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
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.
“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.
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?
Don,
Their have been 168 children killed by drones in Pakistan since 2007 and as many as 775 civilians.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8695679/168-children-killed-in-drone-strikes-in-Pakistan-since-start-of-campaign.html
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.
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.
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.
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….
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 **
call it a ballistic trajectory. I dont care, it is roughly the shape of a parabola.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabola
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.
It’s not stupid, it’s just being a Democrat
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.
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.
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:
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.
Gravity sucks.
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.
ARE:
Mr. Newton would disagree with you and so would Mr. Galilei. Respectfully of course.
All ballistic projectiles move in a parabolic arc, they may lose forward momentum due to air friction, but they move in that arc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajectory_of_a_projectile
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.
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.