What's your opinion of gun control?

[tvbcof]

A shotgun has close to zero spread at 3-5 yards, the width of most rooms.  (A yard is about equal to a meter for those not familiar with imperial measurements.)  The spread is probably not more than a quarter at this close range. (That's an inch or 2.5 centimeters.) 

I would not recommend a shotgun for a small woman. It packs a kick. Far better to have a .223. There is far less kick and the user wouldn't procrastinate practicing because they dreaded the kick back.

I suppose if it was cut down in half (from 28" to 14") there would be greater spread - but I don't know how much. I've never shot one, or seen the pattern.

Not saying your wrong, but two comments:

One argument that people use for a shotgun vs. a high velocity military round has to do with collateral damage.  e.g., hitting your kid in the next room or your neighbor in the next apartment over.

Some jurisdictions (like where I am now) make it fairly easy to 'own and possess' what is considered to be a lower powered weapons (handguns up to .45 ACP, shotguns (slugs OK)) but it's a real bitch to get a  .223.

Another bit of advice that I've heard which I concur with:  Don't fall for the old-wives tale that you don't need to aim a shotgun.  Especially if you don't practice all the time.  This comes down to the minimal spread mentioned in the post above.

---

Just as an aside, it seems that firearms cost two to three times as much in The Philippines as they do in the United States for the same piece.  It's also worth note that gun ownership in The Philippines is a privilege and NOT a right as it is in the United States (in theory and for now.)  That was made clear to me.

I would note also that I got nothing but support and encouragement to have a firearm (or many) available to me by all concerned.  All considered it a good idea...even those who don't stand to make some money on the deal.

[1714222609]

1714222609

[1714222609]

1714222609

[1714222609]

1714222609

[1714222609]

1714222609

[1714222609]

1714222609

[mayo2u]

I would not recommend a shotgun for a small woman. It packs a kick. Far better to have a .223. There is far less kick and the user wouldn't procrastinate practicing because they dreaded the kick back

Not saying your wrong, but two comments:

One argument that people use for a shotgun vs. a high velocity military round has to do with collateral damage.  e.g., hitting your kid in the next room or your neighbor in the next apartment over.

You make an excellent point. And this is where it gets complicated.

The first thing is that people need to know their tool and the only way to do that is to use it. I hate hearing people say "just get a shotgun." (I'm not speaking about anyone in this thread. This is a general comment.)  I hate hearing it because too many people get a shotgun or say a Desert Eagle 1911 chambered in .45 ACP and then never practice with it because it "hurts their hands" or their shoulder.

It doesn't make sense to get a tool; never use it; and then when your life - and the life of your children - are on the line have to use it.  I've never been in the military and never pulled out a firearm in self-defense. I'm damn sure that if that day arrives I will not shoot as well nor be as level-headed as when I'm at the range.

And there's no reason for anyone to be embarrassed about not wanting to shoot a particular caliber because it hurts their hands (or shoulder). IF you find that to be the case you need to find a round that you can handle, and then practice with it.

Ok. Rant is over.

Re shooting through drywall and hurting your children or your neighbors - you raise an excellent point.  I have a Mossberg 500 - or did. I now live in a deep-blue area where such evil things are not permitted.

What's the best caliber? Boy does that open up a can of worms. I can't rightfully answer. And, if I tried, I would contradict myself a hundred times.

[tvbcof]

...
The first thing is that people need to know their tool and the only way to do that is to use it. I hate hearing people say "just get a shotgun." (I'm not speaking about anyone in this thread. This is a general comment.)  I hate hearing it because too many people get a shotgun or say a Desert Eagle 1911 chambered in .45 ACP and then never practice with it because it "hurts their hands" or their shoulder.

It doesn't make sense to get a tool; never use it; and then when your life - and the life of your children - are on the line have to use it.  I've never been in the military and never pulled out a firearm in self-defense. I'm damn sure that if that day arrives I will not shoot as well nor be as level-headed as when I'm at the range.
...

Totally true!

I would rather my wife had a .22 LR target pistol that she was proficient with than a 12ga that she didn't know how to use because it was to painful to practice.  The .22 would simply be a more effective tool for our needs in that case.

---

I've never been 'into' guns much.  I strongly favor simple utilitarian guns and don't practice as much as I should because of lack of intrest.  To a degree I got some of it out of my system 3 decades ago when I was a soldier I guess.

Something I didn't really recognize is the utility of having guns which are 'interesting' and 'exotic'.  The simple reason for this is that everyone and their brother will be inviting you to their range if you have something they want to play around with.

[BADecker]

Must be because murdering shooters don't obey bans.


Johns Hopkins Study: No Evidence 'Assault Weapon' Bans Reduce Mass Shootings

A study released by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health declares there is no evidence "assault weapon" bans lead to a lower "incidence of fatal mass shootings."

The push for an "assault weapons" ban is central to the Democrats' gun control agenda nationally and is front and center for Democrats at the state level in places like Arizona and Virginia.

According to the Johns Hopkins study, researchers"did not find an independent association between assault weapon bans and the incidence of fatal mass shootings."

Researchers did claim licensing requirements like those in Connecticut help reduce the number of mass shootings, but their study omitted the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School in which 26 were killed at the school and another victim was killed in a private home.

In other words, a study which claims licensing reduces instances of mass shootings omitted one of the most often cited mass shootings in U.S. history, even though that shooting occurred in a licensing state.

[BADecker]

Smart Federal judge. If you ban ammo without a background check, the people will simply go underground. This keeps the people out in the open, by making it easy for them to buy ammo. When they are out in the open, they can be tracked... maybe not as easily, but tracked. Of course, California is too dumb to realize this.


Federal Judge Nullifies California Law Requiring Background Checks to Buy Ammo

A federal judge has shot down a California law requiring citizens to pass background checks before they are allowed to purchase ammunition.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Benitez in San Diego called the state's law "onerous and convoluted" before he granted a preliminary injunction in favor of a lawsuit filed by the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) and six-time Olympic medalist shooting champion Kim Rhode, NBC News reported.

Californians voted for Proposition 63 in 2016, thereby banning "high-capacity magazines" and mandating background checks for ammunition sales.

The checks have been in effect since July of 2019.

Benitez issued his 120-page opinion on the ruling on Thursday, according to the Associated Press.