Biden gives tactical advice...shotgun vs AR


PDA






gspn
January 24, 2013, 05:58 PM
I just saw Joe Biden field this question. A guy notes that many people keep a firearm as a line of last protection in the aftermath of a large natural disaster...ie an earthquake. Listen to Joe give advice on the best weapon to use in such a scenario (plot spoiler...a double barrel shotgun is better than an AR type rifle even in the hands of a trained user).

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-so-you-want-keep-people-away-earthquake-buy-some-shotgun-shells_697650.html

This guy KILLS me. :D

If you enjoyed reading about "Biden gives tactical advice...shotgun vs AR" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
wannabeagunsmith
January 24, 2013, 06:00 PM
Gotta admit, at least there is some humor to this whole AWB thing this time around..

Skribs
January 24, 2013, 06:00 PM
Follow-up question: then why the {self moderated} do our soldiers carry M-16s and M4s when we could be giving them double-barrel shotguns?

Gotta admit, at least there is some humor to this whole AWB thing this time around..

It aint gonna be funny if they win.

Carter
January 24, 2013, 06:03 PM
Question: Why doesn't somebody who is a LEO or military officer stand up and say these people are totally wrong? The military does not train to shoot from the hip with their "assault rifles" and a shotgun is nowhere near as easy to use as an AR.

19-3Ben
January 24, 2013, 06:07 PM
Follow-up question: then why the {self moderated} do our soldiers carry M-16s and M4s when we could be giving them double-barrel shotguns?

Love it.

Skribs
January 24, 2013, 06:20 PM
You know, I'm sure if I ran for office I would have the analytical skills needed to break down these bills into what is great ideas, what could use some work, and what is utterly stupid. Unfortunately I lack the networking and people skills to successfully campaign or convince the other politicians that they are being dunderheads, so I will be happy with writing letters and donating to the NRA.

Walkalong
January 24, 2013, 06:25 PM
A good shot gunner can be quite formidable, so he isn't all wet on this one. The bad thing is that next time they may come for the shotguns, because, after all, they are more devastating than those evil assault rifles we banned. :scrutiny:

RonC
January 24, 2013, 06:31 PM
Interestingly enough, Biden downplayed the role of "assault-style" weapons in shootings and admitted that they were used in a very small percentage of shootings.
Looks like he realizes there is no way an "assault weapon" ban is going to come out of the House, so he is focusing his energies on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds (he calls them shells).
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/24/16682888-biden-downplays-assault-weapons-ban-emphasizes-background-checks-and-magazine-restrictions?lite
Ron

bigdipper
January 24, 2013, 06:36 PM
if a shot guns better then an assault weapon (which of course the most powerful kind of weapon on earth) why do you want my AK instead of my mossburg 500?

Nickel Plated
January 24, 2013, 06:37 PM
A good shot gunner can be quite formidable, so he isn't all wet on this one. The bad thing is that next time they may come for the shotguns, because, after all, they are more devastating than those evil assault rifles we banned.

Except it's a good bit harder (and more expensive, practice costs) to be good with a shotgun than to be good-enough with an AR.

Also I thought they kept saying that the only purpose of an "assault weapon" was to make it easy to kill large numbers of people (which is what you may very well end up doing after a natural disaster if it really comes down to arming yourself) Now apparently they're harmless and shouldn't be counted on to defend yourself with.
So which is it?

I guess it's true, as far as they're concerned, you can't have small weak guns because they are too easy to conceal. But you can't have big guns because they're too powerful. Sooo....you can't have anything.

gspn
January 24, 2013, 06:41 PM
if a shot guns better then an assault weapon (which of course the most powerful kind of weapon on earth) why do you want my AK instead of my mossburg 500?
Dude...you just nailed that one shut! Great point!

Skribs
January 24, 2013, 06:42 PM
Very good point, bigdipper. I think the reasoning is that a shotgun with 2 shells is good for 2 bad guys. But with a rifle you might need to pull the trigger more, so it's not as good. I'm not saying I agree with the concept, but that's the idea. A shotgun with 2 shells will be harder to kill 20 kids with than a rifle with 30 rounds. This of course ignores the fact that the kids aren't going to be much of a hindrance to reloading.

Walkalong, I don't doubt that shotguns are formidable (I think the AR is better for HD, but my HD gun right now is a shotgun because of avialable practice ranges). However, Joe Biden should not be dictating to me what I can and cannot use in self in defense. I should be allowed to make that choice. If anything, that choice should be similar to what our cops use. Why are they transitioning from shotguns to rifles if shotguns are better?

I think Joe Biden would never go after shotguns, because it sounds like he loves shotguns, but hates the other types of guns. I can kind of sympathize. I don't like 1911s for example. But if I was VP, I wouldn't be calling on a ban of 1911s because I like Glocks better.

JFrame
January 24, 2013, 06:51 PM
I actually USED TO think that a shotgun (even a double-barrel) was perfectly fine for home defense in the event of a disaster. But Plugs has persuaded me otherwise.

I mean, I have never heard anything accurate or intelligent come out of that idiot's mouth... http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC_duh.gif


.

gspn
January 24, 2013, 06:56 PM
However, Joe Biden should not be dictating to me what I can and cannot use in self in defense. I should be allowed to make that choice.

Another great point that highlights yet further intrusion by "big government" into the personal lives of it's citizens.

huntsman
January 24, 2013, 07:04 PM
(plot spoiler...a double barrel shotgun is better than an AR type rifle even in the hands of a trained user).

It's my choice

Follow-up question: then why the {self moderated} do our soldiers carry M-16s and M4s when we could be giving them double-barrel shotguns?

because .gov couldn't afford the cost of quality doubles.

Skribs
January 24, 2013, 07:29 PM
Huntsman, the debt would suggest that even though they cant afford it, they would buy it anyway.

Military isnt calling Biden wrong because he is their boss.

Habeed
January 24, 2013, 07:38 PM
From the perspective of the authorities, shotguns are less of a menace in civilian hands than ARs, right? The pellets are much more easily stopped by standard torso body armor. This makes me curious what standard 12 gauge shot does when it hits the skull..does the skull or soft tissue of the face provide enough resistance to the shot to cause reduced lethality versus an AR?

Also, for mass shootings, would a shotgun plausibly kill fewer people? Most shotguns used fixed magazines, and they hold 5-8 rounds. The shot is less likely to pass through one person and hit another. It takes many times longer to reload. To me, with years of experience with video games (sarcasm, I know that is no replacement for real experience) a shotgun has much less firepower. Except when you are up against zombies, of course.

-v-
January 24, 2013, 07:50 PM
Some practice with a shotgun and getting good at shoveling shells and also properly stacking shells (2 shells stacked ontop of each other and then shoved into the loading gate as one long slinky) a shotgun can be fairly quick to reload.

That said, Gaff-o-matic is back to it again.

22-rimfire
January 24, 2013, 07:51 PM
Here is the source. You might listen to it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYlkknrku4

glennv
January 24, 2013, 08:15 PM
The liberals have done a great job at projecting a series arguments on a situation that is totally unrelated to another.

They rationalize the ideology that you don't need hi-caps and semi-autos but somehow law enforcement officers do because they are more likely to be in a situation which warrants the use of the gun in self defense. Most folks fall for this. Sure the likelihood is much higher for an officer, but once YOU are confronted with a situation that warrants the use of force there is NO difference between you and the officer. The likelihood of a situation shouldn't dictate the level of lethality of the weapon. Again, most folks fall for this. When you raise the issue those folks usually come around.

JFrame
January 24, 2013, 08:17 PM
The liberals have done a great job at projecting a series arguments on a situation that is totally unrelated to another.

They rationalize the ideology that you don't need hi-caps and semi-autos but somehow law enforcement officers do because they are more likely to be in a situation which warrants the use of the gun in self defense. Most folks fall for this. Sure the likelihood is much higher for an officer, but once YOU are confronted with a situation that warrants the use of force there is NO difference between you and the officer. The likelihood of a situation shouldn't dictate the level of lethality of the weapon. Again, most folks fall for this. When you raise the issue those folks usually come around.


...Very well said! http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/good2.gif


.

r1derbike
January 24, 2013, 08:45 PM
Question: Why doesn't somebody who is a LEO or military officer stand up and say these people are totally wrong? The military does not train to shoot from the hip with their "assault rifles" and a shotgun is nowhere near as easy to use as an AR.
An LEO or military officer would probably be terminated for telling the truth. They are told to keep their mouths shut, and do their jobs, or face punitive action.

greenmtnguy
January 24, 2013, 09:22 PM
Old Joe is now sounding even more like Elmer Fudd with his inclination to double barrel shotguns. While they are lovely pointing firearms for bird hunting and all....

barnbwt
January 24, 2013, 10:53 PM
Well, at least one good thing came out of this:

No more threads on "AR vs. 12ga For Home Duhfins" :D.

By deductive reasoning, Biden has proven once and for all the superiority of a rifle platform for protecting against intruders. As that other thread showed, the mere sight of an AR is enough to send the baddies packing :D.

Biden does seem to love the shotties, though. Ardently. Especially considering his stance on rifles/pistols going back decades. Espeically considering how much he plays at being "just another blue-collar guy" and not an elite (and yet to be trusted with guns). Does anyone know if he happens to own a badass shotgun collection? Aside from being "neat to know," it would be yet another example of a "purist" politician with a deeply conflicted worldview.

TCB

BHP FAN
January 24, 2013, 11:01 PM
he should go hunting with Dick Cheney.

Tommygunn
January 24, 2013, 11:05 PM
Biden is a world class goofus.:barf:

InkEd
January 24, 2013, 11:11 PM
I think the solution to the whole debate is simple.

Every home in America needs a semi-auto MK19 grenade launcher with one box of linked ammo. IIRC a standard (.50cal size ammo can) holds less than 30rds. They are excellent for defending a fixed position like a house. The cartridges are BIG and therefore by BIDEN LOGIC would be even better than shotgun shells for defense, since shot shells are bigger than rifle cartridges. Plus, they are large and cannot be concealed. It makes PERFECT sense!

jon86
January 24, 2013, 11:13 PM
Subbed

Okiegunner
January 24, 2013, 11:28 PM
Really and truly...

For most home defense situations, there is probably nothing better to have/use than a 12G shotgun. Not sexy, just effective.

Having said that...Scr*w Joe. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with what is or is not better for home defense!!

avs11054
January 25, 2013, 12:19 AM
Question: Why doesn't somebody who is a LEO or military officer stand up and say these people are totally wrong?

These people are totally wrong.

Most LEOs are pro-gun (or if they are not pro-gun, they know that bans that target law abiding citizens are not the answer). I guess not most upper-brass though because I heard that the International Association of Chiefs of Police supports the AWB. Unforunately they are the ones that get the press and not the pro-gun street cops. My guess is that the chiefs are coming out in support of this in order to appeal to city managers who are their bosses.

Luckily we have numerous sheriffs whose only bosses are their constituents who are standing up in opposition of the AWB.

Powerglide
January 25, 2013, 05:42 AM
Wonder if the troops would agree it's the best self-defense weapon?

tarosean
January 25, 2013, 06:02 AM
So if the AR is a "weapon of mass destruction", what exactly does that make the formidable double barrel? Which is scarier O/U or SxS?

Halal Pork
January 25, 2013, 06:08 AM
I'm surprised Biden didn't say "just tell the Secret Service detail to handle it while you get some sleep."

somerandomguy
January 25, 2013, 06:10 AM
The liberals have done a great job at projecting a series arguments on a situation that is totally unrelated to another.

They rationalize the ideology that you don't need hi-caps and semi-autos but somehow law enforcement officers do because they are more likely to be in a situation which warrants the use of the gun in self defense. Most folks fall for this. Sure the likelihood is much higher for an officer, but once YOU are confronted with a situation that warrants the use of force there is NO difference between you and the officer. The likelihood of a situation shouldn't dictate the level of lethality of the weapon. Again, most folks fall for this. When you raise the issue those folks usually come around.
Not to pick a fight or anything, but it's not a Right vs Left issue. I am a proud Liberal yet am incredibly pro gun. Why does it matter what someone's political affiliations are? That doesn't mean that they blindly follow party lines...

OilyPablo
January 25, 2013, 06:38 AM
Not to pick a fight or anything, but it's not a Right vs Left issue. I am a proud Liberal yet am incredibly pro gun. Why does it matter what someone's political affiliations are? That doesn't mean that they blindly follow party lines...

Mainly because liberal NE and West Coast Democrats vote overwhelming for gun control. Yes - they follow lock step in party lines. Happens every day.

Back to Biden, this hack is juicing up for 2016. People who listen to him for advice on anything beside hair, teeth and good places to hide liquor have some serious balance issues.

radiotom
January 25, 2013, 06:59 AM
Not to pick a fight or anything, but it's not a Right vs Left issue. I am a proud Liberal yet am incredibly pro gun. Why does it matter what someone's political affiliations are? That doesn't mean that they blindly follow party lines...
How did you vote in 2012?

somerandomguy
January 25, 2013, 07:09 AM
How did you vote in 2012?
I voted for Obama because as much as I don't trust Obama, I certainly didn't trust Romney at all. I also voted for some Republicans as well as conservative judges. Like I said: I don't vote party lines, I vote on who aligns with my views the most.

Halal Pork
January 25, 2013, 07:41 AM
Not to pick a fight or anything, but it's not a Right vs Left issue. I am a proud Liberal yet am incredibly pro gun. Why does it matter what someone's political affiliations are? That doesn't mean that they blindly follow party lines...
Agreed. The question is whether or not individuals support the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment. We know Biden does not. Where I live, it's valuable to check NRA grades for candidates because party affiliation isn't necessarily indicative of how they will vote on the issues we're all concerned with on this forum.

rdhood
January 25, 2013, 08:22 AM
What is interesting about that press conference was NOT the shotgun issue. It is how Biden is pivoting now over not banning rifles, but Hi Cap magazines.

huntsman
January 25, 2013, 09:27 AM
Wonder if the troops would agree it's the best self-defense weapon?
The military isn't in the self-defense business they need firearms for offense as the goal is victory, but when the troops engaged in protective services the shotgun was used.

digsigs226
January 25, 2013, 09:33 AM
There was an excerpt of this on CNN this morning:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/24/bidens-gun-advice-for-earthquakes/

"It's harder to use an assault weapon to hit something than it is a shotgun, OK?" he said, as he mimicked holding a gun with both arms. "So if you want to keep people away in an earthquake, buy some shotgun shells."

I'm all for shotgun defense, but if he is seriously advocating a double barrel 12 gauge shotgun is more easily manageable and efficient than a .223 AR you are insane. Especially to the untrained, women, etc.

Biden said that gunman, who had 30-round magazines, had to swap out "four or five times." If limited to 10 rounds, however, the vice president argued the gunman would have had to swap out 25 or 30 times.

...Apparently basic math was not his strong point.

22-rimfire
January 25, 2013, 09:35 AM
Huntsmand; So was New Orleans following Katrina "offense or defense"?

Old Joe is now sounding even more like Elmer Fudd with his inclination to double barrel shotguns.

As much as I HATE the term, I tend to agree with you. I would personally prefer a 12 ga Remington 870 shotgun if I were using it for defensive purposes.

And Biden also said that regular folks would require 1 to 1.5 minutes to change a magazine versus the 1 second or two by the experts.

Apparently Biden has an intellegence problem...

RCArms.com
January 25, 2013, 09:36 AM
This is funny. A guy that has trouble putting a coherent sentence together giving advice on what is a better choice for home protection.

robert garner
January 25, 2013, 09:39 AM
I don't take advice from drunks,next?
robert

mljdeckard
January 25, 2013, 10:35 AM
I played the clip for my noob wife, and she was he was just stupid.

You can say that it isn't a partisan issue, but the fact is, the democratic party put an assualt weapons ban back into their agenda. To me, it's kind of like saying you don't believe in God, but that hasn't stopped you from being a good Catholic. We do have some dems (like Matheson) shock-collar conditioned, and it seems to be working for now.

Skribs
January 25, 2013, 11:00 AM
Not to pick a fight or anything, but it's not a Right vs Left issue. I am a proud Liberal yet am incredibly pro gun. Why does it matter what someone's political affiliations are? That doesn't mean that they blindly follow party lines...

I can't speak for everyone, but when I complain about the Dems trying to take my guns, I'm not complaining about democrats in general, I'm complaining about those in power, because for the most part they DO follow party lines. The democrat party also officially states they support gun control. I know that most citizens don't agree 100% with their party, but it is a fact that the official position of the left is to get rid of guns.

radiotom
January 25, 2013, 11:03 AM
I voted for Obama because as much as I don't trust Obama, I certainly didn't trust Romney at all. I also voted for some Republicans as well as conservative judges. Like I said: I don't vote party lines, I vote on who aligns with my views the most.
I hope you're enjoying what you voted for. I hold you and the rest of the Obama voters responsible for what is happening.

Perhaps if you liked neither, you shouldn't have voted in the Presidential election?

mljdeckard
January 25, 2013, 11:07 AM
^^Yup.

huntsman
January 25, 2013, 11:34 AM
Huntsmand; So was New Orleans following Katrina "offense or defense"?


I'm not sure I understand the question but I'm of the belief that the military shouldn't be used on US soil for relief work, meal on wheels or anything other than defending the nation's sovereignty.

Old Joe is making a lame attempt to justify the proposed banning of certain firearms by offering what he thinks is an allowable choice for SD, the message may be dumb but that doesn't mean a double shotgun isn't a legitimate SD gun, better than an AR? that's for each of us to decide but what’s important is that we all have the chance to make the decision.

Tommygunn
January 25, 2013, 11:39 AM
Really and truly...

For most home defense situations, there is probably nothing better to have/use than a 12G shotgun. Not sexy, just effective.

Okie, the V.P. said double barrel shotgun. Personally I have a Mossberg 500 which is a slide action that I use. I wouldn't use a double barrel because you get two shots and then have to reload and that's "clunky." An AR gives you a semiauto and a normal cap magazine provides lots of firepower and is IMHO far superior to a double barrel shotgun.

mljdeckard
January 25, 2013, 12:35 PM
I suppose Uncle Joe watches Doc Holladay in Tombstone over and over, thinking that's the ideal way to fight with a shotgun today.

316SS
January 25, 2013, 01:45 PM
No need to choose.

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4090/4996583393_9d797beb68_b.jpg

Skribs
January 25, 2013, 02:03 PM
I'd actually prefer just one. Lighter, and easier to to hold onto. If I think I'll need more ammunition, I'll load a bigger magazine.

goon
January 25, 2013, 02:14 PM
A psychopath with shotgun firing buck shot into a crowd of defenseless victims can kill just as many as one with a semi-auto. Biden has to know that too.

The response to attack with either weapon is the same - Mozambique drill.

allaroundhunter
January 25, 2013, 02:18 PM
Except it's a good bit harder (and more expensive, practice costs) to be good with a shotgun than to be good-enough with an AR.

I sure hope that you are kidding, because that is wrong on all fronts...

Skribs
January 25, 2013, 03:02 PM
The simple fact is that anything that is good for self defense is usually good for mass shootings, for much the same reasons. Take the AR right now, because it is in the spotlight. Why do I think the AR is the best platform?

-Lightweight (nice if you're bunkered down waiting for the BG to leave or come through the door)
-Easy-to-use (shallow learning curve, also good if I have someone else staying with me)
-Lots of aftermarket support (including familiar trainers/gunsmiths and third-party products)
-Rifle cartridge (very efficient at dealing damage compared to recoil, more likely to stop an attacker quickly)
-Low recoil (good for follow up shots, because one shot often isn't enough)
-High capacity (compared with a pistol or shotgun, which helps with more follow-up shots on a failure-to-stop or against multiple attackers)
-Accurate (although user error in a stressful situation might negate much of this)
-Reliable (what good is a gun if doesn't go bang when you need it to?)
-Less penetration through walls than pistol or shotgun (less risk of collateral damage)

All of these features make the AR very attractive for home defense. I think an AR-15 with a flashpoint and either an aimpoint or trijicon reflex, equipped with a 20- or 30-round magazine (I'd prefer 20, personally, but there's no reason why I think you shouldn't be able to do 30 or even 100 rounds if you feel its a better option) is probably the best home defense weapon.

These features make it good for the military, police, civilian defender, action shooter, or (unfortunately) mass murderer. The problem is, the anti's think that...

1) Because there are devastating bullets available, (and the antis hyperbolize the devastation), that is all we can use in the AR-15, and therefore it is too powerful for most uses.
2) Because we have a 30-round magazine, we will shoot 30 rounds. "You don't need 30 rounds to kill a deer." No, but if someone is in survival mode, it would be better if they could conveniently keep the other 29 in their magazine. That way if more is needed it's ready. "You don't need 30 rounds to stop a bad guy." Depending on their preparation (armor), determination (failure of the psychological stop), and quantity, you might need more than that.

They have a lot more arguments, but these seem to be the two least-moronic I've seen. #1 is ignorance of how bullet construction R&D works, and #2 is simply a misunderstanding as to how we deal with leftover rounds. Correia said it best in his blog post, (and I'm paraphrasing) "we don't want 30 rounds so we can shoot 30 rounds, we want 30 rounds so that they're there if we need it."

Greg528iT
January 25, 2013, 04:18 PM
Sorry I just have to laugh. Having been reading THR for the last several years when the Home Defense issue comes up, a clear majority of respondents say.. SHOT GUN. As soon as VP Biden says the same thing, OMG he's an idiot. :) Yes there are plenty of pro shot gun responses in this thread.

So here's my opinion
IN a house. Very short quarters.. a short barreled shot gun. Easy to swing, won't need more than 2 shots, generally. Easy to load, flip open drop in. Dim or NO light (at night). NERVES.. so hitting something is going to be tough, so a wide spread pattern is better. As far as I've seen, most police cars still have a shotgun up front ready for entering a house or other close quarters.

In an open field with a fire fight in the 25 to 200 yard range, YES the AR is going to excel. This is why our military supplies ARs to our troops. If you as a civilian are "defending" yourself at a distance of 100 plus yards you are in trouble no matter what.

If you have to crawl into a tunnel to clear Vietcong, chances are you'll drop the AR, shotgun and take your pistol.

thunder173
January 25, 2013, 04:37 PM
Isn't he jest precious???........

Makes me proud to be a republican.........

herkyguy
January 25, 2013, 04:43 PM
Biden said a double barrelled shotgun, which is probably not what most people think of when they refer to a shotgun being a good home defense weapon. two shots....that's it. better make them count.

unless you're Jason Bourne or something.

Deanimator
January 25, 2013, 04:43 PM
Biden isn't qualified to give advice on how to find one's behind with both hands. He's been looking for his for fifty years and hasn't stumbled across it yet.

Skribs
January 25, 2013, 04:52 PM
Sorry I just have to laugh. Having been reading THR for the last several years when the Home Defense issue comes up, a clear majority of respondents say.. SHOT GUN. As soon as VP Biden says the same thing, OMG he's an idiot. Yes there are plenty of pro shot gun responses in this thread.

I wouldn't say "a majority". The numbers seem fairly evenly split amongst the rifle and shotgun crowd, with a smaller (but still significant) amount of people saying handgun. Most people recognize the benefits and limitations of all 3. Personally, I use a shotgun, because I don't have any rifles. I think the rifle is better, but there are no rifle ranges nearby that I like.

I also think that as education as to how rifles do wounding and the fact that they overpenetrate less through walls has led to an increase in the number of people saying "rifle over shotgun" over the years...me included.

So here's my opinion
IN a house. Very short quarters.. a short barreled shot gun. Easy to swing, won't need more than 2 shots, generally. Easy to load, flip open drop in. Dim or NO light (at night). NERVES.. so hitting something is going to be tough, so a wide spread pattern is better. As far as I've seen, most police cars still have a shotgun up front ready for entering a house or other close quarters.

I'd argue that reloading a tube-fed shotgun would be just as easy under stress as reloading a double. And while you may say you only need 2 shots, I've read reports of people taking several, even point-blank from a shotgun. Not to mention that at point-blank distances, the spread isn't going to be that much (and if it was, it would be as much a liability as it would be a benefit).

I think there's advantages to a double-barrel shotgun over a tube-fed shotgun or an AR-15, namely the shorter OAL with the same barrel length. However, I'm barely comfortable with 6 in the tube, I'd be more comfortable with 20 in an easily replaceable magazine.

In an open field with a fire fight in the 25 to 200 yard range, YES the AR is going to excel. This is why our military supplies ARs to our troops. If you as a civilian are "defending" yourself at a distance of 100 plus yards you are in trouble no matter what.

How about the guy who made a shot at 125 (was it feet or yards? saw both) to save a first responder from a crazed sniper?

If you have to crawl into a tunnel to clear Vietcong, chances are you'll drop the AR, shotgun and take your pistol.

I don't know, a slung AR or shotgun would be a lot easier to keep control of than a pistol.

JFrame
January 25, 2013, 06:12 PM
I wouldn't say "a majority". The numbers seem fairly evenly split amongst the rifle and shotgun crowd, with a smaller (but still significant) amount of people saying handgun. Most people recognize the benefits and limitations of all 3. Personally, I use a shotgun, because I don't have any rifles. I think the rifle is better, but there are no rifle ranges nearby that I like.

I also think that as education as to how rifles do wounding and the fact that they overpenetrate less through walls has led to an increase in the number of people saying "rifle over shotgun" over the years...me included.

I'd argue that reloading a tube-fed shotgun would be just as easy under stress as reloading a double. And while you may say you only need 2 shots, I've read reports of people taking several, even point-blank from a shotgun. Not to mention that at point-blank distances, the spread isn't going to be that much (and if it was, it would be as much a liability as it would be a benefit).

I think there's advantages to a double-barrel shotgun over a tube-fed shotgun or an AR-15, namely the shorter OAL with the same barrel length. However, I'm barely comfortable with 6 in the tube, I'd be more comfortable with 20 in an easily replaceable magazine.

How about the guy who made a shot at 125 (was it feet or yards? saw both) to save a first responder from a crazed sniper?

I don't know, a slung AR or shotgun would be a lot easier to keep control of than a pistol.

Skribs -- on top of your fine analysis, I would just like to add that perhaps some people (myself included) added a shotgun or two to their "long gun" home defense inventory because a good, reliable pump was simply less expensive than your typical AR-style rifle, while still satisfying the desire for some ranged defense and power within a circumscribed distance (say, a suburban neighborhood).

Coupled with that, there was the advantage of actually being able to function-test and target-shoot the shotgun at the local suburban indoor range, which is a no-no for any "rifle" caliber.

But I was never under the illusion -- as Plugs Biden appears to be -- that one simply has to point a shotgun at the general direction of a miscreant and vaporize him.

Biden is the most compelling reason I can imagine why we shouldn't have politicians telling us what we can or can't own for home defense, target shooting, or whatever...


.

reggie_love
January 25, 2013, 07:02 PM
So which one is it Joe, do they make killing too easy? Or are they too complicated for us peasants... er... "Ordinary Citizens" to use?

Combine this with his constant mangling of terminology, (clip instead of magazine, shell instead of cartridge, not to mention the meaningless euphemism that is "assault weapon") and it's very clear that he has no idea what he is taking about. What position, therefore, is he in to tell me what I need when he clearly has no expertise in the area? If, say, Massad Ayoob told me I didn't need an AR, maybe I'd be more inclined to listen. But he isn't, because he knows the tools of the trade; nobody who knows guns supports such silly legislation, and we can all see why.

Advice from Biden on how much gun is appropriate is like letting the Amish do your car shopping.

So, Joe, I Demand A Plan for you to get bent!

Sheepdog1968
January 25, 2013, 08:30 PM
There are pros and cons of every weapon system. I like shotguns for the power they deliver and I like semiauto rifles for the capacity potential. There is no one right answer. One could do far worse than have a side by side shotgun with slugs or OO buck loaded. The most important thing is the training to learn how to really use your weapon well.

Kiln
January 25, 2013, 11:42 PM
Allow me to explain why Biden thinks a double barrel is best, it has nothing to do with facts about what is easier to use or more effective.

1. It is in line with the democrat party's stance on low cap firearms (until those are in their crosshairs too).

2. It doesn't matter what gun he uses because his bodyguards will protect him. He most likely wouldn't need to fire either barrel from that shotgun.

3. He's rich and lives in a good neighborhood where groups of people don't kick in doors and rob people at gun point. I'd like to know what old Joe would do if three people happened to break in instead of two.

Carter
January 25, 2013, 11:44 PM
3. He's rich and lives in a good neighborhood where groups of people don't kick in doors and rob people at gun point. I'd like to know what old Joe would do if three people happened to break in instead of two.

He's a government official though. Feinstein's bill wouldn't effect him so he'd probably grab a fresh off the line m4.

jerkface11
January 25, 2013, 11:45 PM
I guess that's why his body guards carry double barrels.

TheCracker
January 26, 2013, 12:06 AM
Ludicrous.

Why aren't they trying to ban the tactical double barrel then?

Oh wait, those will be next. Then a stack knife will be better than the double barrel.

Skribs
January 26, 2013, 01:28 AM
I've just realized that if I get a pistol gripped rifle, my cross-eye-dominance isn't an issue, because I can hip fire for self defense!

(sarcasm)

Waywatcher
January 26, 2013, 10:28 AM
Everything aside, a shotgun is actually a superb defensive weapon, that part is true. Go into a LGS and ask what they recommend for Home Defense. Even some Carbine SMEs opt for the shotgun for defense.

I disagree with the double barrel part, though. They are expensive and an off-the-rack pump has 5 to 7 rounds.

PedalBiker
January 26, 2013, 10:40 AM
Very good point, bigdipper. I think the reasoning is that a shotgun with 2 shells is good for 2 bad guys. But with a rifle you might need to pull the trigger more, so it's not as good. I'm not saying I agree with the concept, but that's the idea. A shotgun with 2 shells will be harder to kill 20 kids with than a rifle with 30 rounds. This of course ignores the fact that the kids aren't going to be much of a hindrance to reloading.

If you give a maniac 10 minutes of unhindered access to a school, he could easily kill quite a lot of people with a fireman's ax, maybe not 26, but then again maybe. And, the fireman's ax will get him through the locked doors.

The whole gun thing is divide and conquer. Biden knows that a lot of double barrel shotgun owners want nothing to do with the AR, AK "rabble". He's trying to appeal to the spineless "gun owner" who is happy to compromise the rights of others in the hope that his tools don't get touched.

Don't forget that there are a whole lot of people out there who "own guns" who want to appear to be "reasonable" and they're more than willing to throw ARs under the bus today just to keep up appearances.

I hate ARs, however, I spent 12 long years in the Army defending your right to buy one. I don't care if it's "right" for me, or the best choice for me. For many of you an AR suits your needs and that's all I need to go on. I have made my choices and I am happy with them. I want others to be free to do the same.

I'll tell you one thing for sure. In an urban environment it's irresponsible to sling slugs around the house if you have an AR you could have used instead. It's also way safer to keep a 30 round loaded magazine locked up than it is to keep a pump with shells in the tubular magazine.

Biden is playing for power, nothing more, nothing less.
With the taxpayers it's at least 50% emotion and TV. My in-laws are hopeless, they're ignorant but think they're experts because they watch TV.

xfyrfiter
January 26, 2013, 10:45 AM
If anyone thinks that a shotty would be less devastating in a shooter scenario, has never seen a competitive three gunner, or Sass shooter go to work, both disciplines are absolutely amazing, and show what a little training can do.

RockyMtnTactical
January 26, 2013, 12:08 PM
What a moron Biden is. Why aren't we banning shotguns then?

Skribs
January 26, 2013, 12:34 PM
Jframe, I agree with you. I thino the AR is the best, but if you choose a shotgun due to price, availability, or familiarity you are not wrong.

Ky Larry
January 26, 2013, 12:35 PM
A dumba$$ with media access is truly a frightening thing.

yokel
January 26, 2013, 12:48 PM
It is chilling to watch our "elite" hunt around for someone or something to use as a scapegoat to justify their failed policies and continuous grasp for power.

America's most dangerous enemy is its own imagination run wild. There is an epidemic of people convinced that our world or society is coming to an end for one reason or another. They say something horrible will happen unless drastic steps such as the National Firearms Act of 1934 or the Gun Control Act of 1968 are taken. Their fears will become a self-fulfilling prophesy unless people stop looking at our society as a place where the tyranny of the majority forces its concept of "good" on its neighbors.

If you enjoyed reading about "Biden gives tactical advice...shotgun vs AR" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!