Why does Biden love shotguns?

Joe Biden wants you to buy a shotgun. He makes the dubious claim that it is easier to aim and use than an AR-15, and therefore a better choice.

What is behind this? Not public safety. Shotguns are used in more murders than rifles and neither comes close to the murder rate of those who use handguns.


Notice that the graph only says “rifles” and doesn’t designate military style rifles. Only a subset of the group labeled “rifles” is made up of military rifles and it is still a very small part of the overall firearm homicide rate.

So why focus on rifles when they represent only a minuscule part of violent crime in America? I think there are a couple reasons.

Shotguns and handguns may cause more mayhem in America, but they are not the tools of a militia. Insurgencies are not conducted with shotguns and handguns. A autocratic regime can tolerate handguns and shotguns in the hands of the people but it cannot tolerate a people armed with the tools of resistance. The gun grabbers are focusing on the very weapons the ownership of which the Founders intended to protected in the 2nd Amendment: the weapons of a well regulated militia.

Another more tactical reason is that, ultimately, the gun grabbers want to take the handguns and shotguns too. The recognize that attempting to banish handguns and shotguns would be overreach for the moment and are focusing on “assault” rifles as an incremental step.

To the non-gun owning public, an AR-15 looks scary. Modern sporting rifles are not the same tools grandpa had. The gun grabbers are exploiting public fear and ignorance of modern sporting rifles in order to crack open the door of banishment. Anyone who thinks the grabbers will stop when modern sporting rifles are banished is delusional. It is just the first step.

Ultimately, Biden’s claims of shotgun love are just a ploy to make he and the administration look less radical than they actually are. It has nothing to do with public safety. They want the rifles out of the hands of the citizenry as the first step in their ultimate goal of disarming the people.

Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Why does Biden love shotguns?

  1. James says:

    Shotguns and handguns cannot stop a town from being taken.
    They simply don’t have the range.
    Something with a 1,000+ yard range is required.

    • notamobster says:

      Well, you’re certainly not taking down a man-sized target @ 1000 yards with a .223 round. You can take a prairie dog at 450 w/ a .223 – but larger bipedal game requires more terminal energy at distance.

      The .223’s maximum effective range for a point target is 600 yards (MERPT means a shooter can hit the torso of a man 50% of the time). The length of the barrel is a huge factor as well. The M4 is limited to 600m while it’s older brother the M16A2 has 5.5″ of extra barrel and an increased MERPT out to 800m.

      You need a large caliber round at 1000 yards. I would say that 98% of the population, literally couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn at 1000 yards.

      Shotguns are quite effective for CQC situations. A double-barrel shotgun is stupid. They look cool, sure, but reloading every two shots? Not very effective.

      • R.D. Walker says:

        At a thousand yards, I really couldn’t find or see a subdued man sized target when I was a sniper, even through the rifle scope. I had to be directed to it by a spotter with a large spotting scope.

        Hitting it was possible, but not anything like a sure thing. Even in a slight breeze, I was holding left or right two or three feet. Without a scope on a cam, I would be aiming six or eight feet above the target too. Without a spotter to call the wind, I wouldn’t know where to aim.

        At 1000 yards, unless the sun was hitting them, even blaze orange targets were difficult to see with the naked eye if they were in the brush.

        At 800 yards, in no more than a slight breeze and with a spotter, the hits got more consistent. There were still a lot of misses.

        Without a spotter calling the wind, I don’t think I could be consistent out past about 600 or 700 yards.

        This was 7.62 NATO FMJ.

        • R.D. Walker says:

          I was actually in sniper school when the movie Lethal Weapon was playing in the post theater. I think my whole class was in the theater that night. When Gibson made the comment about a head shot at a thousand yards in high wind, we all busted out laughing. It wasn’t a laugh line in most theaters, but for this audience it sure was.

          Shots like that have been made. But they are a lot like shots like this:

          Yeah, they happen, but you aren’t going to make a career of them.

        • R.D. Walker says:

          Now, if you have your belt-fed machine gun on a tripod with sandbags on the feet and the T&E mechanism set for grazing or plunging fire at a 1,000 yards, that can be effective.

    • Smith says:

      This is just ridiculous. The army is not stopping enemies from overtaking a “town” with 1000+ yrd snipers. That is just stupid. 100yrd and less would be the range for that tactic. Infantry, not snipers.

      • Jim22 says:

        Smith, I think you are mistaken in your denigration of snipers. A group of people defending their town will need to use every tactic they have.

        I don’t believe that relying on snipers at any range is the whole answer but there are those unable to act as infantry. Many of them are infirm or old but have the ability to engage targets out to 300 yards. They could be effective support for the infantry.

        • notamobster says:

          I think he was referring to 1000+ yard snipers, not rifle-based fire support/overwatch.

          Anyone with a lick of sense can understand the usefulness of snipers as a force multiplier. He’s right about the 1000+ yards vs infantry and direct contact/engagement. He just wasn’t very tactful.

        • notamobster says:

          I think he was referring to 1000+ yard snipers, not rifle-based fire support/overwatch.

          Anyone with a lick of sense can understand the usefulness of snipers as a force multiplier. He’s right about the 1000+ yards vs infantry and direct contact/engagement. He just wasn’t very tactful.

  2. notamobster says:

    Sorry t go off the reservation there. Gun control has never been about the guns. It’s always been about the control. Refuse to register. Refuse to relinquish. Make them come and take it from you.

  3. Dennis Habern says:

    It has always been about citizen’s control. In my opinion, the

    Rothschild’s and “THE WORLD ORDER,” are synonymous, with

    George Soros acting as their agent. The Rothschild’s and Soros,

    are Jewish. Both are agents managing world funds. What does

    that indicate? Personally, I feel for the Israeli’s surrounded by

    their “FRIENDLY” neighbors but what else remains to be revealed

    in the Israeli’s quest to maintain their status of God’s protected


    • Uke says:

      I don’t get this line. Soros is an atheist. He’s not trying to be God’s protected child; he pretty much believes he is God.

      I don’t get the anti-Jewish thing in general, either. Never have. The way I see it, they’ve got all the right enemies.

      • Notamobster says:

        “They’ve got all the right enemies.”

        Excellent. Well said. Back when I was muslim, I had the strangest conversation ever. I debated the merits of Israel having the right to defend herself, with a Christian who supported the PLO.