As I read more and more through these threads, I see a ridiculous amount of posts from pro gun control drones claiming that semi automatic rifle (I will no longer be referring to these guns as assault weapons as it is a made up term to try and frighten people) are too much for self defense. I am going to point out that none of you know anything about firearms let alone are experts, and none of you have been in a position or know anything about what it means, what you feel or how things happen when you are put into a position to defend yourself. With that being said, you have no ground to stand on when you are saying that "This gun" is all you need for self defense or "That gun" is too much. Within your moment of ignorance, you are supporting a ban that is handicapping law abiding citizens against criminals. You can keep your little one sided statistic links, your studies by biased people and irrational suggestions about what to do in certain situations, as you know nothing about guns, you know nothing about self defense and you know nothing about using a gun for self defense.
Exactly, I expect nothing less than a smart ass, witty insult when you are prove wrong on any matter. I have seen too many stats show too many different things on the same subject, so you go ahead and pick and choose which one you would like to use for your argument. Your country does not have the same problems as this country bowerbird, so the info you keep bringing up about it means nothing.
No, the intelligent person looks at the statistics evenly and applies a criteria for assessment i.e. Is this coming from a source with a vested interest? So, I would look on statistics produced by the NRA, who have a powerful profit motive as being possibly tainted whereas statistics produced by the American College of Paediatricians might also have a bias due to members experience in dealing with gunshot wounds. Sites like the FBI or the DOJ usually are neutral Is the research based on a large population? Usually the larger the population the more valid the research If this is a survey - what questions were asked? If you Google up Kleck Gun research critique you will see some beautiful examples of people shredding his research because of the way he asked the questions http://vacps.org/public-policy/the-contradictions-of-kleck And most importantly - WHERE did you GET the statistics? Research report? Magazine article? News article? News article from an online journal? Website with agenda? Blog Some random unreferenced post on a bulletin board? As you can see I have listed them from most trusted to least trusted - with the caveat that if the article is well referenced to research it stands much higher in that list than one that is merely an opinion piece
What??? You talk about using data from an unbiased source, then go and quote the Virginia Center for Public Safety? Another anti-gun organization parading around as a "safety organization?" You've gotta be kidding me! Stop quoting anti-gun organizations (Violence Policy Center, Virginia Center for Public Safety, etc) or stop crying for "independent" data. Good grief.
By self defense I assume that you mean home defense. For home defense, a rifle such as an AR seems to be a bit of a misguided idea, in my wise and generally correct opinion. I would suggest the first the following weapons, or just plain common sense. Lock your doors at night. Keep your phone operational. Use a pistol, as you are indoors and may need to turn you can do so faster than with a rifle. If you want to use something other than a pistol use a shotgun, as it requires far less aiming than a rifle and the sound of a shotgun racking in a round is universally understood.
I did not mean it as an example of unbiased thinking merely as an example of some of the debates on the subject - and are they wrong in the analysis?
So you're in favor of an "assault weapons ban?" You seem to have knowledge of firearms. Did you know these two rifles are the exact same rilfe? You probably didn't. Guess which one will be illegal under Dianne Feinstein's AWB? Does the pistol grip and the collapsible stock really make it more deadly? Nope.
No. Yes. Yes, they are both Mini 14's. Kind of an overpriced piece of (*)(*)(*)(*) in my book. Either just get an AR or get an M1, as the Mini 14 seems like the ugly and pointless bastard child of the two.
Whats wrong with having a shotgun or bolt action rifle at your side? That should be more then enough fire power to protect yourself.
Incorrect, a shotgun racking is more of a theory than a fact. A lot of people prob. could not identify the sound of a shotgun racking. While the radius of a shotgun blast is larger than that of any other type of firearm, it is not as much as one would think, and aiming is still required. Yeah, in the movies a shotgun blast would spread all over the entire torso when in fact at 10 feet, the radius at the point of impact is only slightly larger than that of the shell itself, at about 20 feet it spreads about 5 to 7 inches depending on the load. My home defense weapon is a M&P 9 with a laser sight, but here are the benifits of an AR 15. 1.) It has been proven through multiple tests through different surfaces that the .223 round actually breaks apart and disintigrates through walls more than buckshot or 9mm+, so carry through is actually less of a factor on who/what is on the other side of the wall that is behind your target. 2.) The mere sight of a tactical rifle is enough to raise a pulse. Rather than a sound that they might not recognize like the shotgun racking, the rifle they can visually identify would be a better deterent.
Really? I am unable to find those highly unlikely results online. Please provide me with a link to these multiple tests. I am going to have to disagree. Sounds transmit through the dark and around corners. I am not buying the not recognizing a shotgun racking sound, and last time I checked folks could not see through walls or see in the dark.
But the one on the bottom is wicked scary and should be banned because even though it is the same exact thing, it is obviously way more dangerous - said every gun control advocate drone.
Perhaps you would be better served taking up that argument with someone who has advocated banning the guns in question.
As far as links I would have to try and find them on the internet, but I saw it on the discovery channel, I will find something on it and will problably require several links, so when I do find it I will have to post it on a new thread. (Maybe I should try to make the video myself, might save some time). As far as a shotgun racking, it is only a theory that the shotgun sound would be correctly identified, PLUS it would alert them and if you had to confront them, any firearms they have would be pointed in that direction if they were to stick around, and you have the element of surprise. If you come into the room with an AR pointed at them, flick a light on(I have nightlights in my home for the kids, so you could definitly see it) then you now are in a position where you may not even have to pull the trigger at all. For now here is the spread pattern of a buck shot, more to come for the penetration tests. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v484/txinvestigator/Gun Stuff/020105moss500.jpg
Nah, I am going to go with the tried and true. Shotgun or pistol. An AR as a home defense weapon makes zero sense in my wise and generally correct opinion.
What the !#@!# is wrong with just saying out loud "911 - Police I have an intruder Oh! You are in the neighbourhood and will be here in less than five minutes?" And I HOPE you have non-lethal bullets in those weapons I swear it all comes down to Americans watch too much TV
Are you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing kidding me? Yelling that kind of BS is going to save you???!!!! I really hope you would not be in that position because you would be completely screwed. Yeah, non-lethal bullets, ok, listen here darlin, anyone tries to harm my family, they would be leveled in a heart beat, when I come out ready to shoot it is up to them how lethal the situation gets.
Given certain situations, I would more than likely grab my pistol anyways because I wouldn't be able to fit an AR in my smaller wall safe that is bedside and quickest to get to. I don't have an AR but there are some benefits to using one for home defense IMO.
Here is a little more... more to come, this one shows .40sw, 12 Gauge slug and .223. http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=26
Also check this out, the results page is at the bottom, but the entire test is pretty good. The buckshot seems to do the most penetration damage. http://how-i-did-it.org/drywall/results.html
Yes Nice But you are talking about doing this to a fellow human being - might be a "low life" which in America seems to equal "not human" but it might be your neighbours 17 year old kid that just lost his face, or a member of your family or...................... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1010518212001060 And someone then has to clean up the mess YOU made If you did this to someone - would you then visit them in hospital?
Your link didn't send me to anything. Its not as though the minute the intruder enters my home I go and light him up, if he were to attack after I presented myself with a firearm, that is when I would pull the trigger. Sorry, I didn't know that I had to go into any real detail about how home/self defense works, but then again that is your mentality of us "cowboys" in terms of shoot first question later. The link I presented was showing test for bullet/shell wall penetration in case god forbid, you do have to pull the trigger, you know what the bullet will do if you miss or after it goes through an intruder. It clearly shows an AR 15 does not penetrate as much as 9mm or buckshot from a shotgun.
