Biden says a shotgun will scare off intruders
POSTED BY: GEEZER
UPDATED: Thursday, May 7, 2026 16:24
VIEWED: 9199
PAGE 9 of 13
Can someone please show me exactly where I've "defended" Biden on this issue? Disagreeing with one group of morons isn't the same as defending another moron.
I've pointed out some facts and shown where what he said to do might be preferable to actually shooting another person. Apparently saying "I agree that shooting a person is undesirable" is tantamount to saying "I'm 100% on Joe Biden's side, and will defend to the death anything he says."
I guess those things are perfectly equal to anyone who's a fucking moron.
But I digress...
*IS* shooting a shotgun, even one loaded with blanks, into the air or ground a good idea? If you had a choice between shooting a person and shooting into the air to scare said person off, would shooting a shotgun into the air still be a bad idea? Or would it be the least bad of the choices at hand?
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So I'm a moron then?
On this issue Kwick?
I know you're smart enough not to spend your Karma chips convincing others that I'm wrong here.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
If I didn't know better, I'd suspect that you're trying to suggest that since no one 'really' needs an AR-15 type weapon for self-defense, because a shotgun - in your opinion as final arbiter of what's suitable - is sufficient, it's perfectly reasonable for the government to restrict sale or ownership of them.
Well now you're starting to sound like Auraptor. To a lot of people it's an important question whether banning guns like the AR-15 endangers homeowners; and so public discussion on the subject is healthy. And I stated my own opinion as just that - an opinion. Hence the words "it seems to me". I'll ditch the word 'sufficient' because I didn't quite mean that; but I did mean 'well-suited', and I think Biden was correct in making that point.
Quote:
Saying the shotgun is always the solution is like saying every family only needs a Civic.
It's not about shotguns being 'always' the solution. It's about guns like the AR-15 being very, very rarely the solution.
I doubt that you, even though you've been extolling its virtues, would reach for a gun like the AR-15 if you woke up and there was an intruder in your house at 3am. Now, undoubtedly for a FEW people this would be their weapon of choice. But the question for me and a lot of folk is, would those few people be significantly endangered in those circumstances, if they were limited to other types of gun? My suspicion is that an AR-15 would sometimes give home-defenders an advantage, but might just as often be a disadvantage when speed is of the essence, due to its weight, unwieldiness and the fact that it can't be stored somewhere very easily accessible (like a handgun).
In short, my claim is this: banning guns like the AR-15 would NOT lead to a sizeable increase in people being killed in their homes, and/or burglary. I think the effect of an assault weapons ban, in this respect, would be negligible; and that this is an important message for the public to hear.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
This article seems to equate firing 'in the air' with using 'deadly force'. Seems like a strange conflation to me.
"Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house."
In the air? Biden doesn't say that.
The article does.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Note that in many cases jacketed hollowpoint .223 disintegrated, but 9mm JHP penetrated."
But are we talking about damaging walls or are we talking about hurting - or killing - people who might be innocently behind them? B/c biologically-speaking, the size of the hole made makes a big difference. Biologically-speaking, I'd rather be hit with a couple of pellets than a bullet.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
So I'm a moron then?
On this issue Kwick?
I know you're smart enough not to spend your Karma chips convincing others that I'm wrong here.
If you think that my saying that Biden's "solution" is preferable to shooting someone with 30 rounds from an assault rifle equates to me "defending" him or him being my "idol" (Geezer's quote), then yes, you're a moron.
I can also point out the benefits of the interstate highway system without defending or idolizing Adolf Hitler.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Is there no case law on banning certain types of other armaments from private ownership by the average citizen? Rocket launchers, anti-aircraft missiles, newly-manufactured full-auto machineguns, hand grenades, etc.?
Your point is that if there's case law, then you absolutely CAN ban certain types of arms from the average citizen. On that, we agree. Of course, you have to have a law in order to have case law...
My point was that there is case law regarding both civil and criminal liability for booby traps. You seem to want to read more into that statement in order to support your larger proposition.
Generally the law regarding each of your examples varies from state to state and often from one city to the next. For example, in New York you can't mount a full auto machinegun on a helicopter...but in certain other states...that's fine.
Here's the anatomy of getting case law. First you need law as in a statute or ordinance duly enacted under the laws governing such things. For example, lets say the State of Obamasylvania decides to pass a law barring hand grenades. Somebody gets arrested and convicted of possession of a hand grenade and challenges the law as unconstitutional under the State and/or Federal Constitution. Step three, a court decides. Then...appeal, appeal, appeal and voila, you have caselaw which can be either for or against.
H
Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"case law"
So, is there a Supreme Court ruling on such things specifically? If there is, cite and link please. If not, then you're talking about laws of limited jurisdiction. And your point would be moot.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, in the Heller decision, the SCOTUS mentioned that there very well CAN be limits on the kind of weapons citizens may possess, and those limits could be ruled constitutional. So even in the "case law" striking down the DC gun ban, the SCOTUS left room for gun control laws and allowable limits on certain kinds and types of guns, ammo, and magazines.
Quote:
My point was that there is case law regarding both civil and criminal liability for booby traps. You seem to want to read more into that statement in order to support your larger proposition.
My "larger proposition" is that case law comes from laws made which are then challenged. Sometimes those laws are overturned, and sometimes they're upheld, but it always starts with a law being passed.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012
Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"
Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
This article seems to equate firing 'in the air' with using 'deadly force'. Seems like a strange conflation to me.
"Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house."
In the air? Biden doesn't say that.
He also didn't say "You don't need a .223 caliber AR-15", did he? But you still ASSumed that's what he meant, right?
Given that the overwhelming number of AR-15 type guns sold in the U.S. are .223, seems a reasonable assumption. Then again, many of the alternative calibers are ballistically equivalent or inferior to the .223, so it's mostly a difference without a distinction.
Quote:
If you aren't smart enough to figure out that when someone says to fire off a couple blasts with a shotgun, they mean "in the air"...
You mean you want me to make that ASSumption? Kind'a inconsistent in your opinion of ASSumptions today, aren't you, Mike?
Actually, you might worry about Jill Biden being smart enough to know this. I've got better sense than to fire a weapon without knowing what my target is, and what's behind it. Also, even if you assume "in the air", that covers a lot of scenarios. everything from right above the horizon to straight up. Now, based on the calculator here, http://www.ctmuzzleloaders.com/ctml_experiments/rbballistics/rbballist
ics.html a 00 buck ball launched at 1450fps, a common velocity for that load, is still going 795 fps at 100yds, with energy of 76 foot-pounds. This is about the energy of a .22 long rifle at the same distance. There are 15 shot in the average 00 buck load. So if Mrs. Biden fires "two blasts" 'in the air' just above the horizon, she's putting more lead, with more energy, 'in the air' than if she'd shot three 10-round magazines from a Ruger 10/22. And it's going to come down somewhere.
Quote:
, then I really don't want you anywhere around me with your guns, because you're also stupid enough to go around aiming your penis substitute at everyone else's face.
And as usual when you get backed into a corner, out come the insults. But falsely maligning my gun safety practices doesn't make Biden's advice any less stupid on several levels, and you've still never come out and said whether you think firing a shotgun, even just 'in the air,' as a warning is a good or bad idea.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME