Clean Rating: Safe for work.
Shotgun More Dangerous Than AR15?
What do you think about this? This is a video letter to Minnesota Congressman Rick Nolan, and Senators Amy Klobucher and Al Franken that tries to prove a duck hunting shotgun is more destructive and lethal than a Huldra AR-15 modern sporting rifle. Do you agree? An interesting video and good point.
Related videos
View All
Add your comment
LOGIN OR JOIN TO COMMENTComments
Newest Videos
View All
Search Videos
Most popular videos
View All-
X-47B Taxi and Carrier-Based Launch
| Posted 1 week ago -
Female Soldier Grenade Toss Fail
| Posted 1 week ago -
Soldiers Kick Down Taliban's Door!
| Posted 4 days ago -
Russian Terminator Can't Be Killed
| Posted 4 days ago -
South African SWAT Shootouts
| Posted 5 days ago
-
Female Soldier Grenade Toss Fail
| Posted 1 week ago
-
X-47B Taxi and Carrier-Based Launch
| Posted 1 week ago
-
FSA Rebel Meets Demise by Own Hand
| Posted 1 week ago -
ADAM Laser Destroys Target
| Posted 1 week ago -
X-47B Lands at NAS Patuxent River
| Posted 1 week ago
-
Call Me Maybe - Troops vs. Cheerleaders
| Posted Nov 12, 2012 -
Osama's Sea Burial Caught on Tape
| Posted May 12, 2011 -
'UFO' on Truck Makes the News
| Posted Dec 19, 2011 -
The 'Best Of' Gun Accidents
| Posted Aug 03, 2011 -
Railgun Update from General Atomics
| Posted Apr 14, 2011
Oh no, that means that they will be taking them away too.......
A shotgun is the most lethal inside a home. Any size shotgun is death for any intruder inside of a home. During WWI the Germans wanted shotguns to be against the rules of war because a shotgun was so deadly in trenches.
Good solid video, but the politicians in Washington don't car.
The comparison of the Ar-15 to the shotgun was invalid. The first shooter fired five shots at each target. If you are a good shot, you only need two shots at most. The AR-15 round will go through sheet rock walls and even wood quite easily. Using an AR-15 against intruders INSIDE your home will endanger your family. If intruders are outside and attacking you, the AR-15 is preferred because of its range advantage over the shot gun. You would not use "00" shot to defend inside your home either because the pellets would act similarly to the 5.56-mm AR-15 rounds and penetrate walls. Regular buck shot or even bird shot is better because you get a bigger dispersion pattern. You do not necessarily need to kill an intruder, just stop him. In a room the blast effect alone from a 12-gauge is enough to scare most people into clearing out. When they get hit center of mass with 20 pellets, they will be stopped.
Their right. We need to ban shotguns too. Thanks gun range in Minnesota for enlightening us as to just how destructive some weapons are in the hands of people who would wish to shoot 6 year old children to death.
Something you may not have thought about, with a shotgun. I guarantee you that intruders would recognize the sound of a shotgun round being chambered in a pump shotgun. Trust me, the mere sound of a round being racked into the chamber would make me think of bugging outr.
I am definitely against gun control but do wish there was a way to prevent such awful incidents that happened in Sandy Hook. We have to fight the cause not the affect and part of the cause is such disenfranchisement in America which is leaving so many people helpless and despondent.But how better should we do at least by keeping guns out of the hands of nitwits. Getting past security is easy if the intent is to kill people in schools or wherever. Just storm the gates and get inside. Maybe the architecture of the schools has to change. But that's up to the school boards as to whether they want to change. Here in Altamonte Springs Florida they want to arm teachers becasue the schools are full of miscreants and parenting has no discipline becasue parents in many ways are miscreants. I am 68 and live alone in a condo going downhill. Should I get a gun? I would be like Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino I am afraid.
Dude doesn't really understand the nature of the task. It is political and nothing he has said really matters at this point. AS an example, in WWII we dropped over 3.5 million tons of bombs. Does anyone remember their names? Probably not. But there are two bombs that most people will remember. Fat Man and Little Boy. These were the names of the two nukes we dropped on Japan. We remember them because of their horrific destructive force and the massive loss of life they caused. The target is the assault type rifle because it was selected by obviously deranged individuals primarily because of it's ability to fire a large number of rounds quickly. It, not the shotgun or deer rifle, is branded as a weapon of mass destruction in the minds of the general public. The NRA should have spent more time educating the general public instead of convincing the already convinced that we need to buy more guns. Somewhere in the timeline, the NRA stopped being the protector of law abiding gun owners and became the marketing arm of the gun manufacturers. Their stance has given the impetus to well meaning but clueless people who think that banning certain firearms, is the best way forward.
I appreciate them making a video to dispel rumors involved with so called "assault weapons" but they seem to be confused about what point they're trying to make. First, they said that the shotgun is a better weapon for stopping more people quickly, but then turned around and said that the rifle was a better "personal defense weapon". It is a great weapon for defense, but they just proved that the shotgun was more effective. The reason that the AR-15 should not be illegal is not that it is not dangerous enough. It's because it's no more effective than any other rifle, and banning it won't help. A shotgun does run the risk of missing and hitting bystanders, but a rifle round is still lethal after exiting the target. I use a 9mm handgun with hollowpoints for this reason. It's sortof a myth that hollowpoints have more stopping power, but what they do have going for them in a personal defense sense is they bloom after entry and are much less likely to pass through and kill someone else. The truth is the best weapon for any situation is whichever weapon you're most comfortable with, I use a 9mm because I'm a surgeon with the thing, an amateur would do better with a shotgun.
I live in New York, I sent the Governor and every member of the state House when they rammed the new gun bill here in the middle of the night. You are absolutely right. No where does it mention hunting or sport shooting. I might add when one looks at the murder rates around the world we are much lower than countries with 100% gun control. I plan to move from New York as soon as financially possible. Still, Americans are in for a struggle...
Sorry, from previous statement, missing is what I sent them "a copy of the 2nd amendment".
this video proves that an AR-15 type weapon is not needed for home defense. A good shotgun would be more effective. Some here note that the shotgun is more dangerous, but the sad fact is assault type weapons are the weapon of choice for mass killings, not shotguns. No one wants to take the shotguns away, but the almost senseless love affair with what is basically a military weapon is ironic and deadly. BTW, countries with rigid gun controls have substantially lower murder rates than the US which is just about number one in the world! How embarrassing!
What I am wondering about. I read that the Sandy Hook Killer didn't even use an assault rifle. He use pistols. WHY are we so fixated on assault rifles? Could it be that these are the weapons that would be comparable to what the Govt will use against it's citizens and thus give the citizens a fighting chance??
There should be a designated spot in every State for crazy people to go and blow their heads off or whatever. This way they have an out and the rest of the world continues turning .
The overpenetration argument is bogus. Anything powerful enough to kill is powerful enough to go through sheetrock, end of discussion. Birdshot is for birds. It does not reliably stop large animals, such as people, which is why larger shot is sold for those purposes. A mass of small pellets acts like a fluid at velocity, does superficial damage and flattens against itself.
22490137: Wrong, wrong and wrong. Nice soundbites, devoid of facts. The US rates 24th in violent crime among Western nations, being much safer than Mexico (18th), Canada (top 5), Australia (top 5) and the UK (1st place). Our murder rate is higher than theirs, all over violent crimes are higher in those countries. Our murder rate is largely a factor of the War On (Some) Drugs, but is still well below world average. Less than 300 people a year are killed with any kind of rifle, so the "weapon of choice" soundbite, while cute, is irrelevant to the overall murder rate. SCOTUS says we do in fact have a right to own modern rifles, so it doesn't matter what you, or anyone else, thinks.
No one hunts duck with double 0 buck shot. I support your position, but lets be truthful.
The second Amendment is not about hunting it is about keeping Tyranny in government at bay. The one thing that all of the shootings have in common is all of the perps were on drugs, legal drugs that have side affects that are unpredictable. I think it is time to control the drug companies and all of their lies.