Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDgHi...layer_embedded

Even less with a Harbor Freight Multifunction Miracle Tool.

---
Video is part of construction of self-defense shelter (shotgun is wielded by
robotic sentry).
http://www.asylum.com/2010/08/31/survival-shelter-chad-person/?icid=main|main|dl4|sec1_lnk3|168411

On 2010-09-06, HeyBub wrote:

Video is part of construction of self-defense shelter (shotgun is wielded by
robotic sentry).
http://www.asylum.com/2010/08/31/survival-shelter-chad-person/?icid=main|main|dl4|sec1_lnk3|168411


He definitely gets my vote as person most likely to kill himself
and/or his entire family REAL SOON!

nb

On 9/7/2010 12:21 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 23:15:04 GMT, wrote:

On 2010-09-06, wrote:

Video is part of construction of self-defense shelter (shotgun is wielded by
robotic sentry).
http://www.asylum.com/2010/08/31/survival-shelter-chad-person/?icid=main|main|dl4|sec1_lnk3|168411


He definitely gets my vote as person most likely to kill himself
and/or his entire family REAL SOON!

nb

Certainly a good way to go to jail anyway. If you are going to do
this, be sure the pipe is 18" long and the whole thing is 26" long or
you have violated NFA34, the same charge as having an illegal machine
gun.

Perhaps the feds will think it's just a pipe bomb and ignore it. You
could also claim it's a bong for smoking fine tobacco products. 8-)

TDD

HeyBub wrote:
Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDgHi...layer_embedded

Even less with a Harbor Freight Multifunction Miracle Tool.

---
Video is part of construction of self-defense shelter (shotgun is wielded by
robotic sentry).
http://www.asylum.com/2010/08/31/survival-shelter-chad-person/?icid=main|main|dl4|sec1_lnk3|168411


Just buy a single shot shot gun, saw off the barrel, saw off the stock
and you have the same thing with a better trigger mechanism.

--
LSMFT

I look outside this morning and everything was in 3D!

On 2010-09-07, LSMFT wrote:

Just buy a single shot shot gun, saw off the barrel, saw off the stock
and you have the same thing with a better trigger mechanism.

I hafta suspect there was an alternative reason why this fellow made
such a crappy gun. I mean, the guy has a laser guided chop saw, but
holds the barrel to the stock with twine, ferchrysakes. What? He
doesn't know what a hose clamp is? And a freakin' rubber band!? I
have no doubt the guy hadda think long and hard to come up with a gun
that bad.

nb

On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:04:39 GMT, notbob wrote:
On 2010-09-07, LSMFT wrote:

Just buy a single shot shot gun, saw off the barrel, saw off the stock
and you have the same thing with a better trigger mechanism.

I hafta suspect there was an alternative reason why this fellow made
such a crappy gun. I mean, the guy has a laser guided chop saw, but
holds the barrel to the stock with twine, ferchrysakes. What? He
doesn't know what a hose clamp is? And a freakin' rubber band!? I
have no doubt the guy hadda think long and hard to come up with a gun
that bad.

What do you expect from somebody who lacks the social or economic
skills to buy a used shotgun. He isn't an adult nor does he have
any adult friends. The whole thing is just a pipe dream.

If he wasn't such a joke, he might actually manage to be dangerous to
himself. Probably greater than 99.9% of all such boobytraps nail the
owner as it is almost always the owner who sets off the alarm.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Video is part of construction of self-defense shelter (shotgun is wielded
by robotic sentry).
http://www.asylum.com/2010/08/31/survival-shelter-chad-person/?icid=main|main|dl4|sec1_lnk3|168411

Somehow a guy who posts video of himself committing a felony doesn't come
across as someone one would wish to emulate.

On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:04:39 +0000, notbob wrote:

On 2010-09-07, LSMFT wrote:

Just buy a single shot shot gun, saw off the barrel, saw off the stock
and you have the same thing with a better trigger mechanism.

I hafta suspect there was an alternative reason why this fellow made
such a crappy gun. I mean, the guy has a laser guided chop saw,

My cat didn't like it.

but
holds the barrel to the stock with twine, ferchrysakes. What? He
doesn't know what a hose clamp is? And a freakin' rubber band!? I have
no doubt the guy hadda think long and hard to come up with a gun that
bad.

nb

wrote:
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 13:40:37 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

DGDevin wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Video is part of construction of self-defense shelter (shotgun is
wielded by robotic sentry).
http://www.asylum.com/2010/08/31/survival-shelter-chad-person/?icid=main|main|dl4|sec1_lnk3|168411

Somehow a guy who posts video of himself committing a felony doesn't
come across as someone one would wish to emulate.

It's only for shooting flares from his dingy in case he's in
imminent peril from a man-eating giant squid. Perfectly legal
(unless he taunted the squid in the first place).


I imagine if it will chamber a 2 3/4" shotgun shell the BATFE will
call it a short barreled shotgun. A flare pistol won't.

Heh!

Check out Aquila shot shells. You can load 10 in a 7-shot 12 gauge magazine.
http://www.the-armory.com/shopsite_s..._12ga_Min.html

Nevertheless, the ATF frowns on modifying a flare gun into a weapon:
http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/20...e-inserts.html

The tests were conducted on PLASTIC flare guns (the only kind readily
available). What would happen to a pre-WWII BRASS flare gun is yet to be
seen.

Who cares about ATF and their silly regulations on gun length, you
say?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"LSMFT"
wrote in message ...

Just buy a single shot shot gun, saw off the barrel, saw off the stock
and you have the same thing with a better trigger mechanism.

--
LSMFT

I look outside this morning and everything was in 3D!

Even an emu, stupid bird that it is, wouldn't emulate that.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...

Somehow a guy who posts video of himself committing a felony doesn't
come
across as someone one would wish to emulate.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Video is part of construction of self-defense shelter (shotgun is
wielded
by robotic sentry).

http://www.asylum.com/2010/08/31/survival-shelter-chad-person/?icid=main|main|dl4|sec1_lnk3|168411

Somehow a guy who posts video of himself committing a felony doesn't come
across as someone one would wish to emulate.

I expect he's preparing for a "Book of Eli" future where their won't be much
in the way of societal structure. I read an interesting article a while
back about how home-made guns may one day be declared exempt from regulation
since gun laws rest on the commerce clause. If there's no commerce,
regulation becomes overreaching. Of course, the pot lobby's tried that path
and failed, but that's because pot, unlike "arms" is mostly illegal and
doesn't have a named place in the Constitution. With the draconian DC gun
law in the dumpster, I wouldn't be surprised if other draconian laws fall as
well. I mean what practical reason is there to ban something like this:

http://www.fourten.org.uk/nostalgia26.html

when you can buy a Smith and Wesson 500 pistol that can shoot through walls,
quite legally?

If you're going to build your own shotgun, why not go all the way?

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...arrel-shotgun/

--
Bobby G.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

Somehow a guy who posts video of himself committing a felony doesn't
come across as someone one would wish to emulate.

It's only for shooting flares from his dingy in case he's in imminent
peril from a man-eating giant squid. Perfectly legal (unless he taunted
the squid in the first place).

Firearm booby traps--I.e. spring guns, set guns--are illegal pretty much
everywhere, except perhaps in states where it is legal for cousins to marry
and Glenn Beck isn't considered a comedy act.

On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 08:00:50 -0400, LSMFT wrote:


Just buy a single shot shot gun, saw off the barrel, saw off the stock
and you have the same thing with a better trigger mechanism.

Why? That messes up a perfectly good shotgun.

This guy can make them all day, one every eight minutes, and sell to
the police during a gun buy back program. Maybe fifty bucks a piece.

As for a "better trigger", just buy a bang stick that divers use
around sharks. No trigger at all, just poke 'em and the ting goes off.

--
*does high-kicking dance while shooting pistols in the air*

Oren wrote:
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 08:00:50 -0400, LSMFT wrote:

Just buy a single shot shot gun, saw off the barrel, saw off the stock
and you have the same thing with a better trigger mechanism.

Why? That messes up a perfectly good shotgun.

This guy can make them all day, one every eight minutes, and sell to
the police during a gun buy back program. Maybe fifty bucks a piece.

As for a "better trigger", just buy a bang stick that divers use
around sharks. No trigger at all, just poke 'em and the ting goes off.

Should we not crosspost this to a lawyer-site??

On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 15:58:15 -0700, "DGDevin"
wrote:

Firearm booby traps--I.e. spring guns, set guns--are illegal pretty much
everywhere, except perhaps in states where it is legal for cousins to marry
and Glenn Beck isn't considered a comedy act.

I have spring loaded push button knives in my collection.

Please help me understand what a cousin and a comic has to do with the
matter. Only thing I can figure is that you attack folks that don't
agree with you.

Did you know some years ago, you had to own a gun to live in a
community? Other communities denied approval, if you owned a gun.
(based on local laws in both cases).

On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:03:19 +0200, Sjouke Burry
wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 08:00:50 -0400, LSMFT wrote:

Just buy a single shot shot gun, saw off the barrel, saw off the stock
and you have the same thing with a better trigger mechanism.

Why? That messes up a perfectly good shotgun.

This guy can make them all day, one every eight minutes, and sell to
the police during a gun buy back program. Maybe fifty bucks a piece.

As for a "better trigger", just buy a bang stick that divers use
around sharks. No trigger at all, just poke 'em and the ting goes off.

Should we not crosspost this to a lawyer-site??

Why?

What part of the globe are you on?

I've met and processed F. Lee Bailey, so he could visit his client.
That lawyer is really short.

"The Defense Never Rests: A Lawyer's Quest for the Gospel"
F. Lee Bailey

On 9/7/2010 1:40 PM, HeyBub wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
wrote in message
m...

Video is part of construction of self-defense shelter (shotgun is
wielded by robotic sentry).
http://www.asylum.com/2010/08/31/survival-shelter-chad-person/?icid=main|main|dl4|sec1_lnk3|168411
Somehow a guy who posts video of himself committing a felony doesn't
come across as someone one would wish to emulate.
It's only for shooting flares from his dingy in case he's in imminent peril
from a man-eating giant squid. Perfectly legal (unless he taunted the squid
in the first place).



Funny because the video reminded me of Squidbillies.

Jim

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 18:56:04 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

I mean what practical reason is there to ban something like this:

http://www.fourten.org.uk/nostalgia26.html

As long as the barrel is rifled there is no problem with a 410 pistol.
There are a number of revolvers in the commercial market.

http://www.taurususa.com/gun-selecto...s=41&toggle=tr

among others.

I believe at least some of the Game Getters were in violation of the length
regulations although further reading seems to indicate that the GG has
finally achieved "Curios and Relics" status and can be owned with the
payment of a nuisance tax.

The point I was trying to make is "how much damage can a .22/410 single shot
combo do compared to any number of modern hi-capacity .40 pistols or .50
monsters like the Desert Eagle or the S&W 500?" There doesn't seem to be
much rhyme or reason to what's not allowed when you look at killing power
per second instead of somewhat irrelevant things like barrel length. IIRC,
black powder muzzle loaders are unregulated, and I know of cases where
people have been killed by projectiles from such guns that passed through a
car door and then completely through the victim. I wonder if muzzle loaders
got a pass because they were too close to the weapons Congress had in mind
when writing the 2nd Amendment?

--
Bobby G.

On 9/6/2010 1:15 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDgHi...layer_embedded

Even less with a Harbor Freight Multifunction Miracle Tool.

---
Video is part of construction of self-defense shelter (shotgun is wielded by
robotic sentry).
http://www.asylum.com/2010/08/31/survival-shelter-chad-person/?icid=main|main|dl4|sec1_lnk3|168411



FWIW:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/i...rreled-shotgun

Jim

Oren wrote:
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 03:03:19 +0200, Sjouke Burry
wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 08:00:50 -0400, LSMFT wrote:

Just buy a single shot shot gun, saw off the barrel, saw off the stock
and you have the same thing with a better trigger mechanism.
Why? That messes up a perfectly good shotgun.

This guy can make them all day, one every eight minutes, and sell to
the police during a gun buy back program. Maybe fifty bucks a piece.

As for a "better trigger", just buy a bang stick that divers use
around sharks. No trigger at all, just poke 'em and the ting goes off.

Should we not crosspost this to a lawyer-site??

Why?

Well sharkgun , excess of sharks(pardon me, lawyers), hmmm..

On Sep 7, 11:07*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Even an emu, stupid bird that it is, wouldn't emulate that.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"DGDevin" wrote in message

m...

Somehow a guy who posts video of himself committing a felony doesn't
come
across as someone one would wish to emulate.

Emus are not stupid.

"Oren" wrote in message
...

Firearm booby traps--I.e. spring guns, set guns--are illegal pretty much
everywhere, except perhaps in states where it is legal for cousins to
marry
and Glenn Beck isn't considered a comedy act.

I have spring loaded push button knives in my collection.

That's nice, what does that factoid have to do with it being illegal to set
up a booby-trap with a firearm to protect your property?

Please help me understand what a cousin and a comic has to do with the
matter.

My mistake, some people are not equipped with a sense of humor.

Only thing I can figure is that you attack folks that don't
agree with you.

Do you feel attacked?

Did you know some years ago, you had to own a gun to live in a
community? Other communities denied approval, if you owned a gun.
(based on local laws in both cases).

Why do I feel as if I'm reading a translation from another language?

A) I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment, and B) I still don't
understand what this has to do with setting up lethal booby-traps on your
property.

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...

The point I was trying to make is "how much damage can a .22/410 single
shot
combo do compared to any number of modern hi-capacity .40 pistols or .50
monsters like the Desert Eagle or the S&W 500?" There doesn't seem to be
much rhyme or reason to what's not allowed when you look at killing power
per second instead of somewhat irrelevant things like barrel length.

Presumably the issue is whether the firearm is readily concealable, so
barrel length is completely relevant. A law abiding citizen going duck
hunting doesn't care if his shotgun is four feet long, but a criminal on his
way to rob the Kwik-E-Mart wants a shotgun he can hide under this coat.

IIRC,
black powder muzzle loaders are unregulated, and I know of cases where
people have been killed by projectiles from such guns that passed through
a
car door and then completely through the victim. I wonder if muzzle
loaders
got a pass because they were too close to the weapons Congress had in mind
when writing the 2nd Amendment?

Firearms law is full of irrational measures, but in the case of a sawn-off
shotgun (or one made to be that small) that does seem to be a weapon of
interest almost exclusively to criminals.

DGDevin wrote:

Presumably the issue is whether the firearm is readily concealable, so
barrel length is completely relevant. A law abiding citizen going
duck hunting doesn't care if his shotgun is four feet long, but a
criminal on his way to rob the Kwik-E-Mart wants a shotgun he can
hide under this coat.

The 2nd Amendment says nothing about Bambi or ducks, so give up on the
"sporting use" argument. (When the 2nd Amendment was written, the activity
we now called "sport" was called "getting dinner".)

As for being the weapon of choice for criminals, depriving law-abiding
citizens of something because that something can be used by criminals is
equally specious.

On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 11:26:14 -0700, "DGDevin"
wrote:

"Oren" wrote in message
.. .

Firearm booby traps--I.e. spring guns, set guns--are illegal pretty much
everywhere, except perhaps in states where it is legal for cousins to
marry
and Glenn Beck isn't considered a comedy act.

I have spring loaded push button knives in my collection.

That's nice, what does that factoid have to do with it being illegal to set
up a booby-trap with a firearm to protect your property?

Don't use spring loaded devices, as they are illegal? You brought it
up, I was commenting on a collection of _now_ illegal spring loaded
knives.

Please help me understand what a cousin and a comic has to do with the
matter.

My mistake, some people are not equipped with a sense of humor.

Okay I get it, now.


Only thing I can figure is that you attack folks that don't
agree with you.

Do you feel attacked?


Not in the slightest bit. I find you quiet harmless.

Did you know some years ago, you had to own a gun to live in a
community? Other communities denied approval, if you owned a gun.
(based on local laws in both cases).

Why do I feel as if I'm reading a translation from another language?

shrugs It was a question.

A) I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment, and B) I still don't
understand what this has to do with setting up lethal booby-traps on your
property.

"Springs"?

"Oren" wrote in message
news
I have spring loaded push button knives in my collection.

That's nice, what does that factoid have to do with it being illegal to
set
up a booby-trap with a firearm to protect your property?

Don't use spring loaded devices, as they are illegal? You brought it
up, I was commenting on a collection of _now_ illegal spring loaded
knives.

I see, so you figure my comment about booby-traps applies to anything you
own that has springs in it--mattresses, a wind-up alarm clock, the
suspension of your car.... Alrighty then, thanks for playing and enjoy your
consolation prize.

My mistake, some people are not equipped with a sense of humor.

Okay I get it, now.

Or maybe not so much.

Only thing I can figure is that you attack folks that don't
agree with you.

Do you feel attacked?


Not in the slightest bit. I find you quiet harmless.

So this is just maintenance complaining?

Why do I feel as if I'm reading a translation from another language?

shrugs It was a question.

One that made little sense.

A) I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment, and B) I still don't
understand what this has to do with setting up lethal booby-traps on your
property.

"Springs"?

Spring-gun is a term originally for a firearm used as a booby-trap to kill
or wound poachers, it doesn't mean anything you own that has a spring in it.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

DGDevin wrote:

Presumably the issue is whether the firearm is readily concealable, so
barrel length is completely relevant. A law abiding citizen going
duck hunting doesn't care if his shotgun is four feet long, but a
criminal on his way to rob the Kwik-E-Mart wants a shotgun he can
hide under this coat.

The 2nd Amendment says nothing about Bambi or ducks, so give up on the
"sporting use" argument. (When the 2nd Amendment was written, the activity
we now called "sport" was called "getting dinner".)

Did I claim the 2nd Amendment referred to hunting and/or sporting arms? No?
Then why are you pretending I did?

At the time the individual weapons owned by citizens and the individual
weapons used by the military were essentially identical. So it makes sense
to me that the Framers had in mind weapons analogous to the weapons owned by
the average citizen when the amendment was written--muskets/rifles,
shotguns, handguns--all of which could be owned and used (then or now) for
entirely legal purposes.

A sawed-off shotgun, on the other hand, appears to be a weapon that a
law-abiding citizen would have little if any interest in. So not only is it
not analogous to the class of weapons owned by citizens at the time the 2nd
Amendment was written, it would seem to be of value only to criminals and
thus its restriction appears to me to be reasonable.

As for being the weapon of choice for criminals, depriving law-abiding
citizens of something because that something can be used by criminals is
equally specious.

Reading comprehension issues today? Try again. Any firearm *can* be used
by criminals, but I didn't write that a cut-down shotgun *can* be used by
criminals, I wrote that it is useful (probably) only to criminals.
Restricting firearms purely on the basis that they could be used by
criminals would make no sense since that means any and all firearms (not
that some folks wouldn't try). But a cut-down shotgun would seem to be a
weapon of particular and perhaps exclusive interest to criminals. You're
not going to hunt with such a weapon, there seem to be no competitive uses
for such a weapon, and for self-defense purposes there are preferable
alternatives. Frankly, if someone suggested removing the buttstock and most
of the barrel from my 870 to make it a better defensive weapon I would
conclude they had suffered a serious head injury.

Again, I like the 2nd Amendment, so don't try to paint me otherwise.

On 9/8/2010 4:04 PM, DGDevin wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message
news
I have spring loaded push button knives in my collection.

That's nice, what does that factoid have to do with it being illegal
to set
up a booby-trap with a firearm to protect your property?

Don't use spring loaded devices, as they are illegal? You brought it
up, I was commenting on a collection of _now_ illegal spring loaded
knives.

I see, so you figure my comment about booby-traps applies to anything
you own that has springs in it--mattresses, a wind-up alarm clock, the
suspension of your car.... Alrighty then, thanks for playing and
enjoy your consolation prize.

My mistake, some people are not equipped with a sense of humor.

Okay I get it, now.

Or maybe not so much.

Only thing I can figure is that you attack folks that don't
agree with you.

Do you feel attacked?


Not in the slightest bit. I find you quiet harmless.

So this is just maintenance complaining?

Why do I feel as if I'm reading a translation from another language?

shrugs It was a question.

One that made little sense.

A) I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment, and B) I still don't
understand what this has to do with setting up lethal booby-traps on
your
property.

"Springs"?

Spring-gun is a term originally for a firearm used as a booby-trap to
kill or wound poachers, it doesn't mean anything you own that has a
spring in it.

This thread could get real ugly.

*http://tinyurl.com/2693edv*


Jim

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
"Robert Green" wrote in message
...

The point I was trying to make is "how much damage can a .22/410 single
shot
combo do compared to any number of modern hi-capacity .40 pistols or .50
monsters like the Desert Eagle or the S&W 500?" There doesn't seem to
be
much rhyme or reason to what's not allowed when you look at killing
power
per second instead of somewhat irrelevant things like barrel length.

Presumably the issue is whether the firearm is readily concealable, so
barrel length is completely relevant. A law abiding citizen going duck
hunting doesn't care if his shotgun is four feet long, but a criminal on
his
way to rob the Kwik-E-Mart wants a shotgun he can hide under this coat.

I have to disagree. A criminal wants firepower. A sawed-off double barrel
"two and you're through" gun is no match for a pair of Glocks you can stick
in your pocket. Not enough "horsepower?" S&W makes their .50 caliber
pistol in a very nice short barrel. AFAIK, a shotgun won't stop a bull
elephant but the S&W 500 will.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/outd...eation/1277336

"When the .44 Magnum laid claim to being the most powerful handgun in the
world, its standard load produced about 900 ft.-lb. of muzzle energy . . .
The 500 S&W Magnum will produce almost 2600 ft.-lb. with its heaviest load,
and more powerful loads may well be on the way."

Those are legal, but a sawed-off shotgun isn't? There has to be some
acknowledgment of killing power in the law for it to make much sense. IIRC,
the SBS (short barrel shotgun) provisions of the law derived in part from
the hysteria concerning the sawed off shotgun that Dillinger allegedly
carried in a special pocket sewn inside his pant leg that led to the
erroneous belief that he was hung like a horse.

IIRC,
black powder muzzle loaders are unregulated, and I know of cases where
people have been killed by projectiles from such guns that passed
through
a
car door and then completely through the victim. I wonder if muzzle
loaders
got a pass because they were too close to the weapons Congress had in
mind
when writing the 2nd Amendment?

Firearms law is full of irrational measures, but in the case of a sawn-off
shotgun (or one made to be that small) that does seem to be a weapon of
interest almost exclusively to criminals.

I have to disagree here, as well. The first SBS I ever saw was owned by a
DC cop who kept it stored in a very neat hidden compartment in his
nightstand. It was there so that his wife could defend herself against
someone breaking in looking for him (it had already happened before and he
was very apprehensive about it). The SBS takes no shooting skill, will
disable an attacker quickly and unlike, say a S&W .500 won't shoot through
three or four wallboard walls on its way to killing the next door neighbor.
When I pointed out the SBS's illegality, he just shrugged and said "Better
to be tried by six men in a box than carried out by six men in box."

An SBS is a tool, like any other tool. Prohibiting ownership because of what
a bad guy "might" do with it seems to a bass-ackwards way to do things. Yet
society prides itself on its sometimes ****-stomping stupid solutions. I
think Class II drugs should be available like M&Ms so that those who would
be foolish enough to misuse them would die the way Darwin intends. Kids
would see their friends die from taking huge doses of Oxycontin and might
decide to stay away and to stay alive. When Len Bias died of a humongous
crack overdose (they called it "freebase" back then), the use of cocaine on
the U. of Maryland campus dropped like a paralyzed falcon.

Now I will readily agree that there was a need to eliminate machine guns
from the scene after the era of Bonnie and Clyde (although many gun
historians believe the number of Tommy guns in the hands of criminals was
vastly overstated in the press of that era). Society was ill-served when
almost anyone could get the gun that Col. Thompson wrongly believed would
end violent crime in America. Regulators, as per usual, began trying to
control the entire universe in addition to their primary target - the Tommy
gun that had huge drum magazines and .45 caliber rounds that could deliver
awesome firepower. There's no need *I* can see for full-auto weapons in the
hands of the general public. I think we can be assured that had they been
available to morons like the Columbine Killer Kids, the death toll would
have been spectacularly higher.

I am sure of one thing. If I had been in the LIRR railroad car with mass
murderer Colin Ferguson, I would have much preferred him to have a sawed off
shotgun than a modern day Ruger 9mm automatic pistol loaded with Black Talon
bullets. He killed six and wounded 19.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Ferguson_(convict)

Show me the sawed off shotgun that can do that kind of damage and is as
concealable as the Ruger 9 and a bag full of ammo (he allegedly had 150
rounds). That's why the SBS law makes so very little sense in the face of
the capabilities of the modern handgun.

--
Bobby G.

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...

I have to disagree. A criminal wants firepower. A sawed-off double
barrel
"two and you're through" gun is no match for a pair of Glocks you can
stick
in your pocket.

Your average liquor store robber can't afford a pair of Glocks, he's going
to have some piece-of-crap Lorcin or something similar, a .32 or .380--that
he can afford. Or maybe he's going to have a cut-down shotgun that was
stolen from some knucklehead who left it unsecured in his home or vehicle so
it could easily be stolen and chopped down. Tour your local PD seized
weapons lockup sometime, note that for every Glock or other handgun on the
pricey side there are a barrelful of old rifles and shotguns, many of them
stolen, that have ended up being used in crimes, aside from the crap-quality
handguns that street punks can afford.

"When the .44 Magnum laid claim to being the most powerful handgun in the
world, its standard load produced about 900 ft.-lb. of muzzle energy . . .
The 500 S&W Magnum will produce almost 2600 ft.-lb. with its heaviest
load,
and more powerful loads may well be on the way."

Let us know when significant numbers of street thugs start carrying $1,000
revolvers with ammo at $2.50 a round. In the meantime the argument that
cut-down shotguns shouldn't be illegal because such hand cannons are
available strikes me as odd.

Firearms law is full of irrational measures, but in the case of a
sawn-off
shotgun (or one made to be that small) that does seem to be a weapon of
interest almost exclusively to criminals.

I have to disagree here, as well. The first SBS I ever saw was owned by a
DC cop who kept it stored in a very neat hidden compartment in his
nightstand. It was there so that his wife could defend herself against
someone breaking in looking for him (it had already happened before and he
was very apprehensive about it). The SBS takes no shooting skill, will
disable an attacker quickly and unlike, say a S&W .500 won't shoot through
three or four wallboard walls on its way to killing the next door
neighbor.
When I pointed out the SBS's illegality, he just shrugged and said "Better
to be tried by six men in a box than carried out by six men in box."

I used to shoot at a range where the operators hated those nights when cops
or prison guards came in to shoot because that's when they had lights shot
off the ceiling, the safety barricades shot up, furrows dug in the floor and
walls etc. The fact that a cop does something does not mean it's a smart
thing to do. Hell, I knew a cop who got fired for "jokingly" pointing his
weapon at other cops. The first time they chewed his ass, the second time
he did it his feet didn't touch the floor on his way out of the building,
badgeless. The cop you mention could have taken his wife to the range
enough that she would be comfortable with a revolver or for that matter a
legal "coach gun" shotgun, and if the situation ever arises where she has to
use a firearm against an intruder the cop won't end up losing his job over
providing his wife with an illegal weapon.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
"Robert Green" wrote in message
...

I have to disagree. A criminal wants firepower. A sawed-off double
barrel
"two and you're through" gun is no match for a pair of Glocks you can
stick
in your pocket.

Your average liquor store robber can't afford a pair of Glocks, he's going
to have some piece-of-crap Lorcin or something similar, a .32 or
..380--that
he can afford.

Yeow. In what world do criminals buy guns? They steal them. Unemployed
bum Colin Ferguson could afford a Ruger 9mm and 150 rounds of Black Talons.

Or maybe he's going to have a cut-down shotgun that was
stolen from some knucklehead who left it unsecured in his home or vehicle
so
it could easily be stolen and chopped down. Tour your local PD seized
weapons lockup sometime, note that for every Glock or other handgun on the
pricey side there are a barrelful of old rifles and shotguns, many of them
stolen, that have ended up being used in crimes, aside from the
crap-quality
handguns that street punks can afford.

Here in DC they confiscated some pretty serious hardware, some of it stolen
from FBI and Homeland security folks:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201...roof_vest.html

They steal only the best. Lots of those other weapons that you see next to
the Glocks likely weren't used in crimes but retrieved from under the seat
of some old beater car when its driver was arrested for drugs or something
similar.

"When the .44 Magnum laid claim to being the most powerful handgun in
the
world, its standard load produced about 900 ft.-lb. of muzzle energy . .
..
The 500 S&W Magnum will produce almost 2600 ft.-lb. with its heaviest
load,
and more powerful loads may well be on the way."

Let us know when significant numbers of street thugs start carrying $1,000
revolvers with ammo at $2.50 a round. In the meantime the argument that
cut-down shotguns shouldn't be illegal because such hand cannons are
available strikes me as odd.

No, it strikes me as just the reverse. We allow weapons that can kill 5
charging elephants and yet will put someone in jail for 10 years for
possessing a shotgun with a barrel under some arbitrary length that doesn't
have the killing power of the typical automatic pistols now flooding our
streets. The shot spread from an SBS is extreme. You couldn't kill someone
20 feet away without a lot of luck. Killing someone at twice that distance
with an automatic pistol is a piece of cake for even a mildly experienced
shooter. There's a lethality/concealability mis-match that's blaringly
obvious.

Firearms law is full of irrational measures, but in the case of a
sawn-off
shotgun (or one made to be that small) that does seem to be a weapon of
interest almost exclusively to criminals.

I have to disagree here, as well. The first SBS I ever saw was owned by
a
DC cop who kept it stored in a very neat hidden compartment in his
nightstand. It was there so that his wife could defend herself against
someone breaking in looking for him (it had already happened before and
he
was very apprehensive about it). The SBS takes no shooting skill, will
disable an attacker quickly and unlike, say a S&W .500 won't shoot
through
three or four wallboard walls on its way to killing the next door
neighbor.
When I pointed out the SBS's illegality, he just shrugged and said
"Better
to be tried by six men in a box than carried out by six men in box."

I used to shoot at a range where the operators hated those nights when
cops
or prison guards came in to shoot because that's when they had lights shot
off the ceiling, the safety barricades shot up, furrows dug in the floor
and
walls etc. The fact that a cop does something does not mean it's a smart
thing to do. Hell, I knew a cop who got fired for "jokingly" pointing his
weapon at other cops. The first time they chewed his ass, the second time
he did it his feet didn't touch the floor on his way out of the building,
badgeless. The cop you mention could have taken his wife to the range
enough that she would be comfortable with a revolver or for that matter a
legal "coach gun" shotgun, and if the situation ever arises where she has
to
use a firearm against an intruder the cop won't end up losing his job over
providing his wife with an illegal weapon.

If you know cops that well, you'd know that if a cop's wife did shoot an
intruder with a gun that could lead to BATFE charges, it would never make it
into the evidence locker. They do tend to take care of their own and those
that do keep an "alley sweeper" under their beds probably don't worry as
much about BATFE charges as they do about their loved ones being dead.

As for a "coach gun" I wouldn't want to try to combat an intruder with
weapon longer than 6 or 8" - that's just not smart. Too easy for them to
grab the barrel in a close encounter. The reality is that I feel better
protected with 15 rounds in a .40 cal pistol than 2 in double barrel SBS or
a few more in a pump or magazine load. Much easier to conceal a pistol in a
nightstand, too. My wife's a much better shot than I am, so there's no need
for a sawed off under the bed, but I know a few cop wives and there are some
that you could never get to a range but that could pick up a cut-down
shotgun and fire it if someone broke in and threatened their kids. Should
they face a 10 year federal prison sentence? Hell no.

The major thrust of my argument still stands. A modern .40 cal has far more
killing power and concealability than most any SBS. That makes the law a
bit of anachronism that fails to take into account firearm changes of the
last 20 years.

Besides, I grew up watching Josh Randall, bounty hunter on TV and have a
sneaking affecting for cut down guns. (-:

This cite from wikipedia pretty much says what I have been saying:

"In the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, where handguns are not
easily obtainable, the sawn-off shotgun was a common weapon in armed
robberies from the 1960s, and it is this use that most people associate with
the weapon. However, in more recent years, handguns and handgun replicas
have been more easily available in the United Kingdom, despite an increase
in legal restrictions on civilian ownership of handguns in the area:
sawn-off shotguns were used in only 157 out of a total of 3727 robberies
involving firearms in England and Wales in 2004/05, compared to handguns in
2501 robberies.[8]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawed-off_shotgun

If the situation was as you suggest, one would expect to see a vast reversal
in the numbers.

The power of the modern handgun has revealed the idiocy of the draconian
restrictions and penalties of possessing a short barrel shotgun.

--
Bobby G.

wrote in message
news
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 22:16:21 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

The shot spread from an SBS is extreme. You couldn't kill someone
20 feet away without a lot of luck.
That is not true at all.

Well, for one I meant to write 20 yards. My bad.

"Generally, the column of buckshot leaving an unmodifed shorter barreled
shotgun will stay together for a little past one yard, after which it tends
to spread approximately one inch per yard. This means that most shotguns
have trouble keeping all the pellets of a standard nine-pellet 00 buck load
on a stationary, police silhouette target, faced squarely, past 15 yards."
Source: http://www.spw-duf.info/longgun.html

My 20" cylinder bore pump gun is not a whole lot tighter than when I
put a piece of 3/4" pipe about 8" long on a single shot receiver and
patterened it. At 20 feet one patterns at about 6" and the other at
8". It is certainly not "spray the room".

So, you're confessing to making an illegal SBS on a public form like the
gent who built the robotic sentry? (-:

The main lure in a SBS is concealability.

Even a cut down coach gun is a pretty big and bulky item. I'd have to agree
with Mr. Devlin on this - the main lure is that a shotgun is cheap to
acquire and easy to cut down. But study after study shows that when they
have a choice, crims go for large caliber handguns with large magazine
capacities.

Ironically that is the only way you can carry a gun in Florida (with a
firearms permit) , concealed.
If I spent the $200 and passed the background check I could carry a
SBS. I prefer my Ruger KP90 if I think I need a gun with me.
That is not very often.

Which is exactly the point. A hell of a lot of modern pistols are so much
more lethal than SBS's that it seems pretty silly to care about them to the
point of putting someone in jail or deep jeopardy for owning one. As I am
sure you know, the larger the spread, the lower the mortality. At one end,
with a tight choke, you can deliver a tight group of pellets that will sever
arteries and blow brains out. Even small amounts of spreading turn that
mass of pellets into a spread that is not likely to do lethal damage. You'd
almost never choose an SBS as a personal defense weapon (or even as a
criminal weapon) if you've got an automatic pistol with a large capacity
magazine and a caliber of 9mm or greater. The case could be made that an
SBS is safer than a modern pistol with FMJ bullets because there's far less
chance of over-penetration and killing or injuring someone in the
background.

http://firearmsid.com/A_distshotpatt.htm

Has a photograph indicating exactly how a little spread adds up to a serious
reduction in lethality.

http://firearmsid.com/jpgs/shotvic.jpg

Once the pellets leave a tight cluster, they are increasingly subject to
slowing from air resistance. When pellets are no longer following in the
slipstream of the large mass of shot, they slow down considerably. So even
a little spreading greatly reduces the overall impact on the target. As the
photo shows, you go from a bone breaking, artery severing blow to a mass of
pellets that don't penetrate very deeply.

http://www.firearmsid.com/Feature%20...in%20Crime.htm

The site above has some interesting stats on the "real world" use of SBS's
in crimes, and it's clear that criminals very much prefer large caliber,
well made pistols to SBS's. The FBI's Supplemental Homicide Reports show
that in 1993 57% of all murders were committed with handguns, 3% with
rifles, 5% with shotguns, and 5% with firearms where the type was unknown.
I suspect that's not because regulation has been so effective, it's because
(as the stats in the above site make clear) crims want the best "horsepower"
that they can steal in a concealable weapon. That's not an SBS. Maybe the
SBS was the concealable "king" 80 years ago when John Dillinger was alive,
but it's certainly not now.

--
Bobby G.

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...

I have to disagree. A criminal wants firepower. A sawed-off double
barrel
"two and you're through" gun is no match for a pair of Glocks you can
stick
in your pocket.

Your average liquor store robber can't afford a pair of Glocks, he's
going
to have some piece-of-crap Lorcin or something similar, a .32 or
.380--that
he can afford.

Yeow. In what world do criminals buy guns? They steal them.

And then they sell them, or trade them for drugs, or have them stolen from
them by other hoods. On the street, guns are currency like cigarettes or
dope is currency in prison.

Here in DC they confiscated some pretty serious hardware, some of it
stolen
from FBI and Homeland security folks:

That's the case everywhere, but it doesn't mean that on average liquor store
robbers are carrying high-end weapons, way more of them have junk guns like
Raven, Lorcin, Bryco. They carry guns like that because they're cheaper to
buy on the street and if they need to dispose of them they won't shed any
tears over the replacement cost. Hell, criminals can *rent* guns from other
criminals, saves that long-term investment if you just have one little job
in mind.

They steal only the best.

Please, they steal whatever they can get their hands on, and sell what they
don't want to keep.

Lots of those other weapons that you see next to
the Glocks likely weren't used in crimes but retrieved from under the seat
of some old beater car when its driver was arrested for drugs or something
similar.

Does that mean it's of any less value when it's taken out of circulation? A
crappy .25 can kill you just as dead as a thousand-dollar pistol.

Let us know when significant numbers of street thugs start carrying
$1,000
revolvers with ammo at $2.50 a round. In the meantime the argument that
cut-down shotguns shouldn't be illegal because such hand cannons are
available strikes me as odd.

No, it strikes me as just the reverse. We allow weapons that can kill 5
charging elephants

The theatrics are entertaining but don't contribute much to the discussion.

and yet will put someone in jail for 10 years for
possessing a shotgun with a barrel under some arbitrary length that
doesn't
have the killing power of the typical automatic pistols now flooding our
streets.

You can have a variety of legitimate reasons to own a Glock, or Kimber, or
Ruger etc., but you'd be hard-pressed to explain why you want to own a
cut-down shotgun. The "killing power" is irrelevant, you need to tear
yourself away from muzzle energy and rate of fire--it is the illegal
purposes a sawed-off shotgun is put to that is the issue. Since hunting,
target shooting and self-defense are at best dubious activities with such a
weapon, all that is left is crime. It's like being caught with lock-picks,
burglary tools, gloves, a mask, a police scanner and the plans to alarm
systems of local businesses--other than burglary, what exactly did you have
in mind?

The shot spread from an SBS is extreme. You couldn't kill someone
20 feet away without a lot of luck.

Are you volunteering to stand in front of one to prove that?

If you know cops that well, you'd know that if a cop's wife did shoot an
intruder with a gun that could lead to BATFE charges, it would never make
it
into the evidence locker. They do tend to take care of their own and
those
that do keep an "alley sweeper" under their beds probably don't worry as
much about BATFE charges as they do about their loved ones being dead.

Bull, I have friends and family members on the job and these days playing
games with evidence is risky business--hell, even in New Orleans. The
coroner picks a load of buckshot out of the thug's corpse, and then what?
Someone substitutes a legal shotgun, and nobody ever talks about it over a
few beers, the cop with the illegal gun has no enemies on the force, the
forensics guys doesn't notice the spent shells have no ejector marks despite
the legal shotgun being a semi-auto etc.? Sure, it *could* happen, but it's
far from a done deal.

It would be so much simpler to teach the wife to use a coach gun with short
(but legal) barrels and a stock to tuck under her arm so she has a chance of
hitting something. But as I said, some cops and guns are a surprisingly
poor mix. I've known two guys who teach small-town SWAT teams and the
stories they can tell makes me hope I never need rescuing by a local SWAT
squad.

As for a "coach gun" I wouldn't want to try to combat an intruder with
weapon longer than 6 or 8" - that's just not smart. Too easy for them to
grab the barrel in a close encounter.

You read too many comic books. Please note that when the pros go in the
majority of them have shotguns, or weapons like ARs or MP-5s. Pistols are
referred to as sidearms for a reason.

I know a few cop wives and there are some
that you could never get to a range but that could pick up a cut-down
shotgun and fire it if someone broke in and threatened their kids. Should
they face a 10 year federal prison sentence? Hell no.

The law applies to everyone equally, or at least it is supposed to. Since
the idiot cop husband provided the weapon perhaps he's the one who should
serve time.

The major thrust of my argument still stands. A modern .40 cal has far
more
killing power and concealability than most any SBS. That makes the law a
bit of anachronism that fails to take into account firearm changes of the
last 20 years.

You're still missing the point, the technical details are irrelevant.
You're not allowed to possess high explosives, and the relative level of
danger between dynamite and TNT and C4 isn't the issue, the issue is you're
not a licensed demo technician. There are no legitimate uses for a cut-down
shotgun any more than there are legitimate reasons for unlicensed ownership
of TNT--end of story.

DGDevin wrote:

The 2nd Amendment says nothing about Bambi or ducks, so give up on
the "sporting use" argument. (When the 2nd Amendment was written,
the activity we now called "sport" was called "getting dinner".)

Did I claim the 2nd Amendment referred to hunting and/or sporting
arms? No? Then why are you pretending I did?

You responded to the prior poster who was raising the 2nd Amendment as an
issue.


At the time the individual weapons owned by citizens and the
individual weapons used by the military were essentially identical. So it
makes sense to me that the Framers had in mind weapons
analogous to the weapons owned by the average citizen when the
amendment was written--muskets/rifles, shotguns, handguns--all of
which could be owned and used (then or now) for entirely legal
purposes.
A sawed-off shotgun, on the other hand, appears to be a weapon that a
law-abiding citizen would have little if any interest in. So not
only is it not analogous to the class of weapons owned by citizens at
the time the 2nd Amendment was written, it would seem to be of value
only to criminals and thus its restriction appears to me to be
reasonable.

Short-barreled shotguns were common with our troops during WWI. But again,
whether the average citizen would have an interest or whether criminals seek
them out is irrelevant.

As for being the weapon of choice for criminals, depriving
law-abiding citizens of something because that something can be used
by criminals is equally specious.

Reading comprehension issues today? Try again. Any firearm *can* be
used by criminals, but I didn't write that a cut-down shotgun *can*
be used by criminals, I wrote that it is useful (probably) only to
criminals. Restricting firearms purely on the basis that they could
be used by criminals would make no sense since that means any and all
firearms (not that some folks wouldn't try). But a cut-down shotgun
would seem to be a weapon of particular and perhaps exclusive
interest to criminals. You're not going to hunt with such a weapon,
there seem to be no competitive uses for such a weapon, and for
self-defense purposes there are preferable alternatives. Frankly, if
someone suggested removing the buttstock and most of the barrel from
my 870 to make it a better defensive weapon I would conclude they had
suffered a serious head injury.

There are many reasons for owning a weapon; you mentioned two (sport and
competition). Others include investment, historical artifact, collectable
example of craftsmanship, and so on. Whatever the reason, the reason is
irrelevant. The only thing that counts, in my view, is whether someone WANTS
a particular weapon.

As for short-barreled shotguns in partiucular, according to your
preferences, those who own an Auto Burglar, or, more recently, a "Taurus
Judge" suffer from a serious head injury. A short-barrel shotgun is
officially designated as an "AOW" by the BATF ("Any Other Weapon") and can
be legally bought upon payment of a $5.00 transfer tax.

You can saw off your own shotgun by purchasing an AOW manufacturing license
for $200.


Again, I like the 2nd Amendment, so don't try to paint me otherwise.

You may like the 2nd Amendment, but you seem to have trouble with its
consequences.

Robert Green wrote:

"When the .44 Magnum laid claim to being the most powerful handgun in
the world, its standard load produced about 900 ft.-lb. of muzzle
energy . . . The 500 S&W Magnum will produce almost 2600 ft.-lb. with
its heaviest load, and more powerful loads may well be on the way."

A 12-gauge firing 00 buck has a muzzle energy of almost 1600 ft-lbs. Firing
a rifled slug, the same weapon exerts almost 2,400 ft-lbs of energy, almost
three times that of a .44 Magnum.

tes t

On 9/9/2010 11:46 AM, Ignoramus13544 wrote:
tes t

Testicles

TDD

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Did I claim the 2nd Amendment referred to hunting and/or sporting
arms? No? Then why are you pretending I did?

You responded to the prior poster who was raising the 2nd Amendment as an
issue.

I repeat, where did I say the 2nd Amendment referred to sporting arms? It's
a simple question, so how about a simple (and honest) answer? Admitting you
were mistaken in suggesting I claimed the 2nd Amendment referred to sporting
arms won't cause blood loss, really.

A sawed-off shotgun, on the other hand, appears to be a weapon that a
law-abiding citizen would have little if any interest in. So not
only is it not analogous to the class of weapons owned by citizens at
the time the 2nd Amendment was written, it would seem to be of value
only to criminals and thus its restriction appears to me to be
reasonable.

Short-barreled shotguns were common with our troops during WWI.

M1917 Winchester 1897s, which had a barrel 20" long and an overall length of
just over 39". What does that have to do with sawed-off shotguns such as
are being discussed here?

But again, whether the average citizen would have an interest or whether
criminals seek them out is irrelevant.

It is entirely relevant. The Supreme Court which recently ruled the 2nd
Amendment guarantees an individual right to own arms also said that
reasonable restrictions on firearms are within the law. So laws against
felons owning guns remain on the books, and I bet you a dollar that if
someone challenges laws restricting cut-down shotguns those laws will also
survive. The Supreme Court gets the final say, so rights you imagine are
yours are illusionary if the SCOTUS doesn't agree.

There are many reasons for owning a weapon; you mentioned two (sport and
competition). Others include investment, historical artifact, collectable
example of craftsmanship, and so on. Whatever the reason, the reason is
irrelevant. The only thing that counts, in my view, is whether someone
WANTS a particular weapon.

Please describe the sport that employs cut-down shotguns such as you could
conceal under you jacket, or for that matter the competitive shooting event
that uses them. Collectors (three of the classes you list above) are of
course an odd breed and will collect the damndest things, but that somebody
wants to collect something illegal isn't going to get them far in court. Of
course if someone wants to pay the transfer tax and register the weapon then
that probably isn't a problem, those folks don't hold up liquor stores much,
although it's still not much of an investment.

By your logic if you *want* to own some dynamite, or some heroin, or some
anthrax spores then your neighbors better just suck it up, it's your
business, not theirs. Sorry, again, a right you can't enforce in court is
meaningless. Dynamite collectors get really ****ed off over this, but they
never seem to be willing to put up the money to fight it all the way to the
Supreme Court for some reason.

As for short-barreled shotguns in partiucular, according to your
preferences, those who own an Auto Burglar

I can see collectors wanting to own such weapons, I've known collectors who
own some crazy stuff. But anyone who relies on one for home defense maybe
hasn't thought it through too well. If they're so great as defensive
weapons why aren't the cops armed with them?

, or, more recently, a "Taurus Judge" suffer from a serious head injury.

I've fired some of those hand cannons, and while it's an experience for
sure, none of them would be my choice for a defensive firearm. Frankly
anyone who thinks they would make a good night-table gun has seen too many
action movies. They're hard to control, and they're just as likely to put a
hole in your neighbor three doors down as the burglar you were hoping to
hit.

So many gun owners are fascinated by the hardware, and the more extreme it
is the more fascinated they are. But that some company makes one doesn't
mean it's a good choice for home defense. My wife can put .40 holes in an
FBI silhouette target to an effective degree, but if I ever conned her into
shooting some absurd hand cannon I'd never get her to the range again. And
she'd be right, it makes no sense. You don't use a chainsaw to cut
dovetails for a desk drawer, but some folks who've never done it are
convinced they'd be good at it.

A short-barrel shotgun is officially designated as an "AOW" by the BATF

No, it is not, you're confusing several classes of weapons as defined by
ATF. Shotguns are considered shoulder-mounted weapons (I.e. with shoulder
stocks) and they can have barrels over or under 18" which determines whether
they can be owned unregistered. There are also weapons made from shotguns
which have had the stock removed and the barrels shortened. The Taurus
Judge doesn't qualify as any of the above--it's considered a smooth-bore
handgun and it is not and never was a shotgun. The Ithaca you mentioned is
also classed as an AOW, not a short-barreled shotgun.

Dang, one would hope that someone in your line of work would have a better
knowledge of this sort of thing.

("Any Other Weapon") and can be legally bought upon payment of a $5.00
transfer tax.

I referred to cutting off the barrel and stock of an 870, and that isn't an
AOW, it's a weapon made from a shotgun and the tax to own one of those is
$200 and the weapon is then registered. People who register weapons are
probably not the sort of folks we're concerned about, are they.

Again, I like the 2nd Amendment, so don't try to paint me otherwise.

You may like the 2nd Amendment, but you seem to have trouble with its
consequences.

No, I have trouble with those who can't construct a coherent argument
without misrepresenting what I posted and whose own knowledge of the subject
is, shall we say, a bit shaky.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
"Robert Green" wrote in message
...

I have to disagree. A criminal wants firepower. A sawed-off double
barrel
"two and you're through" gun is no match for a pair of Glocks you can
stick
in your pocket.

Your average liquor store robber can't afford a pair of Glocks, he's
going
to have some piece-of-crap Lorcin or something similar, a .32 or
.380--that
he can afford.

That's an interesting supposition, but that's all it is and it doesn't pan
out when you review the historical facts.

Why do you suppose US LEO's have gone from the well-known, nearly standard
..38 police special six shooter wheelgun to side arms like the semi-automatic
Beretta 9mm and the .40 Glock?

They switched because cops across the US realized that they were being
seriously outgunned on the street.

There was the FBI shoot out with Platt and Mattox, where the bad guys had a
Ruger Mini 14 with big mags, they killed and wounded several FBI agents, who
at the time where armed mostly with six-round revolvers. That was in 1986:

http://www.thegunzone.com/11april86.html

Then there was the Newhall California Highway Patrol shoot out, where one
officer died as he tried to reload
his revolver but it jammed but he could not clear it . . .

http://www.chp.ca.gov/memorial/newhall.html

You might also be interested in some comments made when the sale of Saturday
Night Specials (even cheaper handguns than the ones you postulate are the
armament of choice for criminals) were about to be outlawed:

"Saturday Night Specials" are not preferred by criminals

a.. "SNSs are involved in only about 1-3% of all violent crimes." --
"Most handgun criminals do not use SNSs, and most SNSs are not owned or used
for criminal purposes. Instead, most are probably owned by poor people for
protection." (Criminologist Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns, 1997; Point Blank,
1991.)

b.. Studies for the Justice Department have found that "There is no
evidence to suggest that criminals prefer smaller caliber guns . . . or
cheaper weapons" and that "The often-assumed criminal preference for small,
cheap handguns is not confirmed." (James D. Wright, et al., Under the Gun,
1983; Armed and Considered Dangerous, 1986.)

c.. "Evidence clearly indicates that the belief that so-called `Saturday
Night Specials` are used to commit the great majority of felonies is
misleading and counterproductive." (Police Foundation, Firearm Abuse, 1977.)

http://www.nraila.org/issues/factsheets/read.aspx?id=61

Yeow. In what world do criminals buy guns? They steal them.

And then they sell them, or trade them for drugs, or have them stolen from
them by other hoods. On the street, guns are currency like cigarettes or
dope is currency in prison.

Hoods? (-: Ain't seen no hoods since I left Brooklyn 50 years ago. We
obviously look at a tabletop full of confiscated weapons quite differently.
I notice the Mac-10's, the Desert Eagles, the Glocks, the Colt Pythons, the
AK47 clones, the Uzis and all the guns that inspired police chiefs all over
the US to feel the need to "level the playing field" by upgrading their
officers from six shooters to the kinds of hi-capacity, large caliber
weapons they were finding used against them.

Here in DC they confiscated some pretty serious hardware, some of it
stolen from FBI and Homeland security folks:

That's the case everywhere, but it doesn't mean that on average liquor
store
robbers are carrying high-end weapons, way more of them have junk guns
like Raven, Lorcin, Bryco. They carry guns like that because they're
cheaper
to buy on the street and if they need to dispose of them they won't shed
any
tears over the replacement cost.

Here you go again, creating a whole weapons distribution system based on
purportedly rational economic decisions made by street thugs (more
specifically, your favorite straw man, the "average liquor store robber" -
if there even IS such a thing). If these stickup artists had any rational
economic sense, they WOULDN'T BE STICKUP ARTISTS.

Hell, criminals can *rent* guns from other criminals, saves that
long-term
investment if you just have one little job in mind.

And now you're postulating a "Thug Rent-a-Gun" hidden economy where "hoods"
check out guns the way normal people rent DVDs. Where's your proof? Your
OOYA facts are getting thinner with each paragraph and your supporting
documentation for your claims is, as always, non-existent. You simply
expect us to believe what you say because you're you. Sorry, but I don't.
What you call "facts" are hunches at best, wild supposition at worst.

They steal only the best.

Please, they steal whatever they can get their hands on, and sell what
they
don't want to keep.

Let's shed some more light on your contentions (I've left the original
footnote cite for Wikiphobes!)

The top ten guns used in crime, as reported by the ATF in 1993, included the
Smith & Wesson .38 Special and .357 revolvers; Raven Arms .25 caliber, Davis
P-380 .380 caliber, Ruger .22 caliber, Lorcin L-380 .380 caliber, and Smith
& Wesson semi-automatic handguns; Mossberg and Remington 12 gauge shotguns;
and the Tec DC-9.[77

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio..._United_States

Mossbergs, S&W's, Rugers, .357's, Remingtons - not quite the cheap, low
caliber guns you continually (and without an iota of proof) would have us
believe all street criminals use - no, wait, it's not all - your straw man
is the "average liquor store" robber. Let's keep our facts lined up.

Lots of those other weapons that you see next to
the Glocks likely weren't used in crimes but retrieved from under the
seat
of some old beater car when its driver was arrested for drugs or
something
similar.

Does that mean it's of any less value when it's taken out of circulation?

Whaaat? Where did that excursion come from? We were talking about guns
used in "liquor store robberies" - well at least you were. While it seems
you're not prepared to admit it, but there is a substantial difference
between a gun taken from under the seat of some poor working dude that has
to go to very bad neighborhood at times and the gun that is fired at cops or
your ubiquitous "liquor store clerk." Cops know and appreciate that fact.
They have been known to "look the other way" if someone's got no priors and
lives in a neighborhood so bad even the cops don't like patrolling it. It's
part of the ever-shrinking discretion they can use in deciding what crimes
need thorough prosecution.

A crappy .25 can kill you just as dead as a thousand-dollar pistol.

Yes, so can a nuclear bomb, but please, try to keep on point here. You're
arguing against yourself. First you're trying to tell us that crooks don't
use big fancy guns, and now you're telling us it doesn't matter what they
use, because a .25 will kill you as dead as a .50 cal S&W 500. Based on
this new premise, why not have all the LEO's armed with .25 automatics then?
.. . . . It's because a .25 MIGHT kill you if the shooter's lucky and maybe
you're naked. On the other hand, a 9mm or .40 cal FMJ round will kill you
with certainty if it comes anywhere near a vital organ and even if you're
wearing 3 leather jackets and perhaps even a vest. Boost that to a .50 cal
exiting the barrel with 2600 ft/lbs of muzzle energy you can die from the
hydrostatic shock of being nicked, or so said my firearms instructor.

Let us know when significant numbers of street thugs start carrying
$1,000
revolvers with ammo at $2.50 a round. In the meantime the argument
that
cut-down shotguns shouldn't be illegal because such hand cannons are
available strikes me as odd.

No, it strikes me as just the reverse. We allow weapons that can kill 5
charging elephants

The theatrics are entertaining but don't contribute much to the
discussion.

My so called "theatrics" are simply a way to compare two possible defensive
firearms in a way people can viscerally understand. One, the sawn-off
shotgun, which is illegal, can kill an intruder without careful aim and
without collateral damage from over-penetration of the target. The other, a
"street legal" firearm, can pierce the very thick skull of the world's
largest land animal and do enough damage to kill it almost instantly. Why
is one with relatively good self-defense properties illegal other than a
decision by some Dillinger-crazed official from decades ago, determined to
solve a social problem with yet another rule.

and yet will put someone in jail for 10 years for
possessing a shotgun with a barrel under some arbitrary length that
doesn't have the killing power of the typical automatic pistols now
flooding our
streets.

You can have a variety of legitimate reasons to own a Glock, or Kimber, or
Ruger etc., but you'd be hard-pressed to explain why you want to own a
cut-down shotgun.

It's very easy to explain why cops and others keep them under the bed for
their wives to use. Now pay attention, because no matter how many times I
say this, you retreat to your unsupported contention that SBSs have no
legitimate value and that's simply not true. A sawed-off shotgun is the
"under the bed" weapon of choice for a number of people because a) they
don't require careful aim to defend their owners and b) their killing power
is relatively contained. A FMJ round from a Glock could easily miss and
plow right through the wallboard and kill the kids sleeping in the next
room. A round from the S&W 500 could easily kill the kids sleeping in the
house next door and then kill the dog, too. Or is killing one of you own
children a better thing in your world than owning the tool of the Devil
himself, the SBS?

A sawed-off can make a much better close-quarters defensive weapon,
especially for the untrained, than most pistols on the market, depending on
the circumstance. It was only the hysteria that the newspapers of the
'30's generated that turned it into such a forbidden weapon. Of course,
back then, they were hysterical about a lot of terrible dangerous things,
even regulating alcohol (and thus giving organized crime the greatest boost
they could have even gotten - a mistake we're still paying for). Sometimes
bad laws get passed without any substantial provisions for reviewing them to
see if they still make sense.

The "killing power" is irrelevant, you need to tear
yourself away from muzzle energy and rate of fire--it is the illegal
purposes a sawed-off shotgun is put to that is the issue.

Precisely backwards. The laws ARE mostly based on killing power, forbidding
TNT, machine guns, bazookas and the like. The SBS got lumped in with the
rest of them. While machine guns and TNT still have respectable lethality
compared to other available firearms, the SBS is really no more lethal than
a long barrel shotgun, it's simply slightly more concealable, but certainly
no more concealable than a pistol with 50 or 100 times the "killing power."
You're the one obsessed with the belief that a cut-down shotgun has no other
than criminal use. That's completely untrue and you haven't made a
scintilla of a case showing otherwise. Using your somewhat bizarre logic
about what it COULD be used for, all men should be arrested for rape because
the have penises, the number one tool of the rapist, and most of them keep
it concealed. Your claims just don't pass the smell test.

Since hunting, target shooting and self-defense are at best dubious
activities with such
a weapon, all that is left is crime.

Ah, we're up to "at best dubious." So, even though it's well known that at
least a few cops sleep very well at night with an "alley sweeper" under the
bed, you insist that these weapons are somehow "accursed items" (sarcasm
alert!) that will do devilish things just because they are so damn devilish.
Why do those cops take such a substantial risk? Because a short-barreled
shotgun is not just a good weapon in certain circumstances, it's the ideal
one. While there are some cops that don't know a lot about firearms or who
handle them too casually, when a cop risks a big federal "beef" over what he
keeps under the bed, there's got to be a reason. And it's not that he's
planning to rob a liquor store.

It's like being caught with lock-picks, burglary tools, gloves, a mask, a
police scanner and the plans to alarm
systems of local businesses--other than burglary, what exactly did you
have in mind?

Whaaat? You're at it again, comparing the possession of ONE sawed off
shotgun to having six items that, when combined together, clearly indicate a
criminal intent. You're reaching hard to prove a point that can't be
proven, namely that SBS's have no self-defense value. If the Feds storm
your house and find one there, it should be a case of "So F'ing what?" It's
clearly not being used in a crime, it's not even taken outside the house.
Yet it can earn you legal trouble out the wazoo. That's just wrong. Use it
in a crime, and I'm more than happy to see you go away for life. Have it
your house for self-defense? It's none of the Feds goddamn business. I,
for one, think the Feds already have their noses in enough places that
*should* be none of their business. Your arguments have far more merit
concerning silencers. There are very few legitimate uses for them, even in
law enforcement. Someone walking around with a silenced pistol is usually
up to no good.

You're still missing the point, the technical details are irrelevant.

Only to you because they refute the erroneous claims you continue to make.

You're not allowed to possess high explosives, and the relative level of
danger between dynamite and TNT and C4 isn't the issue, the issue is
you're not a licensed demo technician.

Oh my! Now you are comparing SBS's to high explosives. Why not nukes? If
you're going to reach as far as that to make an unprovable point, why not go
for the ludicrous extreme?

Tell me why having a short-barreled, easy to maneuver gun that even a cop's
wife can use and that WON'T kill your kids sleeping in the room next door if
you miss is impossible to consider as a self-defense weapon? You can't, and
you know it. All you can fall back on is that YOU think there's no
self-defense use for such a gun. Well, bully for you. You can think what
you want. It's when you try to get other people to follow in your torturous
thought processes that you get into trouble.

There are no legitimate uses for a cut-down shotgun any more than there
are legitimate reasons for unlicensed ownership of TNT--end of story.

Yes, it's the end of the story because when you compare an SBS that a cop
keeps under his bed so his wife can defend herself WITHOUT killing the
neighbors or the kids sleeping in the next room with a high explosive like
TNT, capable of killings hundreds at a time, you've left the realm of
reality.

Sorry, but I don't really want to be a tour director for anyone's excursions
into the Twilight Zone. More than one cop I know is willing to risk a
federal rap to keep his family safe. Those are people who truly believe
that a short-barreled shotgun is the right weapon for the kind of home
defense threats that cops and their families face from psycho perps and
they're putting up a considerable stake to prove it.

--
Bobby G.