|
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 February 22 2018 09:53 Leporello wrote:
I've shot an M-4. It might surprise you.
An M-4 is a long-range rifle. It's bullets travel 4-5 times faster than a similar caliber handgun. It is the most common rifle in our Army. Why is that a good comparison?
Because it’s a medium range rifle that shoots small bullet. I can by a rifle that would shoot a much bigger bullet faster without even getting a special license.
|
On February 22 2018 09:53 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 09:53 micronesia wrote:Okay, I'll make a small list. - Using 'goodness' as a characteristic of guns. In fact, some are excessively good.
- Relating the effective range of a firearm to its suitability as a defensive weapon.
- Using the term 'assault-file' improperly. Perhaps if you shared the definition you are using it would help at least.
- Using the term 'smaller arms' in a confusing way. "Small" means something different when referring to firearms.
- Referring to dissenting views as 'high-flying shitty fantasy' rather than an incorrect view.
- Taking issue with 'stopping power' even though it is extremely important when evaluating a firearm for suitability for home defense.
- Referring to bullet speed as a concern without referencing the mass or momentum (22 target rifles shoot very fast bullets but so what).
- Implying that accuracy is a feature to avoid in defensive firearms.
- Implying that the simulated fully-auto capability granted by a bumpstock is trivial when compared to otherwise available actions, even though this is false in some situations such as the Las Vegas shooting.
- Saying caliber doesn't matter for defensive weapons
- Conflating assault style weapons which are based on designs to stop/wound vice kill targets with battle rifles or sniper rifles which are designed to kill.
- Not addressing magazine size at all.
That's just based on the past few posts on this page. You could probably nitpick the list and find something where I goofed, but the overall trend here is that you have very little idea what you are talking about, and deep down I think you realize this but decided it doesn't matter. You're a mod? Jesus Christ.
while I share the concern about questionable mod status occuring in general; I'm not sure what your specific objection is to the post you quoted.
|
You could probably nitpick the list and find something where I goofed, but the overall trend here is that you have very little idea what you are talking about, and deep down I think you realize this but decided it doesn't matter.
Have you ever fired any of these guns? I have. In army camp. Where they belong.
and I'm the "noob".
|
On February 22 2018 09:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 09:53 Leporello wrote:
I've shot an M-4. It might surprise you.
An M-4 is a long-range rifle. It's bullets travel 4-5 times faster than a similar caliber handgun. It is the most common rifle in our Army. Why is that a good comparison? Because it’s a medium range rifle that shoots small bullet. I can by a rifle that would shoot a much bigger bullet faster without even getting a special license.
and that's a problem.
And the bullet isn't small.
You guys are trying really hard to be fair and balanced, or something.
|
On February 22 2018 09:57 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 09:53 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 09:53 micronesia wrote:Okay, I'll make a small list. - Using 'goodness' as a characteristic of guns. In fact, some are excessively good.
- Relating the effective range of a firearm to its suitability as a defensive weapon.
- Using the term 'assault-file' improperly. Perhaps if you shared the definition you are using it would help at least.
- Using the term 'smaller arms' in a confusing way. "Small" means something different when referring to firearms.
- Referring to dissenting views as 'high-flying shitty fantasy' rather than an incorrect view.
- Taking issue with 'stopping power' even though it is extremely important when evaluating a firearm for suitability for home defense.
- Referring to bullet speed as a concern without referencing the mass or momentum (22 target rifles shoot very fast bullets but so what).
- Implying that accuracy is a feature to avoid in defensive firearms.
- Implying that the simulated fully-auto capability granted by a bumpstock is trivial when compared to otherwise available actions, even though this is false in some situations such as the Las Vegas shooting.
- Saying caliber doesn't matter for defensive weapons
- Conflating assault style weapons which are based on designs to stop/wound vice kill targets with battle rifles or sniper rifles which are designed to kill.
- Not addressing magazine size at all.
That's just based on the past few posts on this page. You could probably nitpick the list and find something where I goofed, but the overall trend here is that you have very little idea what you are talking about, and deep down I think you realize this but decided it doesn't matter. You're a mod? Jesus Christ. while I share the concern about questionable mod status occuring in general; I'm not sure what your specific objection is to the post you quoted.
I have no objection, mostly. That is the objection. I'm not talking about magazine-sizes currently because they're not relevant. That list is just like making a list for the sake of making a list.
|
There are plenty of people in this thread who have fired guns. Including myself. Slow your roll.
|
On February 22 2018 10:02 Plansix wrote:
There are plenty of people in this thread who have fired guns. Including myself. Slow your roll.
I'm not the one accusing people, for never any actual specific reason, of being "noobs". I'm not the one arguing an assault-rifle isn't an assault-rifle. My roll is steady.
|
On February 22 2018 10:01 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 09:57 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2018 09:53 Leporello wrote:
I've shot an M-4. It might surprise you.
An M-4 is a long-range rifle. It's bullets travel 4-5 times faster than a similar caliber handgun. It is the most common rifle in our Army. Why is that a good comparison? Because it’s a medium range rifle that shoots small bullet. I can by a rifle that would shoot a much bigger bullet faster without even getting a special license. and that's a problem. And the bullet isn't small. You guys are trying really hard to be fair and balanced, or something.
No, I just have a better understanding of fire arms than you. And I support gun control and special licenses for owning weapons like the AR-15.
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
To be clear, the AR-15 is not an assault rifle. An assault rifle is a select-fire long gun that shoots rifle caliber ammunition. The AR-15 is only capable of semiautomatic fire.
An important thing to bear in mind here is that the AR-15 is the optimal home defense firearm. Please allow me to explain.
Why the AR-15 is the best home defense firearm
1. The AR-15 is a good size
Bear in mind that a home defense firearm does not have the same size limitations that a carry firearm does. It does not need to fit into a holster. It does not need to be concealable. It just needs to be small enough to hold and use indoors, which an AR-15 is. So, the fact that the AR-15 is a long gun is not a disadvantage. In fact, the AR-15's status as a long gun is an advantage, since it is easier to steady and fire. Of course, there are plenty of short-ish long guns, so this is just one aspect of why the AR-15 is good.
2. The AR-15 fires with adequate kinetic energy
The AR-15 fires with enough kinetic energy to kill someone. In a home defense firearm, this is important.
3. The AR-15 is accurate
It is very important to be accurate when discharging a firearm. If you fail to strike the intruder and your bullets go wide, they may pass through walls of the house and strike your family instead of lodging themselves in the intruder. It is difficult to overstate how important this is.
4. The AR-15's .223/5.56 ammunition is less prone to overpenetration
Unlike high caliber handguns, the AR-15's .223 ammunition is unlikely to overpenetrate people, and when it strikes drywall it tumbles, causing it to go through fewer interior walls than other rounds. This is very important when considering a home defense round. A shotgun slug or a high-caliber handgun round could easily blow a hole through a person and come out the other side, or if it goes wide, pass through a dozen layers of drywall and come out with tons of focused kinetic energy. Because of this, the AR-15 is much safer than other choices.
5. The AR-15 has significantly less recoil and is easier to control than a high-powered handgun or shotgun
This matters a lot, and is again important for not striking family members and making sure you accurately strike an intruder.
It's generally easier to safely, accurately, and effectively use long guns than it is to use handguns. The AR-15 is reasonably sized for indoor use. It is capable of holding enough ammunition to get the job done. It is accurate, and not prone to overpenetration. As it is semiautomatic, it can be fired several times in succession.
If I had to choose a gun for home defense, it would be an AR-15. If it couldn't be an AR-15, it would be another .223/5.56 semiautomatic centerfire long gun, maybe a mini-14 or something, because this is the best kind of gun for home defense. AR-15s just happen to be a modular, easy to use and familiar form of this gun.
--
We should note that generally, long guns like AR-15s are not used in crimes, and the vast majority of crimes are committed with guns that are ideal for use by criminals--handguns. Handguns are not as useful in home defense as long guns, and on top of that are amazingly useful for committing crimes, as they are easily concealed and stealthy, and they can be operated one-handed, leaving a hand free for doing crime stuff.
|
On February 22 2018 09:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 09:35 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 09:27 Plansix wrote:
We sort already had this discussion. The AR-15 is fine based on the caliber of bullet it fires and it’s stopping power. It is the fact that it can take a +30 round clip and a form factor that is for urban combat makes it a bit of overkill for home defense. The same style of gun with a 7 round fixed magazine would be acceptable. I'm sorry, I think that's crazy, and I cringe at the term "stopping power". Bullet-speed and accuracy are the bigger concern of assault-rifles. The shit about bump-stocks is a distraction from people looking for a spacegoat. Rate-of-fire can apply to any gun. And frankly, the FL shooting isn't a great example. The Vegas shooting shows the danger of assault-rifles. The bullet-speed makes it a gun intended for shooting targets at long-ranges. Ergo, not defensive. Who gives a fuck about the caliber? Stopping power? It's not a defensive weapon, at all. And it's not a hunting gun. It's a toy for people who like to call people "noobs". Or, it's military hardware for people who actually do need to kill unknown people at a distance. The AR-15 is not a long range rifle. It's bullets lack the mass. It was modeled after the M-16, but shoots a smaller bullet.(sort of, there are a lot of models of M-16). It is closer to an m-4 than anything else, which shoot not very big bullets and is designed for urban combat. It's clip size is its main problem and the fact that you can so easily reload it. You need something that shoots a 7.62 bullet, like this classic if you want to shoot far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1917_Enfield
This is what people are talking about when saying learning what you're talking about would be a good idea.
First, you can make an AR shoot 7.62 rounds . Secondly when looking at the most prolific rifles for each round (The AK 47 and the AR 15) the AR has a longer effective range. There are also competitive long distance shooting competitions using AR 15's chambered in .223.
It's not the best possible choice, but it's more than capable of taking out targets at 500yds.
As far as home defense I prefer a short shotgun (much more manageable in tight spaces, compared to full length AR15) with birdshot (lot cheaper too). It's going to stop you in your tracks but there's at least a decent chance it doesn't kill you if you're wearing a heavy jacket or something (or some drunkard who stumbled in). Realistically though, if you shoot at home invader they are going to run away even if they have a gun. That's one reason you almost never hear about domestic (meaning in home) shootouts. If you do, it's more than likely not a home invasion in the traditional sense but violent disputes, stealing drugs from known drug dens, or police.
|
On February 22 2018 10:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 10:01 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 09:57 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2018 09:53 Leporello wrote:
I've shot an M-4. It might surprise you.
An M-4 is a long-range rifle. It's bullets travel 4-5 times faster than a similar caliber handgun. It is the most common rifle in our Army. Why is that a good comparison? Because it’s a medium range rifle that shoots small bullet. I can by a rifle that would shoot a much bigger bullet faster without even getting a special license. and that's a problem. And the bullet isn't small. You guys are trying really hard to be fair and balanced, or something. No, I just have a better understanding of fire arms than you. And I support gun control and special licenses for owning weapons like the AR-15.
"Gun-control" with assault-rifles. If you want to think you know more than me about guns, have at it. I don't really get that, but sure. Here's your certificate of approval.
But if you think you should have the right to privately own guns that you yourself compare to an M4, I think you're crazy. Despite your clear authority on gun-knowledge and stopping-power, you still have yet to demonstrate what exactly it is you need an M4 for.
Which is all I asked, isn't it? Look at what I've been actually asking and saying, while you guys "teach" me about caliber and stopping-power.
I'm such a "noob", but no one really can explain to me why they need an M4 -- or excuse me, an AR-15 -- to defend themselves. Educate me -- why isn't a pistol good enough for you?
After a page of bullshit, I would like an actual answer to that question.
|
On February 22 2018 09:20 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 09:10 micronesia wrote:
Leporello I want to get on board with you that it's uncalled for to accuse people of being noobs, but you are doing such a good job of proving his point with that post that it's disheartening. His point was very clear, and so was my response. His point was people arguing against the AR-15 don't understand the AR-15 properly. They're "noobs", which isn't so much "uncalled for" as it is childish. What -- and please be specific -- did I say, in my response, that proves I don't understand how an AR-15 works, that I was thus "proving his post"? What am I not understanding about the AR-15. I want to know. Specifically. Correct me in some way that might actually have meaning. To suggest that an AR-15 is needed, to protect one's self, over smaller fire-arms is, I'll repeat, high-flying shitty fantasy. When people stop being absurd, I'll stop calling them such. And if you're going to use a term like "noob" about people discussing these weapons, I'm going to call you out on it. It completely signifies the glorification behind all this.
What purpose is served by bringing land mines and full-auto into the discussion? You see, I’m actually reading the responses to the most mild-mannered posts explaining AR-15 ownership. It doesn’t look very good for the side that previously cast themselves in favor of sensible discussions on gun control. I didn’t see a single person absolutely in favor of the NRA’s hardline stance, but I saw three or four trolling hard when someone calmly explained the benefits of AR-15s.
|
On February 22 2018 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 09:44 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2018 09:35 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 09:27 Plansix wrote:
We sort already had this discussion. The AR-15 is fine based on the caliber of bullet it fires and it’s stopping power. It is the fact that it can take a +30 round clip and a form factor that is for urban combat makes it a bit of overkill for home defense. The same style of gun with a 7 round fixed magazine would be acceptable. I'm sorry, I think that's crazy, and I cringe at the term "stopping power". Bullet-speed and accuracy are the bigger concern of assault-rifles. The shit about bump-stocks is a distraction from people looking for a spacegoat. Rate-of-fire can apply to any gun. And frankly, the FL shooting isn't a great example. The Vegas shooting shows the danger of assault-rifles. The bullet-speed makes it a gun intended for shooting targets at long-ranges. Ergo, not defensive. Who gives a fuck about the caliber? Stopping power? It's not a defensive weapon, at all. And it's not a hunting gun. It's a toy for people who like to call people "noobs". Or, it's military hardware for people who actually do need to kill unknown people at a distance. The AR-15 is not a long range rifle. It's bullets lack the mass. It was modeled after the M-16, but shoots a smaller bullet.(sort of, there are a lot of models of M-16). It is closer to an m-4 than anything else, which shoot not very big bullets and is designed for urban combat. It's clip size is its main problem and the fact that you can so easily reload it. You need something that shoots a 7.62 bullet, like this classic if you want to shoot far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1917_Enfield This is what people are talking about when saying learning what you're talking about would be a good idea. First, you can make an AR shoot 7.62 rounds . Secondly when looking at the most prolific rifles for each round (The AK 47 and the AR 15) the AR has a longer effective range. There are also competitive long distance shooting competitions using AR 15's chambered in .223. It's not the best possible choice, but it's more than capable of taking out targets at 500yds. As far as home defense I prefer a short shotgun (much more manageable in tight spaces, compared to full length AR15) with birdshot (lot cheaper too). It's going to stop you in your tracks but there's at least a decent chance it doesn't kill you if you're wearing a heavy jacket or something (or some drunkard who stumbled in). Realistically though, if you shoot at home invader they are going to run away even if they have a gun. That's one reason you almost never hear about domestic (meaning in home) shootouts. If you do, it's more than likely not a home invasion in the traditional sense but violent disputes, stealing drugs from known drug dens, or police.
A highly skilled person with any weapon is dangerous. But the average user is going to have a tough time pass 100 yards or so. And I cannot stop people from modifying fire arms. You can take a hack saw to a double barrel, but that is super illegal.
And I agree with you on the shotgun for home defense. But a rifle that shoots with minimal recoil is also acceptable.
|
On February 22 2018 10:16 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 09:20 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 09:10 micronesia wrote:
Leporello I want to get on board with you that it's uncalled for to accuse people of being noobs, but you are doing such a good job of proving his point with that post that it's disheartening. His point was very clear, and so was my response. His point was people arguing against the AR-15 don't understand the AR-15 properly. They're "noobs", which isn't so much "uncalled for" as it is childish. What -- and please be specific -- did I say, in my response, that proves I don't understand how an AR-15 works, that I was thus "proving his post"? What am I not understanding about the AR-15. I want to know. Specifically. Correct me in some way that might actually have meaning. To suggest that an AR-15 is needed, to protect one's self, over smaller fire-arms is, I'll repeat, high-flying shitty fantasy. When people stop being absurd, I'll stop calling them such. And if you're going to use a term like "noob" about people discussing these weapons, I'm going to call you out on it. It completely signifies the glorification behind all this. What purpose is served by bringing land mines and full-auto into the discussion? You see, I’m actually reading the responses to the most mild-mannered posts explaining AR-15 ownership. It doesn’t look very good for the side that previously cast themselves in favor of sensible discussions on gun control. I didn’t see a single person absolutely in favor of the NRA’s hardline stance, but I saw three or four trolling hard when someone calmly explained the benefits of AR-15s.
This whole, meek and mild routine just doesn't impress me when the President, this very day, is talking about bringing these instruments of war into schools. This is where this ruse of "sensible discussions on gun control" has gotten us. It is frightening, and catastrophic.
Talk about banning bump-stocks and magazine-sizes. That shit is meaningless. They're cheap components that people can make themselves. The underlying is the gun, and we all know it. Even the "noobs". Actually, the "noobs" are often the only ones being honest about this. It's always the "experts" that drone on about these attachments without acknowledging the fact that these attachments are only taking advantage of features inherent to the gun itself.
So I want a real answer, that uses examples, and real data, not bullshit about "stopping power" and caliber-size, as to why pistols aren't good enough for home-defense. Not "the benefits" of the gun, like you're a gun salesman. But why, just why, should you have an M4?
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On February 22 2018 10:29 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 10:16 Danglars wrote:On February 22 2018 09:20 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 09:10 micronesia wrote:
Leporello I want to get on board with you that it's uncalled for to accuse people of being noobs, but you are doing such a good job of proving his point with that post that it's disheartening. His point was very clear, and so was my response. His point was people arguing against the AR-15 don't understand the AR-15 properly. They're "noobs", which isn't so much "uncalled for" as it is childish. What -- and please be specific -- did I say, in my response, that proves I don't understand how an AR-15 works, that I was thus "proving his post"? What am I not understanding about the AR-15. I want to know. Specifically. Correct me in some way that might actually have meaning. To suggest that an AR-15 is needed, to protect one's self, over smaller fire-arms is, I'll repeat, high-flying shitty fantasy. When people stop being absurd, I'll stop calling them such. And if you're going to use a term like "noob" about people discussing these weapons, I'm going to call you out on it. It completely signifies the glorification behind all this. What purpose is served by bringing land mines and full-auto into the discussion? You see, I’m actually reading the responses to the most mild-mannered posts explaining AR-15 ownership. It doesn’t look very good for the side that previously cast themselves in favor of sensible discussions on gun control. I didn’t see a single person absolutely in favor of the NRA’s hardline stance, but I saw three or four trolling hard when someone calmly explained the benefits of AR-15s. This whole, meek and mild routine just doesn't impress me when the President, this very day, is talking about bringing these instruments of war into schools. This is where this ruse of "sensible discussions on gun control" has gotten us. It is frightening, and catastrophic. So I want a real answer, that uses examples, and real data, not bullshit about "stopping power" and caliber-size, as to why pistols aren't good enough for home-defense. Not "the benefits" of the gun, like you're a gun salesman. But why, just why, should you have an M4?
Of the two types of guns, handguns and long guns, handguns are more dangerous: they kill vastly more people, get used much more for (and are better at) crime, and are worse at home defense. Singling out and banning long guns is a terrible idea.
|
On February 22 2018 10:31 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 10:29 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:16 Danglars wrote:On February 22 2018 09:20 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 09:10 micronesia wrote:
Leporello I want to get on board with you that it's uncalled for to accuse people of being noobs, but you are doing such a good job of proving his point with that post that it's disheartening. His point was very clear, and so was my response. His point was people arguing against the AR-15 don't understand the AR-15 properly. They're "noobs", which isn't so much "uncalled for" as it is childish. What -- and please be specific -- did I say, in my response, that proves I don't understand how an AR-15 works, that I was thus "proving his post"? What am I not understanding about the AR-15. I want to know. Specifically. Correct me in some way that might actually have meaning. To suggest that an AR-15 is needed, to protect one's self, over smaller fire-arms is, I'll repeat, high-flying shitty fantasy. When people stop being absurd, I'll stop calling them such. And if you're going to use a term like "noob" about people discussing these weapons, I'm going to call you out on it. It completely signifies the glorification behind all this. What purpose is served by bringing land mines and full-auto into the discussion? You see, I’m actually reading the responses to the most mild-mannered posts explaining AR-15 ownership. It doesn’t look very good for the side that previously cast themselves in favor of sensible discussions on gun control. I didn’t see a single person absolutely in favor of the NRA’s hardline stance, but I saw three or four trolling hard when someone calmly explained the benefits of AR-15s. This whole, meek and mild routine just doesn't impress me when the President, this very day, is talking about bringing these instruments of war into schools. This is where this ruse of "sensible discussions on gun control" has gotten us. It is frightening, and catastrophic. So I want a real answer, that uses examples, and real data, not bullshit about "stopping power" and caliber-size, as to why pistols aren't good enough for home-defense. Not "the benefits" of the gun, like you're a gun salesman. But why, just why, should you have an M4? Of the two types of guns, handguns and long guns, handguns are more dangerous: they kill vastly more people, get used much more for (and are better at) crime, and are worse at home defense. Singling out and banning long guns is a terrible idea.
I actually don't want to single-out long-guns, so much as make them irrelevant, as every gun should have a logical reason behind its purchase, and the AR-15 has none.
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On February 22 2018 10:34 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 10:31 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:29 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:16 Danglars wrote:On February 22 2018 09:20 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 09:10 micronesia wrote:
Leporello I want to get on board with you that it's uncalled for to accuse people of being noobs, but you are doing such a good job of proving his point with that post that it's disheartening. His point was very clear, and so was my response. His point was people arguing against the AR-15 don't understand the AR-15 properly. They're "noobs", which isn't so much "uncalled for" as it is childish. What -- and please be specific -- did I say, in my response, that proves I don't understand how an AR-15 works, that I was thus "proving his post"? What am I not understanding about the AR-15. I want to know. Specifically. Correct me in some way that might actually have meaning. To suggest that an AR-15 is needed, to protect one's self, over smaller fire-arms is, I'll repeat, high-flying shitty fantasy. When people stop being absurd, I'll stop calling them such. And if you're going to use a term like "noob" about people discussing these weapons, I'm going to call you out on it. It completely signifies the glorification behind all this. What purpose is served by bringing land mines and full-auto into the discussion? You see, I’m actually reading the responses to the most mild-mannered posts explaining AR-15 ownership. It doesn’t look very good for the side that previously cast themselves in favor of sensible discussions on gun control. I didn’t see a single person absolutely in favor of the NRA’s hardline stance, but I saw three or four trolling hard when someone calmly explained the benefits of AR-15s. This whole, meek and mild routine just doesn't impress me when the President, this very day, is talking about bringing these instruments of war into schools. This is where this ruse of "sensible discussions on gun control" has gotten us. It is frightening, and catastrophic. So I want a real answer, that uses examples, and real data, not bullshit about "stopping power" and caliber-size, as to why pistols aren't good enough for home-defense. Not "the benefits" of the gun, like you're a gun salesman. But why, just why, should you have an M4? Of the two types of guns, handguns and long guns, handguns are more dangerous: they kill vastly more people, get used much more for (and are better at) crime, and are worse at home defense. Singling out and banning long guns is a terrible idea. I actually don't want to single-out long-guns, so much as make them irrelevant, as every gun should have a logical reason behind its purchase, and the AR-15 has none.
I consider the semiautomatic centerfire rifle chambered in .223/5.56 to be the ideal home defense firearm, as mentioned above. What are your thoughts on this?
|
On February 22 2018 10:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 22 2018 09:44 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2018 09:35 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 09:27 Plansix wrote:
We sort already had this discussion. The AR-15 is fine based on the caliber of bullet it fires and it’s stopping power. It is the fact that it can take a +30 round clip and a form factor that is for urban combat makes it a bit of overkill for home defense. The same style of gun with a 7 round fixed magazine would be acceptable. I'm sorry, I think that's crazy, and I cringe at the term "stopping power". Bullet-speed and accuracy are the bigger concern of assault-rifles. The shit about bump-stocks is a distraction from people looking for a spacegoat. Rate-of-fire can apply to any gun. And frankly, the FL shooting isn't a great example. The Vegas shooting shows the danger of assault-rifles. The bullet-speed makes it a gun intended for shooting targets at long-ranges. Ergo, not defensive. Who gives a fuck about the caliber? Stopping power? It's not a defensive weapon, at all. And it's not a hunting gun. It's a toy for people who like to call people "noobs". Or, it's military hardware for people who actually do need to kill unknown people at a distance. The AR-15 is not a long range rifle. It's bullets lack the mass. It was modeled after the M-16, but shoots a smaller bullet.(sort of, there are a lot of models of M-16). It is closer to an m-4 than anything else, which shoot not very big bullets and is designed for urban combat. It's clip size is its main problem and the fact that you can so easily reload it. You need something that shoots a 7.62 bullet, like this classic if you want to shoot far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1917_Enfield This is what people are talking about when saying learning what you're talking about would be a good idea. First, you can make an AR shoot 7.62 rounds . Secondly when looking at the most prolific rifles for each round (The AK 47 and the AR 15) the AR has a longer effective range. There are also competitive long distance shooting competitions using AR 15's chambered in .223. It's not the best possible choice, but it's more than capable of taking out targets at 500yds. As far as home defense I prefer a short shotgun (much more manageable in tight spaces, compared to full length AR15) with birdshot (lot cheaper too). It's going to stop you in your tracks but there's at least a decent chance it doesn't kill you if you're wearing a heavy jacket or something (or some drunkard who stumbled in). Realistically though, if you shoot at home invader they are going to run away even if they have a gun. That's one reason you almost never hear about domestic (meaning in home) shootouts. If you do, it's more than likely not a home invasion in the traditional sense but violent disputes, stealing drugs from known drug dens, or police. A highly skilled person with any weapon is dangerous. But the average user is going to have a tough time pass 100 yards or so. And I cannot stop people from modifying fire arms. You can take a hack saw to a double barrel, but that is super illegal. And I agree with you on the shotgun for home defense. But a rifle that shoots with minimal recoil is also acceptable.
It's a perfectly legal modification.
The point of the post was demonstrating how your lack of knowledge on the topic led you to mistaken assumptions, which is the larger point about most of the more vocal gun restriction advocates.
|
Blazinghand
United States25553 Posts
On February 22 2018 10:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 10:28 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2018 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 22 2018 09:44 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2018 09:35 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 09:27 Plansix wrote:
We sort already had this discussion. The AR-15 is fine based on the caliber of bullet it fires and it’s stopping power. It is the fact that it can take a +30 round clip and a form factor that is for urban combat makes it a bit of overkill for home defense. The same style of gun with a 7 round fixed magazine would be acceptable. I'm sorry, I think that's crazy, and I cringe at the term "stopping power". Bullet-speed and accuracy are the bigger concern of assault-rifles. The shit about bump-stocks is a distraction from people looking for a spacegoat. Rate-of-fire can apply to any gun. And frankly, the FL shooting isn't a great example. The Vegas shooting shows the danger of assault-rifles. The bullet-speed makes it a gun intended for shooting targets at long-ranges. Ergo, not defensive. Who gives a fuck about the caliber? Stopping power? It's not a defensive weapon, at all. And it's not a hunting gun. It's a toy for people who like to call people "noobs". Or, it's military hardware for people who actually do need to kill unknown people at a distance. The AR-15 is not a long range rifle. It's bullets lack the mass. It was modeled after the M-16, but shoots a smaller bullet.(sort of, there are a lot of models of M-16). It is closer to an m-4 than anything else, which shoot not very big bullets and is designed for urban combat. It's clip size is its main problem and the fact that you can so easily reload it. You need something that shoots a 7.62 bullet, like this classic if you want to shoot far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1917_Enfield This is what people are talking about when saying learning what you're talking about would be a good idea. First, you can make an AR shoot 7.62 rounds . Secondly when looking at the most prolific rifles for each round (The AK 47 and the AR 15) the AR has a longer effective range. There are also competitive long distance shooting competitions using AR 15's chambered in .223. It's not the best possible choice, but it's more than capable of taking out targets at 500yds. As far as home defense I prefer a short shotgun (much more manageable in tight spaces, compared to full length AR15) with birdshot (lot cheaper too). It's going to stop you in your tracks but there's at least a decent chance it doesn't kill you if you're wearing a heavy jacket or something (or some drunkard who stumbled in). Realistically though, if you shoot at home invader they are going to run away even if they have a gun. That's one reason you almost never hear about domestic (meaning in home) shootouts. If you do, it's more than likely not a home invasion in the traditional sense but violent disputes, stealing drugs from known drug dens, or police. A highly skilled person with any weapon is dangerous. But the average user is going to have a tough time pass 100 yards or so. And I cannot stop people from modifying fire arms. You can take a hack saw to a double barrel, but that is super illegal. And I agree with you on the shotgun for home defense. But a rifle that shoots with minimal recoil is also acceptable. It's a perfectly legal modification. The point of the post was demonstrating how your lack of knowledge on the topic led you to mistaken assumptions, which is the larger point about most of the more vocal gun restriction advocates.
On a federal level, manufacturing an SBS is legal with a tax stamp and ATF clearance, but this isn't the case in many highly populous states like California, where state law prohibits it even if it's legal federally. It's possible that it's not legal where he lives.
|
On February 22 2018 10:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 10:28 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2018 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 22 2018 09:44 Plansix wrote:On February 22 2018 09:35 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 09:27 Plansix wrote:
We sort already had this discussion. The AR-15 is fine based on the caliber of bullet it fires and it’s stopping power. It is the fact that it can take a +30 round clip and a form factor that is for urban combat makes it a bit of overkill for home defense. The same style of gun with a 7 round fixed magazine would be acceptable. I'm sorry, I think that's crazy, and I cringe at the term "stopping power". Bullet-speed and accuracy are the bigger concern of assault-rifles. The shit about bump-stocks is a distraction from people looking for a spacegoat. Rate-of-fire can apply to any gun. And frankly, the FL shooting isn't a great example. The Vegas shooting shows the danger of assault-rifles. The bullet-speed makes it a gun intended for shooting targets at long-ranges. Ergo, not defensive. Who gives a fuck about the caliber? Stopping power? It's not a defensive weapon, at all. And it's not a hunting gun. It's a toy for people who like to call people "noobs". Or, it's military hardware for people who actually do need to kill unknown people at a distance. The AR-15 is not a long range rifle. It's bullets lack the mass. It was modeled after the M-16, but shoots a smaller bullet.(sort of, there are a lot of models of M-16). It is closer to an m-4 than anything else, which shoot not very big bullets and is designed for urban combat. It's clip size is its main problem and the fact that you can so easily reload it. You need something that shoots a 7.62 bullet, like this classic if you want to shoot far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1917_Enfield This is what people are talking about when saying learning what you're talking about would be a good idea. First, you can make an AR shoot 7.62 rounds . Secondly when looking at the most prolific rifles for each round (The AK 47 and the AR 15) the AR has a longer effective range. There are also competitive long distance shooting competitions using AR 15's chambered in .223. It's not the best possible choice, but it's more than capable of taking out targets at 500yds. As far as home defense I prefer a short shotgun (much more manageable in tight spaces, compared to full length AR15) with birdshot (lot cheaper too). It's going to stop you in your tracks but there's at least a decent chance it doesn't kill you if you're wearing a heavy jacket or something (or some drunkard who stumbled in). Realistically though, if you shoot at home invader they are going to run away even if they have a gun. That's one reason you almost never hear about domestic (meaning in home) shootouts. If you do, it's more than likely not a home invasion in the traditional sense but violent disputes, stealing drugs from known drug dens, or police. A highly skilled person with any weapon is dangerous. But the average user is going to have a tough time pass 100 yards or so. And I cannot stop people from modifying fire arms. You can take a hack saw to a double barrel, but that is super illegal. And I agree with you on the shotgun for home defense. But a rifle that shoots with minimal recoil is also acceptable. It's a perfectly legal modification. The point of the post was demonstrating how your lack of knowledge on the topic led you to mistaken assumptions, which is the larger point about most of the more vocal gun restriction advocates.
It could be, I don’t claim to know the gun laws in all 50 states. I fail to see the point, if you have one at all. People can do a lot of things to gun legal and illegal. If you have a machine shop, the sky is the limit really.
Edit: I don’t know if it’s legal in my state. It’s hard to get a license to own an AR-15 out here to begin with. The shotgun thing is super illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
