Dunno I'd disagree with ET on planning analysis. Probably because social debate is a variable thing I don't personally depend on a single menu item. Simply put, if I want to shoot thru walls I will. I concluded long ago that multiple choice tests were more enjoyable than essays, so enter into social discourse with an open mind I say.
It was suggested above that only experience with shooting people is relevant to the debate and I'm not going to sign off on the idea any more than the US Government does or has in the past. Ballistic tests are all well and good, but experience works pretty well for me. What my experience says is that at reasonably close range buckshot is a quicker killer than rifle or pistol bullets on game animals. I define close range as 30 yards or less. Smaller diameter buck is more effective than large, across the board, my reasons for saying this already enumerated. Having said this, I readily admit the perspective is counter to beliefs I held in younger days.
The number and species of game animals I've taken in my life is substantial. So far as the applied style of weapon, it would be about 50/50 for rifles and shotguns with a smattering of pistol kills thrown into the mix. Rifles win at longer range certainly but short of explosives, nothing trumps a shotgun at close range IMO.
Lastly, I've seen about as many people go down as critters and jerked to trigger on more than a few, this with M16s, M60s etc. Comparatively speaking, people are a whole bunch easier to stop than critters.
End of my contribution to this debate, carry on.
