Good Shotguns Are Used in Crimes More Often Than Evil 'Assault Weapons'


White House

This morning J.D. Tuccille noted Vice President Joe Biden's dubious advice to his wife about how she should defend herself against would-be home invaders. It is interesting that Biden's weapon of choice is a shotgun, which he contrasts with "an AR-15," one of the military-style semiautomatic rifles he wants to ban, supposedly because they are especially suited to committing mass murder and other crimes. Biden says an AR-15 is "harder to aim" and "harder to use," which makes you wonder why he believes it is favored by criminals. It also makes you wonder why aim matters when you are firing warning shots into the air, as Biden recommends.

If you are firing at a person, a blast from a shotgun is much deadlier at close range* than the intermediate-size cartridges fired by AR-15s and other so-called assault weapons. That fact might count in favor of shotguns as self-defense weapons, but it also makes them more dangerous in the hands of criminals. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) nevertheless shares Biden's affection for shotguns, listing hundreds that are exempt from her proposed "assault weapon" ban. A shotgun was also the weapon that President Obama picked to show he is is no gun banner (despite the fact that he wants to ban guns) in a widely mocked White House photo.

Contrary to the impression left by such favoritism, there is nothing inherently virtuous about shotguns, such that they can be used only for legitimate purposes and never to hurt or kill innocent people. On the same day that Biden lauded shotguns as the ideal weapons for home defense, a young man used one to murder three people in the Los Angeles area. In fact, shotguns are used in crimes considerably more often than the "assault weapons" that Biden and Feinstein say pose an intolerable threat to public safety. A 2004 study sponsored by the National Institute of Justice estimated that "assault weapons" (mostly pistols) were used in something like 2 percent of gun crimes before they were banned by a federal law that expired that year. By comparison, according to the National Crime Victimization Survey, shotguns were used in 5 percent of gun crimes in 1993, the year before Congress passed the "assault weapon" ban. In a 1997 survey of state and federal prison inmates, 7 percent of those who had carried a firearm while committing the crime for which they were serving time said it was a military-style semiautomatic, while 13 percent said it was a shotgun.

Ordinary handguns are far and away the weapons most commonly used by criminals, including mass murderers. They are also the most popular weapons for self-defense, which illustrates the folly of trying to distinguish between good and evil guns.

[*I added this qualifier to clarify that I am talking about a scenario like the one imagined by Biden, where someone is confronting a home intruder.]

NEXT: Death Toll in India Blasts Up to 12

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But, but, but assault weapons are so scary looking!

  2. nice effort at explaining but for the Biden/Obamabots, it’s a waste of time. Joey could have suggested that his wife or anyone else use a rubber chicken, water balloons, or piss on attackers and the supporters would have hailed it sound thinking, proof of leadership, and a ding of the evil NRA.

    The left is fixated on guns, which this piece implicitly addresses. It deems shotguns as less scary or sinister than AR-15’s or so-called automatic weapons and large clips. To this bunch, it’s always the object, never the person.

    1. We all know that Obama doesn’t give a shit about children except when he gets to drone them. This whole bullshit fight gun violence initiative is just a chance for team BLUE to stick it to team RED.

      Hopefully they keep poking until enough gun owners get awake enough to tell them all to fuck off and die.

  3. Quit confusing the narrative with facts!

    Needs more manipulation and emotion.

  4. If you are firing at a person, a blast from a shotgun is much deadlier than the intermediate-size cartridges fired by AR-15s and other so-called assault weapons

    At close range, maybe. But the energy in a high-powered rifle round (even a “medium” powered one like a .223) is vastly higher than in a shotgun slug or several pieces of buckshot, and depending on the type of round (say, hunting rounds that are designed to peel open and cause maximum tissue damage as opposed to FMJ), it gets even more damaging. Even a small bullet like the .223, at around 3000 ft/second, has a tremendous amount of energy.

    This does not change the fact that the “assault weapons” ban idea is weapons-grade retarded.

    1. Makes you wish that if they plan on banning any weapon, it oughtta be weapons-grade retard.

    2. At close range definitely. But beyond about ten feet, even an average hunting rifle is much more deadly than any handgun or shotgun.

      What is funny about the gun banners new found love of shotguns is that as I am sure you remember as well, for most of my childhood the “sawed off shotgun” was the most evil, illegal loathsome weapon on earth. It was selling an illegal sawed off shotgun that got Randy Weaver’s family killed.

      1. I have a problem with “10 feet,” but otherwise good.

        It was selling an illegal sawed off shotgun that got Randy Weaver’s family killed.

        Except of course it was determined in court it was not too short and ATF knew it.

        1. Forgot the quotes are around illegal. But seriously, to anyone who can remember the 70s and 80s and listening to gun banners and cops talk about the horrors of sawed of shotguns, the new love of shotguns is just comical.

          1. They’re just going at this incrementally. First they’ll go for the “assault weapons” that noone “needs” for defense or hunting. Then they’ll go after the sawed off shotguns that noone “needs” for defense or hunting. Then the handguns that noone “needs” for hunting (notice I dropped defense, because by then the narrative will be that defense is not a legitimate use for a gun what with cops just minutes away at any time), then they’ll go after whatever’s left because noone “needs” a gun for hunting since you can buy your meat at the grocery store (which I’ve heard some libtards say already “guns should all be banned because hunting is barbaric and noone needs to hunt thanks to modern grocery stores”).

            1. Of course they are. They are so disingenuous and transparent you have to laugh.

            2. They came for the “Assault Rifles”, and I was like, “LOL kthxbai” cause I didn’t own an “Assault Rifle”…

            3. then they’ll go after whatever’s left because noone “needs” a gun for hunting since you can buy your meat at the grocery store (which I’ve heard some libtards say already “guns should all be banned because hunting is barbaric and noone needs to hunt thanks to modern grocery stores”).

              I see that all the time when speaking to proglodytes. They lack both the imagination and basic empathetic understanding to realize people outside their own daily existence live vastly different life styles than they do with a different set of priorities and personal needs than they have. That is how you come to believe that something as crushing of choice as Obamacare is serves a ‘public good.’ You consider people only in homogenized terms.

          2. No it’s conical, get it, like the spray of a shotgun…. haha…

        2. Further that Weaver repeatedly rejected an undercover Federal Agent’s coercion to create and sell such a firearm.

      2. At close range definitely. But beyond about ten feet, even an average hunting rifle is much more deadly than any handgun or shotgun.

        10 feet is a little extreme in closeness.

        I would MUCH rather get shot by ANY hunting rifle at 10 feet (even 50 or 75 feet) than a shotgun. At that range, the rifle round is traveling so fast that, unless it hits a vital organ, it’s simply going to pass right through a human body without doing too much damage.

        1. At that range, the rifle round is traveling so fast that, unless it hits a vital organ, it’s simply going to pass right through a human body without doing too much damage.

          Hydrostatic shock

        2. What SF said. That who thing about bullets going through you and not doing any damage is a myth. You get hit in the torso by a high velocity rifle round, you probably are never going to feel hitting the floor.

          1. Except there are examples from military combat of high-powered rounds doing exactly what you’re claiming to be mythical.

        3. Id rather be shot by nothing, at any range… Getting shot would fucking hurt, and I don’t like to fucking hurt.

          1. It does hurt. It’s hurts a lot. Avoid it if you can.

          2. I agree. But it’s probably not a good idea to assume a drug-addled criminal would feel the same way as you or I.

    3. A 12 gauge 1 oz slug has more energy than a .223. If you add up the energies of each pellet, so does 12 gauge buckshot.

      1. At short range, you are correct, TULPABOT 3000. How does that change my point?


        1. I’m not interested in your point; I’m interested in the facts.

          1. What part of “At close range” did you fail to understand?

          2. Thank you for admitting you have zero interest in what people have to say and only care about nitpicking tiny details that detract not at all from the overall point. Your transformation into autistic robot troll is complete.

            1. Transformation?

              1. Transformation?

                My thoughts exactly.

              2. Tulpa was once 3% human. It wasn’t much, but it was there. True story.

                1. That’s below the minimum human content the USDA requires to put “human” on the label, though.

                  1. Its a cookbook…er, food label!

                2. Episiarch|2.21.13 @ 2:45PM|#

                  Tulpa was once 3% human.

                  ppptttt. i get more than that in a british hamburger

            2. That doesn’t seem very sincere.

              1. You’re right, TULPATRON 3000. Once again you’ve caught me being inaccurate. You were once 2.89% human.

                1. Remember Epi, Technically Correct is the best kind of correct.

            3. Tulpa is more machine now than man. Twisted and evil.

      2. An ounce slug or shot from a 3″ shell versus a 77 grain .223 slug, each runs about 3,000 ft/lbs.

        Pretty much a dead heat, energy-wise.

        1. wikipedia lists 1293 ft-lb for 77gr .223

          1. The question is how quickly is that energy dispersed. At the end of the barrel, the 12 gauge has greater kinetic energy. When they come out of the barrel, the rifle bullet has a much lower drag coefficient than the unrifled shotgun ammo (slug or shot). So the rifle bullet maintains its energy for a much greater amount of time. Hence why a shotgun is more deadly at close range and a rifle at any kind of distance.

            1. Yes, that is definitely the case. But .223 never has the kinetic energy that was quoted.

  5. The reality of a shotgun is that if someone breaks into your home, that shotgun doesn’t need to be loaded or fired as a warning shot. You simply cock that shotgun, and that unmistakable sound will send any home invader fleeing quicker than speedy gonzales.

    1. I hear this a lot from (and to) people who are on the fence about keeping a loaded weapon in their home, and I caution that it’s terribly dangerous advice*. If you are going to threaten lethal force, you absolutely must have the capability to follow through. You may scare off the intruder with your menacing sights and sounds; you may also convince him it’s time to start firing.

      *When offered as advice, which may not be the case here.

      1. Yeah, confronting someone with an unloaded weapon is about the dumbest thing you could do.

      2. absolutely…don’t point the weapon if you have no intention of pulling the trigger. It’s a tough call for the vast majority of people whose lives have never included shooting at someone.

        1. That’s why I use targets with pictures of pregnant women sitting on the toilet.

          1. Wow.
            In light of the recent story, that’s funny.
            If you’d posted that a few days ago, I might have been offended, which can be real work.

            1. I was kidding of course. I never use human-appearing targets.

              1. You have to let the joke ride and come what may, Tulpa. That’s humor 101: never back down. Never surrender.

                1. You have to let the joke ride and come what may, Tulpa. That’s humor 101: never back down. Never surrender.

                  Hey look! The robots are discussing humor.

                  1. Next up they’ll tell us how love works.

                  2. $park?|2.21.13 @ 3:24PM|#

                    Hey look! The robots are discussing humor.

                    WHY??WHY?? WHY WAS I PROGRAMMED TO FEEL PAIN??


            2. This coming from a commenter with the handle “Professional Target”. WARNING: IRONY OVERLOAD!!!! ERROR!!!! ERROR!!!!

              Seriously though, which one are you? The child with the real gun, the pregnant woman with the gun, the old man with a gun? Or are you the pregnant woman’s clearly armed and dangerous fetus? /sarc

              1. Goddamn fetus doesn’t even have a concealed weapons permit.

      3. I should clarify that I do believe the weapon ought to be loaded. Any representation of the willingness to use force needs to have the ability to use force backing it up in order to make it believable (a person cocking and pointing an unloaded firearm will know they are, and it will be easily discovered from their overall actions).

        My point was that even when not within sight of the bandit, the sound is loud enough and will resonate from the upstairs bedroom down to the downstairs where the intruder lurks and the sound alone will often be enough to send him fleeing. But if it’s not, you gotta have a round in the chamber ready to go.

    2. Or it might make them more likely to shoot first; it will definitely give away your position. And you’d have to be crazy to threaten someone with an unloaded shotgun.

      1. ^^^^^

      2. I don’t know – a lot of the old wood-stocked shotguns are pretty damn heavy… They make an awesome club. Inside an apartment or small house, if you get the drop on them with an unloaded shotgun and clock them in the head with the stock, they are going down and won’t be conscious hitting the floor.

        1. Aluminum bats are a lot cheaper and more effective if it comes to that.

    3. I don’t think the sound of cocking a double barreled shotgun would be very frightening.

      1. Actually what you should do is have a pre-recorded cocking sound that you can play from speakers in various parts of the house. When the criminal walks in, you play the sound from one speaker (far away from your real location); 10 seconds later you play it from another location far from you, etc.

    4. Terrible idea. Never bring an unloaded gun to any kind of fight.

  6. This just in: reason contributor calls for shotgun ban.

    1. See? Even libertarians are in favor of radical gun control reforms such as banning shotguns (what will people hunt with?) while the Dear Leader just wants some sensible common sense reforms such as banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines. /derp

  7. Am I correct in believing that shotguns used against personnel are a violation of the Geneva Convention? And the use of “assault weapons” is not? Not that this is about warfare, just thinking out loud.

    1. Am I correct in believing that shotguns used against personnel are a violation of the Geneva Convention?

      Nope. There is nothing illegal about a shotgun.

      1. Huh. Wonder where I heard that then? I don’t claim to know anything about this.

        1. The Germans protested in WW1 that Sheridan’s troops were using unjacketed lead pellets in their shotguns.

          1. They were good at whining. Unjacketed lead pellets, stabbed in the back, the reparations are too high, etc. Yo, screw the Germans.

            1. You know who else was good at whining?

              1. At last, we’ve come full circle.

          2. Pershing’s troops. Sheridan’s troops burned my family farm.

            And yes, the Model 12 Trench Gun. 6+1 12 gauge shells and a bayonet.

        2. I’d heard that, too, so it’s not just you.

          1. I even heard that when I was an enlisted guy. Some sort of urban legend that lives on!

            1. Just like ‘You can’t shoot a .50 cal at people, only equipment’…

              Good thing the enemy wears equipment, was always the response.

    2. You just can’t shoot your opponent in the dick, that’s just not cool.

      1. I always practice shooting groins on my targets. It’s funny.

        1. My wife shoots crotch, chest, head every time. I pity the poor sunuvubiotch who manages to get her to open fire in real life.

        2. My pistol technique is poor – on all my qualification shoots most of the rounds ended up in the waist/groin area.

    3. The famous protest in WW1 was that the shot pellets were not jacketed with copper. It had nothing to do with the “effectiveness” of the shotgun as is widely claimed.

    4. “Am I correct in believing that shotguns used against personnel are a violation of the Geneva Convention?”

      Considering that they are widely issued in the navy and other services, I would think not.

      I carried a 12 ga on sentry duty onboard ship.

      1. Yeah, I still saw Navy dudes with shotguns – needles to say, being with several Midwestern National Guard units, this inspired much professional envy.

  8. Sicne Youtube took down the video (wonder why), here is an article of some bizarre diversity lecture hosted by the USDA. Creepy motherfucker actually gets paid for this shit…..l-america/

    1. I’m not reading any Roissy bullshit.

      1. Come on dude, you know you love the fever swamp that is those comments.

    1. A chair, a pen, or just vomit on them. That works with rapists, why not mad killers?

      1. Urinate and scream…wait, use an assault shriek!

      2. Creamed corn. That way the projectile vomit will have a wide pattern, assuring that you don’t need to aim and lessening the chance of overpenetration.

    2. Interestingly, when I was in Middle School, it was either a Performing Arts class or Newspaper (same teacher, different years) we came up with a plan to take out any “mass shooters” at our school.

      Living in theory is awesome.

  9. “If you are firing at a person, a blast from a shotgun is much deadlier than the intermediate-size cartridges fired by AR-15s and other so-called assault weapons.”

    Not true. What if the person is 300 yards away? A shotgun,loaded with buckshot, would be useless. The AR platform can also shoot calibers from .22 to .50. Apparently it’s not only liberals who know nothing about firearms.

    1. Why would you be shooting at a person 900 feet away?

      1. They are shooting at you.

        1. I don’t know where you live, but there are several yards worth of wood, plaster, drywall, metal and/or cinderblock within a 900 foot radius of my living room.

            1. So if someone is standing 900 feet away from me, the relative power of their firearm isn’t going to be the deciding factor in whether they can hit me.

              Once they actually get inside my home and its AR-15 vs shotgun, the odds are much more even.

        2. If someone is trying to shoot at you from 300 yards, they’re either a sniper or they’re wasting ammunition. Find some cover and wait for them to move closer.

          1. Very important, don’t confuse “concealment” with “cover”.

      2. Because they’re raiding your pot field?

    2. There aren’t many self – defense situations that involve shooting someone 300 yards away.

      1. What if the person you’re shooting at is armed with a long-ranged firearm?

        1. Then you duck and cover. If someone has the drop on me from 300 yards away with a long-ranged weapon I’m not going to stand up and present myself as a target.

          1. And not fire back? Look, I watch Burn Notice, and they always fire back.

            1. That’s why you find cover and call Sam.

              1. It’s funny, but Bruce is still the god on the show. I saw some footage from a convention, and the actors and Matt Nix all were eclipsed by the reaction to Bruce Campbell.

                1. A) Sam is the best-defined character on that show.

                  B) Even if he’s old and doughy, he’s still Bruce Fucking Campbell.

                  1. I agree completely, of course. Even Jeffrey Donovan seems to share that view–Bruce is the celebrity.

                2. Well, Campbell was the only actor who was well-known before the show.

                  “Good? Bad? I’m the guy with the gun.”

                  1. It’s more than that. If he were, say, some guy from CSI, no one would view him as bigger than the star of the show. Not after six seasons. But he’s Bruce Fucking Campbell.

            2. If you’re Michael Weston the calculations change. Or Chuck Norris, but Norris doesn’t need a gun, he just delivers a devastating roundhouse kick to the bullet to reflect it back at the shooter.

        2. We’re talking about 2 city blocks of distance here. These are exceedingly rare occurrences in the US, if any have happened in recent times. It shouldn’t be the scenario you use to choose a firearm.

          1. I don’t measure distance in city blocks, living in civilization and not some crummy megalopolis.

          2. Tell that to Randy Weaver.

            1. here we gooooooooooooooooo

            2. Yes, i fyou live no a big isolated compound, a long range rifle might be a good self defense choice. But you’d probably want a shotgun around too.

              But for the 99.99% of people who would never conceivably have to defend themselves against a skilled marksman firing from 300 yards, a pistol or shotgun is probably more effective.

              1. In an apartment I would rather have an AR-15 than a shotgun any day. Of the home invasions we’ve had in our town, all were 3 or 5 people – all armed… In 800 sq.ft. I don’t want to be pumping the shit out of a shotgun when the guys I’m shooting at (who are armed) are less than 15 feet away.

                1. Semiauto shotgun… or maybe a handgun?

                  1. Why use a handgun to even the fight? I’d rather use a semi-auto rifle to win the fight…

                    Plus, semi-auto shotguns in 18″ have 7 shots and aren’t too quick to reload. Can’t say that about an AR.

                    Plus, I would rather use 55g JHPs that will discharge all energy in 3 – 4 sheets drywall since I am in an apartment. Find me a slug or heavy buckshot that will do that.

        3. Then you don’t want an AR-15 anyways. At that range you want an AR-10.

      2. Where in that sentence are the words “self defense”?

        1. Why are you shooting at a person 300 yards away if not in self defense.

        2. con?text

          1 The circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
          2 The parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning.

          1. Oh, and I thought it referred to prison letters!

    3. How on earth did you end up engaged in self-defense or the commission of a crime from 300 yards away? I applaud your vast knowledge of physics, but in the context of common crimes and self-defense, it’s a fair position to assume the actors are at least within earshot.

        1. You beat me on the reply above, so we’re even.

      1. That sentence is a blanket statement it doesn’t confine itself to self defense.

        1. Then don’t use it as a setup for “Apparently it’s not only liberals who know nothing about firearms.”

          Jacob’s points are valid in the context of his argument.

          Nits were picked. Procedures were followed. Nothing else happened.

          1. Did you miss the part about the various calibers that can be used with the AR? Jacob states the AR fires an intermediate cartridge which is just not true. There are a couple of dozen differently sized cartridges that can be used with the AR.

            1. Not readily – you still have to change out the upper receiver and barrel to do a caliber change, which is like half the gun right there.

              Shotguns can handle a wide variety of ammunition without changing anything – from salt loads to birdshot all the way up to self-rifled solid rounds (rounds that in a rifled gun would be classified as a destructive device).

              Add in saboted fletchettes and even tiny little grenades.

    4. Ok this is being somewhat pendantic, the purpose of the article is to discuss the fact that Shotguns are not any more or less “moral” than any other gun and generally discusses things in terms of crime/home defense. There is no scenario in either case (short of a hitman carrying out an execution) that would call for shooting at anyone more than 30 yards away, forget 300 and 90% of shooting scenarios in both cases would occur inside of 10 yards where a Shotgun is unequivocally more lethal than a .223. It is simply unrealistic to expect a long detailed aside dealing with the relative lethalities of varying round types across a spectrum of ranges and engagement scenarios.

      1. In any case, “to each his own” is the libertarian position, right?

      2. It’s pedantic. Pendantic, if it were a word, would mean of or like a pendant, I guess.

        1. Way to be a pendant about it.

            1. More like metalpendantic.

              1. [Nods head violently, like Angus Young.]

    5. I love it when people come to show their superior intelligence on a subject and get it wrong.

      The AR platform can shoot round much smaller than .22.

      1. Except as noted above it requires extensive work to change the caliber used by an AR, and the vast majority of ARs in the US use .223 or .22LR.

    6. Doesn’t the article explicitly say this is a close-combat situation? It’s asterisk-ed – easy to miss.

      1. Mr Sullum edited it after the fact.

  10. Good Gun – One where you are behind the barrel
    Evil Gun – One where you are in front of the barrel

    That looks like a good enough definition to me

    1. Excellent analysis! Why haven’t I read you before?

  11. There is zero doubt in my mind that the progtards want to come after shotguns and handguns but have to wait until they can get a new SCOTUS first. So assault weapons is just there way of getting the public used to a ban.

    1. They have in every other country on earth. Hard to see any reason why this time would be different.

      1. It’s amusing to see how disorganized they are on that point. I’ll pose the question about banning handguns if they could legally do so and most will say yes but many will insist that they are “reasonable” and aren’t coming after your handguns.

        Luckily for us they don’t do a very good job hiding their true motives.

  12. Who cares if only 3 people were killed. Shit, 3 people are killed at once all the time. It’s when 20 people are killed. That’s like a big number…it’s way bigger than 3.

    What? More people are struck by lighting twice than mass killing events of 10+ people? Balderdash. 20. TWENTY. And goddamnit the CHILDREN.

    1. I know two people who have been struck by lightning twice and none who have been murdered with a gun. There’s my anecdotal evidence on the subject.

      1. So? we shouldn’t use lightning as a self-defense weapon?

  13. With the BLUEs it’s guns, with the REDs, (and some BLUEs) it’s drugs. They both see these items as agents, and the people possessing them as blank slate automatons upon which the agents perform their will.

    1. That’s brilliant. You’re a fucking genius. Instead of guns, we should carry tranquilizer guns that deliver illegal drugs.

      Problem solved! Everyone can unify in political harmony!

      1. I think you miss- …ah, fuck it. It’s a solid plan you got there.

        1. It’s better not to overthink these things. Besides, see the subtlety of your plan. No way the Dems and Republicans agree that hypo-drug-guns are okay, since that would mean, well, agreeing, so they’ll both have to move on to other topics, like abortion and free contraception for whores.

  14. My preferred home defense weapon is a 1911 but I have been known to keep one of these handy as well:

    1. An 11.5″ barrel certainly makes an effective club. I suggest mating it with a good lower and some dependable ammo.

  15. Shotguns are used in crimes far more often than ‘assault weapons’. Yep.

    Once again they show that they are not really interested in lowering crime or increasing safety.

    Make no mistake about it, they are going after the guns that they are afraid you will use to defend yourself against THEM. I wonder why they would do that? Why oh why would Homeland security buy 1.4 billion rounds of small arms ammo? Why on earth would they spend 5.5 million on targets depicting civilians?

    Maybe Tony will take a break from jerking off to photos of Obumbler and Tiger going down on each other and explain it to us.

    1. Just keeping in practice requires that. And if you want the RedStaters going off, put the targets in uniform.

      1. The best numbers I can find say that there are around 93000 federal law enforcement officers that carry arms. That means they will have to each fire a little over 15000 rounds for practice.

        In my peak shooting days I burned up around 30,000 rounds per year. I dont consider what I was doing then practice.

        I am not saying you are wrong, but 15K a year for practice seems excessive.

    2. Don’t worry, I’m sure they’ll try to ban shotguns and rifles with more than 2 round internal/tubular magazines soon enough if they get their way here.

  16. Shotguns are often used for hunting, so all the focus on “good” shotguns vs. “evil” “assault” rifles is just a pathetic attempt to reassure hunters that they’re not coming after their favorite hunting gun. Just more politcal theater and outright lies from a bunch of disengenuous fucks that in a just universe ruled over by a loving God wouldn’t be able to get elected dog catcher, much less president and vice president.

    1. yep — divide and conquer all the way.

    2. Of course, “assault weapons” are used for hunting as well.

      1. Ssshhh!!!! You’re ruining the narrative!

  17. Alt Alt-Text: “And now I’m rollin’ down rodea with a shotgun. These people ain’t seen a brown skinned man since their grandparents bought one.”

    1. Since Obama’s father is a native Kenyan, I guess if anyone in his family was connected to slavery, they were doing the buying.

      1. Ssshhhh! You’re not supposed to point out that every race or ethnicity throughout human history has at some point in time owned slaves. Only EVUL white Americans of European decent owned slaves, until the great and wise Abraham Lincoln was elected president and killed all the vampires, or something.

    2. And now I’m rollin’ down rodea with a shotgun.


      It’s Rodeo! Rollin’ down Rodeo.

      1. It was a typo. How I managed to type “a” instead of “o” I don’t know.

        1. Suuuuure. I’ve heard that one before.

          1. Stop othering bad typists!

            1. Every time you let a typo go unpunished, the errorists win.

  18. Another shotgun irony: 12 guage shotguns have a barrel diamtere greater than half an inch, which means they technically should all be regulated as NFA destructive devices (i.e. the same category as an artillery cannon). The only reason they’re not is there’s an exemption for “sporting shotguns”. The distinction between sporting and non-sporting shotguns is pretty much the whim of the current BATFE director.

    1. Isn’t that determined usually by the length of the barrel?

      1. No, barrell length determines if it falls into the Short-Barrelled Rifle/Short-Barrelled Shotgun category. There are shotguns that have long barrells but still qualify as DD’s because they’re considered non-sporting.

      2. Or how scary it looks, as in the case of the Saiga-12, which there was talk of moving to that category a while back.

      3. That’s Class III. Destructive devices are a separate category which are totally prohibited unless they are commonly used for sporting purposes.

        The .577 Tyrannosaur, which is used for safari protection, had to get special ATF approval a few years back.

        1. Depending on the state, you can legally get a DD via the same process used to get a machine gun. Pennsylvania, for example, allows non-incediary DDs (in fact you’ll occasionally see an pre-ban M2 at a PA gun show, which is both full auto and a DD).

    2. Even 28 gauge shotguns have greater than .5″ bore.

      1. Does 410 gauge have grater than .5″ bore?

        1. If a 410 gauge shotgun was actually a thing, it would be .22″ bore. I assume you actually mean a .410″ bore shotgun though, which is .410″ bore, hence the name.

  19. Facts do not matter to the gun control crowd.

    You can offer up reams of evidence about most crimes being committed with handguns and all the rest of it but that will not penetrate the skulls of those determined to DO SOMETHNG.

    1. spot on.
      they don’t care about facts … only what sounds good & makes them feel better about themselves.

  20. IIRC, the .5″ restriction applies to rifles.
    Shotguns are smoothbore and are exempt.

    1. Aren’t there rifled 12 ga slug barrels? Or are the saboted slugs less than .5″?

  21. About that whole “The police are just minutes away” business. If a sheriff’s deputy was sitting in his car, with the fucking motor running, at the cop shop, it would take at minimum twenty minutes for him to get to my place, assuming he didn’t get lost. Or crash.

    More likely than not, it would be more than an hour before one of those yahoos actually showed up.

    So, yeah, I’m just gonna go ahead and shoot, instead of saying, “You’d better get out of here. I’ve got the 911 lady on the line, and she says you’re gonna be in big trouble, Mister.”

    1. Remember, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

      Hell, I once got into a nasty accident literally 1/4 mile away from the police station. I didn’t know if the lady was harmed and we were blocking a really really busy intersection. It STILL took them almost 20 minutes to show up.

      So when I’m at my house, which is miles away from any police station, and someone breaks in, I’m going to shoot them and explain to the cop that shows up an hour later why there’s a dead guy on my floor.

  22. Am I correct in believing that shotguns used against personnel are a violation of the Geneva Convention?

    Google “trench gun”.

    I wants one.

  23. A 1oz slug is plenty deadly at more than just close range:

    It is easy to see what their true intentions are:

    – First it is the military style “assault weapons,” because nobody “needs” them.
    – Gun violence won’t be reduced and crime rates will continue to rise due to increased gun control.
    – Then its other semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines, because nobody “needs” more than a couple bullets for hunting.
    – Gun violence continues.
    – Then its handguns, because nobody “needs” them for self-defense. “Don’t worry…the cops are only a couple minutes away. You can use judo, a whistle, a pen…or just pee or vomit to scare your attacker away from you.”

    …and on and on it goes.

    They won’t rest until all law-abiding people are completely disarmed. The only people who will have guns then are the criminals and the gov’t.

  24. Biden’s shotgun/AR-15 comment was ignorance at it’s finest.
    most firearm instructors that saw &/or heard this probably said WTF?
    the 12 gauge shotgun has 8 times the free recoil that an AR-15 has & the shotgun is typically is heavier/longer. the AR would be much easier for a person of smaller stature to use than a 12 gauge.
    i think the Obama administration is getting desperate trying to get enough support to pass a ban.

  25. Don’t worry, after Biden gets your “assault rifles”, he’ll be coming back for your shotguns. What should we use for personal defense then Joe?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.