Vice 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 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
BettyKath: prayer.
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.
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?
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.
Hillary laughed loudest @ Biden gaffe# 257..this year!
What’s the weapon of choice when the home invaders are a swat team breaking into the wrong address?
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
Once again Biden proves that his IQ is lower than his age.
doesn’t he ever get tired of the taste of his own shoe leather?
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/colorado-man-allegedly-told-lawmakers-hopefully-somebody-giffords?ref=fpb Colorado democrats received death threats after voting for gun restrictions.
Vice President Biden spoke of a remote area, not urban areas where people are close together.
There are advocates for police to carry shotguns:
(Police Shotgun – Carry It!). Like religion, each to his or her own so long as it is legal.
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.
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/21/17046168-biden-makes-forceful-call-for-gun-controls-in-speech-near-sandy-hook?lite Biden is out front on this just like he was on gay marriage. Since when does Todd Akin supporting Fox news get to decide what is sexist?
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.
“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.