Why do we make a distinction between pistols, rifles, and shotguns?

[dodo bird]

Don't forget the historic Bowie knife bans

Bowie knife statutes 1837-1899

I own Norm Flayderman’s book: The Bowie Knife: Unsheathing an American Legend . Mr Flayderman assembled the best collection of pictures of vintage Bowies knives that I have seen. And you know what, there is no single Bowie knife pattern. Nor one Arkansas Toothpick pattern. What is called a Bowie knife is subjective, and patterns changed, a whole lot.

There is no law or requirement that someone cannot find an exception large enough to drive a semi through.

Law Enforcement is having fits with "Designer Drugs"

Designer Drugs

Caffeine is a drug, I hope they don't ban coffee.

Coffee is another thing you can pry outta my cold dead hands.

 

[CapnMac]

Distinctions have been made since the time of the "hande gonne." A distinction to separate them from arquebus, muskatoon, and the like.
That was then.
Shotguns, until a Scottish preacher gave us metallic cartridges, were "fowling pieces."
Militaries used muskets, long arms as a rule.

As noted above, the legal distinctions were largely cemented in 1934 in the US.

 

[JohnnyJ7766]

Lots of reasons to make distinctions, but the only reason these distinctions cause arguments is when they're used to make general decisions regarding entire classes of firearms. I don't think a single person argued about the difference between a rifle and a short-barreled rifle until the latter got the book thrown at it and became a pain to buy. I think handguns, if we absolutes had to sort guns into groups, are admittedly the most valuable group to classify, because their design and purpose tends to be pretty different from long guns. Handguns are an almost exclusively civilian defensive weapon, aside from their legitimate but not insanely common use in higher-caliber handgun hunting. For military/militia or hunting purposes they're either rare or niche. So to allow handguns is to implicitly allow self-defense, which is generally more controversial among certain circles.

 

[lsudave]

I think handguns, if we absolutes had to sort guns into groups, are admittedly the most valuable group to classify, because their design and purpose tends to be pretty different from long guns. Handguns are an almost exclusively civilian defensive weapon, aside from their legitimate but not insanely common use in higher-caliber handgun hunting. For military/militia or hunting purposes they're either rare or niche. So to allow handguns is to implicitly allow self-defense, which is generally more controversial among certain circles.

I think the issue comes from those with very generalized concepts of firearms... for lack of a better term we can call them the 'soccer mom' group.

They're ok with self-defense, several may own a handgun. They are ok with hunting, their dads and husbands may hunt; rifles and shotguns with longer barrels (the understanding of better accuracy with a longer barrel), and possibly with a slower rate of fire (bolt or lever action, etc), again ok.

They struggle with the legitimacy of shorter, hi-capacity semiauto "rifles", seeing them as only relevant as offensive weapons with no place in the civilian world. Ironically, I would think such guns ideal for farmers, ranchers and anyone else with land and/or livestock. But this group of people are suburban or urban, and don't think of those in different lifestyles. This is the group that "goes along" silently with a lot of anti-gun stuff.

 

[Archie]

Too hard to make a quick draw holster for a rifle or shotgun.

 

[wayneinFL]

As I understand it, the original 1934 NFA bill included handguns as requiring a $200 tax stamp, and attempted to close a loophole of just sawing off the barrel of a rifle or shotgun to create a handgun substitute by instituting the short barrel rifle and short barrel shotgun categories under the NFA.

Prior to passage of the bill into law, handguns were removed but the loophole-closing SBR and SBS categories remained.

That's my understanding as well. It was a defacto handgun and machine gun ban. Congress didn't have the power to ban anything in 1934- they didn't have decades of Supreme Court decisions letting them do almost anything they wanted through the commercial clause yet. ($200 wasn't just a tax, it was intended to be high enough to be prohibitive.)

They knew they couldn't just ban handguns because all it takes to make a concealable handgun is a long gun and a saw. So they added the SBR and SBS ban.

Then they couldn't get the bill passed with handguns in it, but didn't bother to take out SBSs and SBRs. So we find ourselves arguing absurd technicalities on SBRs and SBSs.

 

[Mauser fan]

For the same reason that some people make the distinctions for the archery sports and the crossbow is the devil to some enthusiasts, and the compound bow is the devil to the traditional bow enthusiasts.We haven't discussed slings vs sling shots and the fabled wrist rocket. Since people are people and we can't decide what color fecal matter is. We have the conundrums we have today and in the shadows are the parasites we call politicians and lobbyists who are the first ones with their hands out to profit from others misfortunes.

 

[Master Blaster]

Bonnie and Clyde used sawed off shotguns and BARS Browning automatic rifles to shoot at police who only had 6 shot revolvers. Other motor bandits Dillinger, Ma Barker, Baby face Nelson used machine guns. So to protect police the nfa was passed with a $200 tax to own. Once the government taxes and regulates something, they never give that power up.

 

[buck460XVR]

Why do we make the distinction between pistols, rifles, and shotguns? I can't think of any good reason to make that distinction.

I think for the most part, the distinction came BEFORE laws were written. Terms like SBR and Hi-Capacity came for legal definitions, but for the general terms, I think it was just gun folk talk. I'm surprised there is not an ongoing argument because your original statement uses the term "pistol" instead of "handguns". I have seen many whole threads here dedicated to whether or not a revolver is a pistol, or whether calling a revolver a pistol is a misnomer. While one can call a rifle with two barrels a "double", call it a triple instead of a "Drilling" or a “kugeldrilling” and folks will want to shame you to death. There is a definition for a type of muzzle-loading long barreled firearm generically called a Musket. Started in the 16th century and continues to today. Comes from folks back in the day used to name firearms after animals, and the word musket derived from the French word mousquette, which is a male Sparrowhawk. Those in the know call a Double-barreled Shotgun a SxS or O/U. Don't blame the Feds for the terms we insist on using for firearms......it comes down to us and history.

 

[CDW4ME]

Handguns are concealable with a untucked shirt and shorts, rifles & shotguns not so much.

Some people say, "A handgun is to fight my way back to a rifle or shotgun".
I infer two things (at least) when I see that comment:
-They are not considering that most SD situations are over in a few seconds and they will have either successfully defended themself, or not.
-That comment is likely made by someone carrying a marginal caliber and/or low capacity handgun.

 

[theotherwaldo]

Bonnie and Clyde used sawed off shotguns and BARS Browning automatic rifles to shoot at police who only had 6 shot revolvers. Other motor bandits Dillinger, Ma Barker, Baby face Nelson used machine guns. So to protect police the nfa was passed with a $200 tax to own. Once the government taxes and regulates something, they never give that power up.

Yeah, I'm sure that a $200 tax and a bit of paperwork was going to stop gangsters from getting these items - especially since many of the more organized gangs had members that sported Special Police badges that exempted them from the NFA... .

 

[Coyote3855]

Distinctions have been made since the time of the "hande gonne." A distinction to separate them from arquebus, muskatoon, and the like. That was then. Shotguns, until a Scottish preacher gave us metallic cartridges, were "fowling pieces." Militaries used muskets, long arms as a rule.

Your Scottish preacher, Reverend Alexander John Forsyth of Belhelvie, Aberdeenshire, invented the percussion cap in 1807, not the metallic cartridge.

The first centerfire metallic cartridge was invented by Jean Samuel Pauly. Pauly was Swiss. Though the cartridge developed by Pauly in the first decades of the 19th Century was technically an integrated, center-fire, all-metallic cartridge, it didn't look much like the ammo of today. The first truly modern cartridge was patented in Paris in 1846 by Benjamin Houllier. Houllier was French. The . 22 Short, introduced in 1857 for the first S&W revolver, was the first American metallic cartridge.

 

[mcb]

There are lots of good reasons to differentiate pistol, rifle, shotgun, carbine etc when talking about technical stuff especially as it relates to specific applications, but those definitions are general, often overlap, and have many grey areas and exceptions. Legally we can't tolerate such loose definitions but how many laws apply to just one type? Very few I think. They are all small arms and IMHO should be treated the same in the view of the legal system. That includes SBR, SBS and MGs. Not that I am going to hold my breath waiting for that too happen.