Guns : A simple solution

[ElPatron]

Because we always treat every person as a sane person unless they openly threaten us or seem a threat to themselves.

That doesn't mean we have to give in.

When Breivik was in the court room, was the accusation saying "Okay, he's sort of right. Some of our kids in that camp were liberal pricks, let's reduce the number of foreign people in Norway"?

No. That would be giving in. Thanks for the Brivik example.

I assumed you were an american because you were defending like you are an american.

Which is still prejudice.

And for those that claim a concealed weapon can be effective to prevent an attack on your person, most people who suffer knife wounds don't ever see the blade.

Concealed Carry is also supposed to protect people around you. It also has the effect of making criminals fear for their life because they don't know if the person they are attacking is armed or not.

 

[ElPatron]

Handguns are actually better for home defense than shotguns, because a home invasion is likely to be very close quarters. They're also much easier to use.

No they are not. First of all, they require proper stance and grip on the gun. Unless you're shooting .22LR, recoil can be a ***** make you miss. Don't forget that if you just woke up, a handgun will be terribly hard to handle.

Second, they have a very short sight radius that allows very quick target acquisition, but they have to be night-sights if you want to see them in the dark.

Third, in combat shotguns are close quarters weapons. They were so effective in trenches (where the rifles were a disadvantage) and so destructive that the Germans claimed they were too inhumane for warfare.

Fourth, shotguns allow the mounting of lights that would make certain handguns too heavy and bulky to handle.

Fifth, the use of a stock allows people who can't use pistols to defend themselves.

Handguns are considered very poor man-stoppers. Shotguns cause the shot to spread out ~1 inch per yard (give or take). They still need to be aimed but they will not only offer you greater hit probability as they will also offer you plenty of stopping power.

 

[senordesol]

What I'm up to is that no-one (99% as there are always special cases) can argue that he needs a shotgun purely for self-defense when you tell him that you can easily kill people with a 9mm or even a smaller hand-gun. It doesn't take a shotgun to stop an attacker. One shot to the legs with a small pistol and he won't go anywhere anymore. If he still is a threat, you can take another shot. But using a shotgun for self-defense is literally an overkill. And saying that you "NEED" one is a lie. Those people (mostly) don't "need" a shotgun, but simply want one and just use the "self-defense" as cheap excuse for some arbitrary reason.
Most people don't know how much the human body can really take unless they:
a) studied medicine or something like this
b) already got shot/experienced its limits
c) do martial arts and experienced its limits that way.
While you often hear that the human body is capable of much more than the ordinary person believes, Hollywood, etc. give people a wrong idea in which way.

Gotta stop you there. Yes you 'can' kill a person with something as small as a derringer...if you hit them in the right place. And there's the beauty of a shotgun: the hit surface area is much greater than that of a single bullet. To illustrate: the hit area of a bullet is about the width of your finger, the hit area of a shotgun is about the size of your fist (assuming within 20-30 feet, dependent on choke/style)

It has excellent stopping power, has a higher chance to hit, delivers greater over-all force (difference between 1 projectile moving at 600-1000 FPS and 12), and is a damn sight more intimidating.

In general, it's more effective than a pistol, with its only drawbacks being its length, recoil, and reload times (depending on the loading mechanism).

 

[SadakoMoose]

If you wanted to decrease the crime rate, you would invest in things like education, social services, and other vital support systems. The idea behind living in a democracy and agreeing to the social contract is that the people will be able to use the power of the state to increase their quality of living. It's the only reason for the people to allow the government to exist. So then, use the power of the state to put in place the sorts of "safety nets" that prevent crime by sealing of their root causes. If we can develop a support system that feeds all of it's citizens, gives them access to vital health services, and doesn't keep them away from education then you will see a drastic reduction in the crime rate.
Don't let guns distract from the issues and divide people who would otherwise share a common goal of making this a better world for everyone.

 

[ElPatron]

To get back on the gun-debate.
Those "hobby-rambos" and "keyboard-warriors" don't understand that life is NOT like movies/games at all. Yeah, most people know that, but don't understand to what degree they differ.

That applies both ways. I have heard many times that people "should learn martial arts instead of owning guns".

Because owning a gun doesn't automatically make you a rambo, but going to self-defense classes turn you into an infallible Master of the martial arts.

What I'm up to is that no-one (99% as there are always special cases) can argue that he needs a shotgun purely for self-defense when you tell him that you can easily kill people with a 9mm or even a smaller hand-gun. It doesn't take a shotgun to stop an attacker.

1. Handguns are very low-powered calibers. They kill. But honestly, so does cancer. Do you want an immediate incapacitation (dead or alive, as long as the attacker stops) or a 100% chance of killing someone, but without knowing if he's going to keep attacking for 1 second or one minute?

2. Not everyone can use handguns. Many women and disabled people have trouble because either the size of their hands, upper body strength or simply lacking range of movements.

One shot to the legs with a small pistol and he won't go anywhere anymore.

YOU NEVER TAKE A SHOT AT THE EXTREMITIES. NOT ONLY THEY ARE A VEEERY SMALL TARGET, HARD TO HIT WHEN SOMEONE IS ATTACKING YOU AND YOU HAVE A HANDGUN (poor combat accuracy), BUT IF YOU HIT THE FEMORAL ARTERY YOU WILL KILL YOUR TARGET BEFORE THE AMBULANCE ARRIVES.

Try to explain if court that you feared for your life when you took a perfect shot on someone's leg. If I am not mistaken, in the Netherlands if you actually use a gun for self-defense your shots have to be CENTER-MASS, not anywhere else or you might lose in court.

If he still is a threat, you can take another shot. But using a shotgun for self-defense is literally an overkill.

I think that's the point of any firearm. Just saying. If you hunting and you're using a caliber too small, you can be fined and have the licensed removed in many countries.

If you want people to defend themselves, do you have to give them as closer to 100% chance of success as you can, or do you want them to just stay where you think it's "good enough"? Because that will actually cause gun owners to have a higher mortality rate in break-ins than people who don't.

You should let people use what they are proficient with. Not what you think it's better for them, because that might actually cost more lives than save.

[...]

And? A .50cal is even more effective.
What you show there is a very dangerous mindset. Self-defense is NOT about killing your attacker. I don't want to insult you, but people that think like you shouldn't be allowed to own guns in the first place.

OH, BOY. A .50 CAL. Nice slippery slope fallacy. Got any more?

I'm sorry to use this argument, but please stop using you Call of Duty knowledge to discuss home defense.

I am not here to have a pissing contest (in fact, most the ideas I am talking about is just me parroting back what self-defense instructors have said for years) and I understand if you're a gun-owner... but I just have to say that you're a ill informed gun owner.

You don't need more effectiveness than "lying on the floor in pain and not attacking you anymore", period.

You just defended the use of torture as means of self-defense. GG.

You're the kind of person that doesn't be allowed guns.

 

[senordesol]

[...]

And? A .50cal is even more effective.
What you show there is a very dangerous mindset. Self-defense is NOT about killing your attacker. I don't want to insult you, but people that think like you shouldn't be allowed to own guns in the first place.
You don't need more effectiveness than "lying on the floor in pain and not attacking you anymore", period.

Again, .50 cal has a smaller hit surface area.

Basic firearm safety dictates that you don't shoot to wound, you shoot for the center of mass and keep shooting until the target is down.

Self defense is about stopping the attack. Quickly. Whether your assailant lives to tell the tale is incidental. The problem with a .50 compared to a 12ga is that a .50 is very likely to go right through your assailant and keep going (hitting whoever else may happen to be in the next house over). This can even happen with pistol ammo (though less likely). Shotgun pellets, because of their shape are more likely to expend the majority of their energy in whatever they hit and stop.

 

[spartan231490]

Shotgun is not the best home defense tool, that's a myth. As he says in shooter "that shotgun's a little long to bring up fast" You're best home defense tool is a tactical semi-auto shotgun, followed by a semi-auto assault style rifle, followed by a semi-auto handgun, then you're average everyday shotgun. But that's assuming you somehow have forewarning of the home invasion, since you usually don't, the best home defense weapon is a handgun. You also completely ignore self-defense outside of the home, which is more common, and requires a handgun.

You have the wrong idea, further restricting guns would not reduce crime rates or death rates, and so you have absolutely no justification for infringing upon my right to have them.

 

[ElPatron]

Bullets break on impact with something hard, not flesh, also, casings.

Spoiler

Haven't you seen the mythbusters experiment with the "bubble trails" underwater? Many kinds of bullets will break apart in water. And flesh is a little more dense than water.

Shotgun is not the best home defense tool, that's a myth. As he says in shooter "that shotgun's a little long to bring up fast"

Using a movie to disprove what self-defense experts have said for years?

Shotguns are widely available, cheap and offer a very wide choice of very capable ammunition.

Rifles and pistol carbines are fine too (for recoil sensitive shooters), but unfortunately in the US you will be charged $200 if you want a barrel under 16".

 

[spartan231490]

Yeah. I don't see the point in civilians owning automatic weapons anyway. The only problem with this is if a civilian is unable to defend themselves against a criminal with an automatic weapon due to their weapon not being powerful enough, but the benefits probably outweigh the costs.

In the US, the only automatic weapons that can legally be owned by civilians are those registered before May 1986, and those are very thing on the ground.

What's the stance on Machine Pistols, like the Glock 18 or the Steyr TMP? I'm always curious about that when people start talking about automatic weapons.

All weapons capable of fully automatic fire are restricted in the same way in the US, so heavily restricted they are virtually illegal.

 

[spartan231490]

Bullets break on impact with something hard, not flesh, also, casings.

Haven't you seen the mythbusters experiment with the "bubble trails" underwater? Many kinds of bullets will break apart in water. And flesh is a little more dense than water.

The reason those bullets shattered in mythbusters was because of the angle of impact. Remember how in the beginning they successfully shot through something like 10 feet of water when shooting directly down. Bullets don't usually break up when they hit flesh, they're designed not to because penetration depth is very very important for stopping power, maybe more important than bullet energy. The exception being some very rarely used rounds that are designed not to ricochet or go through walls, which are relatively unpopular because thick clothing dramatically reduces their ability to stop an attacker(and they're useless for hunting for the same reason).

 

[senordesol]

Shotgun is not the best home defense tool, that's a myth. As he says in shooter "that shotgun's a little long to bring up fast" You're best home defense tool is a tactical semi-auto shotgun, followed by a semi-auto assault style rifle, followed by a semi-auto handgun, then you're average everyday shotgun. But that's assuming you somehow have forewarning of the home invasion, since you usually don't, the best home defense weapon is a handgun. You also completely ignore self-defense outside of the home, which is more common, and requires a handgun.

You have the wrong idea, further restricting guns would not reduce crime rates or death rates, and so you have absolutely no justification for infringing upon my right to have them.

I suppose that's more a matter of preference. I won't disagree that a Tac Shottie would be better (but I'm pretty sure is illegal in California), I'm not so sure on the assault style semi-auto rifle. You might want to give a few pros/cons on that.

Handguns have the advantage of being small an maneuverable and are excellent as a PDW, but in a home invasion type scenario I gotta think that the aim required to be effective is a little too demanding.

 

[spartan231490]

Would it not be easier to, say, mount some sort of tracking chip/ general ID (this is a combo slash, not an either-or situation, they should have both) into every gun manufactured (like with micro-chipping pets.
Then introduce a campaign of having all pre-tagged guns either tagged and documented, or exchanged for one that does.
Then declare ownership of an untagged gun is an offence you can be killed on the spot for.

This allows us to monitor the location and ownership of all guns, (with sufficient accuracy, it could help you track a nutcase on a killing spree) and assume anyone past a certain time frame who doesn't have a tagged gun to be a criminal or a terrorist, and thus gets shot on sight anyway.

I'm away out for a few hours, but I'll check back later. If someone gets the ideal solution I would love to read it.

There are a lot of problems with this argument, not the least of which being that such a device would be removable. Most guns used in crime aren't legal, they have vin #s scratched off, and they were purchased illegally, removing or simply buying guns that don't have this chip would be just as easy.

 

[ElPatron]

Handguns have the advantage of being small an maneuverable and are excellent as a PDW, but in a home invasion type scenario I gotta think that the aim required to be effective is a little too demanding.

A pistol's "combat accuracy" when you're stressed is piss poor at open ranges if you compare it to rifles. But in very close situations, it's "good enough".

My problem with pistols is that people can draw perfectly, have a perfect stance and a perfect grip during training, and just dump a whole magazine in the heart of a human silhouette. At home invasions not everyone is trained enough to keep a perfect grip and stance.

The reason those bullets shattered in mythbusters was because of the angle of impact.

If you want to discuss things properly, please take your time to learn about them. It has nothing to do with the angle of the impact buy the violence of the negative acceleration.

Here, I will give you a lesson in terminal ballistics.

FRONT END OF BULLET LIGHTER THAN BACK. BACK OF BULLET HAS MORE MASS, THEREFORE MORE INERTIA. WHEN FRONT OF BULLET HITS SOFT TARGET, PHYSICS SAY WHEN YOU CHANGE MEDIUM YOU CHANGE DIRECTION. IF YOU DRIVE CAR FAST ON ROAD AND ENTER A BEACH, CAR WILL TURN. WHY? FRONT WHEELS DO NOT HAVE AS MUCH GRIP AND LOSE VELOCITY.

LET'S TALK BULLETS AGAIN. WHEN BULLET HITS SOFT TISSUE, FRONT END OF BULLET WILL GO SLOWER. BACK OF BULLET HAS MORE INERTIA SO IT WILL KEEP GOING FURTHER. SO BULLET WILL CHANGE DIRECTION VIOLENTLY AND TUMBLE. WHEN SOFT LEAD IS BENT, THE CANNELURE IS CRITICAL WEAK SPOT. BULLET WILL BREAK APART.

This is Ivan, weapons specialist from Soviet Bloc and 4chan celebrity.


HERE IS BULLET SHOT PERPENDICULAR TO THE SIMULATED SOFT TISSUE.

Spoiler: HERE ARE PISTOL JACKETED HOLLOW POINT ROUNDS AFTER SHOT INTO SOFT TISSUE

 

[spartan231490]

Shotgun is not the best home defense tool, that's a myth. As he says in shooter "that shotgun's a little long to bring up fast" You're best home defense tool is a tactical semi-auto shotgun, followed by a semi-auto assault style rifle, followed by a semi-auto handgun, then you're average everyday shotgun. But that's assuming you somehow have forewarning of the home invasion, since you usually don't, the best home defense weapon is a handgun. You also completely ignore self-defense outside of the home, which is more common, and requires a handgun.

You have the wrong idea, further restricting guns would not reduce crime rates or death rates, and so you have absolutely no justification for infringing upon my right to have them.

I suppose that's more a matter of preference. I won't disagree that a Tac Shottie would be better (but I'm pretty sure is illegal in California), I'm not so sure on the assault style semi-auto rifle. You might want to give a few pros/cons on that.

Handguns have the advantage of being small an maneuverable and are excellent as a PDW, but in a home invasion type scenario I gotta think that the aim required to be effective is a little too demanding.

Neither are necessarily illegal in california, they would just need to have only one of the accessories on their list. God the "assault weapon" bans in this country are so stupid. The difference between legal and banned is completely unrelated to function

The aim to use any weapon in a real self-defense situation is demanding, it requires thousands of practice shots. Most self-defense instructors recommend firing at least 1000 rounds of your preferred expensive ammunition through the gun before you can be sure it's reliable enough and you're comfortable enough to use it in a real self-defense situation.

That said, if you do that you will be accurate enough that the faster sighting and faster follow up shots far outweigh the slight benefits offered by a shotgun. In a home invasion scenario multiple, armed attackers isn't beyond the norm, and with a typical shotgun you're follow-up shots(due to long reload and heavy recoil and long barrel) are way too slow. Realize, the average attack occurs at around 7 yards, even poor accuracy at that range is usually enough to hit center of mass, even with a handgun. If you do miss, it's because you're panicking, and you'd have probably missed with the shotgun anyway, and you'll get a second chance to hit your target much faster with a handgun. You can also keep a handgun in more places(cuz of it's size) including on you're person, making it easier and faster to get to. It's also small enough that the attackers might not notice it until you start shooting, you're average shotgun on there other hand is much bigger.

You can't exactly lean a shotgun against your favorite recliner , company might complain. Having a handgun in the desk-drawer next to your recliner, however, is fairly easy. Also, with a double-action handgun you get the advantage of being able to shoot without chambering a round or flicking a safety first, but the gun isn't going to go off accidentally, and small children can't fire it if they manage to find it(though if they do you had it in the wrong place). None of that is true for shotguns.

 

[chadachada123]

Also food for thought:

Spoiler

I hate gun control but this argument is dishonest and stupid. We all know the motivations for gun control have jack to do with race so it's not racist.

This is like saying anti-circumcision is anti-Judaism or something.

Yeah, you're right, the bottom line of that poster is pretty stupid. I've since removed it. I was thinking about possible historical accuracy to the top part, that post-slavery Klansmen would support gun control that limits gun ownership of blacks, but the bottom line was totally unrelated to the top one.

 

[senordesol]

Shotgun is not the best home defense tool, that's a myth. As he says in shooter "that shotgun's a little long to bring up fast" You're best home defense tool is a tactical semi-auto shotgun, followed by a semi-auto assault style rifle, followed by a semi-auto handgun, then you're average everyday shotgun. But that's assuming you somehow have forewarning of the home invasion, since you usually don't, the best home defense weapon is a handgun. You also completely ignore self-defense outside of the home, which is more common, and requires a handgun.

You have the wrong idea, further restricting guns would not reduce crime rates or death rates, and so you have absolutely no justification for infringing upon my right to have them.

I suppose that's more a matter of preference. I won't disagree that a Tac Shottie would be better (but I'm pretty sure is illegal in California), I'm not so sure on the assault style semi-auto rifle. You might want to give a few pros/cons on that.

Handguns have the advantage of being small an maneuverable and are excellent as a PDW, but in a home invasion type scenario I gotta think that the aim required to be effective is a little too demanding.

Neither are necessarily illegal in california, they would just need to have only one of the accessories on their list. God the "assault weapon" bans in this country are so stupid. The difference between legal and banned is completely unrelated to function

The aim to use any weapon in a real self-defense situation is demanding, it requires thousands of practice shots. Most self-defense instructors recommend firing at least 1000 rounds of your preferred expensive ammunition through the gun before you can be sure it's reliable enough and you're comfortable enough to use it in a real self-defense situation.

That said, if you do that you will be accurate enough that the faster sighting and faster follow up shots far outweigh the slight benefits offered by a shotgun. In a home invasion scenario multiple, armed attackers isn't beyond the norm, and with a typical shotgun you're follow-up shots(due to long reload and heavy recoil and long barrel) are way too slow. Realize, the average attack occurs at around 7 yards, even poor accuracy at that range is usually enough to hit center of mass, even with a handgun. If you do miss, it's because you're panicking, and you'd have probably missed with the shotgun anyway, and you'll get a second chance to hit your target much faster with a handgun. You can also keep a handgun in more places(cuz of it's size) including on you're person, making it easier and faster to get to. It's also small enough that the attackers might not notice it until you start shooting, you're average shotgun on there other hand is much bigger.

You can't exactly lean a shotgun against your favorite recliner , company might complain. Having a handgun in the desk-drawer next to your recliner, however, is fairly easy. Also, with a double-action handgun you get the advantage of being able to shoot without chambering a round or flicking a safety first, but the gun isn't going to go off accidentally, and small children can't fire it if they manage to find it(though if they do you had it in the wrong place). None of that is true for shotguns.

Hmm...you make good points. I wish there was information on DGUs that are comparative but so far as I know, none exist. 'Course my bedroom is a long way from my front door, separated by a long hallway. It's a pretty effective chokepoint with any weapon, but I would think that the shotgun would get the fastest, most reliable results given the practical guarantee of multiple hits.

You're right though, shotties have a high action:fire ratio, but once they fire - they're devastating. Further, the best defense weapon is the weapon you're most comfortable with. I'm a freaking surgeon with a shotgun and a rifle, not so good with a pistol though.