Joe Biden: buy a shotgun, not an assa...

Joe Biden: buy a shotgun, not an assault rifle, to protect your home

There are 584 comments on the Guardian Unlimited story from Feb 19, 2013, titled Joe Biden: buy a shotgun, not an assault rifle, to protect your home. In it, Guardian Unlimited reports that:

Joe Biden , the US vice-president, has said Americans should buy a shotgun rather than an assault rifle if they want to protect their homes.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Guardian Unlimited.

xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#334 Feb 24, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Really, which liberal court was that?
Colorado. But the ruling was based on reciprocity. No big deal really:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/23/ap...
blaster

South Boston, VA

#335 Feb 24, 2013
Hey joe idiot, i'll keep my guns thank you, you treasonous pos scumbucket serving satan

“Now do whats right!”

Since: Jan 09

Doolittle, Mo.

#336 Feb 24, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>You still didn't address the fact that no .223's have been formally accounted for in the end report.
Wrong, final highway patrol and coroner report absolutly stated the Bushmaster .223 was responsible for the majority of body trauma.

“Now do whats right!”

Since: Jan 09

Doolittle, Mo.

#337 Feb 24, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
You talk out of both sides of your mouth. On one hand, you say there is no need for higher capacity magazines, and on the other you talk about the inaccuracy of a handgun and likelihood of missed shots. Well...... if there is a likelihood of missed shots, that makes the case to have more rounds.
In CCW class, we were taught that most cases that involved a citizen using a firearm to protect themselves happen between four and six feet. You would have to be a pretty bad shot to miss a target six feet away although it's been known to happen in life or death instances.
I don't see many police or armed security using Biden guns. If they were so reliable, trust me, police and military would use them. What do you know that our police and armed security don't?
What, are you serious? if so walk up to any patrol vehicle and see what weapon is strapped there.

Or ask any Viet Nam Vet how accurate and how long those barrels lasted. Also see which weapon is outlawed by the Geneva Coinference for the battlefield.

Your CCW class may need to review their class schedule, and add home defence procedures, along with that four to six feet scenerio.

And for the {I beleieve the 36th time} I'm not "talking out both sides of my mouth", I believe there should be controls on those weapons in which gun nuts choose most ofter to KILL children in school msettings.

HERE I'LL MAKE IT EASY FOR YOUR NEXT RESPONCE TO MY NEXT POST!>>>> I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH WEAPONS FOR SELF DEFENCE OR RECREATION, WHAT I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IS THOSE WEAPONS USED IN A MAJORITY OF MASS SCHOOL KILLINGS THAT WERE COPIED AFTER MILITARY WEAPONS TO KILL AS MANY AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE and ARE CHOSEN BY GUN NUTS TO CARRY OUT THAT AGENDA.

Jjjjjeeeesssccchhhhh!

“Now do whats right!”

Since: Jan 09

Doolittle, Mo.

#338 Feb 24, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Some people can shoot, some just splatter.
Yep, on a paper target see which bullseye is missing more ofter the one in which a pistol is used and the one with a splatter gun is used.

“Now do whats right!”

Since: Jan 09

Doolittle, Mo.

#339 Feb 24, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Shooting any firearm within city limits will land you in jail. Smoking Joe has no threats out where he lives. It's the city where you really need to be armed.
I'm pretty certain if you are protecting you and yours in city limits the courts will agree with your discharging weapon actions in those cases.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#340 Feb 24, 2013
CB can see both sides wrote:
<quoted text>I'm pretty certain if you are protecting you and yours in city limits the courts will agree with your discharging weapon actions in those cases.
Not the way Smoking Joe does. He said to go out on your back porch, shoot your gun into the air, and that will scare suspected intruders away. You can't do that in the city.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#341 Feb 24, 2013
CB can see both sides wrote:
<quoted text>What, are you serious? if so walk up to any patrol vehicle and see what weapon is strapped there.
Or ask any Viet Nam Vet how accurate and how long those barrels lasted. Also see which weapon is outlawed by the Geneva Coinference for the battlefield.
Your CCW class may need to review their class schedule, and add home defence procedures, along with that four to six feet scenerio.
And for the {I beleieve the 36th time} I'm not "talking out both sides of my mouth", I believe there should be controls on those weapons in which gun nuts choose most ofter to KILL children in school msettings.
HERE I'LL MAKE IT EASY FOR YOUR NEXT RESPONCE TO MY NEXT POST!>>>> I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH WEAPONS FOR SELF DEFENCE OR RECREATION, WHAT I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IS THOSE WEAPONS USED IN A MAJORITY OF MASS SCHOOL KILLINGS THAT WERE COPIED AFTER MILITARY WEAPONS TO KILL AS MANY AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE and ARE CHOSEN BY GUN NUTS TO CARRY OUT THAT AGENDA.
Jjjjjeeeesssccchhhhh!
First off, police carry rifles, not shotguns. And they seldom use those rifles unless they are aiming a long way such as a hostage situation in a house or building. Secondly, we all know what you are against. I didn't say you were not against assault weapons for that reason. In fact, I stated that eliminating so-called assault weapons was paramount to your concern for children.

Police don't use shotguns--they use semi-automatic pistols with higher capacity magazines for 95% of their work. They too understand that you can't keep reloading a shotgun and have no problem with reloading a semi-automatic weapon. Semi-automatic handguns are the choice by far because for high stress dangerous situations, handguns do the job.

“Now do whats right!”

Since: Jan 09

Doolittle, Mo.

#342 Feb 24, 2013
Bluntforce wrote:
<quoted text>You must not get much sleep, huh? What are you going to do when they take away your "dangerous" dogs? Many liberal states are trying to put laws on their books outlawing your choice of pet. I'm sure you'll gladly hand over your "boys" if Uncle Joe asks. Maybe replace them with a brace of Teacup Yorkies. Because no one needs Rotties for protection or hunting, etc.
Got thinking about your comments on my Rotties. It sort of aligns with my stance on assult type weapons, although my boys are highly trained, they are still dangerous and should have controls. Doberman and Rotts are breeds that were bred to attack homosapiens. If left to run without restrictions {8ft chainlink fence or on leashes| they might revert back to their natural instincts.{Child running from them might be the catalyst for attack}

Dangerous opportune situations should be thought out and precautions taken in advance. Just as the boys might kill or mame a child need controls, the manfacture, importation and selling of assult type weapons should have controls. Especially when these type weapons are used in a majority of school shootings by these gun nuts.

“Now do whats right!”

Since: Jan 09

Doolittle, Mo.

#343 Feb 24, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
First off, police carry rifles, not shotguns. And they seldom use those rifles unless they are aiming a long way such as a hostage situation in a house or building. Secondly, we all know what you are against. I didn't say you were not against assault weapons for that reason. In fact, I stated that eliminating so-called assault weapons was paramount to your concern for children.
Police don't use shotguns--they use semi-automatic pistols with higher capacity magazines for 95% of their work. They too understand that you can't keep reloading a shotgun and have no problem with reloading a semi-automatic weapon. Semi-automatic handguns are the choice by far because for high stress dangerous situations, handguns do the job.
Again walk up to a patrol vehicle and see what is strapped there. Now some carry rifles in the trunk, but for fast and deadly action they use shotguns. They do have pistols on their person for the close up and personal.

“Now do whats right!”

Since: Jan 09

Doolittle, Mo.

#344 Feb 24, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
First off, police carry rifles, not shotguns. And they seldom use those rifles unless they are aiming a long way such as a hostage situation in a house or building. Secondly, we all know what you are against. I didn't say you were not against assault weapons for that reason. In fact, I stated that eliminating so-called assault weapons was paramount to your concern for children.
Police don't use shotguns--they use semi-automatic pistols with higher capacity magazines for 95% of their work. They too understand that you can't keep reloading a shotgun and have no problem with reloading a semi-automatic weapon. Semi-automatic handguns are the choice by far because for high stress dangerous situations, handguns do the job.
One case in which you may recall was the gun battle in Los Angeles bank robbery where the bad guys were well armed and were wearing body armor. The police actually commandeered high powered weapons from a gun store because the battle was long distance for their shotguns.

If the battle would have been closer the bad guys heads were not protected and would have been faster with a shot gun due to its pattern and spred of pellets and the moving target than a single projectile between those movements.
blaster

South Boston, VA

#345 Feb 24, 2013
If satanist joe was on fire I wouldnt pee on him

“Now do whats right!”

Since: Jan 09

Doolittle, Mo.

#346 Feb 24, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Not the way Smoking Joe does. He said to go out on your back porch, shoot your gun into the air, and that will scare suspected intruders away. You can't do that in the city.
I disagree if you are in the process of "scaring off" an intruder due to your real percieved threat of violence, a warning shot is legal, if not more responsible especially if the percieved threat is a good guy. An example of not being respponsible or "shoot first and ask questions later" was a couple of months age where a father actually took his son for an intruder and killed the boy.
wondering

Pinola, MS

#348 Feb 24, 2013
CB can see both sides wrote:
<quoted text>Good choice, with shot guns home protection you do not have to worry about the lead going through sheet rock into the next room, through the neighbors house, or down four blocke into the school yard.
If one is not a very good shot ,a shotgun is a good choice.It is hard to miss at less than 25 feet.However I don't think any shotgun will hold up for four blocks.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#349 Feb 24, 2013
CB can see both sides wrote:
<quoted text>I disagree if you are in the process of "scaring off" an intruder due to your real percieved threat of violence, a warning shot is legal, if not more responsible especially if the percieved threat is a good guy. An example of not being respponsible or "shoot first and ask questions later" was a couple of months age where a father actually took his son for an intruder and killed the boy.
Unless you are defending yourself, it's illegal to shoot a gun within city limits for any reason. Most states with the Castle Doctrine don't allow you to shoot anybody or anything outside of your home. You must be inside your home protecting yourself, not in the dark on the back porch because you heard a noise of some kind. I live in the city and monitor my police scanner every night. Trust me, you can't do what Biden suggested.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#350 Feb 24, 2013
CB can see both sides wrote:
<quoted text>One case in which you may recall was the gun battle in Los Angeles bank robbery where the bad guys were well armed and were wearing body armor. The police actually commandeered high powered weapons from a gun store because the battle was long distance for their shotguns.
If the battle would have been closer the bad guys heads were not protected and would have been faster with a shot gun due to its pattern and spred of pellets and the moving target than a single projectile between those movements.
By all means, please provide a link to your story. The reason I doubt you is because rifles have a stronger piercing capacity than BB's. If the subjects were wearing bullet proof material, a shotgun wouldn't have done the police any good. They would need higher power weapons to have any effect on such defensive material.

“Now do whats right!”

Since: Jan 09

Doolittle, Mo.

#351 Feb 24, 2013
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>If one is not a very good shot ,a shotgun is a good choice.It is hard to miss at less than 25 feet.However I don't think any shotgun will hold up for four blocks.
I was referring to a rifle projectile going four blocks, and one does in most cases not have to worry about shotgun pellets travling that distance and doing much damage.

There are different scenerios in which the two types of weapons have accountability. Shotguns are better for home protection especially with double 00 ammo. While rifles are preferred for long distance targets where a time element may not be of a concern.{Snipper type situations, hostages, single target, political street protection}
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#352 Feb 24, 2013
CB can see both sides wrote:
<quoted text>Again walk up to a patrol vehicle and see what is strapped there. Now some carry rifles in the trunk, but for fast and deadly action they use shotguns. They do have pistols on their person for the close up and personal.
No. Police do not use shotguns period.

The object for police is protection--not deadly kills. Show me one incident where a subject was killed by police who were using shotguns. The weapons you see in police cars are rifles.

Regardless of investigations, police officers can be sued privately even if it's determined they used proper force. In order to legally protect themselves, they have to prove that their intent was not to kill--but only to preserve their own lives. There may be exceptions to the rule, but it's not the standard.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#353 Feb 24, 2013
CB can see both sides wrote:
<quoted text>Got thinking about your comments on my Rotties. It sort of aligns with my stance on assult type weapons, although my boys are highly trained, they are still dangerous and should have controls. Doberman and Rotts are breeds that were bred to attack homosapiens. If left to run without restrictions {8ft chainlink fence or on leashes| they might revert back to their natural instincts.{Child running from them might be the catalyst for attack}
Dangerous opportune situations should be thought out and precautions taken in advance. Just as the boys might kill or mame a child need controls, the manfacture, importation and selling of assult type weapons should have controls. Especially when these type weapons are used in a majority of school shootings by these gun nuts.
The majority of dog attacks are breeds you own. So because a few are careless about their animals, does that mean you shouldn't own them either?

“Now do whats right!”

Since: Jan 09

Doolittle, Mo.

#354 Feb 24, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
By all means, please provide a link to your story. The reason I doubt you is because rifles have a stronger piercing capacity than BB's. If the subjects were wearing bullet proof material, a shotgun wouldn't have done the police any good. They would need higher power weapons to have any effect on such defensive material.
If you will reread my post that is exactly what I stated. That is why the LA Police commandeered matching high powered rifles from a gun store. My point was if the bad guys would have been in range of a shot gun it would have had its advantages for a head shot due to the moving targets and spreading pattern, but the shootout was in some cases blocks apart. The two bad guys actually walking down the street until one was hit under the left arm into the chest area. He then killed himself. The other individual was killed by police after stealing a truck and attempting to drive away.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Joe Biden Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Biden: Trump should retain sanctions on Russia Thu About time 33
News Will Sixty Senators Vote To Protect The Second ... Feb 19 Trump your President 8
News Bridge name remains same Feb 11 better or worse 1
News Mexico, U.S. will partner with or without Trump... Feb 1 Jgs 3
News Trump musters 31,000 Californians over immigrat... (Apr '16) Jan 30 okiady 3
News Make SCOTUS Nominees Answer the Tough Questions Jan 30 DaveinMass 1
News Julia Louis-Dreyfus: I love Joe Biden (Apr '13) Jan 30 BuildTheWall 14
More from around the web