|
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 10:39 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 10:37 GreenHorizons wrote: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.
I meant the AR mod not chopping a shotgun haha. I also meant a Mossberg 590 Shockwave or something regarding a short shotgun. I can understand the confusion though.
On February 22 2018 10:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 10:37 GreenHorizons wrote: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.
I don't think any state has a law against converting a stock AR-15 into shooting 7.62. It doesn't take a machine shop either.
The point you're failing to see is that while you're more informed on the subject than the typical liberal politician (a glaring problem of it's own), you're ignorance leads you to make mistaken assumptions, much like the politicians. That is counterproductive to actually getting reform. So the point about liberals needing to learn more about what they are trying to regulate before being so vocal and berating those that disagree with their often mistaken and misinformed understandings is a valid one.
See Leo:
|
On February 22 2018 10:36 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 10:34 Leporello wrote: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?
You really want a gun for defense, buy a pistol. Even then, it's almost entirely useless, but at least a pistol is easily stored and accessible. You might actually have use for the thing.
Talking about the caliber of the bullet... high-flying shitty fantasy. I'm not sorry, it is fantasy.
"The 5.56 is the ideal home defense firearm". No, it isn't. First, if I wanted to show my "expertise" ahahaha, I'd tell you that the gun depends on the size of the person, and it's not a one-size fits all. Ooo gotcha.
But really, it's all meaningless. The caliber of the bullet is meaningless compared to the practicality of the gun. You need to keep your guns safely stored, yet accessible, so a pistol would be, you know, common-sense. Assuming you took actual pro-active measures of securing your house with alarms and such. and that's assuming you really care about home-defense and don't just enjoy looking at guns like it's a Call of Duty catalogue.
|
A pistol is not a great home defense weapon. They are harder to use than shotguns or rifles.
|
On February 22 2018 10:49 Plansix wrote:
A pistol is not a great home defense weapon. They are harder to use than shotguns or rifles.
A pistol is the best home-defense weapon. For practical reasons.
I mean, we are talking about defense, right? Not killing someone who you know is coming? Because in that case, sure, get yourself a BIG gun.
|
On February 22 2018 10:50 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 10:49 Plansix wrote:
A pistol is not a great home defense weapon. They are harder to use than shotguns or rifles. A pistol is the best home-defense weapon. For practical reasons. I mean, we are talking about defense, right? Not killing an intruder that announces himself? Because in that case, sure, get yourself a BIG gun.
Without training most people can't accurately hit a human sized target beyond 8 yards so you're probably wrong.
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On February 22 2018 10:48 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 10:36 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:34 Leporello wrote: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? You really want a gun for defense, buy a pistol. Even then, it's almost entirely useless, but at least a pistol is easily stored and accessible. You might actually have use for the thing. Talking about the caliber of the bullet... high-flying shitty fantasy. I'm not sorry, it is fantasy. "The 5.56 is the ideal home defense firearm". No, it isn't. First, if I wanted to show my "expertise" ahahaha, I'd tell you that the gun depends on the size of the person, and it's not a one-size fits all. Ooo gotcha. But really, it's all meaningless. The caliber of the bullet is meaningless compared to the practicality of the gun. You need to keep your guns safely stored, yet accessible, so a pistol would be, you know, common-sense. Assuming you took actual pro-active measures of securing your house with alarms and such. and that's assuming you really care about home-defense and don't just enjoy looking at guns like it's a Call of Duty catalogue.
If we're going to talk about ergonomics and size, I think that the AR-15 is actually great on these things. It has an adjustable stock, you can attach various grips for your front hand, and as it is a long gun it is easier to handle than a handgun. An AR-15 safely and effectively accommodates a wider range of body types than a pistol does.
The nature of the bullet, as I have explained in depth on the previous page, is enormously important for things like avoiding overpenetration and collateral damage. In these areas, the AR-15 outperforms handguns.
In terms of keeping a firearm safely stored and accessible, an AR-15 is easily stored in a gun safe in the same way a pistol is. If you want a quick-access safe, they have those for rifles just as they do for pistols.
In terms of the other aspects of home safety, as I went over in the previous pages, hardening entry points and windows, installing alarms, improving your locks, and getting a dog are all things that people should do or consider before installing a safe and getting a firearm.
And of course, most burglars come during the day when you're not home anyways.
I have pre-emptively addressed all the issues you brought up except for ergonomics, which once again favors the AR-15. You have demonstrated nothing, except that you have not read my posts.
|
On February 22 2018 10:53 dontforgetosmile wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 10:50 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:49 Plansix wrote:
A pistol is not a great home defense weapon. They are harder to use than shotguns or rifles. A pistol is the best home-defense weapon. For practical reasons. I mean, we are talking about defense, right? Not killing an intruder that announces himself? Because in that case, sure, get yourself a BIG gun. Without training most people can't accurately hit a human sized target beyond 8 yards so you're probably wrong.
you hit the nail on the head.
you're not hitting anyone, and most people aren't trained in the guns they have.
this is deterrence, and you need to be able to access it quickly and safely.
Pistols were made for exactly this.
If you want to kill a guy? Well, that's a different discussion, isn't it?
|
On February 22 2018 10:50 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 10:49 Plansix wrote:
A pistol is not a great home defense weapon. They are harder to use than shotguns or rifles. A pistol is the best home-defense weapon. For practical reasons. I mean, we are talking about defense, right? Not killing someone who you know is coming? Because in that case, sure, get yourself a BIG gun.
I would rather get a gun that is easier to hold on to, aim, fire and makes it abundantly clear I am armed. A pistol is none of those thing. And a shotgun isnt this wild, massive cannon. I’ve fired both, the shotgun is way easier to use.
And I don’t want to fire the gun. But I would prefer it incapacitate the intruder if I have too.
|
On February 22 2018 10:54 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 10:48 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:36 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:34 Leporello wrote: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? You really want a gun for defense, buy a pistol. Even then, it's almost entirely useless, but at least a pistol is easily stored and accessible. You might actually have use for the thing. Talking about the caliber of the bullet... high-flying shitty fantasy. I'm not sorry, it is fantasy. "The 5.56 is the ideal home defense firearm". No, it isn't. First, if I wanted to show my "expertise" ahahaha, I'd tell you that the gun depends on the size of the person, and it's not a one-size fits all. Ooo gotcha. But really, it's all meaningless. The caliber of the bullet is meaningless compared to the practicality of the gun. You need to keep your guns safely stored, yet accessible, so a pistol would be, you know, common-sense. Assuming you took actual pro-active measures of securing your house with alarms and such. and that's assuming you really care about home-defense and don't just enjoy looking at guns like it's a Call of Duty catalogue. If we're going to talk about ergonomics and size, I think that the AR-15 is actually great on these things. It has an adjustable stock, you can attach various grips for your front hand, and as it is a long gun it is easier to handle than a handgun. An AR-15 safely and effectively accommodates a wider range of body types than a pistol does. The nature of the bullet, as I have explained in depth on the previous page, is enormously important for things like avoiding overpenetration and collateral damage. In these areas, the AR-15 outperforms handguns. In terms of keeping a firearm safely stored and accessible, an AR-15 is easily stored in a gun safe in the same way a pistol is. If you want a quick-access safe, they have those for rifles just as they do for pistols. In terms of the other aspects of home safety, as I went over in the previous pages, hardening entry points and windows, installing alarms, improving your locks, and getting a dog are all things that people should do or consider before installing a safe and getting a firearm. And of course, most burglars come during the day when you're not home anyways. I have pre-emptively addressed all the issues you brought up except for ergonomics, which once again favors the AR-15. You have demonstrated nothing, except that you have not read my posts.
You're going to adjust your stock and attach your grip before you defend yourself from the surprise intruder? I'm, truly, such a fucking noob. Only a gun "expert" can say something this crazy.
Yeah, I understand you. I understand you're fantasizing.
Do you understand me? Do you understand "practicality"?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On February 22 2018 10:55 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 10:53 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 10:50 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:49 Plansix wrote:
A pistol is not a great home defense weapon. They are harder to use than shotguns or rifles. A pistol is the best home-defense weapon. For practical reasons. I mean, we are talking about defense, right? Not killing an intruder that announces himself? Because in that case, sure, get yourself a BIG gun. Without training most people can't accurately hit a human sized target beyond 8 yards so you're probably wrong. you hit the nail on the head. you're not hitting anyone, and most people aren't trained in the guns they have. this is deterrence, and you need to be able to access it quickly and safely. Pistols were made for exactly this.
Do not use firearms for "deterrence" or anything like that. If you are going to point a firearm at someone, you better be okay killing them, because that's what firearms do. They're not toys. They're not for warning people. They kill people.
Pistols are less accurate and more difficult to handle than long guns. There is a great chance of missing and striking a loved one. They are worse.
On February 22 2018 10:56 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 10:54 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:48 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:36 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:34 Leporello wrote: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? You really want a gun for defense, buy a pistol. Even then, it's almost entirely useless, but at least a pistol is easily stored and accessible. You might actually have use for the thing. Talking about the caliber of the bullet... high-flying shitty fantasy. I'm not sorry, it is fantasy. "The 5.56 is the ideal home defense firearm". No, it isn't. First, if I wanted to show my "expertise" ahahaha, I'd tell you that the gun depends on the size of the person, and it's not a one-size fits all. Ooo gotcha. But really, it's all meaningless. The caliber of the bullet is meaningless compared to the practicality of the gun. You need to keep your guns safely stored, yet accessible, so a pistol would be, you know, common-sense. Assuming you took actual pro-active measures of securing your house with alarms and such. and that's assuming you really care about home-defense and don't just enjoy looking at guns like it's a Call of Duty catalogue. If we're going to talk about ergonomics and size, I think that the AR-15 is actually great on these things. It has an adjustable stock, you can attach various grips for your front hand, and as it is a long gun it is easier to handle than a handgun. An AR-15 safely and effectively accommodates a wider range of body types than a pistol does. The nature of the bullet, as I have explained in depth on the previous page, is enormously important for things like avoiding overpenetration and collateral damage. In these areas, the AR-15 outperforms handguns. In terms of keeping a firearm safely stored and accessible, an AR-15 is easily stored in a gun safe in the same way a pistol is. If you want a quick-access safe, they have those for rifles just as they do for pistols. In terms of the other aspects of home safety, as I went over in the previous pages, hardening entry points and windows, installing alarms, improving your locks, and getting a dog are all things that people should do or consider before installing a safe and getting a firearm. And of course, most burglars come during the day when you're not home anyways. I have pre-emptively addressed all the issues you brought up except for ergonomics, which once again favors the AR-15. You have demonstrated nothing, except that you have not read my posts. You're going to adjust your stock before you defend yourself from the surprise intruder? Yeah, I understand you. I understand you're fantasizing.
What are you talking about? You obviously take your AR-15 to the range, practice with it, adjust the stock, and leave it set up in the way you are most comfortable with. Sorry if I was not clear on that. What do you think about the rest of my post?
|
On February 22 2018 10:54 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 10:48 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:36 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:34 Leporello wrote: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? You really want a gun for defense, buy a pistol. Even then, it's almost entirely useless, but at least a pistol is easily stored and accessible. You might actually have use for the thing. Talking about the caliber of the bullet... high-flying shitty fantasy. I'm not sorry, it is fantasy. "The 5.56 is the ideal home defense firearm". No, it isn't. First, if I wanted to show my "expertise" ahahaha, I'd tell you that the gun depends on the size of the person, and it's not a one-size fits all. Ooo gotcha. But really, it's all meaningless. The caliber of the bullet is meaningless compared to the practicality of the gun. You need to keep your guns safely stored, yet accessible, so a pistol would be, you know, common-sense. Assuming you took actual pro-active measures of securing your house with alarms and such. and that's assuming you really care about home-defense and don't just enjoy looking at guns like it's a Call of Duty catalogue. The nature of the bullet, as I have explained in depth on the previous page, is enormously important for things like avoiding overpenetration and collateral damage. In these areas, the AR-15 outperforms handguns.
I agree with the rest of your post but this is wrong. A round out of an AR-15 has tons of kinetic energy, far more than enough to go through multiple layers of drywall. Hell, it can go through mild steel. Drywall is basically paper.
|
On February 22 2018 10:56 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 10:55 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:53 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 10:50 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:49 Plansix wrote:
A pistol is not a great home defense weapon. They are harder to use than shotguns or rifles. A pistol is the best home-defense weapon. For practical reasons. I mean, we are talking about defense, right? Not killing an intruder that announces himself? Because in that case, sure, get yourself a BIG gun. Without training most people can't accurately hit a human sized target beyond 8 yards so you're probably wrong. you hit the nail on the head. you're not hitting anyone, and most people aren't trained in the guns they have. this is deterrence, and you need to be able to access it quickly and safely. Pistols were made for exactly this. Do not use firearms for "deterrence" or anything like that. If you are going to point a firearm at someone, you better be okay killing them, because that's what firearms do. They're not toys. They're not for warning people. They kill people. Pistols are less accurate and more difficult to handle than long guns. There is a great chance of missing and striking a loved one. They are worse. Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 10:56 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:54 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:48 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:36 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:34 Leporello wrote: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:
[quote]
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? You really want a gun for defense, buy a pistol. Even then, it's almost entirely useless, but at least a pistol is easily stored and accessible. You might actually have use for the thing. Talking about the caliber of the bullet... high-flying shitty fantasy. I'm not sorry, it is fantasy. "The 5.56 is the ideal home defense firearm". No, it isn't. First, if I wanted to show my "expertise" ahahaha, I'd tell you that the gun depends on the size of the person, and it's not a one-size fits all. Ooo gotcha. But really, it's all meaningless. The caliber of the bullet is meaningless compared to the practicality of the gun. You need to keep your guns safely stored, yet accessible, so a pistol would be, you know, common-sense. Assuming you took actual pro-active measures of securing your house with alarms and such. and that's assuming you really care about home-defense and don't just enjoy looking at guns like it's a Call of Duty catalogue. If we're going to talk about ergonomics and size, I think that the AR-15 is actually great on these things. It has an adjustable stock, you can attach various grips for your front hand, and as it is a long gun it is easier to handle than a handgun. An AR-15 safely and effectively accommodates a wider range of body types than a pistol does. The nature of the bullet, as I have explained in depth on the previous page, is enormously important for things like avoiding overpenetration and collateral damage. In these areas, the AR-15 outperforms handguns. In terms of keeping a firearm safely stored and accessible, an AR-15 is easily stored in a gun safe in the same way a pistol is. If you want a quick-access safe, they have those for rifles just as they do for pistols. In terms of the other aspects of home safety, as I went over in the previous pages, hardening entry points and windows, installing alarms, improving your locks, and getting a dog are all things that people should do or consider before installing a safe and getting a firearm. And of course, most burglars come during the day when you're not home anyways. I have pre-emptively addressed all the issues you brought up except for ergonomics, which once again favors the AR-15. You have demonstrated nothing, except that you have not read my posts. You're going to adjust your stock before you defend yourself from the surprise intruder? Yeah, I understand you. I understand you're fantasizing. What are you talking about? You obviously take your AR-15 to the range, practice with it, adjust the stock, and leave it set up in the way you are most comfortable with. Sorry if I was not clear on that. What do you think about the rest of my post?
I'll grant you that. I'll assume the assault-rifle is ready to go at a moment's notice. Fine.
I still don't see why you need one more than a pistol. And the fact that it kills better is not the argument I'm looking for.
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On February 22 2018 10:57 dontforgetosmile wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 10:54 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:48 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:36 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:34 Leporello wrote: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? You really want a gun for defense, buy a pistol. Even then, it's almost entirely useless, but at least a pistol is easily stored and accessible. You might actually have use for the thing. Talking about the caliber of the bullet... high-flying shitty fantasy. I'm not sorry, it is fantasy. "The 5.56 is the ideal home defense firearm". No, it isn't. First, if I wanted to show my "expertise" ahahaha, I'd tell you that the gun depends on the size of the person, and it's not a one-size fits all. Ooo gotcha. But really, it's all meaningless. The caliber of the bullet is meaningless compared to the practicality of the gun. You need to keep your guns safely stored, yet accessible, so a pistol would be, you know, common-sense. Assuming you took actual pro-active measures of securing your house with alarms and such. and that's assuming you really care about home-defense and don't just enjoy looking at guns like it's a Call of Duty catalogue. The nature of the bullet, as I have explained in depth on the previous page, is enormously important for things like avoiding overpenetration and collateral damage. In these areas, the AR-15 outperforms handguns. I agree with the rest of your post but this is wrong. A round out of an AR-15 has tons of kinetic energy, far more than enough to go through multiple layers of drywall. Hell, it can go through mild steel. Drywall is basically paper.
The longer, faster .223 bullets have high rate of tumbling per kinetic energy after striking something, resulting in a much more rapid loss in kinetic energy. A lightweight rifle projectile going at 3k feet/s may penetrate less than a pistol round going at 1k feet/s due to this. This guy did some home tests setting up pieces of drywall and shooting at them with guns: https://www.outdoorhub.com/stories/2013/11/04/ar-15-appropriate-home-defense-part-one-penetration-issues/
His results:
The pistol rounds were seemingly unaffected by the drywall and/or wood barriers. There was no observable deviation or fragmentation of the 9mm projectiles. You’d be safe counting on a pistol round to keep going, and going, and going.
...
The full metal jacket .223 rounds tended to tumble rather than break apart when they encountered barriers.
...
You always have to worry about what’s behind your target. Nearly all of the rounds tested went through at least four walls, although some obviously came out the back end with a lot less energy than others.
So a 9mm handgun shot is significantly more likely to pass through a few walls and strike someone, or even exit your house and leave your property, than a .223 round.
|
On February 22 2018 11:00 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 10:56 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:55 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:53 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 10:50 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:49 Plansix wrote:
A pistol is not a great home defense weapon. They are harder to use than shotguns or rifles. A pistol is the best home-defense weapon. For practical reasons. I mean, we are talking about defense, right? Not killing an intruder that announces himself? Because in that case, sure, get yourself a BIG gun. Without training most people can't accurately hit a human sized target beyond 8 yards so you're probably wrong. you hit the nail on the head. you're not hitting anyone, and most people aren't trained in the guns they have. this is deterrence, and you need to be able to access it quickly and safely. Pistols were made for exactly this. Do not use firearms for "deterrence" or anything like that. If you are going to point a firearm at someone, you better be okay killing them, because that's what firearms do. They're not toys. They're not for warning people. They kill people. Pistols are less accurate and more difficult to handle than long guns. There is a great chance of missing and striking a loved one. They are worse. On February 22 2018 10:56 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:54 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:48 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:36 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:34 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:31 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:29 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:16 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
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? You really want a gun for defense, buy a pistol. Even then, it's almost entirely useless, but at least a pistol is easily stored and accessible. You might actually have use for the thing. Talking about the caliber of the bullet... high-flying shitty fantasy. I'm not sorry, it is fantasy. "The 5.56 is the ideal home defense firearm". No, it isn't. First, if I wanted to show my "expertise" ahahaha, I'd tell you that the gun depends on the size of the person, and it's not a one-size fits all. Ooo gotcha. But really, it's all meaningless. The caliber of the bullet is meaningless compared to the practicality of the gun. You need to keep your guns safely stored, yet accessible, so a pistol would be, you know, common-sense. Assuming you took actual pro-active measures of securing your house with alarms and such. and that's assuming you really care about home-defense and don't just enjoy looking at guns like it's a Call of Duty catalogue. If we're going to talk about ergonomics and size, I think that the AR-15 is actually great on these things. It has an adjustable stock, you can attach various grips for your front hand, and as it is a long gun it is easier to handle than a handgun. An AR-15 safely and effectively accommodates a wider range of body types than a pistol does. The nature of the bullet, as I have explained in depth on the previous page, is enormously important for things like avoiding overpenetration and collateral damage. In these areas, the AR-15 outperforms handguns. In terms of keeping a firearm safely stored and accessible, an AR-15 is easily stored in a gun safe in the same way a pistol is. If you want a quick-access safe, they have those for rifles just as they do for pistols. In terms of the other aspects of home safety, as I went over in the previous pages, hardening entry points and windows, installing alarms, improving your locks, and getting a dog are all things that people should do or consider before installing a safe and getting a firearm. And of course, most burglars come during the day when you're not home anyways. I have pre-emptively addressed all the issues you brought up except for ergonomics, which once again favors the AR-15. You have demonstrated nothing, except that you have not read my posts. You're going to adjust your stock before you defend yourself from the surprise intruder? Yeah, I understand you. I understand you're fantasizing. What are you talking about? You obviously take your AR-15 to the range, practice with it, adjust the stock, and leave it set up in the way you are most comfortable with. Sorry if I was not clear on that. What do you think about the rest of my post? I'll grant you that. I'll assume the assault-rifle is ready to go at a moment's notice. Fine. I still don't see why you need one more than a pistol. And the fact that it kills better is not the argument I'm looking for.
Because when you aim a gun at someone you intend to kill them. At that point you've made a judgement call that it is an absolute last resort in defending your life, why wouldn't you want the most effective tool?
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On February 22 2018 11:00 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 10:56 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:55 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:53 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 10:50 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:49 Plansix wrote:
A pistol is not a great home defense weapon. They are harder to use than shotguns or rifles. A pistol is the best home-defense weapon. For practical reasons. I mean, we are talking about defense, right? Not killing an intruder that announces himself? Because in that case, sure, get yourself a BIG gun. Without training most people can't accurately hit a human sized target beyond 8 yards so you're probably wrong. you hit the nail on the head. you're not hitting anyone, and most people aren't trained in the guns they have. this is deterrence, and you need to be able to access it quickly and safely. Pistols were made for exactly this. Do not use firearms for "deterrence" or anything like that. If you are going to point a firearm at someone, you better be okay killing them, because that's what firearms do. They're not toys. They're not for warning people. They kill people. Pistols are less accurate and more difficult to handle than long guns. There is a great chance of missing and striking a loved one. They are worse. On February 22 2018 10:56 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:54 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:48 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:36 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:34 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:31 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:29 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:16 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
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? You really want a gun for defense, buy a pistol. Even then, it's almost entirely useless, but at least a pistol is easily stored and accessible. You might actually have use for the thing. Talking about the caliber of the bullet... high-flying shitty fantasy. I'm not sorry, it is fantasy. "The 5.56 is the ideal home defense firearm". No, it isn't. First, if I wanted to show my "expertise" ahahaha, I'd tell you that the gun depends on the size of the person, and it's not a one-size fits all. Ooo gotcha. But really, it's all meaningless. The caliber of the bullet is meaningless compared to the practicality of the gun. You need to keep your guns safely stored, yet accessible, so a pistol would be, you know, common-sense. Assuming you took actual pro-active measures of securing your house with alarms and such. and that's assuming you really care about home-defense and don't just enjoy looking at guns like it's a Call of Duty catalogue. If we're going to talk about ergonomics and size, I think that the AR-15 is actually great on these things. It has an adjustable stock, you can attach various grips for your front hand, and as it is a long gun it is easier to handle than a handgun. An AR-15 safely and effectively accommodates a wider range of body types than a pistol does. The nature of the bullet, as I have explained in depth on the previous page, is enormously important for things like avoiding overpenetration and collateral damage. In these areas, the AR-15 outperforms handguns. In terms of keeping a firearm safely stored and accessible, an AR-15 is easily stored in a gun safe in the same way a pistol is. If you want a quick-access safe, they have those for rifles just as they do for pistols. In terms of the other aspects of home safety, as I went over in the previous pages, hardening entry points and windows, installing alarms, improving your locks, and getting a dog are all things that people should do or consider before installing a safe and getting a firearm. And of course, most burglars come during the day when you're not home anyways. I have pre-emptively addressed all the issues you brought up except for ergonomics, which once again favors the AR-15. You have demonstrated nothing, except that you have not read my posts. You're going to adjust your stock before you defend yourself from the surprise intruder? Yeah, I understand you. I understand you're fantasizing. What are you talking about? You obviously take your AR-15 to the range, practice with it, adjust the stock, and leave it set up in the way you are most comfortable with. Sorry if I was not clear on that. What do you think about the rest of my post? I'll grant you that. I'll assume the assault-rifle is ready to go at a moment's notice. Fine. I still don't see why you need one more than a pistol. And the fact that it kills better is not the argument I'm looking for.
So, you admit the AR-15, which, again, is not an assault rifle, is the superior ergonomic choice. You cunningly once again have avoided addressing the rest of my statements about ease of use and safety I made in this post previously:
On February 22 2018 10:11 Blazinghand wrote:
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.
Again, make sure not to overlook the fact that handguns are far worse in terms of use in murder, crimes, etc than long guns, and are basically the item we should be most interested in regulating and/or banning.
|
On February 22 2018 11:02 dontforgetosmile wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 11:00 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:56 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:55 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:53 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 10:50 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:49 Plansix wrote:
A pistol is not a great home defense weapon. They are harder to use than shotguns or rifles. A pistol is the best home-defense weapon. For practical reasons. I mean, we are talking about defense, right? Not killing an intruder that announces himself? Because in that case, sure, get yourself a BIG gun. Without training most people can't accurately hit a human sized target beyond 8 yards so you're probably wrong. you hit the nail on the head. you're not hitting anyone, and most people aren't trained in the guns they have. this is deterrence, and you need to be able to access it quickly and safely. Pistols were made for exactly this. Do not use firearms for "deterrence" or anything like that. If you are going to point a firearm at someone, you better be okay killing them, because that's what firearms do. They're not toys. They're not for warning people. They kill people. Pistols are less accurate and more difficult to handle than long guns. There is a great chance of missing and striking a loved one. They are worse. On February 22 2018 10:56 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:54 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:48 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:36 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:34 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:31 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:29 Leporello wrote:
[quote]
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? You really want a gun for defense, buy a pistol. Even then, it's almost entirely useless, but at least a pistol is easily stored and accessible. You might actually have use for the thing. Talking about the caliber of the bullet... high-flying shitty fantasy. I'm not sorry, it is fantasy. "The 5.56 is the ideal home defense firearm". No, it isn't. First, if I wanted to show my "expertise" ahahaha, I'd tell you that the gun depends on the size of the person, and it's not a one-size fits all. Ooo gotcha. But really, it's all meaningless. The caliber of the bullet is meaningless compared to the practicality of the gun. You need to keep your guns safely stored, yet accessible, so a pistol would be, you know, common-sense. Assuming you took actual pro-active measures of securing your house with alarms and such. and that's assuming you really care about home-defense and don't just enjoy looking at guns like it's a Call of Duty catalogue. If we're going to talk about ergonomics and size, I think that the AR-15 is actually great on these things. It has an adjustable stock, you can attach various grips for your front hand, and as it is a long gun it is easier to handle than a handgun. An AR-15 safely and effectively accommodates a wider range of body types than a pistol does. The nature of the bullet, as I have explained in depth on the previous page, is enormously important for things like avoiding overpenetration and collateral damage. In these areas, the AR-15 outperforms handguns. In terms of keeping a firearm safely stored and accessible, an AR-15 is easily stored in a gun safe in the same way a pistol is. If you want a quick-access safe, they have those for rifles just as they do for pistols. In terms of the other aspects of home safety, as I went over in the previous pages, hardening entry points and windows, installing alarms, improving your locks, and getting a dog are all things that people should do or consider before installing a safe and getting a firearm. And of course, most burglars come during the day when you're not home anyways. I have pre-emptively addressed all the issues you brought up except for ergonomics, which once again favors the AR-15. You have demonstrated nothing, except that you have not read my posts. You're going to adjust your stock before you defend yourself from the surprise intruder? Yeah, I understand you. I understand you're fantasizing. What are you talking about? You obviously take your AR-15 to the range, practice with it, adjust the stock, and leave it set up in the way you are most comfortable with. Sorry if I was not clear on that. What do you think about the rest of my post? I'll grant you that. I'll assume the assault-rifle is ready to go at a moment's notice. Fine. I still don't see why you need one more than a pistol. And the fact that it kills better is not the argument I'm looking for. Because when you aim a gun at someone you intend to kill them. At that point you've made a judgement call that it is an absolute last resort in defending your life, why wouldn't you want the most effective tool?
At this point, it's not sounding like defense.
But okay, you want to kill the intruder. And he deserves it, why not. But is it really so important, that in this situation, you have an AR-15 and not a pistol? I get the AR-15 is the better weapon, certainly no one is arguing that. But why do you need it to such an extent that we proliferate these weapons across the country, giving long-range semi-autos to people like the Vegas shooter?
The Vegas shooter certainly did need an M4 style rifle for his task. Still not seeing why it's crucial to close-quarter home-defense.
|
On February 22 2018 11:06 Blazinghand wrote:
Again, make sure not to overlook the fact that handguns are far worse in terms of use in murder, crimes, etc than long guns, and are basically the item we should be most interested in regulating and/or banning.
Handguns are used by criminals because they're cheaper and easier to conceal.
The guy robbing the convenient-store isn't declining to use an M249 because he prefers the combat-usefulness of a pistol.
and quite simply, all guns need to be regulated. the only sane question is what weapons do we ban from public use? Every gun should be regulated, all private resales should be illegal, and any "loss" of a weapon should prevent that person from ever buying another gun.
|
On February 22 2018 11:00 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 10:57 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 10:54 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:48 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:36 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:34 Leporello wrote: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:
[quote]
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? You really want a gun for defense, buy a pistol. Even then, it's almost entirely useless, but at least a pistol is easily stored and accessible. You might actually have use for the thing. Talking about the caliber of the bullet... high-flying shitty fantasy. I'm not sorry, it is fantasy. "The 5.56 is the ideal home defense firearm". No, it isn't. First, if I wanted to show my "expertise" ahahaha, I'd tell you that the gun depends on the size of the person, and it's not a one-size fits all. Ooo gotcha. But really, it's all meaningless. The caliber of the bullet is meaningless compared to the practicality of the gun. You need to keep your guns safely stored, yet accessible, so a pistol would be, you know, common-sense. Assuming you took actual pro-active measures of securing your house with alarms and such. and that's assuming you really care about home-defense and don't just enjoy looking at guns like it's a Call of Duty catalogue. The nature of the bullet, as I have explained in depth on the previous page, is enormously important for things like avoiding overpenetration and collateral damage. In these areas, the AR-15 outperforms handguns. I agree with the rest of your post but this is wrong. A round out of an AR-15 has tons of kinetic energy, far more than enough to go through multiple layers of drywall. Hell, it can go through mild steel. Drywall is basically paper. The longer, faster .223 bullets have high rate of tumbling per kinetic energy after striking something, resulting in a much more rapid loss in kinetic energy. A lightweight rifle projectile going at 3k feet/s may penetrate less than a pistol round going at 1k feet/s due to this. This guy did some home tests setting up pieces of drywall and shooting at them with guns: https://www.outdoorhub.com/stories/2013/11/04/ar-15-appropriate-home-defense-part-one-penetration-issues/His results: Show nested quote +The pistol rounds were seemingly unaffected by the drywall and/or wood barriers. There was no observable deviation or fragmentation of the 9mm projectiles. You’d be safe counting on a pistol round to keep going, and going, and going.
...
The full metal jacket .223 rounds tended to tumble rather than break apart when they encountered barriers.
...
You always have to worry about what’s behind your target. Nearly all of the rounds tested went through at least four walls, although some obviously came out the back end with a lot less energy than others. So a 9mm handgun shot is significantly more likely to pass through a few walls and strike someone, or even exit your house and leave your property, than a .223 round.
Fair enough. Thanks for the link.
|
On February 22 2018 11:10 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 11:02 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 11:00 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:56 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:55 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:53 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 10:50 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:49 Plansix wrote:
A pistol is not a great home defense weapon. They are harder to use than shotguns or rifles. A pistol is the best home-defense weapon. For practical reasons. I mean, we are talking about defense, right? Not killing an intruder that announces himself? Because in that case, sure, get yourself a BIG gun. Without training most people can't accurately hit a human sized target beyond 8 yards so you're probably wrong. you hit the nail on the head. you're not hitting anyone, and most people aren't trained in the guns they have. this is deterrence, and you need to be able to access it quickly and safely. Pistols were made for exactly this. Do not use firearms for "deterrence" or anything like that. If you are going to point a firearm at someone, you better be okay killing them, because that's what firearms do. They're not toys. They're not for warning people. They kill people. Pistols are less accurate and more difficult to handle than long guns. There is a great chance of missing and striking a loved one. They are worse. On February 22 2018 10:56 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:54 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:48 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:36 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:34 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:31 Blazinghand wrote:
[quote]
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? You really want a gun for defense, buy a pistol. Even then, it's almost entirely useless, but at least a pistol is easily stored and accessible. You might actually have use for the thing. Talking about the caliber of the bullet... high-flying shitty fantasy. I'm not sorry, it is fantasy. "The 5.56 is the ideal home defense firearm". No, it isn't. First, if I wanted to show my "expertise" ahahaha, I'd tell you that the gun depends on the size of the person, and it's not a one-size fits all. Ooo gotcha. But really, it's all meaningless. The caliber of the bullet is meaningless compared to the practicality of the gun. You need to keep your guns safely stored, yet accessible, so a pistol would be, you know, common-sense. Assuming you took actual pro-active measures of securing your house with alarms and such. and that's assuming you really care about home-defense and don't just enjoy looking at guns like it's a Call of Duty catalogue. If we're going to talk about ergonomics and size, I think that the AR-15 is actually great on these things. It has an adjustable stock, you can attach various grips for your front hand, and as it is a long gun it is easier to handle than a handgun. An AR-15 safely and effectively accommodates a wider range of body types than a pistol does. The nature of the bullet, as I have explained in depth on the previous page, is enormously important for things like avoiding overpenetration and collateral damage. In these areas, the AR-15 outperforms handguns. In terms of keeping a firearm safely stored and accessible, an AR-15 is easily stored in a gun safe in the same way a pistol is. If you want a quick-access safe, they have those for rifles just as they do for pistols. In terms of the other aspects of home safety, as I went over in the previous pages, hardening entry points and windows, installing alarms, improving your locks, and getting a dog are all things that people should do or consider before installing a safe and getting a firearm. And of course, most burglars come during the day when you're not home anyways. I have pre-emptively addressed all the issues you brought up except for ergonomics, which once again favors the AR-15. You have demonstrated nothing, except that you have not read my posts. You're going to adjust your stock before you defend yourself from the surprise intruder? Yeah, I understand you. I understand you're fantasizing. What are you talking about? You obviously take your AR-15 to the range, practice with it, adjust the stock, and leave it set up in the way you are most comfortable with. Sorry if I was not clear on that. What do you think about the rest of my post? I'll grant you that. I'll assume the assault-rifle is ready to go at a moment's notice. Fine. I still don't see why you need one more than a pistol. And the fact that it kills better is not the argument I'm looking for. Because when you aim a gun at someone you intend to kill them. At that point you've made a judgement call that it is an absolute last resort in defending your life, why wouldn't you want the most effective tool? At this point, it's not sounding like defense. But okay, you want to kill the intruder. And he deserves it, why not. But is it really so important, that in this situation, you have an AR-15 and not a pistol? I get the AR-15 is the better weapon, certainly no one is arguing that. But why do you need it to such an extent that we proliferate these weapons across the country, giving long-range semi-autos to people like the Vegas shooter? The Vegas shooter certainly did need an M4 style rifle for his task. Still not seeing why it's crucial to close-quarter home-defense.
Yes. If I were even in a situation where I felt that my life were in imminent danger I'd want an AR-15 in my hands rather than a pistol because of the many reasons multiple people here have outlined.
|
On February 22 2018 11:20 dontforgetosmile wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2018 11:10 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 11:02 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 11:00 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:56 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:55 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:53 dontforgetosmile wrote:On February 22 2018 10:50 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:49 Plansix wrote:
A pistol is not a great home defense weapon. They are harder to use than shotguns or rifles. A pistol is the best home-defense weapon. For practical reasons. I mean, we are talking about defense, right? Not killing an intruder that announces himself? Because in that case, sure, get yourself a BIG gun. Without training most people can't accurately hit a human sized target beyond 8 yards so you're probably wrong. you hit the nail on the head. you're not hitting anyone, and most people aren't trained in the guns they have. this is deterrence, and you need to be able to access it quickly and safely. Pistols were made for exactly this. Do not use firearms for "deterrence" or anything like that. If you are going to point a firearm at someone, you better be okay killing them, because that's what firearms do. They're not toys. They're not for warning people. They kill people. Pistols are less accurate and more difficult to handle than long guns. There is a great chance of missing and striking a loved one. They are worse. On February 22 2018 10:56 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:54 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:48 Leporello wrote:On February 22 2018 10:36 Blazinghand wrote:On February 22 2018 10:34 Leporello wrote:
[quote]
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? You really want a gun for defense, buy a pistol. Even then, it's almost entirely useless, but at least a pistol is easily stored and accessible. You might actually have use for the thing. Talking about the caliber of the bullet... high-flying shitty fantasy. I'm not sorry, it is fantasy. "The 5.56 is the ideal home defense firearm". No, it isn't. First, if I wanted to show my "expertise" ahahaha, I'd tell you that the gun depends on the size of the person, and it's not a one-size fits all. Ooo gotcha. But really, it's all meaningless. The caliber of the bullet is meaningless compared to the practicality of the gun. You need to keep your guns safely stored, yet accessible, so a pistol would be, you know, common-sense. Assuming you took actual pro-active measures of securing your house with alarms and such. and that's assuming you really care about home-defense and don't just enjoy looking at guns like it's a Call of Duty catalogue. If we're going to talk about ergonomics and size, I think that the AR-15 is actually great on these things. It has an adjustable stock, you can attach various grips for your front hand, and as it is a long gun it is easier to handle than a handgun. An AR-15 safely and effectively accommodates a wider range of body types than a pistol does. The nature of the bullet, as I have explained in depth on the previous page, is enormously important for things like avoiding overpenetration and collateral damage. In these areas, the AR-15 outperforms handguns. In terms of keeping a firearm safely stored and accessible, an AR-15 is easily stored in a gun safe in the same way a pistol is. If you want a quick-access safe, they have those for rifles just as they do for pistols. In terms of the other aspects of home safety, as I went over in the previous pages, hardening entry points and windows, installing alarms, improving your locks, and getting a dog are all things that people should do or consider before installing a safe and getting a firearm. And of course, most burglars come during the day when you're not home anyways. I have pre-emptively addressed all the issues you brought up except for ergonomics, which once again favors the AR-15. You have demonstrated nothing, except that you have not read my posts. You're going to adjust your stock before you defend yourself from the surprise intruder? Yeah, I understand you. I understand you're fantasizing. What are you talking about? You obviously take your AR-15 to the range, practice with it, adjust the stock, and leave it set up in the way you are most comfortable with. Sorry if I was not clear on that. What do you think about the rest of my post? I'll grant you that. I'll assume the assault-rifle is ready to go at a moment's notice. Fine. I still don't see why you need one more than a pistol. And the fact that it kills better is not the argument I'm looking for. Because when you aim a gun at someone you intend to kill them. At that point you've made a judgement call that it is an absolute last resort in defending your life, why wouldn't you want the most effective tool? At this point, it's not sounding like defense. But okay, you want to kill the intruder. And he deserves it, why not. But is it really so important, that in this situation, you have an AR-15 and not a pistol? I get the AR-15 is the better weapon, certainly no one is arguing that. But why do you need it to such an extent that we proliferate these weapons across the country, giving long-range semi-autos to people like the Vegas shooter? The Vegas shooter certainly did need an M4 style rifle for his task. Still not seeing why it's crucial to close-quarter home-defense. Yes. If I were even in a situation where I felt that my life were in imminent danger I'd want an AR-15 in my hands rather than a pistol because of the many reasons multiple people here have outlined.
I want a lot of things. Like honest answers to all of my questions, every time.
Why do you need it. How is it, really, that an AR-15 is going to save your life where a pistol couldn't?
Is there an example, anywhere, where a civilian-owned assault-rifle saved a life where a pistol couldn't have?
I can respond "Vegas shooter" to every post, a tragedy that would not have been possible with a pistol.
A lot of those people in Vegas would be alive if the shooter was auto-firing a pistol instead. Something only the "noobs" here seem capable of appreciating. You could modify a pistol or a bolt-rifle to the fullest-extent, and not do the damage an AR-15 did in that scenario. So where is the example of the good?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/el-camino-high-school-thwarted-attack-plot-los-angeles-sheriff-officials-brief-media-live-updates/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=48378880
Four guns they found on this guy. Four. We got stories like this everyday. Where is the story where the guy with the AR-15 shoots a small mob of criminals at 200m range, where a pistol would've failed? Why are we risking lives for situationals and ignoring the people dying in actualities?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
