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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
circumcised with a .38:
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.
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.
” 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cheney was probably drunk at the time, and he got let off because of his position and friends.
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.
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.
What is crazier? Biden’s statement or the fact that over 1800 people have died from gunfire since the Sandy Hook massacre?
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.
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.
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.”