Sexist or Just Stupid? Biden’s Shotgun Advice Triggers Criticism

150px-shotgunaction225px-joe_biden_official_photo_portrait_2-croppedVice President Joe Biden latest controversial statement has produced some interesting criticism. Biden was asked recently if the ban on certain guns would put people at risk. He responded by encouraging people to buy shotguns and fire them out the window. It was pretty dim-witted advice since that would be illegal, but is it sexist as well as stupid?

A women at a Parents Magazine town hall as Biden “Do you believe that banning certain weapons and high capacity magazines will mean that law-abiding citizens will then become more of a target to criminals as we will have no way to sufficiently protect ourselves?”

Biden immediately did what he does best: put his foot in his mouth and then shoot himself in the foot. Biden chuckled and responded: “As I told my wife — we live in an area that’s wooded and somewhat secluded — I said, ‘Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony, put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house,’” Biden said. “I promise you whoseever [sic] coming in is not gonna — you don’t need an AR-15. It’s harder to aim, it’s harder to use, and in fact you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun.”

kate ernest america live-cropped-proto-custom_28Kate Ernest later went on Fox and said that Biden sounded sexist: “I think it was poor advice and it comes off a little sexist. Like, ‘let me tell you what you need’ versus, you know, ‘arm yourself or protect yourself in a way that you feel necessary.” Really. You ask Biden for advice on guns. He gives you advice on guns and then you say it was sexist to “tell you what you need.”

No it was not sexist, Ms. Ernest, just stupid.

As a torts professor and criminal defense attorney, I can assure you that firing a shotgun out your window or porch is both illegal and negligent. State laws and regulations strongly reinforce the need to have a clear target or view in shooting a weapon and do not countenance shooting blindly out of window, even on private property or in rural areas. Yes, you may to scare off a prowler as well as gun down your neighbor. If his wife were to follow Biden’s sage advice, she would be looking at possible criminal charges for aggravated menacing, reckless endangerment, and other crimes in Delaware and other states. She would also be subject to tort liability for negligence, assault, and possible battery or wrongful death. It is not generally considered reasonable mistaken self-defense to fire a weapon out a window to scare off the neighbors. Indeed, not long ago, a prosecutor was arrested for such a warning shot.

Now, the Ms. Biden’s possible defense is strengthened by the fact that he described his home as being “wooded and somewhat secluded.” Moreover a shotgun pellet has a shorter trajectory than a bullet. However, we have people hit every year by folks who think they can harmless fire guns in rural areas or in the air. This includes police officers, mail carriers, and others who lawfully come on to property as well as common trespassers in rural areas who cut across land like the recent tragic case in Oregon.


Source: ABA Journal and TPM

175 thoughts on “Sexist or Just Stupid? Biden’s Shotgun Advice Triggers Criticism

  1. “I promise you whoseever [sic] coming in is not gonna — you don’t need an AR-15

    Unless the ones coming in HAVE a AR15….WHY would you want to restrict what legal owners have, when you can NOT restrict what the criminals have!?

    And of course they are missing the main point of bans…IT DOESN’T WORK.

    Doesn’t work with drugs, didn’t work with liquor, and it won’t work with guns.

  2. Ok you want some of my solutions?

    Get rid of “Gun Free Zones” where only the law abiding are unarmed.

    Just about all of these shooters in the news have just been nut cases. It is ALREADY illegal for them to have weapons.
    We just need a better data base to screen these mentally ill people out, since obviously they won’t volunteer to do it. (Not a national registration, just a database for the mentally ill.)

    But some problems, like guns & drugs, are related. Take Chicago’s murder rate, the biggest percentage of those are gang/drug related.

    Anyone remember prohibition?

    Why did they legalize booze again after a 13 year ban on it? Was it NOW found to be healthy for people?
    Of course not, they got rid of prohibition because of all the gangs, murders, corruption, & cost of imprisoning people for it.

    Ok, now how do you suppose we could get rid of our gang, murder, corruption, & ever increasing prison costs? (We have the HIGHEST rate of incarceration in the WHOLE WORLD! State’s are going broke trying to imprison all these people.)

    Sure drugs destroy lives, but then so do 10 years in jail. Is one WORSE than the other?

    Legalize all drugs, and get these freaks off the worst of them, so they aren’t out killing innocent people and each other in turf wars. (I am NOT saying to give all these drugs out, or even make them available…I’m saying REGULATE them.)

    Once the revenue from these drugs is gone, so is the incentive for all these gang killings, and robbery’s where innocent people are killed.
    Let US use the revenue from them to try to rehabilitate users, like they have done with cigarettes & alcohol.

  3. however poorly he expressed it,he is right that a shotgun is the most effective weapon for home defense; you don’t have to have a precise aim and buckshot is lethal.

  4. Vice President Biden spoke of a remote area, not urban areas where people are close together.

    There are advocates for police to carry shotguns:

    The shotgun is a devastating combat weapon.

    In its modern form, it has served the military and police departments well since World War I.

    The manual of arms is fairly straightforward.

    A properly trained officer with a shotgun, spare ammunition, a sling, and a mounted light will absolutely rule the day in close quarters battle.

    (Police Shotgun – Carry It!). Like religion, each to his or her own so long as it is legal.

  5. This is one of those stories that make one ask, “Did I hear that right?”

    I have written on the topic of home defense several times before. Some thoughts. The AR-15 and other rifles of that type are not the weapon of choice for home defense unless it is the only thing one has on hand. In fact, a rifle of any kind should be considered a weapon of last resort for home defense.

    If a pistol is used in a home, only frangible (hollow points or other ammo that breaks up into fragments when it hits something) is recommended. Full metal jacket rounds will go though walls.

    The single best weapon for self protection in a home invasion is a 12-guage shotgun, preferably with the shortest legal barrel (no more than 18″ in the US). The Mossberg 500 has been a favorite for home defense for a long time. It is reliable, not all that expensive, and is easy for even a person of small stature to operate. Law enforcement agencies often install the tactical version in their patrol cars for exactly the same reason it makes a competent home defense weapon.

    Smaller shot is safer than buckshot or slugs. My personal preference for a home defense load is goose shot. Goose shot is less likely to go through a sheet rock wall than buckshot or a slug unless you have the barrel jammed against the wall.

    Goose shot may not even be fatal to the bad guy, but will definitely bring the home invasion to an abrupt halt.

    The Veep was right about shotguns for home defense, but his comment about firing out the window was creepy.

  6. The fact is that his advice is good for even subdivisions. A shotgun being fired in the air is NOT going to cause any damage. I love the sound when I am goose hunting when we fire, and all the pellets come raining down on the plastic decoys. NO damage is done to those decoys and no damage is done to anything when those pellets fall to the ground or on somebodys roof. Hail will do more damage than shotgun pellets and I know because I have had severe hail damage and NONE from shotgun pellets.

    Now as to the legal situation, at night it will sure get the cops there, and any burglar or criminal will NOT wish to wait to see them arrive. The laws vary in most places and unless the homeowners wishes to confess, there is no way the cops can charge them with anything even if the local laws are against it. Then even assuming that the homeowner tells the cops they were the ones, if they had a good reason or threat, that will probably outweigh the legal violation. So while there are laws against firing a gun in city limits, if the homeowner uses the gun to shoot an intruder, I doubt that they will be charged with any violation.

    In close quarters combat with a crook, a shotgun is FAR better protection and it won’t shoot a bullet that will exit the home and kill or hit a neighbor. When I lived in an apartment, I had my pistols loaded with hollow points so that if I did have to shoot, the bullets would stay in my apartment and not go through the next few ones downrange.

  7. OS,

    Respectfully, there is no “single best weapon for self protection in a home invasion.” It all depends.

    The 12-gauge is one option that is popular, and may be effective in many cases. For some people, racking the slide may be difficult for physical reasons, though, and a side-by-side double-barrel (contrary to the VP’s ill-advised advice) simply may not carry enough rounds for a given situation. For others, the recoil of a 12-gauge may simply be too much to handle, either for reasons of inexperience or because of physical limitations.

    The relatively low recoil and short barrel of the AR-15/M-16/M-4 platform may be easier for many people to handle, especially with a collapsible stock. Hollow-point ammo is readily available in .223, and it is a relatively low-powered round, as compared, say, to common hunting rifles. (It doesn’t make as much noise as a 12-gauge when you fire it in the air, though, so in the secluded woods of Delaware, it might not be the VP’s wife’s best choice.) Given the propensity to shoot with less accuracy under stress, more rounds in the magazine may also be very desirable.

    For others, a handgun may be the better option. Personally, I am fond of S&W .38 Special revolvers, but that’s largely because I grew up with them. I carried a Colt Model 1911A .45 ACP in the military, but since we normally only kept 5 rounds in the magazine (don’t ask — the unit armorer’s obsession with magazine springs was infamous), I actually came to think of the revolver as the better option. The 9mm came along well after I was a civilian. Younger folks seem to prefer them, though, and it’s really all about what you are comfortable shooting, because that’s what you will practice with.

    For others, of course, the very idea of resisting a home invasion with a firearm is anathema. No weapon of all is the best weapon for them — and their victimizers.

  8. “As a torts professor and criminal defense attorney, I can assure you that firing a shotgun out your window or porch is both illegal and negligent.”

    This is a blatantly incorrect statement when stated in this absolutist manner. I don’t know about Biden’s particular home. but there are many places where it is perfectly legal and not negligent to fire a shotgun out your window or on your porch.

    Biden is also correct that a shotgun is generally a much better choice for home defense than an AR-15. Firing a warning shot is also a much smarter action than shooting at an intruder, although I recognize this is more of a value judgment and some may disagree about this opinion.

  9. Also, even in places where it is illegal to fire a shotgun out the window, the shooter would likely have a solid legal defense based on self-defense and/or protection of one’s home if the shooting was actually and reasonably believed to be in response to an attacker or burglar. Sorry, but JT comes off much worse in this post than Biden, especially considering that a law prof should know better.

  10. From a home defense standpoint he is correct, it would probably be more advantageous to have a shotgun than an assault rife at close range. The larger point he was trying to make was that assault weapons aren’t the only thing you can use to defend your house. I honestly don’t see how people could argue it’s a good thing that someone with a history of serious mental illness can buy a weapon that makes it extremely easy to kill people with no hassle. I keep hearing people say “making drugs illegal doesn’t stop people from doing them” like that’s a rationale argument for not restricting the types of weapons people can carry. Prisons are proof that making drugs illegal does in fact work.

    I see very little reason in this argument and lots of emotion, which is discouraging.

  11. A shotgun may be a reasonable choice for some people under some circumstances.

    But Biden’s advice is appallingly bad and irresponsible.

    To counsel people to point any weapon outside and fire without appropriate caution is reckless in the extreme. No one should ever fire any weapon without first verifying the target.

    In a home defense situation one should never fire without first verifying the target is clearly identified and lethal forces is justified.

    Why one would choose a double barrel shotgun is a mystery to me. In any situation where a shotgun is reasonable to use, a pump shotgun or semi automatic shotgun would be a much better choice.

    Presumably any one using a double barrel shotgun would also have more ammunition available. But a double barrel shotgun only has two rounds immediately available to fire. Why would one fire both rounds at first without checking for effect.

    Even if one decides that a double barrel shotgun if the best choice, it makes no sense to fire both barrels at once.

    Biden demonstrates profound ignorance in the choice of a home defense weapon.

    Biden demonstrates ignorance and reckless use of a weapon in a home defense situation.

    There is much to say in our discussion of reasonable regulation of fire arms.

    Biden’s remarks take that conversation down a notch and are a disservice to anyone who seeks advice regarding the safe and effective use of firearms for self defense.

  12. Interesting that no comments here touch upon the true substance of Biden’s answer. The question was “Why shouldn’t I have access to stronger defensive weapons?” and Biden’s answer was “You do – it’s called a shotgun.”

    That is the essential point of distinguishing between offensive and defensive weapons. The AR-15 is far better for killing lots of people offensively, but a shotgun is better for defending oneself against an intruder.

  13. MOrgan Brownsworth:

    “Prisons are proof that making drugs illegal does in fact work.”

    Morgan,

    I suggest that making drugs illegal does NOT in fact work. If it did work, then the effect of criminalizing manufacture, traffiicking, and possession of drugs would would be less drug crime.

    The United States incarcerates a higher proportion of its population than any other Western country. A very high proportion of those incarcerated are there for drug crimes or drug-related crimes. We keep sending more and more people to prison, yet we still have rampant illegal drug use. The failure of deterrence is pretty clear. The cycle continues. How is this a successful policy?

  14. The effect of criminalizing the use and possession of drugs would be less use and possession of drugs, not less crime related to drugs. I support the legalization of marijuana, but I don’t pretend that laws against marijuana use and possession have no effect. It’s just basic economics that if the cost of something is higher (risk of prison, higher cost of the the drug, exposure to possible violence from drug dealers, etc.), then there will be less demand.

  15. You can defend yourself with a shotgun but not a Glock 17 pistol with a 16 round magazine.

    Personally, when if I had to defend myself from being killed by a menacing burglar or robber, it doesn’t matter. I just want to live. I’m not going to say “Excuse me sir, wait here while I go fetch my single shot 28 guage shotgun that is a permitted for hunting on designated hunting grounds.”

  16. I am not certain who is a lawyer here and who is not, but I can tell you that I am one. A this discussion seems to in the direction of “Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.” That often sounds a lot better in theory than it works in actual practice. Even when it actually applies, you still can end up paying a lawyer, and criminal defense is not cheap.

    Arthur Randolph Erb:

    “Now as to the legal situation, at night it will sure get the cops there, and any burglar or criminal will NOT wish to wait to see them arrive. The laws vary in most places and unless the homeowners wishes to confess, there is no way the cops can charge them with anything even if the local laws are against it. Then even assuming that the homeowner tells the cops they were the ones, if they had a good reason or threat, that will probably outweigh the legal violation. So while there are laws against firing a gun in city limits, if the homeowner uses the gun to shoot an intruder, I doubt that they will be charged with any violation.”

    First, what makes you so sure that the neighbors won’t turn you in? What makes you think that you won’t be subject to Murphy’s law? “I heard a shot coming from the Erb residence, and then some something came in through the open window of the room where my baby was sleeping. I was really scared, so I called 911. Then I noticed that something was wrong with his eye . . . . The EMT’s said it was a shotgun pellet.”

    Second, we are not talking about shooting an intruder, which might be justifiable, assuming all the legal requirements for employing lethal force are met. We are talking about going out on your deck and shooting a shotgun in the air or shooting out of your window. We are not talking about aiming at an intruder; we are not talking about aiming at anyone; we are talking about discharging a firearm in a negligent or even reckless manner, because the shooter does not know what he is shooting at.

    Third, even if you feel threatened, the law does not allow you to start shooting in random directions, just because you think that it might scare off an intruder that you haven’t even seen. Hearing some unidentified sound is not a good reason to shoot and is not a “threat”, no matter how frightened you may feel. Just ask Oscar Pistorius how that is working out for him.

    Finally, while you “doubt” that you would be charged with a violation for discharging a firearm as described, in most places where I am familiar with the law, you would be wrong.

    Waldo:

    “Also, even in places where it is illegal to fire a shotgun out the window, the shooter would likely have a solid legal defense based on self-defense and/or protection of one’s home if the shooting was actually and reasonably believed to be in response to an attacker or burglar. Sorry, but JT comes off much worse in this post than Biden, especially considering that a law prof should know better.”

    Wrong for the reasons described above. About the only time that you would have a solid self-defense case for shooting a shotgun out of the window would be if the intruder was climbing in that window at the time you pulled the trigger. If you are not shooting at the intruder, you don’t have a self-defense defense.

    Waldo:

    ” Firing a warning shot is also a much smarter action than shooting at an intruder, although I recognize this is more of a value judgment and some may disagree about this opinion.”

    In my opinion, firing a “warning shot” is a waste of ammunition you may need shortly. If you choose to fire a “warning shot”, however, you are responsible for knowing what it is going to hit, and you will be legally liable for any damage that it does.

  17. What is crazier? Biden’s statement or the fact that over 1800 people have died from gunfire since the Sandy Hook massacre?

  18. Waldo:

    “The effect of criminalizing the use and possession of drugs would be less use and possession of drugs, not less crime related to drugs. I support the legalization of marijuana, but I don’t pretend that laws against marijuana use and possession have no effect. It’s just basic economics that if the cost of something is higher (risk of prison, higher cost of the the drug, exposure to possible violence from drug dealers, etc.), then there will be less demand.”

    Not in the real world, at least, not when the demand is fueled by addiction, which removes, at least partially, the rationality that the normal demand curve assumes. Even where addiction is not, strictly speaking, the effect on demand can be distorted by the widespread perception that the law is wrong, stupid, unenforced, or otherwise not to be taken seriously. If you think, for example, that laws against marijuana use have had a significant effect on demand, you haven’t spent much time around high school and college students lately. They have had some effect on prison population for those unlucky enough to be caught, but there is still demand (and supply), even among those in prison.

    There is also the fact that illegality also drives up the reward from production and trafficking. Do you think that the price, say, of cocaine or marijuana would be nearly as high if it was readily available at the local pharmacy? Prohibition of alcohol did not stop consumption, it simply raised the price to the consumer and allowed the mob to enrich itself on the higher prices.

  19. Porkchop has some problems with reasoning to say the least. I know of no law of physics that would allow a pellet to change course in its falling trajectory to come in the open window of a house..The only way for any pellet to get into the eye of anybody would be to be outside lying face up in the street if the shot was directed in that direction. THEN you might have a point. In the case of a baby, you would be facing more than just a few charges and prison time.

    As for being turned in by somebody, that is impossible since the cop has to SEE it personally, or the person reporting MUST have SEEN the person shooting. Try learning some law. Then in the case of shooting a crook and being still charged, I refer you to the case of Joe Horn in Pasadena TX where he shot and killed two burglars. It is illegal to discharge a firearm there, yet he was NOT charged under that at ALL.

    As for warning shots, I doubt that there are many crooks who would wish to engage in a firefight with an armed and awake homeowner. The ones who DO wish to do that are coming in with the express intent of KILLING YOU. So unless you have a lot of enemies who wish to kill you, the warning shot will more than likely be sufficient to be rid of the crook.

  20. bigfatmike”

    “Why one would choose a double barrel shotgun is a mystery to me. In any situation where a shotgun is reasonable to use, a pump shotgun or semi automatic shotgun would be a much better choice.”

    Generally an old side-by-side is cheaper than a pump or semiauto and, for some, easier to manipulate than a pump.

    We have an aging population with joint replacements and other disabilities. As I recall, Justice Scalia tipped his hat to the elderly and infirm in Heller in response to the argument that a long gun was a suitable substitute for a handgun for home defense.

  21. randyjet, “Then in the case of shooting a crook and being still charged, I refer you to the case of Joe Horn in Pasadena TX where he shot and killed two burglars. It is illegal to discharge a firearm there, yet he was NOT charged under that at ALL.”

    And there’s the case of Dick Cheney who shot someone who wasn’t crook (or at least he wasn’t engaged in illegal action at the time) and wasn’t charged. Or maybe it was just a warning shot.

  22. Porkchop,
    My observation about “single best” was generic for the average person. Obviously a person with one arm would have a bit of difficulty racking a shell into the chamber, whether a pump shotgun or a Colt Model 1911. Some folks are not strong enough to get a shotgun to the shoulder, or deal with 12-gauge recoil. However, if I were forced into a shootout inside my own home, I would rather have a shotgun than anything else. Either a pump gun or semi-automatic.

    I could have been more precise, but for all purpose protection the shotgun is usually the first choice of those who know. We had two home invasions in our county just in the past year which resulted in shootings. Both home invaders were young men stoked on meth. Armed and dangerous. Both the homeowners were elderly men in their 80s living alone. Both old guys retreated back into their homes as far as they could, but when cornered, they both had shotguns and knew how to use them. Both home invaders earned Darwin Awards. One shot in the chest at close range, fatally. The other was not killed, but earned his Darwin Award anyway because he was removed from the gene pool. According to what I have been able to learn, the load of shot hit him in the groin, removing the family jewels and all the associated plumbing.

    No charges were pressed. Police and the DA ruled both shootings fully justifiable.

  23. Hmmm. Distortion. First you quote Biden as saying go out on the balcony and shoot. That, is not shooting out the window. The shooter is outdoors. The shooter can see and fire in he air. A blast from a shotgun from a balcony up in the air can do a world of good. Birds dont like it but neither do perps.

  24. Randyjet,

    One, I cite Murphy’s law — what can go wrong will. Assuming that they won’t gets a lot of people jail time.

    Two, you are assuming a nearly vertical shot that lands almost on top of the shooter; other trajectories are possible and entirely plausible. Three, even assuming that you are right about the open window, how about a baby lying in a stroller or baby carrier on the sidewalk near the house? Maybe the neighbors just got home and they were getting the kids out of the car?

    Three, good luck with “You can’t arrest me, because you didn’t see me do it.” Generally, that is true with misdemeanors; it would be foolish to assume that discharge of a firearm will never be treated as anything but a misdemeanor.

    My post was in response to Arthur Randolph Erb’s statement that:

    “The laws vary in most places and unless the homeowners wishes to confess, there is no way the cops can charge them with anything even if the local laws are against it. ”

    That’s just plain wrong. There are lots of ways “the cops can charge them.” One is, as you point out, if the cop saw the discharge. Another is if a witness saw it. Another is if there are witnesses whose collective testimony demonstrates that it happened. How about if one witness saw heard shotgun discharged, and another one saw the child hit, while having shot rain “harmlessly” on his own head? You don’t think that the police would have probable cause to go over to the Erb residence for a discussion of the fresh smell of powder and a search that would turn up a discharged shotgun and shells? (Unless he cleans his guns really fast and runs to the woods with the shells.)

    We are not talking about shooting burglars here; in most places, maybe not Texas, Mr. Horn might have had a different experience if he had hit someone else, too, like, say, a kid in the house across the street. The collateral damage argument works okay on the field of battle in a war, but not necessarily as well in the modern subdivision.

  25. We are now in the Age of Pistorius. This story is so over worked on tv that I am gonna get some device that switches channels when they show him or Lance Armstrong. If they dont make one, I will invent one and call it the LancePissor.

  26. OS

    I don’t disagree. I just think that having the VP try to make the choice for everyone, based on his own experience (or lack of it), with no regard for the fact that the shotgun is not an option for everyone, is simply wrong.

  27. randyjet:

    at what angle was the shotgun discharged? 90, 80, 135, 150 degrees? A projectile follows a parabolic arch.

    Seems Porkchop’s reasoning is just fine.

  28. Porkchop,
    True dat. Speaking of shooting into the air. About the time you think there is no such thing as Karma, something like this happens.

    A few years ago, some skinhead types were having a rally. One of the guys present fired his .45 caliber pistol into the air. A few seconds later, he dropped to the ground, unconscious. His buddies rushed him to the local emergency room, where he was found to have a single bullet hole in the top of his head. The shot he fired straight up came back down, hitting him on his head. The big .45 slug had enough mass and velocity to penetrate his skull and kill him.

  29. Bullets fired into the air maintain their lethal capability when they eventually fall back down.

    busted / plausible / confirmed

    In the case of a bullet fired at a precisely vertical angle (something extremely difficult for a human being to duplicate), the bullet would tumble, lose its spin, and fall at a much slower speed due to terminal velocity and is therefore rendered less than lethal on impact. However, if a bullet is fired upward at a non-vertical angle (a far more probable possibility), it will maintain its spin and will reach a high enough speed to be lethal on impact. Because of this potentiality, firing a gun into the air is illegal in most states, and even in the states that it is legal, it is not recommended by the police. Also the MythBusters were able to identify two people who had been injured by falling bullets, one of them fatally injured. To date, this is the only myth to receive all three ratings at the same time.

  30. Porkchop,

    1. “About the only time that you would have a solid self-defense case for shooting a shotgun out of the window would be if the intruder was climbing in that window at the time you pulled the trigger. If you are not shooting at the intruder, you don’t have a self-defense defense.”

    You are allowed to threaten force in any situation where you would be allowed to use force for self defense or defense of property. Shooting a shotgun off your deck to scare away an intruder would be a threatened use of force. If the situation permitted shooting a shotgun at someone, then you most certainly have a legal defense to threatening the use of force by shooting a shotgun as a warning/threat. There absolutely are situations where shooting a shotgun off your deck as a warning/threat to an intruder would be justified and a legal defense against an ordinance violation for discharging a firearm, just as shooting someone can be justified in certain situations and provide a defense to an ordinance violation. For example, in my state, see Texas Penal Code section 9.04, “The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter [includes self-defense and defense of property].”

    2. “If you choose to fire a “warning shot”, however, you are responsible for knowing what it is going to hit, and you will be legally liable for any damage that it does.”

    You certainly *may* be liable, but you may not. You make it sound like it is strict liability. This is incorrect. The claim against you would be for negligence. Under negligence, the standard is basically whether you acted reasonably under the circumstances. Whether you would or would not be liable for any damage caused by shooting your shotgun depends upon the circumstances.

    3. Re drugs, you argue against yourself. First you suggest that making drugs illegal has no significant impact on the amount of usage. Then you note (correctly) that illegality significantly raises the price of the drug. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics realizes that significantly higher price = less demand. There are plenty of people who either don’t use marijuana but would if it were legal (myself included) or would smoke a lot more marijuana than currently if it were significantly cheaper and readily available at the neighborhood pharmacy (I know quite a few people who fit in this category). There’s lots of good arguments for legalization of marijuana without its advocates weakening their credibility by making fallacious arguments.

  31. Bron we are talking shotgun pellets with very small mass, NOT bullets which DO follow a parabolic arc. Having a gun at over 90 degrees from veritcal makes no rational sense at all. The shotgun pellets will follow that kind of arc until their momentum is spent, then they will drop far more vertically and with the lethality of a bullet fired absolutely verticle which tumbles and is basically harmless.

  32. Bron,
    The dead guy was very dead, with a single bullet hole in the exact top of his shaved head. They found the bullet in his brain. They still talk about it in the ER.

    That was a 255 grain (.56 ounce) solid lead slug. The terminal falling velocity of a skydiver is 120-125 mph. A bullet has more mass to frontal area ratio than a human, so it will fall faster. A feather, on the other hand has a very low mass to frontal area ratio so its terminal velocity will be quite slow compared to both humans and bullets. Tests show that the terminal velocity of most bullets is about 200-205 mph, or approximately 300 feet per second. Given the impact point on a skull is about .25 square inch, you get 51 foot-pounds of energy focused on one fourth of a square inch of skull.

    That is easily as much as getting a hard whack with the ball end of a ball peen hammer, a tool which has killed many people.

    Shooting into the air results in a number of deaths annually worldwide. It is not only stupid, it is dangerous. Here are a few well documented stats.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire

  33. Mike Spindell,

    I wonder how many paid govt propagandist trolls post on this blog?

    I see their all over the internet/blogs now that many of us have canceled our cable tv attempting to get away from their propaganda BS.

    Gun Control issue was settled in 1791. As one of American Citizen Stakeholder’s Inalienable Rights, everyone can retain Cannons, Wagon Loads Gun Powder, Muskets, Pungi Pits & on & on.

    At least until they are overrun by fools/ or those being blackmailed for support, etc., like the great actor Dustin Hoffman, Commo, Bloomberg & the Biden.

    http://www.rightwingnews.com/photoshops/20-of-the-best-pictures-from-the-223-day-of-resistance-rallies/

    Much of the public is currently brain dead from Prozac types drugs. One study of new born babies I seen a few years back showed they were being born with no less then 280 Toxic chemicals in their blood.

    (Same for the nurse/mothers that took part in the study.)

    Gangsters, Mafia or just grade A Cloaked Fascist, whatever phrase one likes, it’s clear our government has been over run by Tyrants.

    IE Just a small sample of headlines govt outrages from today:

    ** U.S. dairy industry petitions FDA to approve aspartame as hidden additive

    Mike Adams | You probably already know that the FDA has declared war on raw milk and even helped fund and coordinate armed government raids against raw milk farmers and distributors. **

    ** When they came for the Raw Milk drinkers…

    Ron Paul | While I oppose most gun control proposals, there is one group of Americans I do believe should be disarmed: federal agents. **

    **

    Supreme Court Throws Out Challenge To Warrantless Wiretapping Of Americans

    Steve Watson | Legal expert: Decision “insulates” government spying from court review.**

    From the nationwide electronic voting scam, Congress/WH/Courts corruption, etc. many paths to public redress of grievances have been closed off to use.

    There are still plenty of peaceful means we can use.

    In Iceland the whole population shut the down what they were doing personal & protested until they got a govt that threw the crooked polcat leaders & the crooked banks in jail. That fixed most of their internal problems

    One thing we should have been doing all along is to stop doing any business with the crooked aholes/America Hating Trash.

    One idea I’m growing to like is multiple “Runaway Grand Juries” across the states of the US.

    I haven’t read this link below on that subject, but I will.

    http://www.defendruralamerica.com/DRA/Blog/Entries/2002/7/13_Opening_the_Grand_Jury.html

    I welcome more useful ideas & hope others are passing the good ones around.

  34. i’m with OS on this one. 12 gauge short barrel pump with about a #4 shot.
    nothing like the pucker factor of racking the first shell into the chamber.

    ARE
    #8 shot hurts when raining down but it won’t kill. just don’t look up, might put someones eye out.

  35. OS:

    that was from the Mythbusters, they say the bullet in the air killing someone is possible and they say they have verified at least 2.

    I was agreeing with you.

  36. Ya, I forgot to add I’d like to see some of those state “Runaway Grand Juries” go after those currently on Supreme Court because it’s clear by the evidence this SC is mentally insane & should be removed for cause.

  37. pete9999

    I have been told on good authority, there is no sound in the world like being in a dark room where you are not supposed to be and suddenly hearing a slide being racked.

  38. Terminator-
    “however poorly he expressed it,he is right that a shotgun is the most effective weapon for home defense; you don’t have to have a precise aim”

    This is a pervasive and dangerous gun myth. Virtually any shotgun fired at self defense distances is going to maintain a tight pattern, probably no bigger than a baseball. You do indeed have aim and put the shot on target. Yeah, in Resident Evil 4, a shotgun will kill four zombies standing side by side. That’s not reality.

    Otteray Scribe-
    “I have written on the topic of home defense several times before. Some thoughts. The AR-15 and other rifles of that type are not the weapon of choice for home defense unless it is the only thing one has on hand. In fact, a rifle of any kind should be considered a weapon of last resort for home defense.”

    I couldn’t disagree more.

    “The single best weapon for self protection in a home invasion is a 12-guage shotgun, preferably with the shortest legal barrel (no more than 18″ in the US). The Mossberg 500 has been a favorite for home defense for a long time. It is reliable, not all that expensive, and is easy for even a person of small stature to operate. Law enforcement agencies often install the tactical version in their patrol cars for exactly the same reason it makes a competent home defense weapon.”

    The shotgun has many things in its favor, but it is not the slam dunk you are describing. Police are also using AR-15s increasingly, and they are picking up a good deal of steam in the home defense movement for good reasons:

    *The AR is much lighter and easier to handle than a shotgun.
    *Recoil is non-existent compared to a shotgun, making them a much better choice for those of small stature.
    *Semi-automatic, no need to cycle the weapon between each shot, no need to worry about short-stroking the gun.
    *.223/5.56 doesn’t over penetrate as bad as buckshot. Bird shot is a whole other issue.

    “Goose shot may not even be fatal to the bad guy, but will definitely bring the home invasion to an abrupt halt.”

    That’s not a virtue.

    Waldo-
    “Biden is also correct that a shotgun is generally a much better choice for home defense than an AR-15.”

    See Porkchop’s response to OS.

    “Firing a warning shot is also a much smarter action than shooting at an intruder,”

    NO! If you think you or a loved one’s life is about to be ended, you should stop the threat as quickly as possible, period. If between you reaching for the gun and aiming the attacker retreats, that’s great, I’m not in favor of just blowing the guy away. But there should be no hesitation when you think you are about to die or be grievously injured.

    MOrgan Brownsworth-
    “I honestly don’t see how people could argue it’s a good thing that someone with a history of serious mental illness can buy a weapon that makes it extremely easy to kill people with no hassle.”

    Who is arguing in favor of people with documented serious mental illness getting guns? And what does “no hassle” mean?

    DigitalDave-
    “That is the essential point of distinguishing between offensive and defensive weapons. The AR-15 is far better for killing lots of people offensively, but a shotgun is better for defending oneself against an intruder.”

    This is ridiculous. The user of the weapon determines the purpose. The home defender should use the weapon that best suits them for the purpose. Shotguns are great for some people. AR-15s are better for some people for many reasons. Owning an AR will not turn you into a mass murderer; given that all long guns are responsible for well under 400 gun murders a year, it’s pretty clear that the AR’s ability to possess mentally healthy people and send them on massacres is very poor.

    rafflaw-
    “What is crazier? Biden’s statement or the fact that over 1800 people have died from gunfire since the Sandy Hook massacre?”

    Gun murder is sad and horrible and something we should work to reduce as much as possible. That doesn’t make Biden’s idiocy any less crazy.

    Otteray Scribe-
    “I could have been more precise, but for all purpose protection the shotgun is usually the first choice of those who know.”

    But that’s a shifting consensus. You’ll have no problem finding people “who know” advocating both carbines and handguns.

    The dumbest thing that Biden said was, “[An AR-15] is harder to aim, it’s harder to use…” That’s just factually incorrect and betrays his ignorance on firearms, something not uncommon among law makers.

    Relative to a shotgun, an AR is like shooting a BB gun.

  39. Bron,
    A perfect parabola will exist only in a medium of unvarying density and no movement. Air, for example, gets thinner as altitude increases. Thin air has less wind resistance. Warm air has less wind resistance than cold air. It has been calculated that a bullet leaving the muzzle at 3,000 feet per second will achieve a peak altitude of about 10,000 before running out of energy and starting to fall back. Calculating the speed of gravity and terminal velocity, the return trip will take approximately 90 seconds. During that time, forces acting on the bullet include air density, temperature, and wind, not to mention the Coriolis effect. I have known several snipers, and they tell me it is not unusual to see the bullet trace a spiral path to the target. The physics of that phenomenon are much the same as a pitcher throwing a curve ball. When conditions are right, a bullet leaves a vapor trail that can be seen through the spotter’s scope.

    Aviators such as ARE are familiar with something called ‘wind drift’ and ‘relative wind.’ The bullet may think it is traveling in a parabola, but when measured in the real world, other things are happening to affect its path.

    I am sure Capt. Erb has made more than one crosswind landing that reminded him of the old Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times.”

    Just for grins:

  40. Waldo,

    Discharging a firearm in some random direction, not knowing what is in the path of the projectile, is beyond negligent — it is reckless. This kind of thinking gives gun owners a bad name. It doesn’t matter if you are scared and think there is a threat out there somewhere. If you don’t know where the threat is, it’s not self-defense, that is, it is not the legally justifiable use of force to defend yourself from an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm. It may be the threat of force with respect to some potential assailant (the one you can’t locate or identify), but it is the use of ACTUAL force against an innocent third party if you hit someone with the warning shot. That’s not self-defense, because the innocent third party is not threatening you.

    But, keep thinking that way. There are lots of lawyers who would be happy to take your money to defend you while your financial well-being, and possibly your freedom, swirls around the toilet bowl. Even if you win, you lose.

    As to economics, you have an overly simplistic understanding of supply and demand. First, your argument confuses the supply side with the demand side. From an economic perspective, criminal penalties may make it less desirable to be a supplier of drugs because of the risk of being caught and imprisoned. But the increased rewards of supplying at a higher price motivate dealers to tolerate that risk. The successful ones make a lot of money. So, people keep entering the market, despite the risk of significant adverse consequences.

    If criminal penalties were successful in stopping drug trafficking, then we wouldn’t be in the situation we have today — we have been fighting the “War on Drugs” since the Nixon Administration; we have a prison system that is chock-full of drug criminals of more and less violent propensities, and we still have massive drug trafficking going on.

    Second, on the demand side, a large increase in price does not necessarily cause a large drop in consumption. The important factor is the slope of the demand curve. It is pretty clear that the slope of the demand curve for illegal drugs is not very steep, compared to that for, say, television sets. How do I know? Because the drug market is still massive; all those dealers are still selling to someone — someone who is willing to pay no matter that the market price is high.

  41. OS:

    just like the birds at the beach. I guess I now see why those guys get the big bucks and thank god. That was impressive.

  42. I most certainly have lived in interesting times in many landings with crosswinds. Some were more interesting than others. At least I never bent metal or overstressed the plane or scraped it. In the EMB-145 the swept wing and low wing made it inadvisable to use the slip since too severe one would scrape the wing tips on the runway. So one had to use a crab, hold it until just before the wheels touched down and while in ground effect, and then kick out the crab with rudder and plant it before the wind blew you off the runway.

    I think Bron should read the definition of a parabola since the shot from a shotgun does NOT come close to that even after being fired at a 45 degree angle. The air resistance on such a small pellet robs it of most of its forward momentum, so that at the end of its rise, it will drop more vertically than following the parabolic arc that a bullet will more closely follow.

  43. Look, it really doesn’t matter whether a shotgun pellet travels a perfect parabolic arc or not (and I understand that it doesn’t). The point is that if you don’t know where your shot is going with any firearm, you shouldn’t pull the trigger.

    If you live in the woods like the Bidens (not that the VP residence at the Naval Observatory in Washington is out in the woods or that Dr.Biden is likely to have to go get the double-barrel while the Secret Service is around), maybe you are unlikely to hit anyone if you let a couple rip into the wild blue yonder.

    Nevertheless, the bulk of the population of the United States does not live out in the woods. Shooting any firearm (shotgun, rifle, handgun — heck, even a slingshot) in the air in an urban, suburban, or even small-town environment is simply reckless — period — end of discussion. If you do it and you hit someone, you deserve all the consequences that ensue. I don’t know where some of you guys learned about gun safety, but I’m sure keeping my children and grandchildren the heck away from there.

  44. While I would find it entertaining to see the video of Joe taking lil Ms Biden down to the gun range & have her 1st firing off a 12 ga & watching her fall on her butt. Then having her fire an AR, AK & some pistols & asking her was best suits her.

    Maybe she’d prefer a Bowie Knive then a gun? Women, who knows? LOL;)

    But what I’d really like to see is a truthful report about just how many armed drones Obama/Biden have flying in undeclared/illegal wars in how many different countries. And how many innocent people/lil kids they murder in our nation’s name everyday.

    One recent report has it Obama is flying 1500 armed sorties a day in just one illegal war. ( Not Syria)

    All those Trillions of $$$ you really didn’t think Clinton, GW, Obama were buying 6-800 dollar hammers & toilet seats did you?

    Secret bases everywhere would most likely be the case while at the same time they screw over & murder this nations Stakeholder Citizens.

    **

    Former Obama Press Secretary Was Ordered To Act As If Drone Program Did Not Exist

    The first rule of the drone program is that you do not talk about the drone program

    Steve Watson
    Prisonplanet.com
    Feb 25, 2013

    In a rare admission, Robert Gibbs, the former White House Press Secretary under Obama, told reporters Sunday that he was ordered to act as if there was no such thing as an active US drone program.

    “When I went through the process of becoming press secretary, one of the first things they told me was, you’re not even to acknowledge the drone program,” Gibbs said on MSNBC’s “Up With Chris Hayes” this past weekend.

    Gibbs said that he was told “You’re not even to discuss that it exists.”

    Noting that the notion was “inherently crazy”, Gibbs said “You’re being asked a question based on reporting of a program that exists.”………. more **

  45. Sorry folks… But he speaks the truth…. A shotgun is easier to handle…. Nothing sexist in that….. Except for the folks looking to poke fingers in eyes….. Yeah…. Who gets to fall someone sexist….. Oh yeah…. Anyone that disagrees with someone….

  46. Yeah a shotgun IS a better home defense, IF IF IF, like Porkchop said you are able to handle it with no problems!!
    But if there is a problem with that, a rifle is a LOT easier & faster to aim than a pistol for most people.

    THAT is the one BIG problem with trying to make a LAW to fit everyone.
    Not everyone is the same….

    And then like I said, they are missing the biggest problem with banning something…IT DOESN’T WORK!

    Doesn’t work with drugs, didn’t work with liquor, and it won’t work with guns.

    And I resent someone saying no one needs a AR15.
    Remember a federal law will affect EVERYONE in the country. Remember the LA Riots? Mobs of people looting & killing. Or more recently Katrina, again with mobs looting & killing.
    People said that they managed to keep looters away, only because they had semi auto’s with large magazines.
    Also we have the Haymarket massacre, Lattimer Massacre, Ludlow Massacre, Bay View Massacre, and the Battle of Athens. Examples go on & on where people needed to defend themselves.

    Sure there’s always going to be a few that will make it look bad, but there is no need to punish the majority of honest gun owners, or pass laws that will make them criminals too.

  47. Sorry for all those that responded but I did not want to wade through too many opinions. Yes it was a stupid non-sexist comment by insert-foot-in-mouth Joe. Couldn’t a couple of M-80’s be just as effective. And whats wrong with a good sized dog in a secluded area. After those measures fail and the assailant is identified blow the idiot in two with double ought.

  48. AY-
    “A shotgun is easier to handle…. ”

    No. Shotguns have virtues, but there is no sane person on the planet that thinks a shotgun is easier to handle than an AR-15 or even a handgun. I’m curious as to how you think a shotgun is easier to handle.

    “Nothing sexist in that”

    I actually agree there. He’s giving women credit for being able to handle a large, heavy gun with nasty recoil and muzzle rise and only need two shots. Hell, he thinks women are freaking Doc Holliday.

  49. Also concerning a right to defend yourself, wasn’t there an article on here last year about a woman in Florida who fired a warning shot at I think her ex and ended up with a twenty year sentence?

  50. “No. Shotguns have virtues, but there is no sane person on the planet that thinks a shotgun is easier to handle than an AR-15 or even a handgun. I’m curious as to how you think a shotgun is easier to handle.”

    Not to answer for AY but for myself, I’ve shot all three and way more than once. A long gun is a long gun and a tactical is a tactical and a handgun is a handgun. They all “handle” about the same within those three broad classes, but what makes a shotgun – especially a tactical shotgun – better for home defense is dispersal, comparative skill required versus a hand gun, and a wide variety of loads you can adjust to the area you are defending. But for maneuverability inside a structure, shorter is better. Long guns like duck guns or AR-15’s would do in a pinch but they are hardly the ideal self-defense weapon. Unless you’re planning on going on the offensive (or hunting or just target shooting), nobody needs an AR-15. They may want one. I think it’s their right to own one. I defend their right to own one as long as it isn’t converted to full auto. As a statistical fact, handguns are used in the vast majority of gun crimes in the U.S. and 2/3 of those are suicides. Long guns aren’t the problem and attempting to ban them is not only futile but foolish as it does not address the driver of the majority of gun deaths – hand guns. And good luck getting rid of those, I don’t see it happening, however, I’m not against taking measures against the firearms industry to make handguns both safer and easier to track as a practical matter.

    But if you think you truly need an AR-15?

    You’re doing something very wrong with your life.

  51. Regarding shotguns being easier to handle. My 5’3″ daughter hates shotguns. I have some pictures of her on the Sheriff’s Department range the first time she fired a shotgun. Standard department issue pump gun. I told her, and the range officer told her, to lean into the shotgun and not lean back. She leaned back. She has long hair and one of the pictures I took of her caught her hair going every direction but hanging down. She looks like one of those static electricity demonstrations.

    She says she prefers the AR-15 any day to that shotgun. She will only shoot it if they make her, because she certainly won’t do it voluntarily. She likes the AR-15 because it is easier for her to handle and does not have nearly the recoil of a 12-guage.

  52. Gene,
    I read somewhere that a survey of AR-15 owners got a response of 77% they were for home defense. I have an opinion about that poll result.

    People often say the first thing that comes to mind or don’t really want to tell their real motive. Let me illustrate that by describing a total non-gun conversation I had about twenty years ago.

    I was standing in a parking lot one day when a doctor I knew pulled up and parked in his new car. His medical specialty was one that paid very well indeed, at least until insurance companies began rationing medical care. His new car was a bright red Ferrari. When he got out, I told hm he had a really cool ride there, but why on earth did he need a Ferrari. I said, “That is a great set of wheels, but do you really need a car that will go 200 MPH and cost more than the average house?”

    His reply: “I need it to drive to work.”

    I knew he had a couple of cars and a pickup truck. But he needed a Ferrari to, “Drive to work.”

    That is actually what is going on when those questions were asked. Human nature. Another friend of mine had a bumper sticker on the back of his car that said, “He who dies with the most toys wins.” He owned two airplanes and a high performance carbon-fiber sailplane. He also had a 1965 Ferrari. If asked about any of those things, he would tell you he owned them for personal transportation.

    Really.

  53. OS,

    I agree on the recoil issue, but B is a professional. If she needs something for offense larger than her sidearm, the AR makes sense. It’s actually filling a need. But for the vast majority of women who might be too light or small of frame to handle a shotgun’s recoil? I’d still suggest a handgun (and a fair amount of practice with it) over the AR for close quarters. But for a guy my size (or yours for that matter)? The Mossberg 500 Tactical would be my gun of choice for home defense.

  54. OS,

    lol

    I’m not too shocked. So many people can’t differentiate between want and need. I think it’s a cultural thing.

  55. ” we are talking shotgun pellets with very small mass, NOT bullets which DO follow a parabolic arc.”

    One highly recommended choice for defense with 12 gauge shot gun is referred to as double-aught. This load contains 8 to 9 pellets each of which is approximately .33 inch in diameter. Thus, the shot shell load is approximately equivalent to firing 9 32 caliber bullets at once – although the velocity is much less.

    Because the pellets in shot shell are typically made of lead they have approximately same density as a 32 caliber bullet which typically is lead or lead with a jacket of a different metal.

    It would seem that the trajectory of a .33 inch diameter pellet from a shot shell would follow very much the same trajectory as a .32 caliber bullet – once adjustment is made for the difference in initial velocity.

    There is a simple rule of thumb in all this: if the load your are firing is dangerous when fired directly at a person it is likely dangerous if it hits them – even if you fire in the air.

    One additional problem with firing in the air is that you almost assure that you will not hit the person who poses a danger to you. But you do endanger neighbors and others who may be far from your location.

    Do not shoot in the air – unless you are hunting flying game, in season, in an appropriate area.

  56. Gene, the Mossberg 500 Tac Tri-Rail with the 18.5″ barrel is my home defense weapon of choice. I have owned two over the years. I don’t have one at the moment, but given that we have had two meth-related home invasion shootings recently, It is on my short list of stuff to buy next. In the meantime, I keep my 9mm where I can get to it quickly.

    B prefers Sig Sauer to Glock, but what she really wants is a revolver. Her very favorite is the venerable Ruger .38 caliber police revolver or the Smith & Wesson J-frame. They used to be standard issue everywhere, but I do not know of any departments that use them any more. For target practice at the range, she loves her little .22 Browning Buckmark. A box of 500 rounds can be had for the price of a meal at McDonald’s, instead of fifty cents every time you pull the trigger. Everything that Browning makes has the quality of a Swiss watch, and the .22 Buckmark has just enough recoil to work the semi-auto slide mechanism.

    For those who might be curious about what Gene and I are talking about, this is the line of Mossberg 500 shotguns. All come with several mods, including barrels that are just long enough to be legal, and pistol grips. They are the preferred shotguns for home defense and law enforcement everywhere. Simple, reliable, sturdy and not too expensive.

    This is the line of standard home defense and hunting shotguns:
    http://www.mossberg.com/products/shotguns/pump-action/mossberg-500

    This is the line of tactical shotguns designed for law enforcement. They are identical to the hunting shotguns, except for the utilitarian accessories. Any of the hunting shotguns can be modified with modular parts to look like any of these and vice versa.
    http://www.mossberg.com/products/shotguns/pump-action/500-special-purpose

  57. Gene H-
    I mostly agree with what you said, but it wasn’t what I was addressing. The question was, is a double barreled shotgun easier to handle than an AR (because that’s what Biden and AY said). The answer is no and it’s not close.

    As I said, shotguns have virtues, their power being the best. But semi-auto VS pump action in a high stress situation is no small consideration; mastering the rapid firing of a pump action isn’t brain surgery, but it’s a ton harder than the Polaroid nature of an AR (point and shoot). And then there is more weight, more recoil, and higher muzzle rise, making follow up shots more difficult.

    And damn how I hate hearing the “need” argument. Who is anyone to tell someone else what they need? If a person of smaller stature tries all three and finds the AR to be the best fit for them, what then? “Sorry, I’ve determined that though you prefer it, you don’t need it.” Virtually no consumer products we buy are on a “need” basis. We need very little to survive, everything else is a luxury.

    Having said that, do a lot of people own ARs because they are a fun gun to shoot, compete in 3 Gun, look cool, match the gun in their favorite video game, saw some special ops dude on TV with one, etc.? Of course! So what? They aren’t in some special category of destructiveness so who cares?

    I highly recommend this article for people to understand why it’s not just survivalists, preppers, and nutbags who are buying these:

    http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02/ar-15/

    “The AR-15 Is More Than a Gun. It’s a Gadget.”

  58. Otteray Scribe wrote:
    Mossberg 500 Tac Tri-Rail with the 18.5″ barrel is my home defense weapon of choice
    ~+~
    I’ll second that one for a shotgun. My only real complaint is the slide release on it is rather small and not as easy to use as Remington’s 870.

    Glock is still my preference for handguns though the Sig is a fine choice for some. I went from carrying a 4″ Smith & Wesson model 19 revolver at work and decided to go to an auto a couple years later. I was so used to shooting revolvers I didn’t want to have to deal with the hammer drops, different safety systems and all that with most other pistols so in 1990 I went to the Glock which essentially pulls more like a revolver than a 1911 or Sig. Plus, the Glock was much lighter and going from that Model 19 to the Glock 17 was a godsend for weight and comfort in the holster.

  59. The shot gun is not for everybody….

    Thanks Gene…. I prefer a handgun anyways… But…. What cn one say…

  60. OS:

    Why didnt your friends just say “Because they are fun and I can afford to own them.”

    Those guys are just able to live their dream, most probably from hard work. What is wrong with that?

  61. “And damn how I hate hearing the ‘need’ argument. Who is anyone to tell someone else what they need?”

    Well, for one thing, the nature of the tool (or whatever) dictates want versus need. A mansion serves the same function as less ostentatious home – keeps you generally protected from the elements and gives you a place to keep your stuff – but unless you and your significant other are knocking out a baby a year ten years you don’t need a 10 or 12 bedroom mansion. The biggest difference between want and need is ego. Want is to have a desire to possess or do (something), a wish. Need is requiring (something) because it is essential or very important rather than just desirable. The difference is desire versus necessity. I desire/want to kiss Rachael Weisz profusely, but I need to mind my own business and leave her alone. She is the object of my desire. She is not a necessity. Were I to make the mistake of thinking she was necessary – essential to my survival, required – that could lead to all manner of madness and trouble. If you don’t think so, ask John Hinkley about his need to win the affection of Jodie Foster and his (mis)perception that becoming famous by killing Reagan would win her over. His twisted mind could not unravel the difference between want and need and that is in part the essence of obsession.

    Now if you look beyond the nature of the object and its function, the other factor of distinguishing want versus need is circumstance. Are you in a circumstance where you need an assault rifle (an offensive weapon by design)? Probably not. Are you in a circumstance where you want an assault rifle (b/c they are fun to shoot, etc.)? Could be. But want and need can be objectively quantified in the absence of ego as a matter of fact. People need to eat to survive, but some want to eat gold leaf covered truffles and Kobe beef when other foods would keep them alive just as well.

    “Who is anyone to tell someone else what they need?”

    If you remove ego/desire from that sentence, the obvious answer is logic and the necessities of circumstance are what defines want versus need. Desire does not always equate with necessity and it is very often the root of conflict both internal and external when people mistake one for the other. Your hatred of hearing the need argument is a response of ego – you don’t like it ergo hatred because it conflicts with your desire – but it does not negate the necessity of the argument in critical examination of facts nor the essential difference between the words/concepts of want versus need as a matter of etymology, epistemology and psychology.

    (Pst! Rachael! Call me or I might just have to shoot some vodka. ;) )

  62. Dear Gene:

    Please dont shoot any vodka. I am at your disposal.

    Post haste my dear man, I am having hot flashes.

    Thinking about ice cold Absolute.

    I am sorry you dont need me, it is rather a blow to my ego. Wanting is Ok, need kicks it up a notch.

    Daniel says a threesome is ok with him, as long as we are only doing shots and no, we cannot do them off my belly.

    here is my phone number:

    02088888145

    Look forward to hearing from you.

    RW

  63. Bron:
    Same reason as the people who buy AR-15s say they are for home defense or self protection when some goober with a clipboard and microphone asks them why they think they need the AR-15.

    I got past that stage a long time ago and quote my friend’s bumper sticker: “He who dies with the most toys wins.”

    In another blog, I posted a video of a radio control model of a B-52. It took the team of guys several years to build it, and has so many systems it takes a whole team of pilots to fly it. Each of the eight engines cost approximately $5,000, not to mention the thousands in electronics in it. There are several videos of this beast online, and in one of them a reporter asked the owner if he has told his wife what those engines cost. He did what any self-respecting male would do. He was evasive.

  64. OS:

    Frank Sinatra said “you only go around once but if you did it like I did it, once was enough.’

    Too bad everyone cannot say that.

  65. A good night? how is changing from a liberal democrat to a liberal democrat in a liberal district in a progressive city any indication of a bad night?

    more like SOS different day if you ask me.

  66. Stuff like this just drives up the demand for stuff like this… The NRA has nothing to thank but the stupidity of folks that spread fear. They really should pay a percentage to the fear mongers as they increase demand…. Roflmao…. Job well done…

  67. Wow, the testosterone is thick in here. Hard to breathe.

    Just curious. How many of you macho gun worshippers have ever had your homes invaded by armed men?

    Why would that happen? Are you selling something illegal, so that you are known to have huge sums of cash on hand?

    Or is this all just fantasizing, like “The gummint’s comin’ fer mah guns”?

    Is it much more likely that your gun will be used to kill a family member?
    Hint: yes.
    Well, OK, I guess that’s a cruel form of Darwinism.

    Biden was right on the shotgun as weapon of choice. Wrong about firing it in some random direction. He said something correct, and should’ve stopped there.

  68. Bob Kauken, This blog certainly has more than its fair share of macho gun worshippers as you said.. Some bring up drones. Like that’s an excuse. Let’s have some legislation restricting guns and drones.

  69. Bob Kauten:

    Just curious, do you live in a place where natural disasters happen? Is it foolish, macho, testosterone-driven to be prepared for one? Not all people in the Midwest personally experience a tornado, but a substantial number are prepared for it if it happens.

    Some of us, me included, live in areas where armed people do, in fact, come into people’s homes uninvited and with bad intentions — and not just the homes of drug dealers. Blaming the victim of a home invasion is no more logical, or morally acceptable, than blaming the victim of a rape (which, by the way, can be one of the crimes accompanying a home invasion). It hasn’t happened to me, but I hardy think it is a fantasy to think that it could happen.

    It seems rather foolish to think that one shouldn’t prepare for an eventuality until it has already happened to you once, which seems to be your standard I also keep water, food, and other essentials on hand for when when we lose electrical power for extended periods, which happened last summer. I guess I am wasting my money unless I have previously been hungry and dehydrated due to a natural disaster.

    “Is it much more likely that your gun will be used to kill a family member?
    Hint: yes.”

    Much more likely than what? Defensive uses of a firearms take place hundreds of thousands of times a year — most of the time it is not necessary to discharge the weapon, the threat of force is sufficient to resolve the situation. So, if the question is, “Is it much more likely that your gun will be used to kill a family member than that it will be used to defend yourself or a family member?”, the answer is “No”.

    All of this prattle about macho fantasies and killing family members says more about your perception of yourself and the world than it does about firearms ownership.

  70. Too bad….. Bob they can’t legislate stupidity or a lot of folks would have to pay higher taxes or be out of a job….. The some would be able to post on blogs….

  71. Porkchop,
    Bet Mr. Kauten has never gone outside to find a 400 pound black bear in his back yard. Or been treed by a feral hog.

    It is not just the two legged predators we have to be aware of around here. We have critters wandering around that are higher on the food chain than me. I only hunt with a camera now, but would no sooner go into the woods unarmed than I would forget my pants. I was out driving one evening and a cat crossed the road in front of me. I almost hit it, so it took a moment for it to soak in that the pretty kitty was about seven feet from nose to tail.

    Bears, big cats, coyotes and other nearly extinct wildlife is making a comeback in these parts. Too many of them have discovered that if they come into town they can find food and warmth. I no longer throw the trash in the back of the pickup truck at night to take to the dump in the morning. If I do, I know I will find the plastic bags shredded and trash scattered all over the yard.

    The single wild animal that scares me the most is a feral hog, especially if is a sow with a bunch of little pigs.

  72. Gene H-
    “A mansion serves the same function as less ostentatious home – keeps you generally protected from the elements and gives you a place to keep your stuff – but unless you and your significant other are knocking out a baby a year ten years you don’t need a 10 or 12 bedroom mansion.”

    But we don’t propose banning or severely restricting mansions because they are usually not needed.

    “Your hatred of hearing the need argument is a response of ego”

    No, it is a response TO ego, to the arrogance that claims to know what is better for everyone despite everyone not being the same.

  73. “But we don’t propose banning or severely restricting mansions because they are usually not needed.”

    Being an impractical egotistical venal jackass isn’t against the law. As a legal matter? Under any other SCOTUS I’d tell you banning simply isn’t going to happen, but restrictions? Many of your rights are subject to reasonable restrictions and this already includes your 2nd Amendment rights. Try to buy a missile, nuclear or chemical weapon and you can find out first hand that your right to bear arms isn’t absolute. The only place absolute rights exists is in the state of nature and that ceases to be once the social compact is entered. However, in the state of nature, you’d need all the firepower you could get because your only recourse for protection or redress of wrongs would be self-help. The cost for absolute rights is anarchy. Very few rights as a practical matter can be absolute under the rule of law.

    “No, it is a response TO ego, to the arrogance that claims to know what is better for everyone despite everyone not being the same.”

    Whatever you want to think, but the bottom line is need can be objectively quantified and desire cannot. If you think it’s arrogant? Let the Congresscritters responsible for sponsoring bans you are against it. It’s not their arrogance that bothers me so much as the blatant pandering and fear mongering. As I noted, long guns are used in a miniscule proportion of all gun crimes committed compared to hand guns. The movement to ban assault rifles is pure political posturing and pandering that if enacted would do absolutely nothing to curb gun crimes in real terms and would only create a black market which in turn creates more crime. Their desire to pander to fear so they’ll get voted for again is their ego – a want that has nothing to do with pragmatic need but everything to do with their egos as pols.

  74. OK, Porkchop,
    You didn’t answer my question. Has your home ever been invaded by armed men?
    Bringing up even more fantasies “What if anarchy prevails, and everyone needs to defend themselves?” doesn’t help your cause. What if we’re invaded by enormous Stay-puft Marshmallow Men? Ridiculous? Exactly!
    “So, if the question is, “Is it much more likely that your gun will be used to kill a family member than that it will be used to defend yourself or a family member?”, the answer is “No”.”
    Not true. Look it up. I did. Now that the NRA can no longer prevent the CDC from collecting firearm-accident statistics, we’ll get better data.

    OS,
    “Bet Mr. Kauten has never gone outside to find a 400 pound black bear in his back yard. Or been treed by a feral hog.”
    Pay up. “Backyard” is subject to definition. Just last year, I was car camping, and a black bear came by. I walked out to greet him, and stood between him and our camp to block his entrance. I spoke firmly to him, at about 100 feet, and he just left. I didn’t weigh him. I didn’t have a firearm, and I wasn’t scared. Most animals just don’t want to play with you.
    I’m cool with anyone who’s frequently attacked by feral hogs (all 5 of you in the U.S.A.) to carry a shotgun for protection. By the way, where the hell are you living, and why are you living there, if feral hogs are constantly chasing you?

    When I was young and stupid, I owned lots of firearms, legal and illegal. I carried ’em. I fantasized about how exciting life was, how I had to be always ready to kill bad guys, be the hero. I know the adolescent fantasy syndrome.
    The only thing I learned is how dangerous it is to have firearms lying about.
    I almost blew out someone’s brains. That would’ve change my life, forever. It certainly would’ve changed his.
    It’s adolescent fantasy. What happened? I GREW UP!
    Feel free to emulate.

  75. SwM,

    “Blouise, the “gun culture” that you often refer to did not have a good night at the ballot box last night.” … see, there is a god!

    I’m going to go out and buy my own “Sweetness” so we can sit and watch Colbert’s Trigger-Happy together. Good times!

  76. SwM,

    I’m almost literally on the shores of Lake Erie so, unarmed as I am, when the Canadians invade, I’m toast. However, I may have a chance to shoot you an email giving you some time to man your cannon.

    I am ever vigilant for marauding Lake Erie Krakens since black bears no longer inhabit this territory.

  77. Bob Kauten,

    I responded to your post nearly two hours ago, but my comment is “awaiting moderation”. Apparently, there are too many hyperlinks in the post for it to go through .

    I provided hyperlinks to news stories concering five recent home invasions in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, including one in which a teenaged girl was murdered in her bedroom. You’ll just have to wait, I guess.

    The gist of my answer, though, is no, it hasn’t happened to me, but it has happened close to me, and that waiting for something to happen to you before you start to prepare for it is damn foolish.

    ___________________________

    Sure, the odds are against a home invasion happening to me; it’s not an event that I want to happen. I’m not sitting around licking my chops waiting for someone to bust down my door so that I can shoot them — which seems to be YOUR fantasy about gun owners.

    “It can’t happen to me” is one of the most common human fantasies, but if it does happen, there’s little or nothing that can be done after the fact. The odds are against being hit directly by hurricanes, tornadoes, derechos, and earthquakes, too, but they happen, and a wise person tries to be ready. I was pretty glad that I had lots of water and dehydrated food when we lost power for a week last summer. We had an earthquake not long ago, too, you may have heard.

    You can be dismissive of thinking ahead if you want to. Play the odds as you wish. Who is going to take care of you, if you don’t take care of yourself? As we found out here in the DC area on 9/11, first responders can be overwhelmed, so you can’t count on them being there immediately under any circumstances, and especially when you need them quickly.

  78. Bob Kauten,

    “Not true. Look it up. I did. Now that the NRA can no longer prevent the CDC from collecting firearm-accident statistics, we’ll get better data.”

    I don’t think the CDC collects data on defensive use of firearms when there are no shots fired, so the data set will be incomplete and skewed.

  79. bOB Kauten:

    So the truth comes out.

    I dont know about Porkchop and Jason and OS, but I have never had a fantasy about killing bad guys after the age of about 12. And that was mostly when we played cops and robbers or yankees and commies in the woods nearby.

    And I have never even come close to blowing a guys brains out and I feel pretty confident that OS, Porkchop and Jason havent either.

    Never owned an illegal firearm either and never lots of them.

    Oh and the firearms I do have are never just lying about, they are taken apart and put away. Where I live is very safe, about the only thing around here is a fox or maybe a coyote, I think a neighbor said they saw a bear once.

    From what you have written, I would say it is a good thing you dont have any firearms lying around. But on the positive side Dirty Harry did say a man has got to know his limitations.

    So it isnt hopeless for you, just keep trying.

  80. Bob Kauten:

    “Bringing up even more fantasies “What if anarchy prevails, and everyone needs to defend themselves?” doesn’t help your cause. What if we’re invaded by enormous Stay-puft Marshmallow Men? Ridiculous? Exactly!”

    Nice strawmen, by the way.

    But you have given me an idea. When you go to the shooting range, they sell targets with various pictures of bad guys on them. I normally just use the traditional bulls-eye target, but I think that there is a business opportunity here, so I am going to come out with a line of Marshmallow Man targets for those who want to prepare — white for the traditionalist ghost-busters and pink for the ladies.

    Thanks. I’m going to be rich!

  81. Bron,
    Not to worry. Forty years have passed. As I said, I grew up. I don’t keep firearms, any more than I’d store grenades in my house (well, we do have to be prepared for any eventuality, as Porkchop might say). Good, if you keep your firearms disassembled, you’re probably a responsible person.
    Porkchop,
    I need data, not the same 5 home invasions that the NRA uses over and over. Is it more likely that armed invaders will attack your house, or that you’ll be struck by lightning? I guess I should wear a suit of aluminum armor (tin-foil hat included), so that the lightning will convey the current into the ground?
    With the exception of those compiled by screwball survivalist magazines, the list of things that you should keep in case of a disaster does not include firearms. Eventual first-responders have enough to do, without worrying about frightened loonies with popguns.
    In a disaster (I live in quake central), you need shelter, food, batteries, propane, and water. Got ’em.
    I’m not dismissive of disaster-readiness. I’m also not dismissive of folks who fantasize that they’re going to need to shoot invaders. Those fantasizing folks are a danger to everyone.

  82. Bob Kauten,

    Well, since anyone who disagrees with you is a screwball, a loonie, and/or immature, I guess there’s not much likelihood of really constructive conversation here.

    But for your information, I do have a lightning rod on my house — I highly recommend that you get one if you don’t have one. I also avoid the outdoors, especially flat open spaces and spaces immediately under tall trees during thunderstorms. No need for aluminum suits if you take other proper precautions.

    I didn’t get the home invasion information from the NRA — I don’t even know if the NRA compiles that information. I did a web search for home invasions in the Washington DC metro area, and got five recent ones. The links are to stories on the local NBC, ABC, and CBS broadcast affiliates. They took place in Prince Georges County and Montgomery County, Maryland; the District of Columbia; and Stafford County and Loudoun County, Virginia. I left out the one (perhaps I shouldn’t have) where a homeowner in Fairfax County, Virginia shot and killed a home invader. It took me all of three minutes.

    The odds are that I will not have to deal with a home invasion — just like the odds were that the people in the stories in the links would not have to deal with home invasion. If your choose not to have firearms in your home, because you think the odds are against you ever needing them, that’s your choice and I’m not going to criticize it. But I will criticize your apparent belief that you should make the choice for everyone else.

    It seems that you believe that ownership of a firearm somehow turns regular people into crazy people. My experience is to the contrary. I know a lot of very stable people who own and carry firearms. Virginia is a shall-issue concealed carry state, and the rate of misuse of firearms by CCW holders is miniscule.

  83. Blouse,

    Always refreshing to see you post. Lake Erie is kinda of a funky place… Especially in New York…

  84. AY,

    They didn’t call it Perry’s Fleet in the Wilderness for nothin’

    And your implied thought (or perhaps just my inference) could be more on target than not in that the Iroquois could still be waiting to take revenge for Fort Le Boeuf.

    All in all, I remain woefully unprepared to do battle especially when one considers all those flashing neon signs my Tea Party neighbors have in their front yards reading “Invaders! Go Here!” with arrows pointing to my house. Gun culture folk can be really bad sports.

  85. Watch for them Krakens. They’re devious, but a sucker for, “Hey, your shoelace is untied.”
    Don’t ask me how I know that.

  86. Distortions JT: Biden did not say: fire your shotgun from the house out through a window.
    If you live in the country and are awake at midnight on New Years Eve and hear shotguns going off, then you might conclude that homeowners go out on the deck, the front porch, the veranda, and shoot off the shotgun into the air to make noise and celebrate. In the air, not at passing cars. Birds dont like it if they are awake and flying about at that hour.

  87. Bob K.
    They keep records of bear attacks around here. Fatal black bear attacks are on the rise. In the only statistic I could find in a one minute search of the internet for attacks in the area where I live, I found 1,028 reports of black bears acting aggressively toward people, 107 of which resulted in injury, were recorded from 1964 to 1976. There have been fatalities, but those are relatively few. More recent data show a sharp rise in bear attacks in the past three decades. More people, more bears. They are generally avoidant of human contact, but get between a black bear and food, and you have a problem. Trying to shoo one off is a pretty good way to end up looking like this:

    Having been chased up a tree by a feral sow with little pigs, I am not at all brave when it comes to facing down a 500 pound Mama looking after her kiddies.

  88. Blouse,

    You might be right about the Indians up there… They were a peaceful lot until the white man stole from them… But I bet they are having the last laugh with the casinos and buying major names hotels in major cities throughout the US….

    Texas may be a gun cultured state… I will state that its not much different than other rural arrayed places. Hunting is big in Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin…. Per capita I suspect they have more long guns than hand guns… There just happens to be more money in Texas than those named…

    OS,

    Feral swine can be vicious even without a litter in tow…

  89. OS:

    that should be a good warning to Bob, that bear he sho shoed was probably Yogi. They look loveable on youtube:

    you ever done that to a tree?

  90. Blouise,
    When I wrestle Krakens underwater, I try to look fashionable:

    OS,
    I am reminded of Dan Akroyd’s SNL skit, in which he cautioned viewers to never feed bears by holding marshmallows in your teeth. He was hideously misfigured.
    Note that I did not smear myself with bacon grease, prior to confronting the bear. I also did not think to pick up my camera, for which I shall curse myself, evermore.

  91. Bron,
    Yes, as a matter of fact I have used a tree in the woods for that purpose, but never so enthusiastically, and never with music. Then I turned around and used it for……never mind.

  92. Ay sez: “Feral swine can be vicious even without a litter in tow…”

    *************************************

    That is very true. Most folks have no idea how fast a feral hog can run. Until you have seen one up close and personal, trying to figure how to climb that tree you are clinging to, you come to realize they have a mouthful of teeth a shark would envy. A hog will attack for no particular reason. The Honey Badger has nothing on a razorback hog as far as disposition goes.

    Last time I encountered a wild hog in the woods, I was squirrel hunting with a .410 single shot shotgun. I did not shoot the hog with it, because all that would have done was piss it off even further. Talk about the stuff of nightmares:

  93. This may be of interest. Happened last year:

    http://www.wkrn.com/story/17573774/home-invastion-turns-into-deadly-shooting

    This happened last month:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/georgia-mom-shoots-home-intruder-face-article-1.1234400

    A quick Google search shows there are a lot more where those came from. There are also dozens of stories of home invaders killing, beating and raping homeowners who were either unarmed or could not get to any weapons in time. These stories are not from the distant past, but are current.

    And by the way, for those who use the “struck by lightning” argument. I have been struck by lightning. On State Highway 12 in the Mississippi delta. Fortunately I was in a Volkswagen Beetle which acted as a Faraday cage. From the burn marks, it appears the bolt hit the front bumper directly in front of me. Blind and deaf for several minutes, but managed to get stopped without hitting anything. When someone makes remarks about the odds of being hit by lightning, I am not impressed with that as an argument.

  94. OS,
    You just made my point. You have been struck by lightning, but never had your home invaded by armed intruders.

    YES! You can collect all sorts of incidents, from all over the U.S.A., proving how dangerous it is to go outside. Or stay home, whatever. Does this mean any of these exciting, rare events will ever happen to you? No.

    And, as everyone seems to forget, I endorsed the use of a shotgun for home defense, in the beginning of this thread.

    I do not endorse keeping a weapon in your house, that, if discharged, the bullet will go through walls until it kills your neighbors.
    I also don’t endorse manufacture or ownership of a weapon whose only feasible use, would be to attack another person’s house, and murder everyone inside.

    I was impressed beyond words, when the reaction of many to the Sandy Hook massacre was to buy up copies of the murder weapon, because they might become scarce. What a noble tribute to those 26 lives.
    Deep sorrow and reflection on what we’ve become?
    No.
    “I better get mine, before they’re all gone.”

  95. Bob Kauten:

    “YES! You can collect all sorts of incidents, from all over the U.S.A., proving how dangerous it is to go outside. Or stay home, whatever. Does this mean any of these exciting, rare events will ever happen to you? No.”

    So, . . . if it hasn’t happened to you, it won’t . . . unless it does, in which case . . . hard cheese.

    I think I’ve got it now. Thanks for the wisdom.

    “I also don’t endorse manufacture or ownership of a weapon whose only feasible use, would be to attack another person’s house, and murder everyone inside.”

    You have just described one conceivable use for pretty much every weapon ever invented. But you miss the point that there is no weapon whose *only* conceivable use is to do that. Perhaps you just lack imagination, or perhaps you are projecting.

  96. Bob Kauten:

    I think what is lost in Sandy Hook is that a woman taught her troubled son how to shoot and thought it was OK. Why in gods name would a person do that?

    Furthermore he was probably on medication that has all sorts of dangerous side effects. As are most of the children who have been involved in school shootings. I know a couple of people who have killed themselves and tried to kill themselves while on those medications. And psychiatrists prescribe that poison as if it was candy.

    What we have become is a country full of people who pop pills if they are tired, if they cant sleep, if they have anxiety, if they want to work harder, if they want to relax. Why do we need all of those pills?

    If you have a serious problem then take the medicine but if you are anxious cause John Thomas cant salute anymore, then cut back on the carbs and start working out.

  97. Bob K.,
    In my forty or so years working closely with law enforcement, and some of the baddest dudes you never hope to encounter, I have had far more things happen in my life than you could imagine in your worst nightmares. Home invasion, no. But one of my co-workers did. She was fearless and defended her home and kids. That is all I care to say about that.

    Ever go out to your car to find a black rose taped to your antenna?

    My wife went to court with me once. Once. I was testifying for the prosecution in a particularly brutal rape case. She made the mistake of sitting directly behind the defense table, where she could hear the defendant making remarks. She never went with me to court again, and insisted we get a German Shepherd. She named him Trooper.

  98. “I also don’t endorse manufacture or ownership of a weapon whose only feasible use, would be to attack another person’s house, and murder everyone inside.”

    ************************************

    In my gun cabinet, I also have four swords and a compound bow. One of the swords is th claidheamh mòr, better known as the two-handed Claymore or “great highland broadsword.” Its sole purpose was killing. It is enormous and can take a man’s head off…..even if he sitting on a horse. One of my other swords is a claidheamh beag, or basket hilt sword of the type used at the battle of Culloden Moor. I will not bother you with a discussion of my several sgian-dubhs, or Biodag (dirk), neither of which were exactly designed for peeling potatoes, although I suppose you could.

    I suppose I am a bad person for keeping that stuff around.

    On the other hand, did you know seventeen Olympic events involve shooting? That does not include archery. Or the javelin, which is a fancy name for spear throwing. Killing is the sole purpose, eh?

    I think I forgot to mention fencing.

  99. OS,

    Well, you ARE a bad person, but at least you are not involved in the GUN CULTURE like the really, really bad people are. The sword culture is more genteel.

    If you have room to swing it, I bet that claymore could really do a number on an unwary home invader, though. Beheading does not involve the risk of shooting through walls, either. so it’s all good.

  100. “I also don’t endorse manufacture or ownership of a weapon whose only feasible use, would be to attack another person’s house, and murder everyone inside.”

    I am always greatly amused by people who say things like ‘I am ok with the second amendment, or I am ok with guns for hunting, it is just those guns designed for killing people that I oppose.’

    Does any one really suppose that the second amendment is about hunting, or target shooting, or gun collecting. Does any one want to seriously argue that hunting rises to the level of a right? I think not.

    There are two main views of the second amendment. The first is that the amendment is about the right of states to raise an army, the militia. The second is that the amendment is about the right of individuals to defend themselves.

    In either case, how could the amendment be about anything other than weapons designed for the purpose of killing human beings.

    Whether the second amendment is about power of states of rights of individuals it clearly is about assuring access to weapons designed for the specific purpose of killing human beings.

  101. Porkchop,
    There are stories, apocryphal of course, about homeowners grabbing one from over the mantel and doing serious damage to bad guys. As for me, I am not sure we have many places in our house where you could take a full swing with one. Almost five feet long, and eleven inches across the quillons.

    The basket hilt is really good for disemboweling, as you might have noticed if you saw Liam Neeson wield one in Rob Roy.

    Genteel, that’s me.

  102. Bron,
    The guy whose friends did that is now a guest of another bed and breakfast inn. It is run by the Texas Department of Corrections. His BFFs really did not want me to testify in his trial.

  103. Funny. All these stories about guns and home invasions. But not a word about the grandma who today killed herself and her two grandsons. One was 2 and the other just months old. Gee. I wonder if she would have used a bat if a gun had not been available…

    To he** with all you idiots and your “life saving” guns.

  104. Working Man,
    From all I can find out about that incident, the grandmother was seriously mentally ill. If she had not had a gun, she would have used another means. Andrea Yates drowned her kids.

    If you want to get serious about this issue, let’s make it about mental health care. Mental health treatment is a disaster in this country and getting worse. There is not a psychiatrist in our immediate area who takes insurance of any kind. Cash at the door. The only psychiatrists who take insurance are at the mental health center. Getting in to see one is next to impossible because they just supervise nurses who write prescriptions. If you get what they call “psychotherapy,” it will be a twenty minute visit with a case worker who may or may not have a Master’s degree in psychology or social work. Many managed care plans limit psychotherapy to six visits per year. Some policies limit visits to six visits per lifetime.

    It is not the guns in cases like this, it is lack of mental health care for people who are walking time bombs. Guns are one means among many. How about the granny who bashed in the kid’s heads with a cast iron skillet? Or the granny who chased the kids around the house with a big butcher knife? The young police officer who responded to the call had to shoot and kill her when she charged at him with the knife as he was getting out of his car. Her family had been trying to get her into a hospital, but they would not take her because some social worker determined she was not dangerous.

    If I sound pissed off, it is because I am. I have been writing and preaching on this subject since managed care was imposed on us about 1992, and patients no longer could get care. It was bad before 1992, but once managed care took over, effective mental health care virtually disappeared.

    How about the call I got from a psychiatrist who said he needed help because he had a suicidal patient with a cocaine habit? The insurance company bean-counter gave the patient a 23 hour admission to the psychiatric hospital. They told the doctor he ought to be able to cure a major depression with suicidal tendencies, as well as the patient’s coke habit in one day. I heard the guy killed himself shortly after being released.

    That psychiatric hospital has now gone out of business and closed its doors. Most unruly psychiatric patients are now taken to the county jail and locked up. No medications, and no counseling. Yeah, I am pissed.

  105. Bob Kauten-
    “When I was young and stupid, I owned lots of firearms, legal and illegal.”

    Someone who admits to owning illegal guns is giving advice to gun owners who take the law seriously. Great.

    “I carried ‘em. I fantasized about how exciting life was, how I had to be always ready to kill bad guys, be the hero. I know the adolescent fantasy syndrome.”

    Self-awareness is a good trait to have. Fortunately, I know that the act of shooting someone would be a life-altering ordeal that would likely leave psychological scars. The thought of ending a life, even if 100% justified, makes me sick to my stomach. I have a decent understanding of probability, I know the likelihood of me ever using my gun on anything but paper is incredibly low and I’m thankful for it.

    “The only thing I learned is how dangerous it is to have firearms lying about.”

    Good thing I and most sane, responsible gun owners don’t leave them “lying about”.

    “I almost blew out someone’s brains.”

    I gather it wasn’t intentional. So to sum up, gun ownership is bad, so says the illegal gun owner who left guns lying around and couldn’t be bothered to take five minutes to learn the Four Rules resulting in nearly killing someone.

    “That would’ve change my life, forever. It certainly would’ve changed his.
    It’s adolescent fantasy. What happened? I GREW UP!
    Feel free to emulate.”

    I’m glad you “grew up”. It sounds like you should have never been allowed in the same county as a gun, never mind own one. What that has to do with me or other people who can rub two neurons together when it comes to this subject, I don’t know.

    “I do not endorse keeping a weapon in your house, that, if discharged, the bullet will go through walls until it kills your neighbors.”

    Wait, I thought you endorsed shotguns. Buck shot will go through walls more readily than .223/5.56. That’s one of the many reasons that people are taking ARs seriously as home defense guns.

    “I also don’t endorse manufacture or ownership of a weapon whose only feasible use, would be to attack another person’s house, and murder everyone inside.”

    There are approximately 5 million ARs in private hands. In a given year, well under 400 will be used to kill a person. It seems obvious that there are other feasible uses.

  106. OS,

    Your statements to Working Man is the absolute truth. Psychotrist are nothing more than legalized pill pushers today. Society/States do not want the extra expense so they just incarcerate them instead of getting them the help that is needed. I’m singing in the choir on this one….

  107. When I was a kid some dorks were drunk and smashing beer bottles on our pickup truck at the end of the driveway about fifty yards from the front door at midnight. Pa went out on the porch with the 12 guage, aimed her in the air and let loose a shot. The jerks fled. It was a statement. No birds got shot down. No neighbors drowned. Wouldnt none of them people cared.

    Biden was speaking to events such as this. Walk out on the balcony. Outside. Not inside and through the window. The article is distorting the VP ‘s statements and calling him stupid. Sometimes Biden is flippant and funny. But he is a real guy and this article goes off on a tangent that is off base.

  108. working man:

    wasnt she on psycho-active drugs? Maybe she would have just drowned them like some women do with their children.

    A gun killed those children like a pencil wrote the Gettysburg Address.

  109. Bron,
    Psychiatric drugs are much improved over what they were just ten or fifteen years ago. The real problem is not the medications but the fact they are usually not monitored very closely for the reasons I gave above. It is the exceptional psychiatrist who gives a patient the full fifty minute hour of face to face therapy in a addition to medications. Even if the patient can find a therapist who will give a full hour of psychotherapy on a regular basis, insurance will not pay, as I described above. If you go to any large state hospital and walk up and down the roadway near the hospital, you are likely to find dozens of pill bottles in the ditch next to the road. They are given medications to take home, but all too many mentally ill patients pronounce themselves well and toss the meds.

    Persons such as that grandmother, or Andrea Yates, need close and frequent monitoring. Another thing. Determination of potential dangerousness is a specialized skill in both psychiatry and psychology. In my state, there are about four psychologists who are truly heavy hitters in that sub-specialty, although I suspect way too many psychologists THINK they know how to do it.

  110. OS:

    I am in agreement with you. I was not aware that insurance did not cover psychiatry for the mentally ill.

    Mental illness is terrible and causes much human misery. We dont seem to have progressed much since the times when they just threw them into a prison and forgot about them.

  111. Bron,
    Insurance such as Medicare does pay, but they don’t pay much. Every managed care plan I know about rations visits to mental health care providers. It was only recently that mental health diagnosis and treatment got parity with other medical providers. Before that, they paid a maximum of 50% of the fee rate, and that was based on a fee scale about fifty percent the regular hourly rate. In other words, reimbursement 25-35% the regular fee, then still limited the number of visits per year. Insurance companies have been allowing a fee comparable to a visit to your family doctor for a regular office visit, but want the psychiatrist or psychologist to spend a minimum of 45-50 minutes with the patient. That is why most psychiatrists in private practice quit taking any kind of insurance. The mental health center gets grant money and their psychiatrists are on salary.

    There has been a movement to get clinical psychologists prescribing privileges with some additional training. Organized psychiatry has fought prescribing psychologist (RxP) legislation tooth and nail. There are a few states where RxP has passed, but they are very few. I remember reading of one state where there were only sixteen psychiatrists outside the two or three major metro areas in the state. There were hundreds of thousands of residents without any access to a psychiatrist at all. The American Psychological Association managed to make a convincing case to that state legislature, and now psychologists have limited prescribing privileges. That means a psychologist can prescribe psychiatric medications, but not meds for other conditions. As an occupational group, psychologists tend to do a better job of following patients on a regular basis and charge less than the average psychiatrist. Of course, like any other profession, there are bad apples and incompetents. I know several psychologists who should not be allowed in the same room with a prescription pad.

    Another statistic to give pause. Despite the opposition to RxP, 90% of psychiatric medications are prescribed by family practice physicians. Needless to say, those patients get no psychotherapy at all.

    Research shows that a combination of intensive psychotherapy and medications work better than either alone. Another advantage of follow-up therapy is the therapist can monitor the psychiatric medications if they quit working or have adverse side effects. Also, medication compliance is improved.

    Did I mention the mental health system in this country is badly broken? As for the local “mental health center,” that is a contradiction in terms; an oxymoron.

  112. OS:

    interesting subject.

    As a layman, I think drugs should only be given in extreme cases. I think people have the ability to heal themselves with the help of a good therapist acting as a guide.

  113. Porkchop, Jason, OS,
    I said what I have said. It’s crystal clear. If you wish to deliberately “misunderstand” what I’ve said, feel free.
    GunNutism is the one true religion in this country.
    No amount of reasoning can talk people out of their religion. It’s not reasonable, it’s not rational.
    Murder is collateral damage of the one true religion.

  114. Bob Kauten:

    Abortion is the one true religion in this country.
    No amount of reasoning can talk people out of their religion. It’s not reasonable, its not rational.
    Killing unborn humans is collateral damage of the one true religion.

    Give me a break.

    I dont think reason has anything to do with what you have written. It is out there for all to see and you now try to pull it back when called on it by saying we are unreasonable when you are the one who had the adolescent fantasies?

    I guess since you are nutty, you figure everyone else is too. It is funny, you ask a good person what they think of people and they say most are good, the large majority of humanity is good and decent. You ask a bad person and they will tell you the opposite.

    The problem with our country is people who think humanity is bad and needs to be controlled. It doesnt say much for the people who rule us or would like to.

    Religion or politics, its all the same, the belief in the original sin of mankind.

  115. Well said, Bron.

    Bob Kauten:

    “No amount of reasoning can talk people out of their religion. It’s not reasonable, it’s not rational.”

    It’s pretty obvious what _your_ religion is.

    __________________

    For reasons I have never really understood, anti-gun propagandists apparently really believe that the only thing that gun owners do when they are not shooting people at random is to think about guns, dream about guns, fantasize about guns, and fondle guns — you know, the loonies, the screwballs, and the ones who haven’t grown up.

    There may be such people out there, but I don’t know any, and I know a lot of gun owners. They are soccer moms and dads, youth basketball coaches, community volunteers; some are religious; some are not. Some have only a high school education; some have graduate degrees. Some are doctors and lawyers (me); some are in law enforcement (my son-in-law) or other public service positions (my daughter); some are craftsmen and artisans. They are stable, productive members of their communities.

    For the most part, we have all of our teeth and are literate, some in more than one language. Most don’t go shooting very often, because ammunition is expensive for any caliber over .22 — anywhere from $.30 to $1.00 or more per round, depending on the caliber and other characteristics.

    With some 100 million firearms in the United States, if they were all loonies, screwballs, and/or immature, firearms deaths should number in the millions every year, and the United States would be completely depopulated in a matter of a few decades. That doesn’t seem to be the trend, though.

    I have to go put together some furniture from Ikea, and then I am going to go finish reading Euripides’ Electra. Both are a whole lot more interesting than reading somebody’s rants on the internet or fondling my guns.

  116. Bob Kauten sez: “GunNutism is the one true religion in this country.
    No amount of reasoning can talk people out of their religion. It’s not reasonable, it’s not rational.
    Murder is collateral damage of the one true religion.”

    ***********************************************

    OMFG! That has to be one of the most simple-minded thing I ever heard come from what I assume is a grown man.

    What Porkchop said. I could not have said it better. As for my family, we have an emergency room physician (son), a law enforcement officer (daughter), a registered nurse specializing in critical care (daughter in law), and the head nurse on a cancer unit (my late wife). We do not have an altar for guns in our house, do not make love to them, or pet them like a dog or cat. Everybody in our family regards a guns just as they do the table saw or jointer out in the shop. They are tools. Like any potentially dangerous tool, they must be respected. All must be handled with respect, and all safety rules observed.

    As for manufacturing devices whose sole purpose is to kill, as you put it, I have yet to hear your views on all those Olympic shooting events, which also include archery, spear (javelin) throwing and fencing. That fact alone gives the lie to your assertion that these are weapons which have no other purpose than to kill humans. BTW, some people hunt for food. Squirrels or deer keeps the freezer full.

  117. OS —

    Thank you.

    Yes, someone really has gone off the deep end.

    On the Olympic front, you left out the non-projectile martial sports of judo, wrestling, boxing, and taekwondo, all of which are watered-down versions of martial arts that were intended to kill or maim (jujutsu, pankration, Roman boxing with the caestus, and various other Asian martial arts).

    Well, wrestling is about to go, though — apparently making way for golf. Gotta love the IOC.

  118. Porkchop,
    Apparently DiFi wants to outlaw private ownership of anything that can be used to manufacture guns or ammunition. Isn’t it cute when somebody who does not know the first thing about a subject has the hubris to draft draconian legislation to manage or control it?

    She can have my 16-speed machinist’s drill press when she pries it from my cold dead hands.

  119. Porkchop,
    I have not read the proposed legislation, but two friends of mine who did read it sent me the information. I got two separate emails with almost identical reports. According to my friends, the legislation proposes making it either difficult or impossible for private citizens to make guns or ammunition. I don’t know if that provision is still in there or not. It was so resoundingly stupid, somebody may have explained it to her and she amended it.

    Do you remember the incident involving that little girl making a coast-to-coast cross country flight to get in the Guinness Book of World Records? Of course she had a qualified flight instructor with her, but she was doing the flying herself. They crashed shortly after takeoff. Not too long after that, there were Congressional hearings about aviation safety. Among the witnesses were several officials from the Aircraft Owners and Pilot’s Association (AOPA). I watched some of the hearings on television, and it was painful.

    I cannot remember if it was a Senate or House investigation, but one of the congresscritters went on a rant about requiring all airplanes be equipped with a device so the instructor could disable the left side (pilot’s) controls in case of emergency. The (then) AOPA president looked like somebody slapped him with a dead mackerel. How does one tell a member of the US Congress they are too dumb to walk and breathe at the same time?

    He behaved himself better than I would have, explaining, using a tone of voice similar to a kindergarten teacher. The proposal was technically possible, but impractical. He gave example of adding weight, be prohibitively expensive and there would be too many opportunities for such a device to malfunction, such as disengaging a pilot controls during takeoff or landing. That whole hearing and the attending media circus was the result of a single tragic accident involving a cute little girl.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/12/us/girl-7-seeking-us-flight-record-dies-in-crash.html

    I have written before about how easy it is to make gunpowder. Only three basic ingredients: charcoal, sulfur and saltpeter (potassium nitrate). The best charcoal for gunpowder is made from willow. Potassium nitrate is a simple fertilizer, required for plant growth. This is high school chemistry, not rocket science.

    Anyone with a turkey fryer and a handful of automobile wheel weights can make bullets.

    I have made several black powder guns, including a replica of an 1861 Navy Colt revolver. I also make knives, but no longer make my own blades. No blacksmith’s forge. In case of the Zombie Apocalypse, I suppose I could build a forge easily enough. Unless congress outlaws private owner ship of forges. After all, you can make deadly weapons with them.

    My head hurts.

  120. OS/Porkchop:

    you guys are good. I am very interested in what BTK has to say. I am thinking his middle name is Theodore. Has a ring to it actually; Robert Theodore Kauten.

    The other reason is he killing me with his argument.

  121. Bron/Porkchop,
    Wish you could come over for a social visit when my son and DiL come up for a visit. He could tell you some tales (many funny, most not) of the many ways people manage to mangle or kill themselves with everyday objects.

    Back when I worked at the missile base, one of the construction crew carpenters managed to cut off his thumb with a table saw. How he did it is a long story, but it was the result of violating about ten rules of saw safety. The thumb was still attached to his hand by a strand of skin. I was the person closest to him. I grabbed a cardboard box, and scooped up a couple of handfuls of sawdust, throwing the sawdust in the box. The construction shed was next to the parking lot, so I did not wait for the ambulance. I tied a rag around his lower arm for a tourniquet, practically threw him in the car and put the box in the floorboard between his feet. Told him to bleed into the sawdust and not my car. I got him to the hospital at about twice the speed limit. Amazingly the ER doctors were able to reattach his thumb. Almost every accident or fatality involving guns, or any other kind of hardware, is the result of somebody cutting corners or doing something truly stupid.

    Unfortunately, stupidity and bad judgment is a universal human trait. There is one upside. It keeps people like Porkchop, my son, and me employed.

  122. Bron,

    BTK . . . it does have a ring to it. I seem to remember a guy in Kansas . . .

    OS:

    Where is “over”, by the way?

  123. Porkchop,
    Otteray is the Cherokee word for the Blue Ridge Mountains. I don’t live all that far from the Bristol Motor Speedway.

  124. I had a client in Kingsport a few years ago; she worked in a bank call center. I think that’s close to your neighborhood. I sued Central Transport over a trucking company bankruptcy out of Kingsport a few decades ago . . . King Trucking, King Transport, something like that.

  125. Otteray:

    I read recently on one of the blog posts that you worked at a missle silo. Was that a Titan base by chance? There was one such silo outside of Royal City, WA in the district I worked at the Sheriff’s Office. I had a few occasions to go into that one, though unfortunately most of it was flooded out. It surely was a bit of an oddity to go in to.

  126. Darren,
    Titan II. We had two tragedies in Arkansas. We had 18 sites scattered around the state. I worked in the engineering department doing design work and converting government specification gibberish into working drawings. The news story about the Searcy, AR accident is completely wrong. It said they were converting a Titan I to a Titan II silo. It was never a Titan I silo; they were just doing equipment upgrades and progressive maintenance. I ought to know, I was down in it enough times.

    This is about the silo at Searcy. That fire should never have happened in the first place.
    http://www.themilitarystandard.com/missile/titan2/accident_373-4.php

    This is about the missile blowing up at Damascus, AR.
    http://www.501lifemag.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=717&Itemid=27

  127. Darren,
    I rummaged around YouTube and found this. It is still photos taken by a tourist during his tour of the Titan II museum in Arizona. Watching this was a very strange experience for me. The things in the photos is familiar, and old memories came flooding back. I bet I could still find my way around in there even if they turned off all the lights.

    There is no way I can communicate to anyone how I felt the morning I got up to hear news bulletins about the Searcy, accident. This is going to sound really weird, but that was my favorite of all the silos. Strange, isn’t it? They are all alike, but I liked that silo best. Each one of them had its own personality. Reading that sentence back, it sounds as if I have taken leave of my senses, but it is true. When I think of all those men who died down there, needlessly, and think of their families, it becomes personal and emotional.

  128. Otteray:

    Sorry for your losses at the base. I can’t imagine with any degree of first hand knowledge as to what it would be like to have experienced that many so suddenly. Cold war realities. It is certainly one thing that anyone under 25 isn’t going to relate to. Maybe that is a good thing that they don’t have to.

    I’m sure notwithstanding it was quite an experience to be a part of those silos. It is certainly a narrow piece of history for which few can really understand first hand.

    Some of these experiences are becoming less and less available. Simple things can be lost in time. My wife and I spent a weekend at a B&B in Victoria, BC. The proprieter of the B&B was a retired Canadian Merchant Marine Officer. Up to a certain point he was stationed on an icebreaker over the Northern part of Canada and he relied on Celestial Navigation because at that time there were no LORAN stations up there. Certainly that is a dying art. A friend’s father in law retired from the railroad as a telegrapher. Another of such

  129. Darren,
    My friend Kelley has been ragging me about writing my memoirs. I guess I am going to have to sit down and do it. Kelley said it was important to my daughters and to my grandson, otherwise my memories will die with me. I have had a full and varied life. When I look back at it, I have been more than blessed in many ways, and not just in the religious sense. I still have stuff on my bucket list, but some of my experiences haunt me.

  130. OS:

    What havent you done? I imagine you are very popular to have drinks with. It sounds like the stories would be well worth the price of the libations.

    We used to stay at the Holiday Inn in Bristol when we went to visit our son at college in TN. We always used to stop at the Bass Proshop in Knoxville and have lunch at the bar and watch the fish. What a place.

    On our way to TN one time we stopped in Bristol during the races thinking we were going to get a room. The Holiday Inn wanted 300+ for a night. We kept driving.

    When I graduated from college I got an interview with a construction company in the same town where Bass started, I knew I wasnt getting a job when he told me to go see the Bass Pro shop so my trip wasnt wasted. It is amazing how far they have come in 26 years, Bass Pro-Shops.

    It is very nice country down there and my wife and I have thought seriously about retiring there. Somewhere between Johnson City and Knoxville.

    Funny story, we stopped at a gas station right near the Bass Proshop and asked the person where so and so town was, the woman said she had never heard of it and we drove off to get back on I-40. When you make the left turn on to I-40 heading toward Bristol, there is a sign that says so and so town 14 miles. Some people live insular lives.

  131. Darren:

    that is going to be a problem in the future. If the lights ever go out and you need to go old school.

    But then how many people know how to harpoon a sperm whale by hand or to use a hammer and chisel to make a hole for dynamite?

    Why do we need to write in cursive anymore? And who uses clay tablets for writing?

    A simple compass gave way to the sextant and the sextant has given way to GPS. GPS will give way to something better.

  132. Bron,
    Regarding that Holiday Inn. It was unusual they even had a room. On race weekend, you can consider yourself lucky to even find a room. The first time my wife and I drove up Interstate 81 on our way north sometime in the 1980s, it was late, we were tired and ready to stop. I pulled off at a Holiday Inn at one of the Bristol exits. The man behind the counter explained patiently it was race weekend and I would be lucky to find a room within a hundred miles. He was right. We did not find a room until we got to Roanoke, VA.

    As soon as we moved to this area I started trying to get tickets to a Bristol race and found you almost have to wait for someone to die before you can get a ticket. The first year I managed to get a ticket to a Winston Cup race, I went down to the ticket office before they opened one September morning. The deadline for regular customers to renew their tickets is usually around September 15, so the trick is to go the next day. Ticket office opened at 8:00 and there was already a line when I got there at 7:30. I got tickets for myself and my daughter in the “no-alcohol” section. BTW, that is always a good idea if you ever plan to attend a NASCAR race.

  133. OS,

    I spent a lot of time on I-81 north of Roanoke when my oldest daughter was at school in Lexington.

  134. Porkchop:

    Washington & Lee, VMI?

    My daughter is graduating from Radford in May.

    So I have to make that trek from near DC.

  135. VMI ’07.

    Best school in the world to send a young woman to. The girl learned to stand tall, walk in a straight line, do a lot of pushups, and beat the tar out of the USMA women’s boxing team. There were a few other useful skills, too, along the way. We made the trek out I-66 and down I-81 many, many times.

  136. You all might want to watch a video going around watching women shooting a double barreled shotgun and women shooting an AR15- big difference in the kick. Shooting “out back” in the air – generally not a good idea- obvious reasons as others have posted–to the people who are talking about needs vs wants – no brained – but that part of our freedoms – I work for social services and even the very poor seem to have some needs like beer and cigarettes and don’t have the money for food and diapers for their babies. So it isn’t just the wealthy who think like this – it is called freedom- people can talk about types of weapons, what is best, why we don’t need a certain model for self protection etc, etc, etc we obviously could go on for hours. We need intelligent laws, need to address mental health, background checks, gang violence, but the bottom line is the 2nd amendment. That is why in America we have the freedom to be a responsible citizen and if you are not a responsible gun owner, there are consequences. Limiting that right should not even be in question.This is why the administration and congress never get anything accomplished- they talk and talk, and little action. Get involved- write or call your reps in congress!

Comments are closed.