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

[jtpr312]

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.

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.

 

[Dubya]

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.

My first shotgun was a Remington Model 870 with an 18 inch deerslayer barrel, bought in the PX at Camp Lejeune. Later on I bought a 30 inch barrel for it.

I didn't get her for self-defense, but I presently have an English Mastiff named Lucy. I wouldn't suggest even getting near the house uninvited.

 

[asaratis]

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 never owned a shotgun with a 30-100-round magazine.

You can get one that holds 12 and one in the chamber. You can load it with 00 buckshot and fire 156 pellets.

...faster than you can fire a repeating rifle 156 times.



Saiga 12 Gauge 12 Round magazine - SGM Tactical Surefire Saiga 12 Gauge - 12RD Polymer magazine [SSGMP1212] - $44.95 : Mississippi Auto Arms, Inc ::, Your Source for Saiga, AK47, AR15, Tromix, Glock, and SKS firearms and accessories

 

[asaratis]

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.

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.

Limiting ownership or possession of anything involves controlling the sale of...

Criminals have no problem getting around control issues.

Regulations mean NOTHING to criminals.

 

[Article 15]

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.

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?

 

[zeke]

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?

What is the effective killing range of a .223 round vs. the effective killing range of the shotgun of your choice? In other words the killing effectivenss of the shotgun, based on the repeated phrase of "at close range" must be significantly less than the .223 round, unless you are firing at very close range. In which case, at close range ANY round can be very lethal. My .22LR is effective at close range.

At 100 yards, which weapon has the better chance of killing someone. Shotgun or AR15?

 

[Dubya]

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.

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.

Limiting ownership or possession of anything involves controlling the sale of...

Criminals have no problem getting around control issues.

Regulations mean NOTHING to criminals.

I think there would be less guns sold with regulations, so supply would be a factor in availability to criminals.

We have laws limiting ownership for certain people. Laws can be made, like requiring periodic registration for certain weapons to ensure the weapon isn't sold and unregistered. Why couldn't we have that done by local police?

If you look at crime stats, very few criminals have guns, with the exception of those involved in the Mexico trade. The reason for that is the penalties are so high.

 

[OODA_Loop]

If you look at crime stats, very few criminals have guns, with the exception of those involved in the Mexico trade. The reason for that is the penalties are so high.

Link ?

 

[Dubya]

If you look at crime stats, very few criminals have guns, with the exception of those involved in the Mexico trade. The reason for that is the penalties are so high.

Link ?

I use these links in the wiki race and crime in the US site, because they have links to gender, age and race.

Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I also look up FBI crime stats from a search engine.

It isn't hard to find stats on gun violence, so knock yourself out and prove a point!

 

[del]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7syAkQmc-lM]Merrie Melodies - Elmer Season - YouTube[/ame]

 

[OODA_Loop]

If you look at crime stats, very few criminals have guns, with the exception of those involved in the Mexico trade. The reason for that is the penalties are so high.

Link ?

I use these links in the wiki race and crime in the US site, because they have links to gender, age and race.

Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I also look up FBI crime stats from a search engine.

It isn't hard to find stats on gun violence, so knock yourself out and prove a point!

Didn't see anything to support:

"very few criminals have guns, with the exception of those involved in the Mexico trade" - Dubya

 

[Sallow]

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 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.

 

[007]

As someone who has hunted deer for over 40 years, I think that has to be the dumbest cartoon I've ever seen.

I guess it only makes sense to gun and hunting ignorant city slickers.

 

[lukelk]

I love how they call an assault rifle that with a tiny bit of tweeking can be fully auto a sporting rifle. That is like the store that sell bongs saying they are tabacco use only, hhahaha. also the AR-15 used put 5 bullets on each of the 5 targets, the shotgun put 5 shots total. This is even before we get into the 2nd amend. arguemnt, is it valid after 200 years?

 

[007]

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.

That's not the point. If you want to take out a bunch of people at close range real fast, a shot gun loaded up with double 00 buck will do it faster than an AR-15. That's a fact. The shotgun was by far the most popular firearm in the early west to use for protection or in a gun fight, because it was simply the best weapon available to kill people at close range. Still is. You don't even have to be a perfect shot, just aim in the direction of a person or persons and they're dead. No other weapon does that.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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.

 

[Inthemiddle]

At 100 yards, which weapon has the better chance of killing someone. Shotgun or AR15?

Well, how about a 20,000 yards? Neither is really that important, now is it? Let's stick to "inside a classroom" range, how about that?

 

[saveliberty]

Police cruisers carry shotguns. There is a reason for that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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 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.

​

And you've figured out how to shoot 30 different people in succession with 5 rounds of buckshot?

How do you get those shells to shoot one pellet at a time?

 

[Dubya]

Link ?

I use these links in the wiki race and crime in the US site, because they have links to gender, age and race.

Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I also look up FBI crime stats from a search engine.

It isn't hard to find stats on gun violence, so knock yourself out and prove a point!

Didn't see anything to support:

"very few criminals have guns, with the exception of those involved in the Mexico trade" - 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.