Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On June 17 2016 06:01 dontforgetosmile wrote: any round can be dangerous from any range. the fbi penetration standard is based on the penetration necessary to effectively and immediately stop a threat.
It's a guideline probably for single projectiles, not an absolute truth with no possible alternatives. Would you say a sledgehammer hit to the chest by Dwayne Johnson doesn't have enough stopping power because it doesn't penetrate 12 inches?
Birdshot has massive stopping power at distances you'd expect in home defense scenarios. And just about none at longer ranges, where you shouldn't be shooting at people anyway.
again, being shot at any distance with any round is going to suck. the idea behind the penetration standard is that it will, in a variety of situations, be adequate to immediately and effectively incapacitate an attacker. whether or not it is dependable in some scenarios is moot if it isn't reliable when you find yourself in different one.
On June 17 2016 06:01 dontforgetosmile wrote: any round can be dangerous from any range. the fbi penetration standard is based on the penetration necessary to effectively and immediately stop a threat.
It's a guideline probably for single projectiles, not an absolute truth with no possible alternatives. Would you say a sledgehammer hit to the chest by Dwayne Johnson doesn't have enough stopping power because it doesn't penetrate 12 inches?
Birdshot has massive stopping power at distances you'd expect in home defense scenarios. And just about none at longer ranges, where you shouldn't be shooting at people anyway.
again, being shot at any distance with any round is going to suck. the idea behind the penetration standard is that it will, in a variety of situations, be adequate to immediately and effectively incapacitate an attacker. whether or not it is dependable in some scenarios is moot if it isn't reliable when you find yourself in different one.
Again, I postulate (and it's a very safe bet) that there factors other than penetration which affect the incapacitation potential of certain rounds. To assume that the FBI standard is the be-all and end-all standard for all stopping power takes a lot of faith.
On June 17 2016 06:01 dontforgetosmile wrote: any round can be dangerous from any range. the fbi penetration standard is based on the penetration necessary to effectively and immediately stop a threat.
It's a guideline probably for single projectiles, not an absolute truth with no possible alternatives. Would you say a sledgehammer hit to the chest by Dwayne Johnson doesn't have enough stopping power because it doesn't penetrate 12 inches?
Birdshot has massive stopping power at distances you'd expect in home defense scenarios. And just about none at longer ranges, where you shouldn't be shooting at people anyway.
again, being shot at any distance with any round is going to suck. the idea behind the penetration standard is that it will, in a variety of situations, be adequate to immediately and effectively incapacitate an attacker. whether or not it is dependable in some scenarios is moot if it isn't reliable when you find yourself in different one.
Again, I postulate (and it's a very safe bet) that there factors other than penetration which affect the incapacitation potential of certain rounds. To assume that the FBI standard is the be-all and end-all standard for all stopping power takes a lot of faith.
i don't want to outright dismiss your point, but i don't know what you are basing this off of. penetration is extremely important when you're talking about creating large wound cavities and reaching vital organs, anything else is literally a flesh wound. so when you're talking about immediately stopping a threat, penetration is a key factor (which is why there is a standard in the first place).
On June 16 2016 23:48 Reaper9 wrote: Given that the senate just had a filibuster on guns....
www.nbcnews.com (Filibuster Ends After GOP Agrees to Allow Gun Control Votes: Senator)
So no, not everyone in the US government likes guns, and I am pretty sure some were even directly affected by guns in their lives. Sweeping general statements do not mean anything, there is a war going on in politics too.
The fact that background checks are not mandatory at gun shows and through internet sales blows my mind. That's utterly tragic.
On June 17 2016 06:01 dontforgetosmile wrote: any round can be dangerous from any range. the fbi penetration standard is based on the penetration necessary to effectively and immediately stop a threat.
It's a guideline probably for single projectiles, not an absolute truth with no possible alternatives. Would you say a sledgehammer hit to the chest by Dwayne Johnson doesn't have enough stopping power because it doesn't penetrate 12 inches?
Birdshot has massive stopping power at distances you'd expect in home defense scenarios. And just about none at longer ranges, where you shouldn't be shooting at people anyway.
again, being shot at any distance with any round is going to suck. the idea behind the penetration standard is that it will, in a variety of situations, be adequate to immediately and effectively incapacitate an attacker. whether or not it is dependable in some scenarios is moot if it isn't reliable when you find yourself in different one.
Again, I postulate (and it's a very safe bet) that there factors other than penetration which affect the incapacitation potential of certain rounds. To assume that the FBI standard is the be-all and end-all standard for all stopping power takes a lot of faith.
i don't want to outright dismiss your point, but i don't know what you are basing this off of. penetration is extremely important when you're talking about creating large wound cavities and reaching vital organs, anything else is literally a flesh wound. so when you're talking about immediately stopping a threat, penetration is a key factor (which is why there is a standard in the first place).
A hole that big in you is what I call creating a large wound.
On February 20 2012 03:11 Yongwang wrote: Hello everyone in this other thread! As to answer the OP's question, as I'm sure you already know my stance on this from the other thread, I fully support the right to bear arms and the right to carry. At the end of the day, there is no legitimate reason for the government to take away either of those fundamental rights. Remember kids, fear is not a reason to take away people's freedom.
This is absolutely false. I hear people say "oh government's taking away our guns, stop them!" and that's absolutely false. There's this special fearmongering around Obama that's especially ridiculous because he's never done anything of that sort. In fact, more guns have been bought during his term as president than any other time. And don't think Obama's spreading guns either.
What he has been trying to do is push through standard checks and procedures that should take place. A comparison can be made with buying a car. When you buy car, you have to prove that you have the ability to by obtaining a driver's license, show you have no medical condition that prevents you from driving, etc, etc. Why are these things in check? Because we saw ridiculous auto fatality rates in the past. So we researched why that was the case and put different things in check. One part was making sure the driver was responsible and other steps such as fixing roads, stepping up driving laws and enforcement were others.
In some states, this is not the case with guns. You can walk into any store and buy a gun with ammunition as you want. That's without any of the prerequisite steps like a driver's license, showing you have no medical condition, etc, etc. All we want are some standard checks in place like background checks that make sense.
And you know what's ridiculous? It's been stated and it's known that the FBI cannot stop a known ISIS endorser from walking into a shop and buying a gun. They have a list of individuals that visit ISIS supportive sites and they can stop them from boarding an airplane but they can't stop them from buying a gun. When you think about it, isn't it ridiculous? An ISIS supporter can't board a plane but they can buy a gun.
And that's because whenever background checks and other procedures are proposed as prerequisites to buying a gun that could show an ISIS supporter for who they are, the NRA raises its banner and rallies gun owners under the false pretense that the government is taking away their guns. NO. That is absolutely not the case.
I don't understand why people are so adamant about this. If you are sane and capable of using firearms you can still access them in the future. But the steps that people want to put in place are to ensure the insane are not walking into a shop and buying firearms.
There are other implications of this. In other countries where guns are less easily obtainable, police methods revolve around coercing an attacker into submitting without force. There are videos of police from European countries surrounding a machete or knife wielder until the attacker submits to arrests. In America, we shoot that attacker on sight. Why? Because police are trained to shoot in such situations because the attacker might have a gun. If we make guns only available to those capable and sane enough to wield them, they have a means of self-defense and we can change police training as well.
I am in full support of the 2nd amendment and would never propose taking it down. But making sure insane individuals don't get access to guns easily is not taking down the 2nd amendment but supporting it imo.
There are plenty of liberals and democrats who would propose to literally confiscate every single weapon in America and make it into Australia. Barack Obama has always been abit more moderate in his stances then the vast majority of his fellow democrats, however there's a reason why so many Republicans and conservatives in general are extremely wary of gun legislation. First of all, the media always tries to paint guns as bad and harmful to society in almost every conceivable way possible, slanting the image, the statistics, etc. all while not actually pointing out that gun related crimes and gun related violence is at an all time low since the 1960s. Why? Because we finally started to take care of the drug problems within our cities by helping those out that actually need it, and slowly started getting them out of poverty. Today we still have major issues in pockets, but it's no longer quite as bad as it once was. Stamping out the crack/heroine epidemic helped reduce the amount of violent crimes within our cities. Oh yeah, liberals would say 'war on drugs worthless.' Right. That's why after stamping out the crack epidemic in the majority of our major cities that violent crimes in general especially firearm related crimes dropped dramatically.
This idea that the democrats are willing to 'compromise' is silly. They've shown that they will not. They just say 'we're just going to do this' and take it about 100 steps further. I'm not saying the current situation is perfect either, and the NRA are a bunch of assholes too. However, don't make it sound like the democrats are the reasonable ones here, when many of them have called for outright bans of firearms in the United States, many of them citing Australia as a perfect example (without realizing that Australia is a far more homogeneous country then the United States, and is made up of 3 regions rather than the multiple regions such as the Midwest, West, Mountain Regions, the Southwest, Deep South, North East, etc). And the last time I believed Barack Obama my health premiums shot through the roof when he promised that they wouldn't. So..... yeah.
And for those of you who keep trying to say that the United States should copy XYZ country, please, just stop. The United States is geographically a far bigger nation then any of the countries you listed. That's already one major difference, let alone the various other differences regarding culture, presence of various different ethnic and religious groups, wide swinging and varying degrees of wealth per city, etc. There are far bigger issues at play here then gun control. I will agree that there needs to be much more strict gun regulation and the NRA needs to stop being assholes about it. However, I do see their point when the left media paints firearms in such a negative way despite the fact that there are legitimate uses to firearms, and so many liberal congress members are calling for the outright ban of firearms in our country.
But you are the perfect example why we even have the tendency to tell you americans what to do with your country - because of arogant ignorance such as this.
Geographical extent means nothing, physical distance is easily covered in the 21st century. When it comes to population, the US not only has roughly the same population as the EU, it also has the same order of magnitude as the largest EU countries (Germany and UK). The idea that US is so vastly bigger is just self-delusion of grandeur, nothing more. The EU as a whole is also now much more closely tied than you probably imagine and it's not much more different from a single country, than US with the power given to individual states. So please, drop this argument, it has no point and it is also just wrong form to ask for someone to not have opinion, just because he is an outsider.
The "war on drugs" argument is outright absurd. Do you understand that the only reason for organized crime and violence coming hand in hand with drugs is the very war on drugs you are praising? If the drugs were legally sold, their trade won't differ from any other thing. You have alleviated a problem, that you have created, so what? The war on drugs is actually probably a big reason for a lot of guns being in circulation in the first place, with the crime it created.
Holy shut. I don't even know where to begin. The amount of ignorance you literally wrote is ridiculous.
A. Geographical distances mean nothing? Do you even understand the size of the United States and how hard it is to actually manage a country of that size from a federal standpoint? I mean if geographical distances mean nothing how come it was so hard for the EU to manage the refugees coming in for Syria? I dont know how about the fact that its insanely difficult to manage such a large border when so many refugees are arriving at the same time? But geographical distances dont matter in the 21st century right? I haven't even mentioned that America has a far more culturally diverse society than most 1st world countries, which is part of the reason as to why there are so many issues in America.
B. The war on drugs was started to stamp out the crack epidemic in cities that was predominantly affecting African Americans. You want crack to be legalized? Marijuana is fine, that's a stupid drug with no real side effects. Crack on the other hand should never reach the hands of citizens as there is literally no medical benefit to it and the side effects are far too devastating. Guns are because of the war on drugs? Think again. Firearm related crimes and crimes from minorities (in particular African Americans) skyrocketed in the 80s and early 90s due to the crack epidemic. As soon as the government stepped in and stamped it out firearm related crimes and crimes among minorities have dropped to all time lows.
C. The EU is nothing like the United States. Turkey for example could say fucking this join and then leave. Said countries maintain ultimate sovereignty over themselves when they join the EU. Texas does not have said same rights despite being a sovereign nation prior to being annexed into the United States.
I cannot believe you posted some stupid shit like that, especially with the condescending assume attitude that you just had. Your ignorance and stupidity absolutely astounds me. Geographical distances don't matter? Crack should be legal? Holy fuck. And you call Americans fat, dumb, arrogant, and ignorant? Good old Internet keyboard warriors at their best.
First of all, calm down. Second of all, you're misinformed and I'll try to show you why. The issue about immigration has everything to do with different countries having different views on home affairs, making an overarching policy on immigration is almost impossible. It's all politically, nothing geographically (or maybe some, but European borders, even with them being so "open", are still pretty regulated. Especially when most immigrants either come through Turkey, Eastern Europe or the coastal areas of the Mediterranean Sea. It's basically every nation in Europe bickering on how to handle to situation without being actually ready to handle it.
Crack is simply cocaine in another form. It's not THAT harmful to be honest.Your view on drugs is warped. This is what misinformation does. If you legalize and educate, you'll get 1- far less addiction, 2- far less usage, 3- far less death and 4- far less crime. Just look at The Netherlands. If you criminalize the thing alot of people want, it's going to criminalize the economy around it, because there's moderate to extreme wealth associated with it.
On June 17 2016 06:01 dontforgetosmile wrote: any round can be dangerous from any range. the fbi penetration standard is based on the penetration necessary to effectively and immediately stop a threat.
It's a guideline probably for single projectiles, not an absolute truth with no possible alternatives. Would you say a sledgehammer hit to the chest by Dwayne Johnson doesn't have enough stopping power because it doesn't penetrate 12 inches?
Birdshot has massive stopping power at distances you'd expect in home defense scenarios. And just about none at longer ranges, where you shouldn't be shooting at people anyway.
again, being shot at any distance with any round is going to suck. the idea behind the penetration standard is that it will, in a variety of situations, be adequate to immediately and effectively incapacitate an attacker. whether or not it is dependable in some scenarios is moot if it isn't reliable when you find yourself in different one.
Again, I postulate (and it's a very safe bet) that there factors other than penetration which affect the incapacitation potential of certain rounds. To assume that the FBI standard is the be-all and end-all standard for all stopping power takes a lot of faith.
i don't want to outright dismiss your point, but i don't know what you are basing this off of. penetration is extremely important when you're talking about creating large wound cavities and reaching vital organs, anything else is literally a flesh wound. so when you're talking about immediately stopping a threat, penetration is a key factor (which is why there is a standard in the first place).
On June 17 2016 06:01 dontforgetosmile wrote: any round can be dangerous from any range. the fbi penetration standard is based on the penetration necessary to effectively and immediately stop a threat.
It's a guideline probably for single projectiles, not an absolute truth with no possible alternatives. Would you say a sledgehammer hit to the chest by Dwayne Johnson doesn't have enough stopping power because it doesn't penetrate 12 inches?
Birdshot has massive stopping power at distances you'd expect in home defense scenarios. And just about none at longer ranges, where you shouldn't be shooting at people anyway.
again, being shot at any distance with any round is going to suck. the idea behind the penetration standard is that it will, in a variety of situations, be adequate to immediately and effectively incapacitate an attacker. whether or not it is dependable in some scenarios is moot if it isn't reliable when you find yourself in different one.
Again, I postulate (and it's a very safe bet) that there factors other than penetration which affect the incapacitation potential of certain rounds. To assume that the FBI standard is the be-all and end-all standard for all stopping power takes a lot of faith.
i don't want to outright dismiss your point, but i don't know what you are basing this off of. penetration is extremely important when you're talking about creating large wound cavities and reaching vital organs, anything else is literally a flesh wound. so when you're talking about immediately stopping a threat, penetration is a key factor (which is why there is a standard in the first place).
On June 17 2016 06:01 dontforgetosmile wrote: any round can be dangerous from any range. the fbi penetration standard is based on the penetration necessary to effectively and immediately stop a threat.
It's a guideline probably for single projectiles, not an absolute truth with no possible alternatives. Would you say a sledgehammer hit to the chest by Dwayne Johnson doesn't have enough stopping power because it doesn't penetrate 12 inches?
Birdshot has massive stopping power at distances you'd expect in home defense scenarios. And just about none at longer ranges, where you shouldn't be shooting at people anyway.
again, being shot at any distance with any round is going to suck. the idea behind the penetration standard is that it will, in a variety of situations, be adequate to immediately and effectively incapacitate an attacker. whether or not it is dependable in some scenarios is moot if it isn't reliable when you find yourself in different one.
Again, I postulate (and it's a very safe bet) that there factors other than penetration which affect the incapacitation potential of certain rounds. To assume that the FBI standard is the be-all and end-all standard for all stopping power takes a lot of faith.
i don't want to outright dismiss your point, but i don't know what you are basing this off of. penetration is extremely important when you're talking about creating large wound cavities and reaching vital organs, anything else is literally a flesh wound. so when you're talking about immediately stopping a threat, penetration is a key factor (which is why there is a standard in the first place).
A hole that big in you is what I call creating a large wound.
The naked invader of your home is pretty scary, but what happens if he or she is wearing clothes?
In the previous page I linked something that addresses that and similar questions I think. Either way, a t-shirt won't stop much. Jeans might reduce it. Anyway I'm not the only one who'd be confident in birdshot for home defense. Most of the argument that I've seen from reading around are basically birdshot has plenty of stopping power, but less than buckshot, at the benefit of not penetrating walls nearly as much. It may have less stopping power, especially at longer distances, than slugs or buckshot.
So some would argue that it's safer to have more firepower to be sure you have enough. Others would say you can have a bit less firepower but your stuff won't go through 10 layers of drywall, killing others. I happen to subscribe to the second. Is it safer overall/statistically? I don't know. I don't actually do home defense and have no desire to, it's just morbid curiosity.
On June 17 2016 06:01 dontforgetosmile wrote: any round can be dangerous from any range. the fbi penetration standard is based on the penetration necessary to effectively and immediately stop a threat.
It's a guideline probably for single projectiles, not an absolute truth with no possible alternatives. Would you say a sledgehammer hit to the chest by Dwayne Johnson doesn't have enough stopping power because it doesn't penetrate 12 inches?
Birdshot has massive stopping power at distances you'd expect in home defense scenarios. And just about none at longer ranges, where you shouldn't be shooting at people anyway.
again, being shot at any distance with any round is going to suck. the idea behind the penetration standard is that it will, in a variety of situations, be adequate to immediately and effectively incapacitate an attacker. whether or not it is dependable in some scenarios is moot if it isn't reliable when you find yourself in different one.
Again, I postulate (and it's a very safe bet) that there factors other than penetration which affect the incapacitation potential of certain rounds. To assume that the FBI standard is the be-all and end-all standard for all stopping power takes a lot of faith.
i don't want to outright dismiss your point, but i don't know what you are basing this off of. penetration is extremely important when you're talking about creating large wound cavities and reaching vital organs, anything else is literally a flesh wound. so when you're talking about immediately stopping a threat, penetration is a key factor (which is why there is a standard in the first place).
A hole that big in you is what I call creating a large wound.
The naked invader of your home is pretty scary, but what happens if he or she is wearing clothes?
In the previous page I linked something that addresses that and similar questions I think. Either way, a t-shirt won't stop much. Jeans might reduce it. Anyway I'm not the only one who'd be confident in birdshot for home defense. Most of the argument that I've seen from reading around are basically birdshot has plenty of stopping power, but less than buckshot, at the benefit of not penetrating walls nearly as much. It may have less stopping power, especially at longer distances, than slugs or buckshot.
So some would argue that it's safer to have more firepower to be sure you have enough. Others would say you can have a bit less firepower but your stuff won't go through 10 layers of drywall, killing others. I happen to subscribe to the second. Is it safer overall/statistically? I don't know. I don't actually do home defense and have no desire to, it's just morbid curiosity.
In my kushnapup, I have the first two rounds birdshot and all buckshot after that. A bit overthinking the worst possible scenarios I admit.
On June 17 2016 10:42 Uldridge wrote: First of all, calm down. Second of all, you're misinformed and I'll try to show you why. The issue about immigration has everything to do with different countries having different views on home affairs, making an overarching policy on immigration is almost impossible. It's all politically, nothing geographically (or maybe some, but European borders, even with them being so "open", are still pretty regulated. Especially when most immigrants either come through Turkey, Eastern Europe or the coastal areas of the Mediterranean Sea. It's basically every nation in Europe bickering on how to handle to situation without being actually ready to handle it.
Crack is simply cocaine in another form. It's not THAT harmful to be honest.Your view on drugs is warped. This is what misinformation does. If you legalize and educate, you'll get 1- far less addiction, 2- far less usage, 3- far less death and 4- far less crime. Just look at The Netherlands. If you criminalize the thing alot of people want, it's going to criminalize the economy around it, because there's moderate to extreme wealth associated with it.
It's not that harmful. It can only cause liver damage, heart damage, strokes, among many other things, and is illegal in pretty much every country outside of like a handful in South America for recreational use. Oh, and we're not talking about constant and prolonged abuse over decades, we're talking about within just a few years of abuse, you can literally die from the shit. Not to mention that the crack form of it is highly addictive due to the way it is ingested.
On June 17 2016 06:01 dontforgetosmile wrote: any round can be dangerous from any range. the fbi penetration standard is based on the penetration necessary to effectively and immediately stop a threat.
It's a guideline probably for single projectiles, not an absolute truth with no possible alternatives. Would you say a sledgehammer hit to the chest by Dwayne Johnson doesn't have enough stopping power because it doesn't penetrate 12 inches?
Birdshot has massive stopping power at distances you'd expect in home defense scenarios. And just about none at longer ranges, where you shouldn't be shooting at people anyway.
again, being shot at any distance with any round is going to suck. the idea behind the penetration standard is that it will, in a variety of situations, be adequate to immediately and effectively incapacitate an attacker. whether or not it is dependable in some scenarios is moot if it isn't reliable when you find yourself in different one.
Again, I postulate (and it's a very safe bet) that there factors other than penetration which affect the incapacitation potential of certain rounds. To assume that the FBI standard is the be-all and end-all standard for all stopping power takes a lot of faith.
i don't want to outright dismiss your point, but i don't know what you are basing this off of. penetration is extremely important when you're talking about creating large wound cavities and reaching vital organs, anything else is literally a flesh wound. so when you're talking about immediately stopping a threat, penetration is a key factor (which is why there is a standard in the first place).
A hole that big in you is what I call creating a large wound.
The naked invader of your home is pretty scary, but what happens if he or she is wearing clothes?
In the previous page I linked something that addresses that and similar questions I think. Either way, a t-shirt won't stop much. Jeans might reduce it. Anyway I'm not the only one who'd be confident in birdshot for home defense. Most of the argument that I've seen from reading around are basically birdshot has plenty of stopping power, but less than buckshot, at the benefit of not penetrating walls nearly as much. It may have less stopping power, especially at longer distances, than slugs or buckshot.
So some would argue that it's safer to have more firepower to be sure you have enough. Others would say you can have a bit less firepower but your stuff won't go through 10 layers of drywall, killing others. I happen to subscribe to the second. Is it safer overall/statistically? I don't know. I don't actually do home defense and have no desire to, it's just morbid curiosity.
For home defense birdshot would be enough to deter an intruder, not necessarily kill him however. 5.56 NATO rounds don't even put down people let alone birdshot. I'm of the opinion however if that if I was ever in a situation where there was an intruder in my home and he was ballsy enough to break into an area of my home where I'm holed up, he's likely there to kill me or cause severe bodily harm to me. At that point, I want something with alot more stopping power then birdshot.
On June 15 2016 09:43 dontforgetosmile wrote: this is the core of the argument and where we differ. it's not the fact that guns kill people, which is an important (but oft overlooked) distinction, it's that the cons outweigh the benefits for you. but it's obvious that for a lot of people, a gun is the ultimate form of self-defense and deterrence, and is worth much more to them.
Even if we think about firearms for self defense, the AR15 is almost always objectively the wrong weapon for the job. Pistols are better in a vast majority of cases although they still have problems, and also many neighbor-conscious people would say shotguns with birdshot or the like are better because of lower penetration, so you're less likely to injure or kill a someone in an adjacent house or a family member through a wall. 223/5.56 will punch through drywall and wood like a mofo. The same thing applies to CCWs or open carry. If you open carry a full size rifle you probably have some sort of issue in your head.
i don't think this is true. pistols are much more difficult to fire accurately (not even factoring in stress). birdshot doesn't come close to being considered an effective self-defense round, and any round that is (coming out of a shotgun), is going have much more felt recoil than .223. the only thing i would consider a more optimal self-defense tool would be a pistol caliber carbine and ars can also be chambered in 9mm. the fact that it's easy to shoulder, easy to operate, highly modular, and has relatively light recoil is what makes it popular.
given that, i would say that the ar is almost always the right weapon for the job. overpenetration is almost moot point, as any effectively penetrating round is going to penetrate drywall/wood and even then just find one chambered in 9mm and run hp ammo.
I am sorry but what? In what world do you live in that a pistol is considered more difficult to fire accurately at close range? A rifle is obviously more accurate in an objective sense, but rifles are constructed for ranges of 25m and more. How exactly are you defending your home that you need (or want) that range?
i don't know how you can argue a pistol is easier to fire than a rifle, regardless of range. it's many times easier for someone to shoulder a rifle and put multiple rounds on target at any range than it is to do with a pistol.
At 10m or less a pistol is definitely easier to aim and accurate enough. Never mind the fact that most of the points about caliber and overpenetration is wrong as well. Yes a 9mm pistol round can penetrate drywall/wood, but chances are it won't penetrate a 2nd or 3rd. A 5.56 round on the other hand easily can. What are you talking about with effectively penetrating rounds, penetration is not what you are looking for for self or home defense. Stopping power is.
you can find ars chambered in 9mm. effective penetration is absolutely critical. otherwise, why not use .22lr?
And yes a shotgun has recoil, maybe it has more than an AR-15, but it definitely has more stopping power and is far easier to aim at that range as well. "birdshot" doesn't come close to being considered an effective self-defense round is a laughable statement at best. Without bothering to look up different calibers the 3 different ones I use for hunting are all more than sufficient to grievously wound or kill someone at close range. The lightest caliber (used to hunt rabbits usually) was enough to kill a friend of mine in a hunting accident at 25m. The heaviest (4mm grains) can (and is) be used to kill wild boars. there are also heavier calibers (though seldom used for hunting mostly because instead of killing the target i'd mince it) if you truly desire more stopping power that is the way to go, not the Assault Rifle option.
what you consider "stopping power" is really just penetration and shot placement.
any weapon can kill at any range, the same way i can cut anything with a butter knife. what you want though is something effective. and when something is threatening your life you want something that's easy to use, has sufficient penetration, and the ability to have quick followup shots. the ar excels at this.
In close quarters firing a pistol repeatedly in close quarters is far faster and more accurate then trying to shoulder and sight with a rifle, especially in a quick draw type of situation or when there are possible obstacles in the way that may prevent you from moving your rifle around and properly using your sights.
On June 15 2016 09:43 dontforgetosmile wrote: this is the core of the argument and where we differ. it's not the fact that guns kill people, which is an important (but oft overlooked) distinction, it's that the cons outweigh the benefits for you. but it's obvious that for a lot of people, a gun is the ultimate form of self-defense and deterrence, and is worth much more to them.
Even if we think about firearms for self defense, the AR15 is almost always objectively the wrong weapon for the job. Pistols are better in a vast majority of cases although they still have problems, and also many neighbor-conscious people would say shotguns with birdshot or the like are better because of lower penetration, so you're less likely to injure or kill a someone in an adjacent house or a family member through a wall. 223/5.56 will punch through drywall and wood like a mofo. The same thing applies to CCWs or open carry. If you open carry a full size rifle you probably have some sort of issue in your head.
i don't think this is true. pistols are much more difficult to fire accurately (not even factoring in stress). birdshot doesn't come close to being considered an effective self-defense round, and any round that is (coming out of a shotgun), is going have much more felt recoil than .223. the only thing i would consider a more optimal self-defense tool would be a pistol caliber carbine and ars can also be chambered in 9mm. the fact that it's easy to shoulder, easy to operate, highly modular, and has relatively light recoil is what makes it popular.
given that, i would say that the ar is almost always the right weapon for the job. overpenetration is almost moot point, as any effectively penetrating round is going to penetrate drywall/wood and even then just find one chambered in 9mm and run hp ammo.
I am sorry but what? In what world do you live in that a pistol is considered more difficult to fire accurately at close range? A rifle is obviously more accurate in an objective sense, but rifles are constructed for ranges of 25m and more. How exactly are you defending your home that you need (or want) that range?
i don't know how you can argue a pistol is easier to fire than a rifle, regardless of range. it's many times easier for someone to shoulder a rifle and put multiple rounds on target at any range than it is to do with a pistol.
At 10m or less a pistol is definitely easier to aim and accurate enough. Never mind the fact that most of the points about caliber and overpenetration is wrong as well. Yes a 9mm pistol round can penetrate drywall/wood, but chances are it won't penetrate a 2nd or 3rd. A 5.56 round on the other hand easily can. What are you talking about with effectively penetrating rounds, penetration is not what you are looking for for self or home defense. Stopping power is.
you can find ars chambered in 9mm. effective penetration is absolutely critical. otherwise, why not use .22lr?
And yes a shotgun has recoil, maybe it has more than an AR-15, but it definitely has more stopping power and is far easier to aim at that range as well. "birdshot" doesn't come close to being considered an effective self-defense round is a laughable statement at best. Without bothering to look up different calibers the 3 different ones I use for hunting are all more than sufficient to grievously wound or kill someone at close range. The lightest caliber (used to hunt rabbits usually) was enough to kill a friend of mine in a hunting accident at 25m. The heaviest (4mm grains) can (and is) be used to kill wild boars. there are also heavier calibers (though seldom used for hunting mostly because instead of killing the target i'd mince it) if you truly desire more stopping power that is the way to go, not the Assault Rifle option.
what you consider "stopping power" is really just penetration and shot placement.
any weapon can kill at any range, the same way i can cut anything with a butter knife. what you want though is something effective. and when something is threatening your life you want something that's easy to use, has sufficient penetration, and the ability to have quick followup shots. the ar excels at this.
In close quarters firing a pistol repeatedly in close quarters is far faster and more accurate then trying to shoulder and sight with a rifle, especially in a quick draw type of situation or when there are possible obstacles in the way that may prevent you from moving your rifle around and properly using your sights.
there are definitely situations where a pistol may be easier to handle, but in terms of actually firing, i think unless you've trained extensively with it (and even if you have), it's going to be difficult to rapidly put shots on target. whereas with a rifle, you just tuck it into your shoulder and don't stop till the mag is empty. also, that's what sbrs are for :D
I mean, from what I'm reading, the people advocating for guns are arguing technicalities and saying things like pitchforks and forks are dangerous too so why not ban them if guns are banned.
And...I think we can all agree that such arguments are worthless. If we're going to ban everything dangerous, nothing would exist. And if we're going to argue with useless hyperbole like this, I can say that we might as well allow all weaponry available for purchase to the public because people have easy access to semi-automatic weapons anyway.
Here's a video for people who think guns aren't easily hid and used.
I see people arguing technicalities about what a gun can and can't do but that really shouldn't be the point. Say we have an attacker with a knife versus an attacker with a semi-automatic rifle. The attacker with a knife has to chase people down to kill them. During that interim, people can call police, get away, etc, etc. Take an attacker with a semi-automatic rifle. That attacker can shoot people from a distance, incapacitating them, finish the job later, and can kill many people at one setting. The attacker with the knife won't be able to do something like that.
And sure, someone who seriously wants a gun might find a way to obtain one through the black market, etc. However, most attackers are desperate individuals aka lone wolfs that aren't thinking straight. They will search for weapons that are relatively easy to obtain and use them. If guns weren't available to the Orlando shooter, he probably wouldn't have attacked with one. From what we see, it looks like the Orlando shooter turned to ISIS ideology relatively recently before carrying out the attack. If he was so desperate to attack, he might have done so with a knife or other weapon but not with a gun. Those were 50+ lives lost.
And I see arguments like "gun violence will occur no matter what we do" and that argument is just...unethical and immoral not to mention false. That's suggesting we don't try in the first place.
Also, don't be so averse to compromise. I see arguments declaring Democrats will soon take it 100 steps further and outlaw all guns, but look at the state of guns in Congress right now. NRA has a complete lock on the issue. You can easily compromise now and lock the issue later as the NRA has already done. Standard background checks and preventing known ISIS supporters from buying guns should be steps taken. You can lock the issue there if you want but no regulation is ridiculous.
On June 17 2016 14:06 MoosyDoosy wrote: Also, don't be so averse to compromise. I see arguments declaring Democrats will soon take it 100 steps further and outlaw all guns, but look at the state of guns in Congress right now. NRA has a complete lock on the issue. You can easily compromise now and lock the issue later as the NRA has already done. Standard background checks and preventing known ISIS supporters from buying guns should be steps taken. You can lock the issue there if you want but no regulation is ridiculous.
Many gun owners agree on more stringent regulations on firearms. The problem is that most people who talk about firearms have no fucking clue what they are talking about.
On June 15 2016 09:43 dontforgetosmile wrote: this is the core of the argument and where we differ. it's not the fact that guns kill people, which is an important (but oft overlooked) distinction, it's that the cons outweigh the benefits for you. but it's obvious that for a lot of people, a gun is the ultimate form of self-defense and deterrence, and is worth much more to them.
Even if we think about firearms for self defense, the AR15 is almost always objectively the wrong weapon for the job. Pistols are better in a vast majority of cases although they still have problems, and also many neighbor-conscious people would say shotguns with birdshot or the like are better because of lower penetration, so you're less likely to injure or kill a someone in an adjacent house or a family member through a wall. 223/5.56 will punch through drywall and wood like a mofo. The same thing applies to CCWs or open carry. If you open carry a full size rifle you probably have some sort of issue in your head.
i don't think this is true. pistols are much more difficult to fire accurately (not even factoring in stress). birdshot doesn't come close to being considered an effective self-defense round, and any round that is (coming out of a shotgun), is going have much more felt recoil than .223. the only thing i would consider a more optimal self-defense tool would be a pistol caliber carbine and ars can also be chambered in 9mm. the fact that it's easy to shoulder, easy to operate, highly modular, and has relatively light recoil is what makes it popular.
given that, i would say that the ar is almost always the right weapon for the job. overpenetration is almost moot point, as any effectively penetrating round is going to penetrate drywall/wood and even then just find one chambered in 9mm and run hp ammo.
I am sorry but what? In what world do you live in that a pistol is considered more difficult to fire accurately at close range? A rifle is obviously more accurate in an objective sense, but rifles are constructed for ranges of 25m and more. How exactly are you defending your home that you need (or want) that range?
i don't know how you can argue a pistol is easier to fire than a rifle, regardless of range. it's many times easier for someone to shoulder a rifle and put multiple rounds on target at any range than it is to do with a pistol.
At 10m or less a pistol is definitely easier to aim and accurate enough. Never mind the fact that most of the points about caliber and overpenetration is wrong as well. Yes a 9mm pistol round can penetrate drywall/wood, but chances are it won't penetrate a 2nd or 3rd. A 5.56 round on the other hand easily can. What are you talking about with effectively penetrating rounds, penetration is not what you are looking for for self or home defense. Stopping power is.
you can find ars chambered in 9mm. effective penetration is absolutely critical. otherwise, why not use .22lr?
And yes a shotgun has recoil, maybe it has more than an AR-15, but it definitely has more stopping power and is far easier to aim at that range as well. "birdshot" doesn't come close to being considered an effective self-defense round is a laughable statement at best. Without bothering to look up different calibers the 3 different ones I use for hunting are all more than sufficient to grievously wound or kill someone at close range. The lightest caliber (used to hunt rabbits usually) was enough to kill a friend of mine in a hunting accident at 25m. The heaviest (4mm grains) can (and is) be used to kill wild boars. there are also heavier calibers (though seldom used for hunting mostly because instead of killing the target i'd mince it) if you truly desire more stopping power that is the way to go, not the Assault Rifle option.
what you consider "stopping power" is really just penetration and shot placement.
any weapon can kill at any range, the same way i can cut anything with a butter knife. what you want though is something effective. and when something is threatening your life you want something that's easy to use, has sufficient penetration, and the ability to have quick followup shots. the ar excels at this.
In close quarters firing a pistol repeatedly in close quarters is far faster and more accurate then trying to shoulder and sight with a rifle, especially in a quick draw type of situation or when there are possible obstacles in the way that may prevent you from moving your rifle around and properly using your sights.
there are definitely situations where a pistol may be easier to handle, but in terms of actually firing, i think unless you've trained extensively with it (and even if you have), it's going to be difficult to rapidly put shots on target. whereas with a rifle, you just tuck it into your shoulder and don't stop till the mag is empty. also, that's what sbrs are for :D
If we're talking about a semi-automatic non-bolt action rifle then yes a semi-automatic non-bolt action rifle is far more effective in CQB, especially if you fit it at for that purpose. If we're talking about using a .308 semi-automatic bolt action versus a Glock 19, different story. In a CQB scenario ROF is king, thus why a few special forces guys still use SMGs when they are indoors and close quarters. Short, maneuverability, extremely high rate of fire, lower recoil.
And before some more damn dumbasses come in here and say that an AR-15 is overkill for self defense, let's talk about a few different things here.
A. The AR-15 uses a .223 FMJ round that doesn't even kill small hogs and deer in one shot let alone a human being that is possibly jacked up on drugs or adrenaline and possibly psychotic. The sheer velocity and force of the bullet however will put an intruder on his back if he's within a short distance from you.
B. Based on the classes I've taken, when it comes to CQB you want the fastest firing rate weapon with the most amount of stopping power possible. Semi-automatic rifles take the cake here, especially a SBR AR-15. Revolvers come a close 2nd. A shotgun in trained hands is ideal, however shotguns have a shit ton of kick, and sometimes that can be the difference between life and death. Most people aren't trained to shoot a shotgun under duress in a close quarter situation (I sure am not).
C. You have more of a chance of over penetrating with a 9mm pistol then you do with an AR-15. Not a joke nor a lie. The .223 round will penetrate the first wall but at that point loses alot of energy, tumbles, and likely will fragment. 9mm will cut through 12 layers of sheetrock like butter. Don't believe me? Have fun reading FBI ballistic tests from like the 80s. There's a reason why by the end of the 90s every single SWAT team in America and the FBI switched from the MP5 to the M4A1 Carbine for their response teams.
On June 17 2016 10:56 Orcasgt24 wrote: How come you can own a M-16 or AK-47 in the US but not a M-249 SAW? I can't find any real reason online.
because the m249 is a machinegun (capable of automatic fire), whereas the m16 (ar-15) and ak47s that most ppl own are semi-automatic only. machineguns are heavily restricted.
There are more deaths in the USA due to drugs, alchol and tobacco (basically harmful substances) than total firearm deaths (including suicide) and they're "harmless"?
What kind of mental gymnastics do you go through to arrive to that conclusion?
EPT
