I also work for a school district in a border town i am much more likely to be shot going to work then i am because i am carrying my gun.
A few interesting points here for such a short statement. 1) you equate being armed with being strong. 2) I assume if they are "taking a beating" instead of "absorbing bullets", that the attacker is also not carrying a firearm? That being the case, I like my odds.
My statement falls along the lines "that God made all men equal but Sam Colt made all women equal." Simply put, there is no better, commonly available weapon that most anyone can use that is better than a gun. A modern semi-auto, high capacity handgun, usually 9mm and above is the best thing on the planet for most anyone that has at least one hand strong enough to lift, aim and fire it. For older and weaker people, like many people you know, a lightweight handgun as I described above can fire multiple shots, stop an attacker, has great range, and a large fear factor. Knives are great if you are Rambo. Pepper spray, tasers, stun guns, whistles, keys, numchucks, fists, and feet are all better than nothing---but all are eclipsed by a simple handgun. Why do you think almost every cop carries one in this country? Like, Duh. Many of our gun-grabbing posters here, maybe even you, have no sympathy for less strong individuals, who if attacked in their homes or cars, could only be expected to lie down and take a beating or be killed. Disarming such people can be a death sentace for them.
Actually the saying goes "God made man, Sam Colt made them equal." When in a self defense setting, anything that brings you close to the perp is not reccomended. While any defense is a good defense keepin your distance is far better.
I'm not going to preach to the choir, not to someone with a handgun on their avitar. Most people are not going to notice the home invader, carjacker or street thug until they are inside the house, at their car window or right up next to them. My .308 HK battle rifle with pulsating laser is the best thing I have put down a dangerous attacker---IF he's not right next to me. However, the rifle is large and heavy and wrinkels my clothes. People would look at me in an odd way if I were to walk down the street or shop in Wal-Mart with it strapped on. Also not the best for using in my small car. I use my brain and situational awarness to notice and stay away from trouble. Most of the time my 92F stays in the trunk unless I am in "Indian Country."
You've lost me. Are you saying why would a long barreled arm NOT be better? A handgun is best in close quarters combat, a sub-gun next and a collapsable stock rifle next after that. Try seeing how well it is for someone to grab the barrel of a long long that's in front of you. Also try to move and aim a long gun seated in a car.
A long gun is more accurate, softer recoiling in the case of an AR-15, can hold more rounds, and is more powerful than a handgun. Citizens and cops and Fed Agents carry handguns because they are convenient, easy to carry, and is better than a sling shot. In a home defense scenario, a rifle would be best, usually because a person would be holed up in their bed room, sleeping quarters, or at the end of a hall way defensing a fixed position. Clearing a house by your self, is an extremely dangerous proposition, so hunkering down, using a white light to illuminate any person that is not part of your household, and then using a rifle is one of the best last lines of defense that I can think of. A three foot rifle also gives an extra three feet of room between you and an attacker if it really comes down to it.
Why would a short barreled Arm not be better in close quarters? The scenario you describe may be best for defense of self, but not for defense of property.
That's right, I'd use a rifle every time if I thought someone was going to attack my house,farm, or ranch. In a SHTF scenario (riot, civil uprising), however, I wouldn't last long if it was just myself taking on a group of determined, armed attackers. I am amused at some of the survivalists who have 50 guns in their safe with thousands of rounds for each type. Then think they could stand inside their thinly proptected homes unscathed like Superman while they mow down everyone around them. Fail.
It would be, but not all states allow short barreled rifles or short barreled shot guns. These also require a person to get a background check, put on a registry, pay a $200 tax, and wait 6-8 months to get the approval for this type of firearm. A rifle with a barrel over 16" or a shotgun over 18" wouldn't need this kind of additional paperwork. As for defense of property, a 12.5" AR-15 is probably the best all around rifle that I can think of for defending against two legged predators. a .308 semi-atuo rifle with an 18" barrel would be best against most north american deadly animals like cougars, bears, and maybe elk.
In my opinion, short barreled Arms may be more effective, necessary and proper for those persons of the People who are specifically unconnected with militia service.
I have taught my lady to shoot until she runs out of ammo then reload and if they are still moving keep shooting. As for myself I would double tap them and descide on the threat level at that point, two .44 mags or .45 s will usually do the trick. For those that are not as used to using guns I suggest firing until they run out, better to be safe than sorry and if there is only one survivor there is only one statement for the law enforcement officer to take down, with the world being full of lawyers these days it is the best for you to go all out.
Militia services are called upon when needed, and are comprised of volunteers from that moment of calling. A pistol is better out and about for self defense, but if you go to any self defense with a firearm program, they will tell you an AR platform gun with a .223 round is the best because of the rate of fire, light weight monuverability, ease of shooting, less fealt recoil and less wall penetration. The further away the front sight is from the back sight is, the quicker it is to line it up on target, and that is from extensive shooting experience. A pistol is harder to bring back on target after a shot than the longer rifle. Yes it can be said that you need to hit them on the first shot, but in a self defense situation, your adrenaline is going, your blood is pumping and you are more than likely shaking, and a miss on your first shot is very likely, meaning you will have to bring the front sight back down as quickly as possible.
While it's not often discussed, if you take African-American stats out of the U.S's violence stats, we aren't much different from Western Europe in violence stats. The thing is before Western Europe/Australia had gun restrictions, their firearms stats were lower than ours. Added gun restrictions didn't change it much.
Doesn't that presuppose a more "conventional enemy"? If a mugger must mug, would a mugger mug from ten feet away?
But then again, would someone try to mug you if you had a semi automatic rifle slung over your shoulder? lol
It depends; would you shoot a person from ten feet away only to discover he only wanted to ask you what time it was?
Oh no, I was just jokingly referring to a criminals intent on attacking someone who had a rifle present in public. It wasn't a serious comment.
