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

[Inthemiddle]

Good luck killing a dozen people with 5 shots.

You could take down a dozen people with only two shots using those rounds. Hell, you could take out a hundred people with a single bomb. If you want to stop people intent on widespread havoc, you're going to have to do alot more than ban AR-15s.

 

[Missourian]

See the .223 Remington, down in the "Varmint" class. Not for deer.

What is considered a varmint?

The term varmint is a US colloquial term for vermin, though it refers more specifically to mammal or bird pests, including:

• predators, such as coyotes, wolves, foxes, or feral dogs, which can kill farm animals
• rodents, such as rats, prairie dogs, squirrels, rabbits, and groundhogs, that can damage cropland or pastures or carry disease
• [other small mammals, such as raccoons and rabbits
• invasive species, such as starlings, that are displacing desirable native species

Varmint hunting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Article 15]

Good luck killing a dozen people with 5 shots.

You could take down a dozen people with only two shots using those rounds. Hell, you could take out a hundred people with a single bomb. If you want to stop people intent on widespread havoc, you're going to have to do alot more than ban AR-15s.

Put down the crack pipe.

 

[Dubya]

The OP is a crock and anyone with military experience knows the AR-15 is more lethal.

Anyone with military experience knows that an M-16 with military grad ammo is alot more powerful than an AR-15 with lower grade ammo.

I bought military surplus ammo for my AR-15.

Now, are you telling me someone can't dublicate that?

 

[edthecynic]

No hunter hunts deer with an AR like that...rounds too small to make an ethical kill. Google it.

That's for coyote hunting and smaller; small feral hog, prairie dogs.

It seemed to have no trouble making an "ethical" kill of the students! Every child who was shot died!!!!!

 

[Politico]

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

 

[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.

​

Good luck killing a dozen people with 5 shots.

I really don't even like to consider such things.

My guns an my knowledge I use for hunting and defensive purposes only.

Even hypothetically, I'm not comfortable discussing this one way or the other.

 

[Missourian]

No hunter hunts deer with an AR like that...rounds too small to make an ethical kill. Google it.

That's for coyote hunting and smaller; small feral hog, prairie dogs.

That weapon in the cartoon looks like a Stoner SR-25 to me, which uses 7.62, like the M-14. It's a sniper rifle.

Could be. Looked like an AR-15a2 to me, but you could be right.

I doubt the illustrator of that cartoon could have identified it as either.

 

[Ringel05]

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.

​

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.

 

[Missourian]

The OP is a crock and anyone with military experience knows the AR-15 is more lethal.

Anyone with military experience knows that an M-16 with military grad ammo is alot more powerful than an AR-15 with lower grade ammo.

I bought military surplus ammo for my AR-15.

Now, are you telling me someone can't dublicate that?

Newer ARs can handle the 5.56 NATO, but most of the older ones are .223 Remington only.

 

[Missourian]

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.

 

[Lakhota]

More teabagger wisdom from Buckwheat West...

Allen West: Gun Control Is 'Your Index Finger' (VIDEO)

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Missourian]

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.

Except in order to accomplish that, you need more information about us and what we have.

And the next time one crazy guy (or gal) does something crazy?

The ATF is knocking on my door.

The bottom line is, my side doesn't trust your side with that information.

You and I, if your reasonable, could probably work something out, but it wouldn't fit someones agenda and poof...so much for that.

 

[Article 15]

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.

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.

 

[Dubya]

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.

Except in order to accomplish that, you need more information about us and what we have.

And the next time one crazy guy (or gal) does something crazy?

The ATF is knocking on my door.

The bottom line is, my side doesn't trust your side with that information.

You and I, if your reasonable, could probably work something out, but it wouldn't fit someones agenda and poof...so much for that.

The bottom line is who cares about your right-wing, mental health, who you trust issues. We aren't going to make laws and design the world for you.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The bottom line is who cares about your right-wing, mental health, who you trust issues. We aren't going to make laws and design the world for you.

That's right. Instead, we should design the world for you.

So, tell me.....who is to be the all knowing arbiter of "responsible" people? How shall we measure it? Shall we take a black-and-white approach? Limit guns to only those people who are 100% responsible 100% of the time? Shall we quantify it, somehow, and set an arbitrary mark? Perhaps require that a person be appraised on a 100 point scale, and anyone who ranks below a 90 is excluded? Shall we consider all forms of responsibility equal? Is a person who is fiscally irresponsible a good candidate to exclusion from gun possession and ownership? Is being behind on your car payment a good enough reason to have your gun taken away from you? If a person gets behind on their cell phone, can they keep their revolvers even if they're required to subsequently turn in their pistols? Maybe we should take exclude deadbeat dads.

But let's not stop there. Isn't it kind of irresponsible for a person to drink wine while their children are awake and in the house? And how about the CEO who takes a foolish gamble with the company's assets that doesn't pay off, and ends up costing thousands of people their jobs when the layoffs start. And let's not forget the man who cheats on his wife. But that raises an interesting question.....is it irresponsible to sleep around? Or is it irresponsible to get caught?

No, we shouldn't be foolhearted enough to try to limit guns to only "responsible" people. At the end of the day, such a policy would be nothing more than a giant ad hominem, and is prone to exactly the kind of abuse that the second amendment is intended to prevent. Our approach needs to contine to be focused on behavior, and leave to each person the choice of their own behavior, complete with the rewards and consequences thereof. If you use a gun to create chaos and harm others for no good reason, then you will be punished. If you use a gun to protect yourself, your family, etc, then you will be free to continue to enjoy your life. If you choose not to own a gun, that is your right. But if you prefer to be ready to protect yourself in case something dangerous falls upon you, then nobody should raise an objection because your behavior is not affecting anyone else other than yourself.

 

[Dubya]

The bottom line is who cares about your right-wing, mental health, who you trust issues. We aren't going to make laws and design the world for you.

That's right. Instead, we should design the world for you.

So, tell me.....who is to be the all knowing arbiter of "responsible" people? How shall we measure it? Shall we take a black-and-white approach? Limit guns to only those people who are 100% responsible 100% of the time? Shall we quantify it, somehow, and set an arbitrary mark? Perhaps require that a person be appraised on a 100 point scale, and anyone who ranks below a 90 is excluded? Shall we consider all forms of responsibility equal? Is a person who is fiscally irresponsible a good candidate to exclusion from gun possession and ownership? Is being behind on your car payment a good enough reason to have your gun taken away from you? If a person gets behind on their cell phone, can they keep their revolvers even if they're required to subsequently turn in their pistols? Maybe we should take exclude deadbeat dads.

But let's not stop there. Isn't it kind of irresponsible for a person to drink wine while their children are awake and in the house? And how about the CEO who takes a foolish gamble with the company's assets that doesn't pay off, and ends up costing thousands of people their jobs when the layoffs start. And let's not forget the man who cheats on his wife. But that raises an interesting question.....is it irresponsible to sleep around? Or is it irresponsible to get caught?

No, we shouldn't be foolhearted enough to try to limit guns to only "responsible" people. At the end of the day, such a policy would be nothing more than a giant ad hominem, and is prone to exactly the kind of abuse that the second amendment is intended to prevent. Our approach needs to contine to be focused on behavior, and leave to each person the choice of their own behavior, complete with the rewards and consequences thereof. If you use a gun to create chaos and harm others for no good reason, then you will be punished. If you use a gun to protect yourself, your family, etc, then you will be free to continue to enjoy your life. If you choose not to own a gun, that is your right. But if you prefer to be ready to protect yourself in case something dangerous falls upon you, then nobody should raise an objection because your behavior is not affecting anyone else other than yourself.

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

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.

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?

 

[Ravi]

All right then. We'll just add those to the list of weapons that need to be regulated.

 

[jtpr312]

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

Yup, the RIGHT KIND of shotgun is good for home defense, unfortunately these types are on the propsed ban list. Meaning shotguns with the short barrel, collapsible or folding stocks and a pistol grip. Your average long barrelled Shotgun is not a good home defense weapon because it's too unwieldy in tight spaces.