Guns

If you were being paid $10,000 to make it, what's the best argument for banning shotgun ownership.

This is a trick question because no gun should ever be banned for any reason.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

dibs
also i will post something in the options field

If I'm being paid $10,000 to make a shotgun, it's gonna have flamethrower module.

>now no argument against that

12 gauge shells are bigger than scary babby killing 5.56
Gimme my money fagit

Taking money for an immoral act, removing an individual of a means of self defense, is not right. Fuck your hat

More chance at hitting what you didn't intend to shoot I guess?
Larger than 50 caliber?
Shooting someone with something like birdshot can be very inhumane?
The shells can be loaded with all sorts of stuff?

I guess those might be some of the arguments gun grabbers could come up with, they are weak though.

"...WELL REGULATED..."

Ask me how I know you're a jew......

I have an amazing argument that cannot be refuted but I won't post it until you PayPal me the 10k

I know right?
I thought it was a weird thread, but I bit.
Seeing as shotguns are the least regulated type of firearm in even very anti firearm countries, I don't see them being banned anytime soon.

Ban shotguns for not having enough killing power

>It is a deadly weapon that only qualified law enforcement and military personnel should be allowed to own
>There is no need to own one in this day and age
>X number of kids shot themselves accidentally because of irresponsible ownership
>It's just common sense
These are bad arguments? Wrong, goy, we live in a democracy :^)

Read as well trained, i know English is hard to understand for you libtards.

>not banning guns because your being paid to
it's like you like your mediocre life. think how rich pol people could be if they fought for the other side. i often think about it but the thought alone makes me sick. i don't think i could talk about trump's russia ties after 22 little girls got blown up. :/

Meant 'in working order' at the time the constitution was written, not controlled by the government

US Code Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 12, Section 246. Now fuck off.

I wouldn't sell out my right/the right of every law abiding citizen to defend themselves, their property, their loved ones, their country, and the mutual understanding between militia and state that keeps balance for 10x that much money.

The purpose of gun ownership is primarily self protection via incapacitating the attacker. I argue that the use of lethal force is obsolete because we have effective less than lethal means to incapacitate people.

Tazers are actually more effective at incapacitating an individual than bullets are. No matter where the tazer hits, and no matter how motivated/drug addled the attacker is in, the nervous system is incapacitated and he will drop to the ground. The same cannot be said for traditional firearms.

Also If there is friendly fire, no harm done, your daughter/wife/brother will just be a little pissed off at you instead of dead.

So basically my argument works for banning ALL guns because they are simply obsolete and criminals will have more of a use for them (to kill instead of self defense) than normal people will. However, I think 12 ga shotguns are ok simply because you can shoot tazer slugs out of them.


How's that?

His about I use my shotgun and rob you for your 10k?

because you should own a rifle instead. there really isn't a better argument than this.

because rifles are better for any situation.

You'll shoot your eye out with that thing, kid.

I wouldn't want to make an argument that would restrict my freedom for 10k though.
Multiply the price by 10 and I'll consider spitballing ideas.

$10k to give up a constitutional right? Lmao

useless gun. better alternatives .

...also..I like ducks and birds

Do your own homework, kid. You have to be 18 to post here.

Faggots waste time skeet shooting when the could be working on rifle skills.

tazers are not magic. people can easily shrug them off if they don't cross the right muscles.

if i was being paid 10k to make arguments about the best argument for banning guns, i would argue that my being paid 10k was the best reason i was aware of and support that heavily with legitimate proof that i would benefit from 10k

>not balistically traceable.
>not typical used by the military, therefore not really intended to be protected by the 2nd amendment.

Less regulations on shotguns currently don't even need a permit to buy or own shotguns AFAIK

Tazers often get stopped by mere leather jackets & they aren't effective against everyone either.

IF I were getting paid$10k?

I'd point to the geneva conventions and remark that shotguns were deemed too cruel for use in battle.
As the usa is a signatory of that treaty the citizens should be held to the same standard.
then i'd bitch about the police using them on our own citizens while soldiers can't use them on our enemies(officially).

but i wouldn't do that because I think felons should get their guns back the day they are released from prison(declawed cats and all)

10,000 USD to make the best argument possibly for banning shotguns? can do, here it is:

less shotguns = less shotgun deaths = less crime

best argument possible. is it good? fuck no, it's terrible and is directly contradicted by the 2nd amendment, but strictly speaking, this IS the "best" argument.

just because the best thing possible is still horse shit doesn't mean it's not "the best thing possible". boom, easy 10 grand.

Lawfag here.

You can't argue that banning shotguns without arguing for banning rifles and handguns. That is because shotguns are 1) the most versatile hunting weapon and owned by nearly every hunter 2) not less concealable than handguns 3) often times less powerful than rifles (exception is slugs vs smaller caliber rifles).

That being said, if you were paying me way more than $10,000 (This kind of work would run at least $5k in my time, not to mention my dignity since this is obviously a losing argument. Banning muh "assault weapons" would be way easier to argue.), I would argue that inherent in the shotgun design are properties which make it ideal for a mass killing spree. Ammunition can be bought that shoots out multiple projectiles and spreads them to some degree. A home modified short barreled shotgun can easily be hidden, and 10+ rounds of 00 buck (around 100 8.3mm projectives) could be shot into a crowd. This kind of weapons is not like those intended to be included in the second amendment.

Granted its a shit argument. There simply is no good legal argument for banning shotgun ownership.

There's also no good reason for banning shotgun ownership in any respect. Far more people shoot shotguns at clay birds than hunters shoot at animals. I don't even think the most liberal politicians in America would publicly back this (I say publicly because they're all pro ban, they just keep up a "not hunters/recreational shooters" facade).

$10,000! Niiice! I Could Buy So Much Ammo With That!!

pay me half that and ill give you a concrete argument :P

>So basically my argument works for banning ALL guns because they are simply obsolete and criminals will have more of a use for them (to kill instead of self defense) than normal people will.

your not one of these people that believe just because something is illegal that means its not gonna happen any more are you?

or are you saying ban all guns so that criminals will be the only ones using them (to kill instead of self defense)?

Pay me $10k and I'll say what you want, but there is no valid argument about shotguns, especially since you can make one with 2 overlapping pieces of pipe, a piece of wood and a nail and about 10 minutes of your time.

this is easy...

shotguns are a much easier target than scary black rifles.

Shotguns are used more often in suicides, wich are the largest portion of yearly US gun related deaths.

Reason I shotguns aren't targeted is they have no range, and cant penetrate armor, they cans be used for any sort of shoot and move tactic or suppressing fire, basically they are shitty to use for revolt or militia.

Im guessing you're share blue, or CTR, farming out your new strategy for restricting gun ownership.

>www.whatisaslug.org
please read user, you're a failure of an American for not knowing this.

please you already give yourself YOUS all day. would it really be that hard to just play chess with yourself

simple have epa define gun as firing single projectile per cartridge, outlaw buck shoot b/c some shill reason, classify shotgun as not a gun, then ban it. same way the democrats get enviro law passed, by subverting the constitutions intentions.

fuck yourself nigger

You're a homosexual of the Californian variety, but I'll tell you this: 'Well-regulated' has absolutely nothing to do with regulations.