# Look out would-be burglars, I'm gettin' a gun!! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 7, 2000, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-out-would-be-burglars-im-gettin-a-gun/32341 "2000-09-07T06:38:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2000, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-out-would-be-burglars-im-gettin-a-gun/32341/161 "2000-09-23T19:33:01Z")
When you look at a break-down of gun-crime stats for the U.S. (courtesy of the U.S. Bureau of Justice Uniform Crime Statistics) you’ll see that the majority of gun-crimes are committed by what’s called “black-on-black” gang-related homicides and assaults. When just the White and Oriental population is considered, the U.S. compares very favorably against other countries; even les violent crime than some others. And, from the same reports from other various law-enforcemnt agencies, most criminals aquire their guns illegally anyway (around 70%-80%), so more gun-control would be ineffective against criminals aquiring firearms, and be one step closer to the minority of anti-gunners avowed aim of removing firearms from all people, everywhere. Most anti-gunners truly just want to see the violence stop; it’s only a small minority within their ranks that vocally agitate for total gun-bans, house-to-house searches and confiscations, and mass-arrests of gun-owners. These are the people that scare me (and, judging from his post, Tracer too). _ **ExTank** _ ---
**Author:** ![Kaboodle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8edcca/32.png) [@Kaboodle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaboodle)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2000, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-out-would-be-burglars-im-gettin-a-gun/32341/162 "2000-09-23T19:56:47Z")
\*Originally posted by bdgr \* \*\* > [@](#): > > IN the strasburg test, they shot live goats with the same chest cavity size as a human. Its the closest thing to a real world stopping power test that can be done, unless someone finds a way to shoot real people. In these test, the glaser and the magsafe rounds won in almost every catagory. I have a copy of the test results somewhere, and I will try to find them. A lot of people got really pissed at the results, since their favorite round didn’t do so hot, so you see a lot of complaining. One guy said that this info is only usefull if you are attacted by goats. Thats like saying the geliten tests are only usefull if attacked by gelitan. Ever since then, I have kept magsafe in my guns(I used to use starfire). Luckily, I have never had to put them to the test. > > \*\* bdgr, here’s what I found out about the ‘Strasbourg tests’ > [@](#): > > “The Strasbourg Tests: Another Gunwriter/Bullet Salesman Fraud?” > [http://www.netside.com/~lcoble/dir5/wound.txt](http://www.netside.com/~lcoble/dir5/wound.txt) > > - An excerpt: \* > The FBI committee, which includes a half dozen of the world’s most highly regarded gunshot-expert forensic patholgists, felt that the organization and wording of the document betrayed it as a hoax. Why else would experimental results be circulated anonomously? > > Reputable scientists put their names on their work, take responsibility for it freely discuss it and respond to critical reviews by their colleages. Review of a work by other recognized scientists is mandatory before any results are accepted as valid. You make another assertion: > [@](#): > > \*\* > \*Originally posted by bdgr \* > True. But you wan’t what is most likely to render them unconsious quickly. Glasers and Magsafe(my favorite), generate the most shock to internals, and stand a greater chance of incapacitating quickly. and they dont go through walls. > \*\* While I haven’t found any penetration information on Magsafe, the Firearms Tactical website does mention that they are useful in preventing ‘over-penetration’. However on the Glaser Safety Slug home page: Glaser Safety Slug, Inc. [http://www.safetyslug.com](http://www.safetyslug.com) here is what I found in the FAQ section: > [@](#): > > Will GLASERS penetrate an interior wall … ? > > A GLASER will penetrate between three and four sheets of wall board (two interior walls) before fragmenting. Penetration will be less if the bullet strikes a wall stud or electrical conduit. This tactical penetration means the GLASER is an effective defensive round against targets sheltered behind doors, fences, garbage cans, etc. Larger GLASER pistol calibers (10mm, 44 Magnum) will penetrate more and are not recommended for home protection. A GLASER gives better over-penetration protection in a home than any other ammunition except a 410 shotgun - which has limited defensive value for home use. So the Glaser Safety Slugs may penetrate less than other ammo but you can’t say it doesn’t go through walls. In your quest to prevent over-penetration what are you giving up? > [@](#): > > A Discussion of Classic Wound Ballistics Myths > [http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs23.htm](http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs23.htm) > > \*an excerpt: \* > An arm obstructs about 20 percent of the torso when it is outstretched and pointing a gun, and you’re shooting at the bad guy from a front angle. Likewise an arm can obstruct 50 percent or more of the torso when you engage a bad guy with gunfire from a side angle. Therefore there’s a good chance that your bullet could hit an arm, and that’s part of the rationale behind the 12-inch minimum penetration performance guideline. > > (Pre-fragmented bullets like MagSafe and Glaser are easily defeated by an arm, and this is why we feel they’re inadequate for personal defense use. Any pellets that manage to exit the arm and penetrate the torso are going to produce minimal wounding effect. Pre-fragmented bullets require best case conditions to produce maximum wounding effect.) I know how hard it is to get good information and in some cases any information about the effectiveness of bullets in regard to ‘stopping power’. Everything I’ve found so far says that shot placement has more to do with stopping power than anything else. It is necessary to damage or destroy (not shock) vital structures in the body to incapacitate a person quickly. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Cool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecb155/32.png) [@Joe\_Cool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Cool)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2000, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-out-would-be-burglars-im-gettin-a-gun/32341/163 "2000-09-23T22:19:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by thinksnow \* > \*\*… > > > [@](#): > > > > Bad analogy. Computers were designed to do maths. They were initially used to crack codes in WW2… > > Actually, you are correct, of course, that they were/are used for mathematical computation, but they were initially used to more rapidly figure ballistic trajectories. Sorry, but code breaking was a welcome off-shoot (no pun intended)…\*\* Well, computers _as we know them_ could be said to have begun with the first PROGRAMMABLE computer (called “The Bombe”), designed and built by Alan Turing at Bletchley Park, specifically to break Enigma encoded messages. Sincere apologies for continuing the hijack. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2000, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-out-would-be-burglars-im-gettin-a-gun/32341/164 "2000-09-24T21:50:30Z")
Apologies for busting into the discussion with another gun-control remark; I’m not interested in hijacking the thread to go through all that again. But **Demise** objected to my criticism of John Lott on another thread, so I said I would take it here. Response to **Demise** : Yup, I stand by my characterization of Lott as the “uncrowned king of the shaky correlation,” not because I think he’s necessarily wrong (in suggesting that relaxed CCW laws can deter violent crime) but because I don’t think he’s made a convincing case that he’s right. To quote [another article](http://www.cse.unsw.EDU.AU/~lambert/guns/lott/) on [Lott’s study](http://www.ideasign.com/chiliast/pdocs/lott.htm): > [@](#): > > Although Lott makes a commendable effort to control for as many factors as he can, there are still significant changes in the crime rate that are not explained by his model. A way to test to see changes in the crime rate were caused by the carry law or one of the other factors is to look for differential effects–we would not expect the carry law to affect all crime rates equally. For example, since juveniles are not eligible for the concealed weapon permits, we would not expect the law to affect the juvenile homicide rate as much as it effects the adult rate. With one somewhat problematic exception, we do not find differential effects. To clarify my own position: I am not crazy about guns (except as interesting artifacts in the history of ballistics), but I am not in complete denial about defensive gun use. It seems to me perfectly in line with common-sense experience that more noncriminals with guns will often deter criminals from attempting or completing crimes. (It also seems to me perfectly in line with common-sense experience that more noncriminals with guns will increase the chances of accidental or unmeditated gun casualties, but that’s a different issue.) But I don’t find Lott’s claim that he has **demonstrated** that relaxed CCW laws caused lower crime rates to be a convincing one. Hence my criticism. Thank you, carry on. ---
**Author:** ![Nukeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce7236/32.png) [@Nukeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nukeman)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-out-would-be-burglars-im-gettin-a-gun/32341/165 "2000-09-25T18:21:19Z")
Im sorry Demise, I was in a hurry and I didnt have time to go back and check the whole thread for your name. I had that happen to me personally, and it has happened to many people I know. Most burglaries in England happen when people leave their front doors open or something, and dont realise they have been burgled until afterwards. It is very rare that you confront the criminal. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-out-would-be-burglars-im-gettin-a-gun/32341/166 "2000-09-25T19:02:32Z")
**Kimstu** : > [@](#): > > (It also seems to me perfectly in line with common-sense experience that more noncriminals with guns will increase the chances of accidental or unmeditated gun casualties, but that’s a different issue.) It is a different issue, but it should be noted that even the most vocal anti-gun researchers, such as Lambert, or HCI, have been able to demonstrate anything worse than a net effect of zero from CCW laws. I’m sure they’d love to, but the numbers just aren’t there. > [@](#): > > But I don’t find Lott’s claim that he has demonstrated that relaxed CCW laws caused lower crime rates to be a convincing one. Hence my criticism. OTOH, he’s certainly provided what **should** , in a less hysterical atmosphere, provide the groundwork for ongoing and intensive study. Unfortunately, I think careful observation will bear out a serious anti-gun bias in the media and the popular culture, so nobody wants to hear that there could be a benefit to CCW laws. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-out-would-be-burglars-im-gettin-a-gun/32341/167 "2000-09-25T20:08:10Z")
Demise wrote: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Nukeman \* > > \*\*Arent sawed off shotguns illegal? or at least, very dangerous? \*\* > > It is illegal in the US to have a shotgun with a barrel length of less than 18 inches. Dangerous? Of course, it is a firearm. Is it more dangerous than any other firearm? Not at all. It pretty damn ridiculous that it was made illegal in the first place. I believe the reasoning behind the “short barrelled shotgun” clause in the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 was that sawed-off shotguns were easily concealable on your person, like handguns were. The law withstood a 2nd Amendment challenge in the Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Miller, based on the judges declaring that a short-barrelled shotgun was “not the type of weapon a well-regulated militia would use.” Unfortunately, the judges only reached that decision because the Miller team didn’t bring in any expert witnesses to testify – as it turns out, the French army in the early days of World War 1 did indeed use a shotgun with a barrel that was considerably shorter than 18 inches. I say the case ought to be re-examined. ---
**Author:** ![Demise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/34f0e0/32.png) [@Demise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demise)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-out-would-be-burglars-im-gettin-a-gun/32341/168 "2000-09-25T20:25:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > \*\*Unfortunately, the judges only reached that decision because the Miller team didn’t bring in any expert witnesses to testify – as it turns out, the French army in the early days of World War 1 did indeed use a shotgun with a barrel that was considerably shorter than 18 inches. I say the case ought to be re-examined. \*\* Miller died before the case was heard by the Supremes, IIRC, which didn’t help the matter much either. * * * From Kimstu: > [@](#): > > \*\*I don’t find Lott’s claim that he has demonstrated that relaxed CCW laws caused lower crime rates to be a convincing one. Hence my criticism. \*\* Thank you for posting your reasoning behind your earlier statement. I disagree. 🙂 I do not find that ANY of the anti-gun studies quoted by liberal media sources come close to touching the scope of Lott’s study. His data is far more convincing than anything else I’ve seen from either side of the debate. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-out-would-be-burglars-im-gettin-a-gun/32341/169 "2000-09-26T04:48:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > > The law withstood a 2nd Amendment challenge in the Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Miller, based on the judges declaring that a short-barrelled shotgun was “not the type of weapon a well-regulated militia would use.” Unfortunately, the judges only reached that decision because the Miller team didn’t bring in any expert witnesses to testify – as it turns out, the French army in the early days of World War 1 did indeed use a shotgun with a barrel that was considerably shorter than 18 inches. I say the case ought to be re-examined. \*\* Yeah right - learn military lessons from the French. That’ll get you far. Frankly, I don’t think highly of the shotgun. Any weapon which has an effective range of maybe 20 meters and can’t pierce a standard kevlar vest is worthless on a battlefield. There’s nothing a shotgun can do which a SMG can’t do better. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-out-would-be-burglars-im-gettin-a-gun/32341/170 "2000-09-26T15:14:16Z")
> [@](#): > > Yeah right - learn military lessons from the French. That’ll get you far. Now now, the German Army under the Schlieffen Plan at the outset of WW1 was supposed to capture Paris in a matter of weeks. The fact that the French held off the mighty German Army for four years (with a little help from the Brits) surely says _something_! * * * “Once all the Germans were warlike and mean, But that couldn’t happen again; We taught them a lesson in 1918, And they’ve hardly bothered us since then!” – Tom Lehrer, “The MLF Lullaby” ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-out-would-be-burglars-im-gettin-a-gun/32341/171 "2000-09-26T15:22:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Alessan \* > \*\*Yeah right - learn military lessons from the French. That’ll get you far. > > Frankly, I don’t think highly of the shotgun. Any weapon which has an effective range of maybe 20 meters and can’t pierce a standard kevlar vest is worthless on a battlefield. There’s nothing a shotgun can do which a SMG can’t do better. \*\* They were using it as a weapon for trench warfare, before Kevlar - so it was a very good military decision. Anyway, I thought we were talking about self defence weapons for home protection? ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-out-would-be-burglars-im-gettin-a-gun/32341/172 "2000-09-26T15:30:22Z")
Tracer - didn’t the French have a similar plan to conquer Berlin? Sorry. I think it’s about time the French admitted that, like the Italians, they’re just no good at warfare. They make _great_ cheese, though. Gary - no. We were talking about modern-day military precidents. ---
**Author:** ![Nukeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce7236/32.png) [@Nukeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nukeman)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-out-would-be-burglars-im-gettin-a-gun/32341/173 "2000-09-26T17:34:27Z")
Sorry, tracer, was that a LITTLE help from the brits? We provided quite a lot more than ‘a little help’. It was the BEF and the Belgans who held off the Germans in Belgum long enough to stop the Shifflen plan. Plus we had some of the best planes of the war like the sopwith camel - much better than the Neuport series. The SE5 was probably the best fighter plane of the entire war and much better than the Spad series. The fokker triplane design was copied from the Sopwith triplane design from earlier in the war. And where were the americans during all this? Sitting at home doing bugger all. Surely saying that the army back then was ‘well regulated’ is wishful thinking? this was over 80 years again guys - they hadnt invented SMGs then. A sawed off shotgun is hardly a military weapon nowadays. ---
**Author:** ![Demise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/34f0e0/32.png) [@Demise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demise)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-out-would-be-burglars-im-gettin-a-gun/32341/174 "2000-09-26T17:45:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nukeman \* > \*\*A sawed off shotgun is hardly a military weapon nowadays. \*\* I can think of two reasons off the top of my head that a short-barrel shotgun would be an extremely useful military weapon: urban warfare and opening doors. It would be an almost ideal weapon in house-to-house fighting. Using 3-1/4" magnum shells with 000 buckshot would be like shooting someone with a handful of 9mm rounds at a time. Plus, you have a closed, locked door? Not anymore. > [@](#): > > **And where were the americans during all this? Sitting at home doing bugger all.** So maybe you didn’t need our help? ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-out-would-be-burglars-im-gettin-a-gun/32341/175 "2000-09-26T17:55:59Z")
No, shotguns are still worthless. They have a low rate of fire, so you can’t cover a whole room; they have a very low ammo capacity, usually no more than 8 rounds; they have killer recoil; and they take forever to reload. Give me an AT-15 (or at least an Uzi) any day. ---
**Author:** ![Demise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/34f0e0/32.png) [@Demise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demise)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-out-would-be-burglars-im-gettin-a-gun/32341/176 "2000-09-26T19:06:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Alessan \* > \*\*No, shotguns are still worthless. They have a low rate of fire, so you can’t cover a whole room; they have a very low ammo capacity, usually no more than 8 rounds; they have killer recoil; and they take forever to reload. Give me an AT-15 (or at least an Uzi) any day. \*\* Yeah, maybe that Remington you just bought at Walmart has an 8 round magazine, a low rate of fire, and takes forever to reload. What are you doing taking a bird gun into combat anyhow? How about a bullpup semi- or fully-automatic shotgun with a 30 round drum? Why are you comparing sport or police style weapons with military ones? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-out-would-be-burglars-im-gettin-a-gun/32341/177 "2000-09-26T19:43:23Z")
Another reason the shotgun can be a very effective weapon: the 12-gauge slug. Can you say “ka-POW”, oh me brothers… ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-out-would-be-burglars-im-gettin-a-gun/32341/178 "2000-09-26T20:26:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Demise \* > > Yeah, maybe that Remington you just bought at Walmart has an 8 round magazine, a low rate of fire, and takes forever to reload. > > What are you doing taking a bird gun into combat anyhow? > > How about a bullpup semi- or fully-automatic shotgun with a 30 round drum? Why are you comparing sport or police style weapons with military ones? Frankly, I didn’t know such a weapon existed. Hmm… yeah, it looks efficient, but I’m worried about overspecialization. Sure, it would probably be the best weapon in the world (short of a flamethrower) for taking a room, but what about shooting people out of windows, or climbing to the roof to cover the street? In those cases, the weapon’s limited range would render it useless. No, the best all-around weapon is a carbine-length assault rifle, like the AR-15. By the way, IIRC, this whole argument started when somebody tried to prove that shotguns - the kind you buy at walmart - are viable “militia” weapons. Guess you proved my point. ---
**Author:** ![Nukeman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce7236/32.png) [@Nukeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nukeman)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-out-would-be-burglars-im-gettin-a-gun/32341/179 "2000-09-26T20:38:40Z")
I agree with Allesan - how often in house to house fighting are you going to need to shoot down a door. Most shooting woudl be fairly long range - across a street between houses for instance. I dont understand how a shotgun is going to shoot down a door anyway - my front door is solid hardwood and I dont think a shotgun would be able to do much to it. With other doors - why not just shoot the hinges or locks off with a normal weapon? ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2000, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-out-would-be-burglars-im-gettin-a-gun/32341/180 "2000-09-27T21:09:53Z")
Demise wrote: > [@](#): > > How about a bullpup semi- or fully-automatic shotgun with a 30 round drum? A decent ammo supply for such a beast must weigh a ton. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-out-would-be-burglars-im-gettin-a-gun/32341.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/look-out-would-be-burglars-im-gettin-a-gun/32341.md?page=10)