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
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…
The democrat that was an NRA backer had previously been the frontrunner.
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/us/voting-primary-jesse-jackson-jr-house-seat.html?_r=0 Blouise, the “gun culture” that you often refer to did not have a good night at the ballot box last night. The anti-gun candidate won in my home state. I
Or as Mick Jagger said, “You can’t always get what you want, but sometimes, you get what you need.”
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.
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.
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
“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. 😉 )
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?
The shot gun is not for everybody….
Thanks Gene…. I prefer a handgun anyways… But…. What cn one say…
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.
Brain-dead Joseph Biden is the epitome of obtuseness.
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.”
What-the….Biden made a stupid comment (when does he not?) but how in the world was that sexist???
Isn’t the Gun Culture fun!? Good times had by all.
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
OS,
lol
I’m not too shocked. So many people can’t differentiate between want and need. I think it’s a cultural thing.
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.
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.