I need to get me a duck hunting shotgun

I’ve been making the point in the last few posts that the issue we should be debating is violence limitation, not “gun control.”  This video makes the point perfectly:

Don’t let the 12 minute video run time deter you from watching this. And please . . . share it.

And while you’re at it, and we’re talking about ducks, you might want to give thought to the sitting ducks in England.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Danny Lemieux

    Yay! Spoken like true Vikings. Nice touch having women do the shooting.
    I do like my shotguns. However, he did mention they were using double-ought buck shot, which is not used for duck hunting.
    In an indoor home environments,  #4 (duck) would be lethally effective. You also don’t need magnum loads.

  • Freddie Sykes

    Just as you do not need an air marshal on every flight, you do not need armed guards at every school, every day. Having armed guards randomly assigned to the various schools of a district is a step in the right direction.

  • Caped Crusader

    Anyone familiar with tactical squads should know they are trained to take out shotguns first. I saw a show about a year ago on a sporting channel and they demonstrated quite convincingly that for home defense and close range a .410 shotgun was more than enough to take out anyone. Lighter and with much less recoil it would be much easier for a lady, elderly, or child to use adequately; no need to destroy more of your home than necessary.

  • lee

    I really don’t know many of the details, but one of my friends from high school was shot, many, many, many years ago, and remains paralyzed in a wheelchair. His girlfriend (now wife) was receiving threats from an ex-boyfriend (as was he.) They had a restraining order against him, but luckily, my friend also had a gun. One night, the ex decided to make good on his threats. They knew he was there before he broke in and called the police. The ex broke in and I think he had a revolver. He shot, my friend defended and the ex was sufficiently injured that I think it might have stopped him. (Though I think he also had, and used, a knife.) Under the various proposed legislation, my friend tells us, his weapon that evening would be banned, while his attacker’s would be legal. BTW, he is a VERY strong supporter of second amenment rights. Sure, the police were on their way before the ex broke in, but without the opportunity to defend themselves, my friend and his wife might very likely have been killed before the police arrived.

  • http://OgBlog.net Earl

    The only thing that hit me wrong was the idea that the shotgun was more likely to do damage to innocent bystanders than the AR-15. 
    I suspect that projectiles from the latter are perfectly capable of going right through the target’s body and the wall behind, thereby threatening someone in the next room or on the porch, or even perhaps even in the street.
    I’m not aware than any shotgun blast is capable of this.
    Happy to be corrected, if wrong.

  • Spartacus

    Excellent video, and part of a really interesting pistol-vs.-rifle-vs.shotgun debate on home defense.  Isn’t it nice how freely and civilly we can toss facts and logic around in a debate on guns over on this part of the Web?
    I think the best home defense weapon is going to vary for each person and each situation, but I would toss in a quick comment about size.  Inside of a building, I would much rather have a more “tactical” shotgun like a Mossberg 930 than the Anzio Annie shown in the video — popping around corners, not running into things, etc..  Also, a smaller weapon (and pistols are obiously the winners in that category) is easier to hide in various places around the house, where it will be easily accessible in time of need.  (Or locked away in a smaller and much less expensive safe, if the nature of the household makes simply hiding a weapon inadvisable).

  • Michael Adams

    We use squirrel shot in our 20 gauge.  The assailant would be inside the house, probably less than 20 feet from my wife.  The pattern at that range would be pretty severe, but nothing would penetrate a wall and hurt someone outside. The only time I ever used it, I went out a door on the opposite side of the house from the burglar,  getting the drop on him from behind. He turned and actually started toward me, until I shouldered the gun, and he sat on the ground, as instructed, until the police came.
    Whether with buck shot or bird shot, I do not hunt ducks,  Only kill what you eat, and I do not eat duck. When you get past the nasty taste of the super dark flesh, you get to bite down on some shot, which I managed OK in my twenties, but would break a tooth now, for sure.  Maybe California ducks are tastier, but Mr, Minnesota, Danny, and I are in the same flight pattern. Duck are yucky!

  • Caped Crusader

    Since nearly all of these people are mentally disturbed and/or wish to make a “statement” and achieve notoriety, fame, and become a part of “history”, I believe the following would stop 99% of these heinous multiple murders:
    Appointment of unimpeachable citizens who believe in the death penalty, and representing all spectra of the political thought, from far left to far right to a Federal Anonymity Commission. These acts would be handled by this commission whose duty would be to ascertain the FACTS as soon as possible and once there is no doubt as to the guilt of the perpetrator, they would be hung within seven days. No right of appeal or judicial stay. Anyone who mentioned their name in any media or historical source, or allowed them a way to achieve notoriety, would face a mandatory 20 years in prison w/o parole. This would remove nearly all the desire to plan and execute these multiple murders. Probably unachievable due to the overly complex judicial process that has evolved to the present day.

  • Caped Crusader

    At the same time you purchase your shotgun, if you were to purchase a huntin” and a fishin’  license you would qualify to become an honorary Tennessee Volunteer!

  • Jose

    BW, if you ever get a chance to shoot a shotgun on a trap range, or just informally, don’t pass it up.  It is a hoot!  A 20 gauge would probably suit you better than a 12.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    It would not interest the Left much to regulate violence or reduce it, since verbal violence is one of the LEft’s most favored tools in gaining and controlling slaves, whereas the threat of government physical violence is one of the Left’s most cherished ways to maintain control over their serfs and fiefdoms.
    The Democrat party may seem like they have their own political objectives, but those are mainly an illusion to hide the real objective of the Leftist alliance. Gun control to the LEft, is not an end in itself, mainly because Democrats like armed bodyguards and to carry their own weapons. It was only ever a means to an end: evil ends.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    A shotgun filled with buck shot, so to speak, will have a high spread, thus is more effective close up than farther away. Of course, if the enemy is too close to a dog or a family member, that becomes a liability rather than a bonus. While the gunpowder impulse is spread across the various pellets, so it doesn’t go through walls as much, but suffers a range limitation as a result. This is a trade off between linear penetration and wide angle coverage at short range. On the other hand, the solid slug for a shotgun focuses the powder charge in a straight line, and the heavy mass of it is easily able to punch straight through with more kinetic force at the end.
    Pistol ammo has similar effects, with JHP more effective for stopping people unarmored at close range than penetrating armor or walls. But the higher caliber, the more penetration there will be. FMJ copper jackets has more penetrative power, but less stopping power, which is why the 5.56mm is often known for not stopping drugged up insurgents. For some reason, NATO banned the “explosive” “dumb bell” like JHP bullets.
    There is no such thing as the perfect weapon nor “always do this” kind of stupidity claims. The only one that can make the correct judgment are well trained people on the field of battle, not sight seers thousands of miles away trying to micromanage somebody else’s fight. This applies whether one is saying “guns are X” or someone is saying “always shoot center mass”. There is no “always”. Life is a lot more complicated than what people like to distill down into some pithy 5 second sayings.
    Those that have the skill and accuracy to shoot people in the head with a pistol at medium to long range, exist. You may not have such skills, so for you, you should definitely “shoot center mass” so to speak, because to do otherwise means to miss. But for those with exceptional skills verging on super human or genius level, they don’t need to. They have a choice. And it is always about the rules and the individual warrior, not about “rules” imposed by average incompetents. There is always a consequence to choices, and so long as the individuals are aware of such, whether they want to do it or not is up to them. Not up to people armchairing the fight without any skin in the game.
    Of course, none of this has anything to do with DC or Democrats, because it is not so much politics they are working themselves up into a frenzy for, as the evil goals of the Utopian death cult.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    To clarify some things I wrote before. The reason why I don’t like these so called rules people mention a lot is because in other places, I’ve heard more than once a curious sense of superiority from Democrats or other like minded folks when it comes to gun usage. It’s not due to the people here mentioning various rule of thumbs, because I don’t think many here believe such rules always apply to everyone.
    But the various pro abortion crowd gun users and other slanted ideological factions, tend to view guns much as they view ethics or morality. Whatever belief they hold, they think everyone else should hold as well. If they would have as much luck throwing a knife at a burglar as shooting a gun at em (both miss), that means everyone else, including you and I, should be disarmed of knives and guns. Since their skill level is so base average that they need to shoot center mass with pistols at targets 5 meters away, that means everyone else, including you and I, must do the same thing, because anything else would be “foolish”. As clearly exemplified by their excellent following of the “wise” and “good” rules.
    Such authoritarian rule bound societies, I especially hate. Especially when their sense of superiority exposes them for the hypocritically weak users they are.
    That’s a small explanation for why forcing other people to obey rules designed to cater to weaklings or beginners, isn’t necessarily something I like.
    In almost any community, I will find a commonly accepted world view or a set of premises unchallenged or a set of rules that form the common sense agreement. But it’s very different when that group is full of incompetents who only think they know what is good, because they heard it from their authoritarian source. One person even told me shotguns were the best, and thus gun control is good, because the military uses shotguns to clear houses, so it must be good. Nobody ever told them the military also uses tanks to blow up the sides of houses and drive through em, nor did anyone tell them about how the length of shotguns is why most people are armed with bulpup design rifles in CQB. The shotgun is “used” to “clear” doors, obstacles, and shoot through light cover. Much like any tool, it has its plusses and minuses. The thing is, certain humans don’t like to think about anything more complex than food, sex, and shelter. It is those humans who are at the top of political power in the United States, but the underlings that think just like them, were around us for a lot longer than the last 4 years.
    The idea of the individual selecting tools that fixes their own problems, instead of some authoritarian guy Scribing out the Divine Word that everyone must obey, is something many people in the US find desirable. Something to remember, for that means there are a whole bunch of other people who prefer the latter over the former.