things make for very bad public policy; policy that is very easy to be abused.

In my state shotguns had restrictions on how many rounds they could carry, even though they were designed to carry more. They just used a plastic plug to prevent them being loaded with more than 3 shells. Carrying that shotgun outside with more than 3 shells would get you a fine, but they didn't go into people's homes checking their shotguns.

Shall we give your state some cookies?

Why don't states or the federal government have the right to make common sense law? Is it because you don't have any common sense?

Straw man. I never said they don't have the right to make common sense laws. But you're not saying anything about common sense laws. You're advocating vague concepts be defined by whatever Tom, Dick, or Harry is around, that would impact CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. The government has the right to enact common sense laws. The do NOT have the right to infringe upon protected rights based on whimsically interpreted vague concepts that require personal value judgements be levied against the people.

I'm not playing that childish game of quoting each sentence. Go back and read your post where you changed what I said to guns!

There is no good reason why magazine size restrictions aren't a good idea. It's also a good idea to have restrictions on allowing young people to have guns in locations where gangs use them.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I love how they call an assault rifle that with a tiny bit of tweeking can be fully auto a sporting rifle.

Since you know so much, please give is a step by step on how this would be done easily.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Use these stats and add the fatalities!

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Key Facts at a Glance, Nonfatal Firearm Incidents and Victims

2009: 326,090 non-fatal crimes involving firearms.

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_Violence_Related_Injury_Deaths_2010-a.pdf

In 2010, we had 11,078 homicides by firearms and 19,392 suicides.

350,000 or so gun crimes per your figures seems like a lot of criminals with guns ?

Were all 350,000 attributed to Mexican gun drug gangs ?

 

[Inthemiddle]

I'm not playing that childish game of quoting each sentence.

In other words, you're unable to mount any kind of rebuttal to a well structured argument.

There is no good reason why magazine size restrictions aren't a good idea.

1) Yes there is. Restricting round capacity inhibits a person's ability to use the weapon for effective self defense. That is, in and of itself, a fully sufficient reason not to do it.

2) Even if it were true, so what? Since when was it the practice of a free people to create laws simply because there's no reason NOT to do it? There needs to be a good reason to do it.

It's also a good idea to have restrictions on allowing young people to have guns in locations where gangs use them.

Restricting constitutional rights based on geography? You have either got to be out of your cotton-picking mind, completely ignorant to any understanding of constitutional rights, hostile to constitutional rights, or some combination thereof. I suspect the answer is "D."

 

[Missourian]

I've never owned a shotgun with a 30-100-round magazine.

Yes, you do, you just don't think of it that way.

OO buck shot is larger than a .32 caliber bullet.

One 3 inch OO Buck shotgun shell holds 15 pellets.

My 12 gauge hold 5 shells.

That's more than equivalent to 75 rounds of .223.

​

No it's not.

Shotguns don't have the same range or accuracy as an AR-15.

The shotgun may not have the range or accuracy of an AR under ideal conditions.

But for the purpose of our discussion here, neither range nor accuracy is required.

 

[Dubya]

Use these stats and add the fatalities!

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Key Facts at a Glance, Nonfatal Firearm Incidents and Victims

2009: 326,090 non-fatal crimes involving firearms.

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_Violence_Related_Injury_Deaths_2010-a.pdf

In 2010, we had 11,078 homicides by firearms and 19,392 suicides.

350,000 or so gun crimes per your figures seems like a lot of criminals with guns ?

Were all 350,000 attributed to Mexican gun drug gangs ?

At first you might have to figure out what a reported incident involves. These are stats from home surveys and not reported crimes and a particular crime can involve more than one charge. A particular criminal can do many offenses.

violent crime (rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault), property crime (burglary, motor vehicle theft, and property theft), and personal theft (pocket picking and purse snatching)

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) - Criminal Victimization, 2009

So you have more than half the murders in America done by youth gangs mainly in urban areas. Many of those areas don't even have gun stores, so they go out to Yahoo Land where guns are easily purchased. Without youth gang violence, the homicide rate by guns would be reduced to about 40% of those figures. Notice also the suicide rate is nearly twice our present homicide rate.

Home protection usually involves a burglary and they are almost always smart enough not to carry a gun. A dog is the best defense for that, they make a good companion and something a person would want to live for.

Of the crimes listed, robbery is the one that stands out.

 

[OODA_Loop]

It says 350,000 crimes committed with guns, your provided numbers.

I don't know how you can spin that to mean criminals dont have guns, just Mexican drug gangs ?

You sure you know what you are talking about ?

 

[saveliberty]

It says 350,000 crimes committed with guns, your provided numbers.

I don't know how you can spin that to mean criminals dont have guns, just Mexican drug gangs ?

You sure you know what you are talking about ?

VERY motivated gang members working 24/7/365?

 

[jtpr312]

This is all fine and dandy and I'm against an assault weapon ban.

I just take issue with the attempt to draw an equivilency between 5 shot gun shells and 75 rounds of .223.

My Mossberg 590 holds 9 shells and with that I can put 378, (that's reloading once) .24 caliber pellets downrange in less than 40 seconds. At clase range or fired at targets grouped closely together, this is a devasting weapon and much, much more deadly than either my AR or my AK. If fired into a crowd at close range, a 12Ga firing #4 Buckshot can certainly kill 12 people with just 5 shots when you consider 5shots equals 105 .24 caliber pellets.

Same crowd, how many people can one easily kill with 75 .223's?

Figure totally worst case scenerio, with people packed a-hole to elbow and each round penetrating one victim and hits a second, both in places sure to cause death, 150, but that's pretty unrealistic. Figuring something more realistic, 75 rounds, 75 hits, about a a 3-1 WIA to KIA number, just a rough guess based on ratio of KIA to WIA at Iwo Jima for a want of a better example, you'd have approx 57 wounded 18 dead that's assuming the gunman knew how to shoot, which we have seen most mass shooters can't. Now do the math with the 378 .24 caliber pellets you get from firing my shotgun just 18 times, or even the 189 pellets from just 9 shots.

 

[jtpr312]

I've never owned a shotgun with a 30-100-round magazine.

Yes, you do, you just don't think of it that way.

OO buck shot is larger than a .32 caliber bullet.

One 3 inch OO Buck shotgun shell holds 15 pellets.

My 12 gauge hold 5 shells.

That's more than equivalent to 75 rounds of .223.

​

No it's not.

Shotguns don't have the same range or accuracy as an AR-15.

Who cares? We're discussing mass shootings and they are almost 100% done at close range. Movie theaters, schools, restaurants, etc. Other than Whitman at the Univ of Texas I can't think of one done at any distance. As a matter of fact, with the lousy quality of marksmanship shown by the average mass shooter, a shotgun would be a better choice of weapon for them.

 

[Jarlaxle]

That's more than equivalent to 75 rounds of .223.

That's 75 wild flying, imprecisely targeted rounds at that.

Hardly. It's called a shotgun choke.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Many of us already know about the destructive power of shotguns - which is why many of us prefer shotguns for home defense.

Oh, bullshit! You've been going on about the dangers of so called "assault" weapsons, how can you justify saying that something like the AR-15 is so dangerous as to need to be banned, by the shotgun is not?

I've had both weapons, though younger versions, like the Remington pump and Colt.

The OP is a crock and anyone with military experience knows the AR-15 is more lethal. I remember shooting a tree once that was around 18 inches in diameter. When I checked the bullet went through the tree, so I followed the path and found another tree of similar size was completely penetrated. So much for that argument about people being behind the target! When those AR-15 rounds hit people, they can go in all kinds of directions. The round followed it's path with the tree because it was soft wood.

Bullshit. Bull. Fucking. Shit. You are lying through your teeth. Not only won't a .223 round go through an 18" diameter tree trunk, a .50 Barrett won't even do that! You are a lying sack of shit.

My shotgun had a plastic plug which would limit the rounds. You better not get caught hunting without that plug. A shotgun is also large even with the minimum barrel size, like a deerslayer. What wasn't emphasized is the amount of rounds the weapons can hold. You can get up to 6 with a shotgun, if you keep one in the chamber, but you can buy two magazines, tape them together, end to end, and it only takes about 2 seconds to flip the magazine on an AR-15. That gives you a quick 60 rounds. The AR-15 will shoot through walls like they are nothing. It's good for target practice, self-defense, but who would want to use it for hunting.

It isn't hard to find gun collectors who have plenty of assault weapons and I want them to have the right to own them. Why can't we use common sense and make regulations so the weapons are only in the hands of responsible people? The same common sense should apply to magazine sizes. Laws can be crafted so there aren't general sales, but exceptions can be made for responsible people.

You are full of it, nothing posted here is anything more than the babbling of a lying shit.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Yes, you do, you just don't think of it that way.

OO buck shot is larger than a .32 caliber bullet.

One 3 inch OO Buck shotgun shell holds 15 pellets.

My 12 gauge hold 5 shells.

That's more than equivalent to 75 rounds of .223.

​

Good luck killing a dozen people with 5 shots.

Take someone who is trained and practiced in the tactical use of a shotgun. They can get off at least 15 rounds in 30 seconds which, with a 5 round tube, means reloading twice.

Shotguns are called "street sweepers" and "room brooms" for a reason!

 

[Jarlaxle]

LOL the .22 and .223 have as much in common as a wrist rocket and BB gun.

I agree, but they are nearly the same caliber.

Only in the sense that a .32 pistol and a .308 Winchester are "almost" the same caliber.