PDA

View Full Version : John Goodman: the truth about guns


vantec08
08-04-2012, 6:23 AM
http://townhall.com/columnists/johncgoodman/2012/08/04/the_truth_about_guns/page/full/

In a closed, crowded setting like a movie theater, the shotgun was probably the most lethal of the three. Every shotgun shell can spray a half-dozen or more pellets, each capable of killing or maiming a person. Twelve-gauge shotguns often fire five shells, and sometimes more, before needing to be reloaded. And unlike semiautomatics, they don't typically jam.

Yet in most American cities, just about anybody can buy a shotgun at the drop of a hat. Antigun activists and politicians almost never propose banning them.

Instead, the focus these days is on so-called "assault weapons."


. . .. .. which has been my argument with antis for years. Remember the big bad L.A. bank shootout? out of 1000s of AK rounds fired, there was only 9 injuries and no deaths.

Capybara
08-04-2012, 8:36 AM
I liked him in Barton Fink ;-)

G60
08-04-2012, 8:48 AM
Are there any reports released determining how many rounds were fired from each gun, or is he just asserting "the shotgun was probably the most lethal" with nothing to back up his opinion?

CBruce
08-04-2012, 8:57 AM
Are there any reports released determining how many rounds were fired from each gun, or is he just asserting "the shotgun was probably the most lethal" with nothing to back up his opinion?

He's asserting its the most lethal in the particular situation it was used, and I agree with him. 00 buckshot is devastating up to medium range and the weapon itself is far more reliable than an AR using one of those novelty 100 round magazines firing .223

But I agree its pointless to single out one thing over another without the relevant facts. How many shots were fired from each weapon, how many victims were hit, how many lethalities, etc. It's morbid, but relevant to the discussion when talking about the urgent need to restrict a certain type of firearm.

Is be very surprised if the AR was responsible for doing the most damage that day.

G60
08-04-2012, 9:26 AM
It's like he's saying "don't ban this, you should be trying to ban this instead..."

Remember the VPC just cited the old "semi automatic is more deadly than full auto" argument that we sometimes make in one of their studies released after Aurora.

vantec08
08-04-2012, 9:34 AM
He's asserting its the most lethal in the particular situation it was used, and I agree with him. 00 buckshot is devastating up to medium range and the weapon itself is far more reliable than an AR using one of those novelty 100 round magazines firing .223

But I agree its pointless to single out one thing over another without the relevant facts. How many shots were fired from each weapon, how many victims were hit, how many lethalities, etc. It's morbid, but relevant to the discussion when talking about the urgent need to restrict a certain type of firearm.

Is be very surprised if the AR was responsible for doing the most damage that day.

Yep. I've see what "low recoil" 00 buck can do to the side of a car about about 50 feet. And what a slug can do at 50 yards.

hornswaggled
08-04-2012, 9:43 AM
It's like he's saying "don't ban this, you should be trying to ban this instead..."

Remember the VPC just cited the old "semi automatic is more deadly than full auto" argument that we sometimes make in one of their studies released after Aurora.

I didn't read it that way. He's using a lot of pro-gun arguments I've personally heard and use to help dissuade the "so-called 'assault weapon'" ban sentiments among the less-informed.

loved him in "Raising Arizona"

Bert Gamble
08-04-2012, 11:34 AM
I agree that the shotgun is the most deadly. They are awesome.

wash
08-04-2012, 12:51 PM
Don't fall in to the anti trap of categorizing arms.

This is just a case of a nut slipping through the cracks. He was in counseling at the university and his counselor reported him to some university threat assessment team or something but they didn't go the required step of a 5150, involuntary hold or whatever it is called.

Also this attack could have been stopped or prevented if he knew that members of the audience could have shot back. That didn't happen because he knew they were disarmed.

donw
08-04-2012, 1:31 PM
one factor that must be kept in mind about shotgun vs AR is accuracy.

the shotgun can merely be pointed in a CLOSE proximity where the AR, or any other single projectile firing, semi or full auto, firearm has to be aimed more precisely.

so it's possible to take out multiple targets with one round of 00 or even 0000 than one round of an AR/centerfire/rimfire at close range.

conventional LE/SD/HD shooting mantra is "Center of mass"; the shotgun needs simply to be pointed in the direction of the target's center of mass, for the biggest part and a hit, or multiple hits, are all but guaranteed.

IMO, legislators do not fear shotguns as shotguns are a CLOSE PROXIMITY firearm. we all know what trained snipers are capable of with centerfire, specialized rifles; THEY are the ones feared by legislators.

Lagduf
08-04-2012, 1:37 PM
we all know what trained snipers are capable of with centerfire, specialized rifles; THEY are the ones feared by legislators.

In CA they can shoot down airplanes! :p

CBruce
08-04-2012, 2:10 PM
It's like he's saying "don't ban this, you should be trying to ban this instead..."

Remember the VPC just cited the old "semi automatic is more deadly than full auto" argument that we sometimes make in one of their studies released after Aurora.

Gun-supporters have been throwing around facts about car accidents, number of murders commited with knives, and other things of that nature. 'Cars or more deadly, who don't we ban cars?'

Frankly, if we're going to have conversations about gun-control laws, I'd rather we were focused on the right things. Banning "assault weapons" makes no logical sense. Neither does putting limits on how much ammo a person can buy. Neither one of those things, which are being proposed as needed laws following this incedent, have any bearing on what actually happened. The "assault weapon" in question was arguably not effective. We know it jammed, we know it was discarded, we don't know how many people were actually shot with it prior to that or, more importantly what percentage of the deaths were caused by that particular weapon. So why single it out? Why say this incedent would have never happened if the "assualt weapons" ban hadn't expired when this guy has two other types of weapons that weren't "assault weapons" and the capability of manufacturing explosives.

Likewise, limits on buying large amounts of ammo is equally as stupid because the limits proposed are easy to 1) get around (just order 999 rounds every 6 days) and 2) have no relevance to this incedent or other incedents because no shooting or rampage killing using firearms has ever involved 1000s of rounds. It's simply not possible or even remotely feasible to carry that much ammo at one time. Witnesses reported around 50 shots fired that day. Tell me how not being able to stockpile an arsenal of 6000 rounds would have changed anything?

Banning handguns at least has some statistical backing to it. They are, unarguably, a major factor in murders and violent crime. That's a rational place we can start to have real conversations about the pros and cons of having a hanguns available to citizens and ferret out exactly why they are a major factor in murders and violent crimes. Is it because of cost and availibilty? Concealable? Are they used more often in legal ways than illegal ways? Would restricting them more than they already are reduce crime and murder, or would criminals switch to a different type of weapon and increase violence against people now incapable of defending themselves? All legitimate things to sort out through discussion of actual facts and statistics...not polarized rhetoric.

M. D. Van Norman
08-04-2012, 2:24 PM
The well-aimed shot is deadly to an individual. Spray and pray can suppress multiple individuals.