School shooting

[Gaazy]

Ive got superpowers so when I heard them in the yard or driveway, id just pick them off from the window with the ole .30-30. Bam!

[Lueyen]

Shotguns also have a lot more mass to absorb the recoil with. I'm not coming up with this information from nowhere too, I used to go shooting with friends my first go-around in college. I had a 12-gauge that my dad used to use to go duck hunting with, 1 friend had a real baretta 9mm, 1 friend had a baretta knock-off 9mm, and one had a .45. Where I went to school was fairly rural, and a lot of the farmers didn't care if you went onto their land and did some target shooting, as long as you were careful about what was potentially downrange. Besides that, I've shot several other pistols at firing ranges, up to and including a .44 magnum revolver.

I can assure you, that unless you're loading the shotgun with ultra-high power loads, the kick wasn't that bad, and with an open choke, you could do fairly well at hitting a human-sized silhoutte at in-home type ranges with most of the shot load even firing it from your hip, where the recoil was REALLY not noticeable, as you could just let the shotgun slide back some, but had both entire arms to absorb the motion. Sure, no accuracy at anything approaching even medium ranges, but how many people here have 40' long hallways? As has been said here more than once, great accuracy at short range with a shotgun is not a necessity; point it in their general direction and you're going to be making a mess, unlike a pistol where you stand a very real chance of missing vital parts unless you aim really carefully.

So, in any case, given the pistol recoil that I remember, especially that .45 (and the .44 I shot in the range, of course), and the recoil of my large gauge shotgun, I can only imagine a 20 gauge would be insanely easy to handle, much less a 410 like Evermore is talking about.

-Arlos

If you are talking about using the pistol one handed that's quite a bit different. In thinking about someone concerned about recoil I wouldn't think you'd have them firing it one handed. Regardless a 410 as I recall (it's been over a decade since I shot one) doesn't have that much more recoil then a 22. When you start talking higher gauges, the recoil increase is substantial.

Also general direction aim with a shotgun at the distances we are talking is iffy you still want to have the majority of the shot hit the target and that means centering it, the further out you get from the center of the spread the less stopping and wounding power it's going to have. Also keep in mind shot doesn't really start to spread out significantly until around 45 feet. If the range is to the point that you "can't miss" with a shot gun, then likely you aren't going to miss with a pistol either. No offense Arlos but target shooting won't give you the full picture here, an attacker isn't going to stand there squared up with you like a range target. You won't likely have the same target profile, nor a still target because of this aim will be a significant factor in getting the majority of the shot onto an aggressor.


One thing where shotguns are concerned is a lot of police have told me they would prefer them to hand guns in a fire fight, but thats with slugs not shot. Slugs however defeat one of the primary reasons for using a shot gun as a home defense weapon, as a slug like a bulled has a lot of penetration power and could go through multiple walls ect.

I don't see huge advantages to aiming and recoil management of a shot gun, but hands down in a populated area it is the best choice for safety concerns. If you live in an apartment I'd see it as even more critical as shot isn't likely to go through several dwellings, bullets will often times do so and likely injure or kill someone you didn't intend to hit.

[araby]

I shot a twelve gauge when I was 11 and it threw my shoulder out of socket. It's been thrown out three more times since then. I don't think I have a socket anymore.

[Harrison]

A 9mm isn't likely to travel through your typical home wall.

This is why SWAT teams will use them in close-quarters hostage situations to avoid shooting through a wall. (MP5 9mm variety)

Your standard police issue 9mm Glock (most widely used to date) will not travel through most walls either.

The FBI uses the .40 cal variety of Glock and that is my personal favorite. MUCH more stopping power than that BB of a 9mm. If I wanted to protect myself in a situation where possible deadly force is required, I would NOT rely on a 9mm to stop a man.

[Evermore]

Id go with the .45 cuz Im not to handy with the shotgun.

you dont have to be handy. you just have to point it in the correct direction. OPen the choke and you will get a bigger dispersion pattern.

remember you are only talking distances of less then say 25' here

[Zanchief]

The fact that you guys are having a serious discussion about the caliber and power of various guns is proof of how deep your obsession is.

Imagine a group of people contemplating the wattage and power of the electric chair, an object that has the exact same functionality as a gun.

[Harrison]

You can't protect yourself with an electric chair.

You can't use an electric chair to go hunting.

You can't go to the range with an electric chair.

You can't go to the Olympics with skill in "Electric Chair"

An electric chair is more of a murderous piece of machinery than a gun ever will be.

Guns have multiple valid and legal uses, an electric chair is only used to kill human beings.

Your attempt at a connection fails.

If you're going to be a whiny vagina, at least use facts to support your argument.

[Zanchief]

You can't sit on a gun.

You can't warm up your oatmeal on a gun...

Who cares

an electric chair is only used to kill human beings.

A gun is only used to kill.

[Lyion]

The fact that you guys are having a serious discussion about the caliber and power of various guns is proof of how deep your obsession is.

Sadly, it's embedded into our culture, and there is no nearterm solution to our guns are cool fixation. The fact we are so stat and meme obsessed only adds to this.

[Harrison]

Eliminate guns completely from the world, and you win.

Remove them from law abiding citizens because of the actions of criminals, and you fail MISERABLY.

If you can't accomplish the first option, you have no right to leave people defenseless in the second option.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=409_1176853869

Penn and Teller nail this perfectly.

As I said before, I think you guys live too comfortably to see a necessity for self-defense.

[Snero]

i keep hearing this argument, I just don't see it. If you make hand guns illegal to anybody bit police officers, and you make automatic weapons illegal except for military personnel, where exactly are the weapons in the black market going to come from. The reason gun control on a state by state basis doesn't work is you can always turn around, drive to the nearby state and arm yourself, which imo is still better than being able to buy anywhere but it still doesn't solve the problem.

Remove these weapons from the entire country and you don't have this easy supply, where are people going to find them. Sure you might have some smuggled in, but they will be a hell of a lot scarcer and more expensive. Guns are also a lot easier to catch being smuggled compared to drugs or alcohol.

[Harrison]

I try not to point out the obvious to the ignorant, but this is ridiculous.

Where are the guns in the black market going to come from? How about the MILLIONS of current gun owners legal or illegal now?

What about our pathetic excuses for "borders"? You know how easy it is to disassemble most guns into indiscernible components for transport?

Do you, as well, suppose the government go door to door to all licensed gun owners and say "Hey, give me your gun that is afforded to you by right in the Constitution"? "We're just trying to make your living conditions safer." ...or some such bullshit. There's a fucking scary scenario.

The day the government attempts to fully disarm the population is the day it should fall by force.

What you're suggesting is unrealistic in the most extreme way.

[Lueyen]

Guns are also a lot easier to catch being smuggled compared to drugs or alcohol.

What do you base that statement on?

[Zanchief]

Where are the guns in the black market going to come from? How about the MILLIONS of current gun owners legal or illegal now?

What about our pathetic excuses for "borders"? You know how easy it is to disassemble most guns into indiscernible components for transport?

And that would STILL cut down significant on the amount of guns that are being brought in to the country legally right now.

[Harrison]

Guns are also a lot easier to catch being smuggled compared to drugs or alcohol.

What do you base that statement on?

Bullshit, like the rest of his argument.

[Zanchief]

Guns are also a lot easier to catch being smuggled compared to drugs or alcohol.

What do you base that statement on?

Bullshit, like the rest of his argument.

No, I think it's just that you can't recognise what an argument is, what with you having never made one and all.

[Harrison]

[Lyion]

Guns are also a lot easier to catch being smuggled compared to drugs or alcohol.

What do you base that statement on?

You're kidding right? There's debating things, and then there's being silly. This is just silly, Lue.

You can't make your gun into a vase, or sneak it through a metal detector by placing it in your bum.

[Snero]

Guns are also a lot easier to catch being smuggled compared to drugs or alcohol.

What do you base that statement on?

metal detectors, compared to organic substances that can be smuggled in all sorts of stuff. Both are possible, but it's a lot easier to hide powder

[Harrison]

No, but as I said, you can disassemble it into completely indiscernible pieces (meaning *gasp* it doesn't look like a gun at all) and then reassemble said pieces after getting it through whatever means of security you wish to bypass.

Above is purely aimed at the point attempted to say it's more difficult to smuggle than drugs. I will not claim the same for short-term bypassing. (Airport security, etc.)

[Lueyen]

And that would STILL cut down significant on the amount of guns that are being brought in to the country legally right now.

Quoted for emphasis.

[Zanchief]

Exactly.

Claiming the amount of guns distributed in the country will not change at all if certain guns are made illegal, namely hand guns and automatic riffles, is silly.

[Lueyen]

Guns are also a lot easier to catch being smuggled compared to drugs or alcohol.

What do you base that statement on?

You're kidding right? There's debating things, and then there's being silly. This is just silly, Lue.

You can't make your gun into a vase, or sneak it through a metal detector by placing it in your bum.

You also aren't going to have "gun sniffing dogs" at least not ones that will find unfired powder free weapons. Metal detectors can't tell the difference between the metal on a vehicle and the metal of a fire arm.

[Snero]

drug sniffing dogs are hardly as common as metal detectors, but the drug comparison isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things. You make guns illegal and you make them a hell of a lot harder to get, even for the criminal element.

[araby]

I've never seen a black person that wasn't afraid of a dog. Not to sound racist, but in the drug war maybe they should invest in some hounds. Not to derail the thread again..I'll exit now.