More shotgun advice from the NRA

[Poconnor]

My father shot a wild boar in Texas a while back. When we skinned him out he had hundreds of what looked like number 7 birdshot under his skin in his face. It had penetrated less than 1/2 an inch. It had healed over but didn’t seem to slow him down at all. I’m sticking to buckshot and slugs for defense.

[HCM]

How do you take an endorsement of a shotgun as an indicator from the NRA that AR’s and pistols are not endorsed?

I can see that you’re concerned they’re endorsing shotguns but they’re not saying all you need is a shotgun. Perhaps I misread the article?

The NRA has its issues and I’m no longer an active member over some of the stuff going on - but I do not feel that this is an accurate characterization.

I say this as politely as I can.

Never mind that. You have an NRA article claiming that shooting people with bird shot from a shot gun is non lethal.

What the actual fuck ? That is criminal negligence.

Regardless of the ineffectiveness of bird shot, shooting people with a firearm in the U.S. is DEADLY FORCE. Period.

Has @joshs seen this train wreck?

Are the editors of this publication TRYING to bankrupt the NRA ?

[JRB]

Clearly, the intent of this article is to give a confirmation bias warm fuzzy to the Fuddbilly rank and file.
It is spot on for making one feel good about keeping their ol' Mossberg in the closet full of leftover birdshot. Why spend that $14 on a box of 00 Buck when it can buy an 18 pack of Bud Light?

[Kyle Reese]

The only thing missing from the article is “I also carry a .45, cuz shootn’ twice is just silly”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fixer]

Early April Fools?

[revchuck38]

All I know is that @blues let the cat out of the bag the other day: I did not realize that I can go into my membership and choose "no magazine." When I have free time to monkey with it over the holiday break, I plan to do exactly that.

At least it wasn't, "No clips."

[Wingate's Hairbrush]

The New Fuddism -- it's on the move!

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It's Biden-ism. The organization is responsible for content. If the American Psychological Association published in its journals, an article that was fraudulent or recommended an ineffective therapy, there would be a firestorm, leading to retraction and editorial staff changes.

Analyzing how to use a shotgun is just fine. The risk is that such misleading info plays directly into supporting bans on things like higher capacity capable semi long arms and handguns.

So go testify against a state ban. I want my modern sporting rifle (haha). The anti says: Why you must be a gun nutso. A simple shotgun load of birdshot to the butt, should suffice. Why should you have a weapon that can kill 30 people with its clip of cop killer bullets (that line is from Joe Scarborough, conservative whose mind was warped by Miki's charms.

[CWM11B]

It would be interesting to know the background of the author. With only the article as a metric, they clearly have no understanding of terminal ballistics, deadly force encounters, or the law of self defense. I remember when your choices were American Rifleman or Hunter. Perhaps they should ditch some of these other pubs and put the money into actually defending the 2A. My American Rifleman typically goes straight to recycling after I have check the table of contents to see if any of the authors are worth reading. Sadly, most of them are not.

[ralph]

Clearly, the intent of this article is to give a confirmation bias warm fuzzy to the Fuddbilly rank and file.
It is spot on for making one feel good about keeping their ol' Mossberg in the closet full of leftover birdshot. Why spend that $14 on a box of 00 Buck when it can buy an 18 pack of Bud Light?

That sums it up rather nicely....Like others here, I read Tam’s article when it comes out, and toss the magazine after that..When my NRA membership runs out, I will not renew. Wayne can pay for his suits, and expensive vacations on his dime, and not mine... Other than Tam’s article, I don’t think I’m going to miss the magazine much..