Explain, please, why anyone carries a handgun instead of a sawed-off shotgun. My understanding was that:
-They were more lethal (“accurate” was a poor choice of words, I admit) at middle-to-long range
-They were less dangerous to innocent bystanders and/or property.
-They could fire more rapidly, giving the shooter a better chance at a second shot.
-They’re legal.
My understanding is that even if the last reason weren’t the case, the others would apply. People arguing with me either really know something I don’t about shotguns, or else are splitting hairs on the off-chance that they’ll somehow harm the gun-control argument by doing so.
I am not sure I understood this. Are you saying that people who want to use a firearm to commit a crime would worry that somebody might get hurt?
As in “I want to rob this liquor store. But I sure don’t want to use a sawed-off shotgun - I might try to shoot the clerk, but hit the owner as well!”
Maybe I misunderstood your post, but I really doubt that the Crips would nix a drive-by because they might miss, and hit some innocent bystander. Same would apply to their choice of weapons.
A MAC-10 on full automatic would be far less accurate, and far more dangerous to those at whom the bad guys are aiming, but I have never heard of the bad guys rejecting automatic weapons on that basis.
Shodan, a fair point; I withdraw the collateral-damage point. Are you in the camp that seems to believe sawed-off shotguns are just as effective criminal weapons as (for example) automatic rifles, or would you care to address my more recent post on the subject?
Did you mean the handgun vs. sawed-off shotgun post?
I am also not sure if I understood the post.
I think sawed-off shotguns are more effective for certain purposes than handguns, and also more effective for certain purposes than automatic weapons.
If I wanted to kill someone shooting at close range, and concealability is a factor, I would choose a handgun. If I wanted to threaten and/or kill several people at once, at close range, I would choose a shotgun. If I wanted to hole up atop a tower somewhere and shoot a lot of peopel one at a time, I would get an automatic rifle.
All this is assuming that I could choose from a variety of different weapons, and cost were no object.
If the question is, “Are sawed-off shotguns as bad as handguns if you want to commit a crime with it”, I guess it depends on the crime.
I am not trying to avoid the question, but I am not sure what it is.
For long range shooting, you would want a rifle. For concealability, a handgun. For close-range shooting and maximum damage, I would want a shotgun. For rapid rate of fire, an automatic weapon. But I still think different types of violent crime would be easier to commit with different types of weapons.
You say that is your understanding. Why is it your understanding? Do you have a source or practical experience that tells you this?
We who have and use guns speak from practical experience. A shotgun is an incredibly deadly weapon at close range. This is not opinion, this is a matter of physics. Think about how much powder and shot goes in a 10 or 12-gauge shotgun, and think about the muzzle velocity, and then think about your chest.
Is it more “deadly” than a .44 magnum? It’s arguable - a single direct shot in the chest with either of them is likely to be fatal. And a .44 magnum is hardly a common weapon used by criminals, or by shooters for that matter. It’s simply a lot of power to hold in one hand.
Less dangerous to innocent bystanders or property? Depends - the penetrating power of a shotgun is a bit less than a 9mm or other equivalent FMJ round, which is one of the many reasons that shotguns are recommended for home defense - less chance of stray pellets going through multiple walls or even exiting the house.
Could fire more rapidly? Why? There are semi-auto shotguns out there, very commonly used by skeet shooters. And a pump action shotgun can be cycled very quickly by a motivated and expereinced user - such as a skeet shooter.
A sawed off shotgun is not legal if the barrel is under 18 inches, this is true. Frankly, I doubt the legality of the weapon really comes into the mind of a person wanting to commit murder. An, of course, except for certain exceptional circumstances a convicted felon is not able to legally posses a firearm anyhow, so any “repeat” crime by a felon is equally illegal even if a .22 pistol is used.
Well, quite honestly your characterization of how shotguns work indicates that you do not own and/or have not fired a shotgun very much.
And just what is that last line supposed to mean? I’m not arguing for or against “gun control” here, although I am (was) a frequent partisan on the “Pro Gun” side. I’m arguing about facts of operation of weapons, something that I often find the “anti” side is fairly ignorant of. Being in favour of gun control for a personal and public safety reason, or even because you feel there is no place for personal defense and no right to defend your own life are all honorable positions IMO - even if I don’t agree with them. But basing an “anti gun” stance based on ignorance of the facts and physics of the actual subject of the debate is inexcusable.
The facts don’t lie: guns are deadly. People die from misuse of them, accidents, and criminal acts every single hour. Knowing why this is so is a combination of social studies, demographics, the law, and factual physical characteristics of the weapons of choice. I’m talking about the last one here.
In this thread you have not really responded to any of the rebuttals of your points other than to say that that is your “understanding”. OK, that’s fair enough, since none of the other people here are offering cites, myself included. From what experience base does your understanding arise?
Anthracite, I haven’t responded because people aren’t addressing my point. Lemme try again:
Restricting guns on any level less than nationally is bound to fail, because intranational borders are extremely porous, and guns are very mobile.
People countered by suggesting that even if guns were restricted on a national level, people in the US could still manufacture guns.
I pointed out that they could indeed manufacture guns, but the guns they made wouldn’t be as sophisticated as guns made by factories.
People countered by all kinds of irrelevant technical specifications on shotguns.
I’m still waiting for someone to explain why anyone uses a handgun to commit a violent crime, if the simpler guns are as or more effective at committing crimes with.
Explain that to me, and I’ll be glad to cede the point; otherwise, I think people are rebutting a point I’m not making. I’m not saying that handguns are better for killing someone at close range. I’m not saying that shotguns are hard to hit a target with. I’m not saying that the reload time of a shotgun is always great enough to give the victim a chance to escape. I’m saying that if simple, easily-manufactured guns were as good at killing people as complex guns, people would get the simple guns instead of the complex ones.
That doesn’t require intimate knowledge of a shotgun; that requires basic knowledge of supply and demand.
That’s a little bit like saying that no one would ever buy a house, because they could live in an apartment.
I think the concealability and availability of handguns works in their favor when criminals are selecting a weapon. I think they also want to be cool, and they have seen handguns in the movies. I also think it is easier to buy a handgun, than to buy a shotgun and saw off the barrel. I expect handguns are more commonly available than sawed-off shotgun.s
Why do you expect that people will always opt for the simplest thing available when more is available? Lots of people get power windows even though a crank works just fine. It is much easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife, yet knife murders happen every year.
I don’t find the logic of choosing the simplest option every time to be compelling.
Regards,
Shodan
People choose power windows because they can, with less effort, roll up their windows, even though power windows are more expensive. People choose houses over apartments because the more expensive option allows them to achieve comfort more reliably.
It may be that people who carry guns choose handguns because that’s what the cool kids in the movies have; it may be that you’re no likelier to succeed at murder with a handgun (which can fire rapidly, can be drawn quickly, is manufactured according to factory standards, etc.) than with a homemade shotgun. I’d find that very surprising if it’s true, but as folks have pointed out, my technical knowledge of firearms isn’t very great. I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that people purchased handguns for reasons beyond the aesthetic.
I’m sorry, but that’s not how this thread played out. I have been addressing your point, as have other people. And what was your point? Your first post to me in this thread boiled down to this statement which you wrote:
That’s in your post, right up there on this very page. That has been the sole point of contention, as I have not denied nor rebutted your other contentions with respect to availability, price, ease of acquisition, or difference between mass produced manufactured guns versus homemade ones. Nor have I argued that less people use handguns than shotguns to commit crimes. Nor have I argued that a handgun does not make an ideal choice of weapon for most or many crimes.
You did not bring up your “why do people use handguns” bit until later posts.
I contended that a shotgun was a “simple” gun and that in terms of deadliness was also quite effective at killing a target.
Your contention has now altered to:
That’s not what you contended originally, and it’s not what I’ve said here. I have not contended that they are “more effective” at committing crimes, and if you think I have you’d better post a quote.
You’ve completely changed the argument. You said a simple gun was less likely to kill its target than a complicated gun. And now you’re trying to shift the argument to handguns versus shotguns, which has not been the point here. And this is an irrelevant argument anyways, as it only addresses crimes where a person is fully intending to murder or kill someone - not crimes in general which involve a weapon as a contributing factor in the form of a threat or terroristic compliance inducing device.
Even someone who has never got any closer to a gun than their TV screen knows the obvious answer to your question: concealability. Although it is possible to conceal a sawed-off shotgun, it is not nearly as practical to do so. This is simple and common sense. I can keep a handgun in a purse. In a glovebox. In the small of my back. A Jennings J22 could fit inside a beehive hairdo.
I don’t know why you feel the need to try to change the argument and jerk me around like this. I’ve showed no disrespect to you or your beliefs on the issue. All I tried to do was respond from a factual standpoint on your issue of deadliness of “simple” guns. I will not be played a fool when I am trying to discuss something on a factual and experience-based level.
With all due respect, bullshit that I’m jerking you around. I’ve read your post several times, and am baffled that you think I’ve changed my point.
A handgun is more easily concealed? Fine. Is a weapon that can be easily concealed likelier to kill its target than one that cannot be easily concealed? If not, what’s the advantage of concealment? Fashion sense?
When I said originally that a more complicated weapon is likelier to kill its target than a simple one, I wasn’t adding any parameters onto that. I didn’t mean, “from equal ranges.” I didn’t mean, “provided that both have good ammunition.” I didn’t mean, “provided that the target doesn’t realize the first shot is coming.” I meant exactly what I said: when you take into account all considerations, that complicated gun has features that make it likelier to kill its target than a simple gun.
Given your most recent post about concealability, I think you even agree with what I’m trying to say: you just aren’t understanding what I’m saying, so you think I’m saying something else, something with which you disagree. Honestly, what I’m saying is so straightforward it should be uncontroversial. It’s like saying, a digital oven is more effective at baking cookies well than a woodstove. That’s why you find more digital ovens in people’s kitchens than woodstoves these days.
I posted exactly what you said, and it remains in this thread to be re-read by anyone here.
NO, the simple statement that a weapon that can be easily concealed is likelier to kill its target than one that cannot be easily concealed is FALSE as a simple statement. A .22 pistol can be concealed nearly anywhere. A shotgun cannot. Which is more likely to kill its target? You’re not asking “more likely to be carried in the commission of a crime and thus used in said crime”, you’re talking “deadliness”. Which in firearms terms means “ability to inflict blunt trauma, shock trauma, blood loss, neurological impairment, bone fracture, and ultimately death”.
The thought that one would argue that “deadliness” is to be measured by concealability and not by the physics involved with the operation of said device baffles me. It almost seems like you’re talking about some odd measure of “meta deadliness” which includes the potential for the weapon to be one which is commonly used by criminals and commonly used in deadly incidents by criminals and others. I’m talking facts and figures and physics and science here. I tend to do that.
And the analogy of a digital oven (whatever that is…an oven with a $1 Casio clock on it that someone buys for $2000? From Williams-Sonoma perhaps?) versus a woodstove is a false analogy. A better analogy is me arguing that a Ford F350 is better at towing a boat, and you arguing that a Toyota Rav 4 is cheaper and smaller and more likely to be owned by someone and thus employed for towing a boat, therefore it is somehow “better” at doing it.
Concealability has no connection to effectiveness of fire. It does have a connection to other factors that a criminal may consider in choosing a weapon.
I am not sure if I just don’t get your point, or that there is some subtle rhetorical trap that I am walking into.
I might choose a shotgun to rob a liquor store, because the distinctive sound of a round being chambered is more frightening to the clerk, and therefore I am more likely to get what I want without shooting anyone. I might choose a handgun, in hopes that I can enter the store without signalling that I am up to no good, or because I am not sure I can get the shotgun out of my jacket fast enough.
I might even choose a handgun for a drive-by, because it is so cool looking and gangsta and phat and so on.
It depends on my perceived needs and what is available.
I would probably choose a shotgun for my own needs, but that has to do more with my poor marksmanship and the situations that I expect to use the weapon than complicated vs. simple.
The attraction of simple is that there are less parts to go wrong. I believe police used to prefer revolvers over semi-automatics for that reason, although modern semi-automatics are more reliable than they used to be.
I don’t see simplicity as a factor that trumps anything else.
Just a little input on the concealed weapon, complex weapon, simple weapon, lethality issue going on.
Responsible gun owners treat all firearms with the same respect and caution. It does not matter if it’s a single shot .22, shotgun, pistol, or a high power rifle.
Someone could commit a crime with a shotgun just as the can with a more complicated weapon like a semi-auto (rifle or pistol).
I don’t think that if all guns where banned that a new cottage industry of home-built guns would crop up. At least not for a long time. There will be plenty of guns available from other sources. Although, true guns smiths may provide them for the right price.
From a criminals viewpoint, I don’t think It would matter much what kind of weapon they brandished. As long as it gives them the few seconds of control that they are looking for. That’s what they are after. Many, if not most criminals use very cheap, ‘throw away guns’.
You don’t need an expensive, complex gun to commit a crime.
Meta-deadliness is a fine term, Anthracite. I am taking into consideration all factors, not just blunt trauma, blood loss, etc. In the same way that a baseball bat is likelier to kill its victim than an anvil, despite the anvil’s greater weight, sharper edges, improved density, etc., because the anvil is harder to get into a killing position.
Again, what I’m saying is a truism: people spend more on tools that perform their job better. If it sounds false, it’s because you’re not understanding what I’m saying. It wasn’t intended to be a revelatory statement at all. No rhetorical trap either, Shodan, just a straightforward observation about tools. It’s baffling to me that people are so wildly misinterpreting what I’m saying, tring to turn it into some sort of physics analysis of firearms.
Misinterpretation between people is fair, so long as it’s not contrived, argumentative, dishonest, or willful. It seems rather that we just have different definitions of the word “deadliness” with respect to firearms. My definition is physics-based first because I’m an Engineer. Now that we both know what the other is referring to, there’s not a large amount of disagreement that I can see.