Likes: 
Faceplams: They didn't have the legal right to defend their lives. People died.Originally Posted by allegro
Quiet Member
They didn't have the legal right to defend their lives. People died.
Bite me
Yes, people died. But they still had the "legal right" to defend their lives.
Are you in law?
Quiet Member
No, I'm not in law....What did the victims in the massacre you posted have a right to defend themselves with....Against a madman with a 12 gauge shotgun and two handguns?
Bite me
"LEGALLY" they could have defended themselves in any way they wished. Gun, machete, krav maga, blow dart, whatever.
Many DID defend themselves. They hid; they played dead; they ran. That's why so many of them lived. No, none of them were carrying guns while attending college in the sleepy little town of DeKalb. Why would they?
The students and the professor were in shock and they weren't trained for these things. They didn't choose to, say, tackle the shooter, for example.
Last edited by allegro; 02-20-2013 at 09:58 PM.
The Enhancer
Exactly. It's a ridiculous statement to say they were legally bound to stand there and be shot. There were options available BUT there are always options available, given that the people in the situation are in the state of mind to employ them. How many people in a lecture hall would have been in the right state of mind to think "Okay, he's reloading his weapon, I'm 3 rows away, I think I have time to run that distance, jump onto the stage and somehow subdue him".
At the same time (I see your argument coming, satyr) how many people in same classroom would be able to pull their 1911 and accurately return fire on the shooter. And maybe 10 people in the room were carrying, and everyone starts firing blind, because they're surprised and panic. So many what ifs. And most of them assume Joe or Jane So And So are competent with a firearm and are able to keep their cool under fire.
Which, by the way, not even professional soldiers are always able to do.
Active Member
They were legally LIMITED in how they could defend themselves. They werent completely blocked, thats just crazy talk
Active Member
Meanwhile, the head of the national Gun Task Force was just on TV advising the negligent discharge of firearms. That's some fucked up shit Biden. In many states his advice will land you in jail.
Nevermind the bullshit about a shotgun being easier to aim. Nevermind the fact that he told his wife to completely empty her gun when trouble comes. Nevermind the fact that shotguns hold nearly the same weight projectiles as the AR-15, hold MORE of them, and dump them WAY faster. At least a shotgun IS a great home defense weapon. Double barrel (two shot) is dumb though, get a pump that holds 5-10 shells (each shell holding 9-15 pellets the size of an AR-15 .223 bullet).
Bite me
Shotgun has always been best defense, you don't have to aim as well, that shit SPRAYS. Biden is right. Still gotta go to the range though.
Also, in situations like the NIU shooting, no law enforcement officer or court would enforce any legal "limitation." Hell, the worst they do when you use an unregistered gun to justifiably shoot an intruder or assailant is confiscate your gun, BFD. That "legal limitation" stuff is crap, really.
Last edited by allegro; 02-21-2013 at 09:11 AM.
Active Member
No, a shotgun does not spray. No, it doesn't reduce your need to aim. Anyone who says that is full of shit. This is even more true when dealing with the distances most commonly found in home defense. Even if you use the common 1" spread per 1yd rule (that isn't true) you are going to have a pattern of around 3-6" in most situations. That's a tighter pattern than most people's handgun skill.
It is easier to aim because it is a long barrel, just like an AR-15 would be. Dumping 9 to 15 chunks of .223 sized lead into your target each time you pull the trigger is the best aspect of a shotgun. It makes the whole "high capacity" thing look even more ridiculous.
Bite me
Look, come on, dude, why are you arguing this with me when you know you are a total NEWB to this compared to me, I've been shooting wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy longer than you.
Ever HUNTED with a shotgun? Ever cleaned something that's been shot WITH a shotgun? Have you SHOT a shotgun?
Anyway ... An AR-15 is NEVER gonna be a US Supreme Court-supported form of home protection. Ever. Period. The Court has already made that perfectly clear.
Last edited by allegro; 02-21-2013 at 03:25 PM.
Active Member
We are talking about hunting now? I thought we were talking about self defense. That's certainly what Biden was talking about.
And yea, I have shot a shotgun (as recent as 3 days ago) but using personal experience for something like this is both douchey and merely anecdotal. The fact that your personal experience contradicts almost every single testable resource demonstrates this. Also, you said yourself that you are in no way interested in using guns for self defense. How the lead spreads within the body is completely unrelated to this.
Hairy Member
Digitalchaos i think you are being a little naive. No a shotgun doesn't spread like some movie-goers imagine, but it still spreads. I've been hunting and target shooting for 15 odd years (my first job at 12 was with a commonwealth gold medallist) and though I am confident with either handgun/shotgun/rifle, I know which I'd be hoping to hold when sprung unawares in my house in the dark (having never been confronted with the situation).
YES a shotgun does reduce your need to aim as opposed to a handgun. NO I am not full of shit. If only for the longer barrel (as you said??). Should also factor in the lower chance of accidental casualties from shot going through walls (as you've also alluded to??), you're aware of the different bore/gauge presumably?
'Most' peoples handgun skills. See this is what gets me about american gun laws as I understand them. You don't even have to demonstrate competency with the firearm you are purchasing right!? Are 'most' people as competent, even at the range, as you guess you would be under pressure? Regardless of confined space, allegro is right, ditch the range and go hunting and see your perspective change.
Ive steered clear of this thread because im aware the US is a unique case but I am pro-gun reform in at least the sense that you should be able to competently handle the gun you own. Am I right in my understanding that there isn't even a fucking mandatory safety course prior to getting a gun in the US? This alone is beyond retarded in my mind. This is the first "gun reform" you should be looking at.
Theres also the automatic hick response to gun reform - "they gunna take ma guns, and melt 'em down into drones to hunt me"... No you stupid hillbilly, they're going to make it harder to attain the gun. If you're still afraid of Obama, and your inbred genes havent completely fucked you up, you will keep your gun/be able to purchase more guns.
EDIT: posted at the same time, but I'll just say yes, hunting is closer to self defence than shooting targets at the range.
Last edited by Minpin; 02-21-2013 at 12:29 PM.
Active Member
Allegro's word was "spray." That's hollywood bullshit. A spread of 1" every 1yd is nowhere near a "spray." Do shotguns have a larger spread than I am saying, @Minpin ?
Allegro also followed it up with "still gotta go to the range" so it is interesting that we now shift to hunting which is going to be quite a bit different.
edit: for the sake of argument, assume no choke (maximum spread).
Last edited by DigitalChaos; 02-21-2013 at 12:43 PM.
Hairy Member
Dude I 'spray' my tomatoes down with the hose on the single jet stream cos I'm a lazy fuck and can't be bothered walking down the path. It's semantics really, you know what she's saying.
I didn't disagree with your estimate did I? It's accurate. To be nitpicky there are numerous variables. Every shotguns different, everyone loads their shells differently.
Yes hunting is a fuckload different to going to the range. I'd imagine, if you have to shoot to save your life, hunting would be an essential. Is there any opportunity to hunt wildlife where you live? I'd definitely recommend it. I grew up in the country shooting rabbits, foxes and Roos. All pests. And I love eating rabbit.
Am I wrong that there is no safety courses prior to purchasing guns in America? Please tell me I am.
Active Member
You have to take a course if you want to be eligible for a concealed carry license.
No course required if you're buying a gun for home protection.
Hairy Member
Yeah as I thought. Fucked up.
id be hard pressed not to turn the gun on myself if I had to live in such a shithole that "concealed carry" was some reality.
Active Member
It depends on the state. Out here in CA you have to take a written test just to be allowed to buy a handgun. They also give you a basic instructional/safety demo with whatever gun you buy. It's a big step in the right direction but I wish they required some hands-on training at least once. That said, it didn't stop me from doing more. I research handguns for 8 months and took a half day intro class (with range time) before buying one.
As for hunting... I really don't enjoy killing. I'm ok with fishing but that's all I've ever cared to do. Maybe if I was living out in the middle of nowhere and actually needed to hunt for food. I'd much rather invest in self defense training. Rabbit and deer aren't going to be mounting surprise attacks on you or trying to break into your home while you aren't expecting them :P
Bite me
@DigitalChaos : Re shotgun and my "range" comment: you should go the woods or the back 40 on your property or wherever suitable and PRACTICE in SOME way, not at paper targets but to learn how to handle the firearm, how it responds, how to load it, unload it, etc. Fumbling in a stressful situation to figure out how to aim and fire something when you've never done it before is not good idea.
@Minpin : Thanks for joining the discussion! My cousin-in-law hunts with a bow and arrow. Now THAT is some serious shit!
Not necessarily. As Digitalchaos said, it depends on the state, county, city. We have no Federal requirement. Yes, that's really dumb.
http://www.wbez.org/news/sitting-fir...y-class-105415
Last edited by allegro; 02-21-2013 at 03:36 PM.
Active Member
So this class is mandatory?
Bite me
Sometimes, yes. Depends on the city, county, state.
In Chicago, for instance, yes, required if you want a Chicago Firearms Permit ("CFP), see this.
Attachment 258
Last edited by allegro; 02-21-2013 at 06:22 PM.
Active Member
Wouldn't the first logical step be federal law having a mandatory safety class and shooting range test. You know like a driver's license but for guns?
You could use that test to perform the background check and some psychological test.
Would that go against the 2nd Amendment?
Bite me
A psych test would be an invasion of privacy, most likely.
Many gun advocates feel that universal background checks invade privacy, and that safety courses (and testing) hinder the 2nd Amendment.
Last edited by allegro; 02-21-2013 at 06:25 PM.
Active Member
I really like the path CA is going with the prerequisites and think other states should do something similar. That said, it should still happen at the state level. Federal level just means it will probably be all kinds of broken, inefficient, poorly implemented, rapidly outdated/inflexible, etc.
Quiet Member
Thats a pretty fucked up thing to say....Especially for someone who claims to be very familiar with firearms.
As far as the whole ideal firearm for home defense....It's purely a matter of opinion. I work in a trauma center and am trauma certified and I've seen a LOT of GSWs. I'm incredibly familiar with the terminal ballistics of different classes of firearms and ammunition. Also there is a huge difference between long guns and handguns. A 12 gauge shotgun is certainly a great choice for a home defense. The FN SLP is on my short list of firearms I'd like to purchase. That being said, the spread you'll get with an 18 inch barrel inside of a home (unless you're in a huge room) will not be much. You also have to consider how you're going to store a shotgun in a way that it will be easy to access as fast as possible.
Due to this my home defense (bedside gun) is a Sig P228R with a light on the rail. I keep this in my bed side drawer.
If I wanted to go with a "long gun", I'd probably buy a Steyr AUG or IMI Tavor (should hopefully become available to US civilians). This would be due to a decreased OAL (overall length) and superior capacity.
Active Member
bullpup fan hey? I've always wanted to try one. They seem like a great way to get around the minimum barrel length limitations out here in CA.
Speaking of circumventing barrel length limitations... what do you think of the new MPX?
Bite me
From the above link:
On another note, I'd really like a TASER.“What kind of gun should you buy? It depends on what you want it for,” said Mike Rioux, the owner and operator of Red Dot Arms in Lake Villa, Illinois.
Rioux is the teacher today. He’s a Canadian expatriate who’s been around firearms his whole life. He’s a licensed instructor and a passionate gun owner.
“My grandfather said to me when I was 12, if you can shoot this 12 gauge shotgun, it’s yours,” Rioux recalled.
He handled it well and so began a love affair.
Shotguns are what Rioux suggested for home safety and self-defense.
He said the bullets used for an AR-15, what some people believe is the best choice, will go through the room you’re in, the next room and into your neighbor’s house.
“It can go for miles and miles,” Rioux said.
That’s why Rioux says buckshots used in shotguns are the way to go.
“At this distance, it would make a huge hole in the drywall. You gotta know what’s beyond your target. If you’re in the house, use the smallest bb you’ve got,” Rioux recommended.
He started by explaining how different firearms work because he said it was important to practice regularly. Once a week at least, so it’s important to make sure you’re spending money on the right equipment and the right ammo, especially considering how expensive ammo was at the time of our interview.
Last edited by allegro; 02-21-2013 at 08:29 PM.
Active Member
TASER would be nice but I've decided to go the pepper spray route due to all the CA weirdness. Wish I could get one of those Kimber PepperBlaster II devices. Unfortunately, CA classifies it as a firearm because it uses a charge to propel the pepper spray. sooooo lame!
Bite me
Oh, wow, that thing is really cool.
Active Member
Is there anything that would not hinder the 2nd Amendment? Sure sounds like there's just nothing that can be achieve without people whining about their rights to bear arm.
Active Member
I like how small it is compared to all the other sprays and how it is held like a gun (easier to aim than a crappy round spray bottle). Only downside is that you get 2 shots and then it's done.
Reply With Quote
