# Setup AR-15 for Home Defense



## kristian roger (Sep 11, 2020)

The *custom AR-15* has to be the ultimate answer to safeguard your home. Several people tend to think that the rifle is better than the pistol. But no, just because the sizes differ, it doesn’t mean that the gun is good. The handgun is a much good option for home defense. Since it’s compact, you’ll never need to get confused. Get an AR-15 pistol, and you shall get a better outcome.


----------



## CB Jones (Sep 11, 2020)

I Prefer the rifle over the pistol.


----------



## Drobison491 (Sep 11, 2020)

I'm actually a fan of the shot gun for 2 main reasons.

First, it requires less precision to be accurate. So if i had to use it in the middle of the night and still groggy it can still be effective. Additionally, If I wasn't home, the wife can lock herself in the room, point it at the door and just wait.  With the adrenaline dump that would take place better to be able to aim at a group target than a point target.  

Second, if loaded right you don't risk wall penetration.  meaning your stray rounds won't hit someone else  in the next room or the next house.  


bonus:
Third.  the sound a 12 gauge makes when chambering around is universally understood as GTFOH (I say that tongue in cheek the round should already be in the chmaber)


----------



## CB Jones (Sep 11, 2020)

Drobison491 said:


> I'm actually a fan of the shot gun for 2 main reasons.
> 
> First, it requires less precision to be accurate. So if i had to use it in the middle of the night and still groggy it can still be effective. Additionally, If I wasn't home, the wife can lock herself in the room, point it at the door and just wait.  With the adrenaline dump that would take place better to be able to aim at a group target than a point target.
> 
> ...



I like the shotgun too.  Stopping power is unrivaled.

I have an 870 with a 14 inch barrel I keep loaded with a slug and then followed by tactical buckshot that maintains a tight pattern.  It is a show stopper.


----------



## Drobison491 (Sep 11, 2020)

I'm a big fan of the Keltec KSG Just don't have a spare 800 to drop on it at the moment


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 11, 2020)

I'm a big fan of the RPG-7. The best home defense weapon.


----------



## Drobison491 (Sep 11, 2020)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'm a big fan of the RPG-7. The best home defense weapon.



Guess they can't steal your stuff if there is nothing left.  Pretty effective...from a certain point of view


----------



## Buka (Sep 12, 2020)

Welcome to Martial Talk, Christian.


----------



## skribs (Sep 13, 2020)

Definitely an AR-15, in my opinion, for a long list of reasons.


This idea of the pistol being easier because it's smaller is ludicrous.  The long gun is superior because of the extra contact points.  This gives better stability, which leads to more accuracy and less likelihood of stray shots.  The shotgun isn't much different from the AR in this case.  At expected home defense range, you will likely get a group of maybe 1-2 inches from the shotgun.  Most misses with a rifle with miss with a shotgun as well.  In fact, if a shotgun did have a spray like in the video games, then it probably would be *more* dangerous to your neighbors.
Rifles use high velocity to inflict damage.  Pistols and shotguns essentially just poke holes in the target.  Shotguns just poke many more holes for one pull of the trigger.  Rifles tend to rip through the target.  This makes it more likely to put the bad guy down faster.
Compared with a high-powered rifle (the AR-15 is actually a very weak rifle), the AR-15 has lighter recoil.  This makes follow-up shots more accurate.  If the first shot doesn't put the bad guy down, or if there are multiple bad guys, this is important.  It also can carry more ammunition, which makes it ideal for follow-ups as well.  You never know how many rounds you'll need to stop a threat; having more is usually better.
Overpenetration through walls is always brought up.  The interesting thing about rifles is that, because they rely on velocity to do most of their damage, they tend to cause less damage when overpenetrating through walls than something like a shotgun or a handgun.  That is, assuming the load you're using is capable of self-defense.  Birdshot won't go through a wall, but it also might not even get through an attacker's clothes.  Buckshot or handgun rounds will barely notice the wall.  A light rifle round, like the .223, will slow down upon hitting the wall, and lose a lot of that dangerous momentum.  It's still dangerous for overpentration, but not as much as people would have you believe.
The AR-15 is very ergonomically designed.  While having multiple points of contact is good, sometimes you need a free hand.  This makes something with a pistol grip (like an AR-15 or an AK) a superior choice to something with a "straight stock".  If you need to open doors, grab your kids to pull them to safety, etc., then the pistol grip is amazing.
With that said, here are my requirements for a home defense weapon:

As large a magazine capacity as you can have, without it negatively affecting handling or reliability.  Preferably a removable magazine so you can quickly reload.
As short of a barrel as legally possible, for maneuverability in tight spots.
A weapon light, so that you can identify the target.
A red dot sight, because those are amazing for close-quarters.  Specifically, a red dot sight that's going to last for a long time while on.  I like Aimpoint or a tritium reflex sight for this.  Aimpoint is rugged and their batteries last for years (while running).  If you can't afford a reliable red dot, then ghost ring ironsights will do.  Backup ironsights are a good idea in case the red dot goes out.
Pistol grip.
Ergonomics (the gun should be comfortable to hold and use)
Sling, so you can drop the gun if needed, but still maintain control of it.
If suppressors were not NFA items, I'd say they would be a great addition as well.  You're not likely to have hearing protection in when someone breaks in.


----------



## CB Jones (Sep 13, 2020)

skribs said:


> Rifles use high velocity to inflict damage. Pistols and shotguns essentially just poke holes in the target. Shotguns just poke many more holes for one pull of the trigger. Rifles tend to rip through the target. This makes it more likely to put the bad guy down faster.



Disagree....inside 15 yards shotguns are devastating and stop threats almost immediately....especially loaded with slugs.


----------



## skribs (Sep 13, 2020)

CB Jones said:


> Disagree....inside 15 yards shotguns are devastating and stop threats almost immediately....especially loaded with slugs.


And those slugs tend to have a lot of momentum through walls, higher recoil and lower capacity than a rifle.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 14, 2020)

skribs said:


> Definitely an AR-15, in my opinion, for a long list of reasons.
> 
> 
> This idea of the pistol being easier because it's smaller is ludicrous.  The long gun is superior because of the extra contact points.  This gives better stability, which leads to more accuracy and less likelihood of stray shots.  The shotgun isn't much different from the AR in this case.  At expected home defense range, you will likely get a group of maybe 1-2 inches from the shotgun.  Most misses with a rifle with miss with a shotgun as well.  In fact, if a shotgun did have a spray like in the video games, then it probably would be *more* dangerous to your neighbors.
> ...



Doesn't the laser give you away?


----------



## CB Jones (Sep 14, 2020)

skribs said:


> And those slugs tend to have a lot of momentum through walls, higher recoil and lower capacity than a rifle.



Agreed...I was only disagreeing with the part I qouted. In reference to its ability to stop a threat.  12 gauge slug or 00 buckshot is extremely effective.  The AR doesn't become more effective until you get out to around 25 yards.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 14, 2020)

I'm sorry, but I disagree on all points.



Drobison491 said:


> I'm actually a fan of the shot gun for 2 main reasons.
> 
> First, it requires less precision to be accurate.


No.  Even using bird shot with no choke (far from ideal for defensive work), at typical home defense distances, your spread is going to be around 4" or so.  You *MUST* aim to hit your target.

See: Mad Gun Science: Is Birdshot Effective for Home Defense? | OutdoorHub



> Additionally, If I wasn't home, the wife can lock herself in the room, point it at the door and just wait.


She can, and should, do that with anything, rifle, handgun, shotgun, whatever.  And so should you.  Don't go hunting someone.  Unless you have to go get kids, bar your door, call the cops, yell out into the dark that you've called the cops, and hunker down.  Stay safe.  If you go hunting, there is a non-zero chance that you will be injured, killed, or even potentially end up on the wrong side of the law and spend the rest of your life in prison.  No, I'm not joking.



> With the adrenaline dump that would take place better to be able to aim at a group target than a point target.


With a shotgun?!?  Nope.  Unless you're running a 410, the Shotgun is going to recoil *more*, be harder to come back for follow up shots, has less ammo capacity than an AR (or many handguns these days), and you still have to aim effectively (remember that 4" spread?). 



> Second, if loaded right you don't risk wall penetration.  meaning your stray rounds won't hit someone else  in the next room or the next house.


Again, no.  In all the actual tests I've seen, buckshot penetrates more walls than .223 from a carbine.  The buckshot has more mass/inertia and will tend to keep going.  The .223 destabilizes quickly after impact with drywall, tumbles, and eventually disintegrates.  That said, in most cases, regardless of what you're shooting, it's going through a number of walls.  It doesn't matter if it's buckshot, hollow points, or solid points.  If it's from an actual gun, drywall ain't stopping it quickly.

Here's an example:








> bonus:
> Third.  the sound a 12 gauge makes when chambering around is universally understood as GTFOH (I say that tongue in cheek the round should already be in the chmaber)


I agree that this is a tongue in cheek comment.  Not only are you right that you should already have one racked, but the evidence seems to indicate that the sound of raking one into the chamber doesn't actually scare bad guys away.  

In fact, more and more, even getting shot or seeing their buddies get shot (multiples are more common now) doesn't seem to discourage them.  While it might, the growing evidence shows that, now anyway, there's a good chance you're going to have to deal with all of them once they commit to a Home Invasion.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Sep 14, 2020)

skribs said:


> Definitely an AR-15, in my opinion, for a long list of reasons.
> 
> 
> This idea of the pistol being easier because it's smaller is ludicrous.  The long gun is superior because of the extra contact points.  This gives better stability, which leads to more accuracy and less likelihood of stray shots.  The shotgun isn't much different from the AR in this case.  At expected home defense range, you will likely get a group of maybe 1-2 inches from the shotgun.  Most misses with a rifle with miss with a shotgun as well.  In fact, if a shotgun did have a spray like in the video games, then it probably would be *more* dangerous to your neighbors.
> ...


*ALL OF THIS!
*
I wish I could hit, "Like," "Agree," "Informative," and "Useful" all at once.

I frequently tell people exactly the same things and they still say, "shotgun."  <sigh>

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## skribs (Sep 14, 2020)

lklawson said:


> I'm sorry, but I disagree on all points.
> 
> No.  Even using bird shot with no choke (far from ideal for defensive work), at typical home defense distances, your spread is going to be around 4" or so.  You *MUST* aim to hit your target.
> 
> ...


I do keep my long guns woth the chamber empty.  I find that loading the chamber is an easier process to remember than where the safety is on each long gun (especially since a few of mine are designed for right handed folk and not well designed for me).


----------



## lklawson (Sep 14, 2020)

CB Jones said:


> Disagree....inside 15 yards shotguns are devastating and stop threats almost immediately....especially loaded with slugs.


But so does the .223, and you pay a lower price in terms of recoil, follow-ups, ammo capacity, etc.

Recently, the entire world saw a single .223 take the bicep off of an attacker with a handgun.  I read that surgeons managed to save the arm but I have my doubts how useful it will be going forward.

And that's from a "Poodle Shooter."  Imagine what a real rifle round, like a 30-06, would have done.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Sep 14, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Doesn't the laser give you away?


He didn't mention a laser.  So, no.

But to answer your question: no, a laser doesn't give away your location during a self defense/home defense encounter.  The bad guys can see you anyway, really.  You're only 15-30 feet away.  And you've got a gun.  They're looking for you anyhow. 

And even then, a laser usually doesn't draw a line to you.  At most there's a single red dot that someone at the other end might be able to see (but usually can't, because it's a coherent beam).  Take a laser pointer toy out into your darkened house some time and have your SO or friend see if the origin is readily apparent and if they'd notice it if someone were shooting at them.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Drobison491 (Sep 14, 2020)

Just a snippet from an article I read.  I included the link for the full article as well.

_
Does my personal-defense shootout prove anything? Actually, it does not. A statistician would tell you there is insufficient data. All we really have here is a suggestion that the conclusions are meaningful. Murphy was aware of this and wanted to see what he could do with slugs in his own 12-gauge shotgun, a Mossberg auto-loader with a modern red-dot sight. I asked Morgan to shoot against him using his own AR, a Colt M4 with another red-dot sight. They fired the 3-second drill at 50 yards. Murphy's shotgun delivered three hits for 4,266 foot-pounds of energy, but Morgan was able to speed up thanks to his red dot, getting seven hits for 8,218 foot-pounds. As it was with the uncustomized guns, the AR-15 got more power on target. This will not come as a big surprise to any experienced field shooter. The shotgun would seem to have lost, but because inferior sights caused a severe limitation on getting hits.

I would not argue for dumping all 12-gauge shotguns. It is relatively easy to put a set of rugged ghost rings on the Remington and it does wonders for the gun's accuracy—even at close range. Also, I remain convinced a hit with a shotgun slug or a charge of buckshot is a better hit than one from a .223 Rem. AR-15 bullet—it tends to traumatize more tissue. At 100 yards, the delivered energy from a 1-ounce slug is about 970 foot-pounds. The .224-inch-diameter bullet is more than 1,000—not a lot of difference. If anything comes out of this experiment, it is a strong recommendation to to put better sights on shotguns and investigate the wider use of slugs.

12-Gauge Shotgun vs. AR-15 for Personal Defense._


Now its talking personal defense not necessarily home defense, so there is a difference.  personally I'd choose the my M4/AR15 if I was kicking in doors and room clearing (all that COD cool guy stuff)  But in the scenario where I am asleep in bed and I hear the front door get kicked in I'll take a shot gun any day.  especially if it has the pistol grip, red dot, and light.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 14, 2020)

Drobison491 said:


> Just a snippet from an article I read.  I included the link for the full article as well.
> 
> _
> Does my personal-defense shootout prove anything? Actually, it does not. A statistician would tell you there is insufficient data. All we really have here is a suggestion that the conclusions are meaningful. Murphy was aware of this and wanted to see what he could do with slugs in his own 12-gauge shotgun, a Mossberg auto-loader with a modern red-dot sight. I asked Morgan to shoot against him using his own AR, a Colt M4 with another red-dot sight. They fired the 3-second drill at 50 yards. Murphy's shotgun delivered three hits for 4,266 foot-pounds of energy, but Morgan was able to speed up thanks to his red dot, getting seven hits for 8,218 foot-pounds. As it was with the uncustomized guns, the AR-15 got more power on target. This will not come as a big surprise to any experienced field shooter. The shotgun would seem to have lost, but because inferior sights caused a severe limitation on getting hits.
> ...


Let me know when you have a home defense/self defense engagement at 100 yards.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Drobison491 (Sep 14, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Let me know when you have a home defense/self defense engagement at 100 yards.


I thought everyone had hallways in their homes that were 100 yrds or more....hmmm may need to reevaluate my life. 

Seriously though, your right most people won't be in a situation where they need to engage at 100 yrds or most likely even 50 yrds.  As I said the article was talking about personal defense, not specifically home defense, and was using the distances to show the similar ft-lbs between the weapon systems.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 14, 2020)

Drobison491 said:


> I thought everyone had hallways in their homes that were 100 yrds or more....hmmm may need to reevaluate my life.
> 
> Seriously though, your right most people won't be in a situation where they need to engage at 100 yrds or most likely even 50 yrds.  As I said the article was talking about personal defense, not specifically home defense, and was using the distances to show the similar ft-lbs between the weapon systems.


Fair enough.  Still, I'm having a hard time imagining a 100 yard "Personal Defense" event which passes legal muster.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Drobison491 (Sep 14, 2020)

Agreed.  Hell, after seeing the way some of the "trained" shooters I work with shoot, I wouldn't really want them engaging at anything more than 15m.


----------



## CB Jones (Sep 14, 2020)

lklawson said:


> But so does the .223, and you pay a lower price in terms of recoil, follow-ups, ammo capacity, etc.
> 
> Recently, the entire world saw a single .223 take the bicep off of an attacker with a handgun.  I read that surgeons managed to save the arm but I have my doubts how useful it will be going forward.
> 
> ...



I'm not saying the AR isn't effective....just that the shotgun does much more than punch holes.  It has great stopping power like rifles.


----------



## CB Jones (Sep 14, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Fair enough.  Still, I'm having a hard time imagining a 100 yard "Personal Defense" event which passes legal muster.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Someone shooting at you from 100 yards away?


----------



## lklawson (Sep 14, 2020)

CB Jones said:


> Someone shooting at you from 100 yards away?


Sure, that'd be the start of one possibility.  Now add in the inability to seek cover or viable retreat and when you know the approximate location of the shooter?  In the past  10 years, I can think of only one off the top of my head.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Drobison491 (Sep 14, 2020)

worth noting that you do not always have the obligation to retreat.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 14, 2020)

Drobison491 said:


> worth noting that you do not always have the obligation to retreat.


Naturally.  Nevertheless, I would argue that if retreat is a safe and viable option, then it is the preferable option, for several reasons.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Drobison491 (Sep 14, 2020)

Not denying that at all, especially at that distance and taking into account what weapon I had, who I was with.


----------



## skribs (Sep 14, 2020)

CB Jones said:


> Someone shooting at you from 100 yards away?


There was one I heard of a while ago where a cop was in a gunfight, and a citizen saw it from over 100 yards away and shot the bad guy, saving the cop.

Self defense of others seems more appropriate.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 14, 2020)

skribs said:


> There was one I heard of a while ago where a cop was in a gunfight, and a citizen saw it from over 100 yards away and shot the bad guy, saving the cop.
> 
> Self defense of others seems more appropriate.


You talking about the Texas trailer park shooting of a few years back?  That was about 150 feet (50 yards).

Citizen shoots trailer park gunman, saves Texas officer

Still, most people can't accurate shoot a handgun at 50 yards.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## CB Jones (Sep 14, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Sure, that'd be the start of one possibility.  Now add in the inability to seek cover or viable retreat and when you know the approximate location of the shooter?  In the past  10 years, I can think of only one off the top of my head.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



I was just helping you imagine an event....lol.

Thankfully, I live in a state that does not require retreat and even mentioning the lack of retreat by the state in a self defense claim is grounds for a mistrial.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 14, 2020)

lklawson said:


> He didn't mention a laser.  So, no.
> 
> But to answer your question: no, a laser doesn't give away your location during a self defense/home defense encounter.  The bad guys can see you anyway, really.  You're only 15-30 feet away.  And you've got a gun.  They're looking for you anyhow.
> 
> ...


----------



## lklawson (Sep 14, 2020)

drop bear said:


> View attachment 23147


Personal pic?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## drop bear (Sep 14, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Personal pic?
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Yep that is my lazer. I really only use it for flavor as it gives me away.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 14, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Yep that is my lazer. I really only use it for flavor as it gives me away.


Fair enough.

It seems to be spreading different from the lasers I've tested.  <shrug>

I still maintain that the person at the other end is already going to know where you're at (you're not ambushing them "in self defense" are you?) and that you should be shooting anyway at that point.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## CB Jones (Sep 14, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Yep that is my lazer. I really only use it for flavor as it gives me away.



Time to switch to a IR illuminator and laser sight


----------



## drop bear (Sep 14, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> It seems to be spreading different from the lasers I've tested.  <shrug>
> 
> ...



I would say in my house I am absolutely ambushing them.


----------



## Oni_Kadaki (Sep 15, 2020)

skribs said:


> Definitely an AR-15, in my opinion, for a long list of reasons.
> 
> 
> This idea of the pistol being easier because it's smaller is ludicrous.  The long gun is superior because of the extra contact points.  This gives better stability, which leads to more accuracy and less likelihood of stray shots.  The shotgun isn't much different from the AR in this case.  At expected home defense range, you will likely get a group of maybe 1-2 inches from the shotgun.  Most misses with a rifle with miss with a shotgun as well.  In fact, if a shotgun did have a spray like in the video games, then it probably would be *more* dangerous to your neighbors.
> ...


I think OP was referring to an AR-pistol, rather than a straight-up pistol, though there are circumstances where the latter are superior, to be sure.

I'm currently setting up a 16-inch AR chambered in 5.56 with a handstop, backup irons, a low-powered variable optic, aftermarket trigger, and a sling. Though it would certainly serve the role for home defense effectively, my intention with this setup is a general-purpose rifle that can defend my home as well as it can harvest food.

For a dedicated home defense "rifle," I think an AR pistol chambered in .300 blackout with a good red dot and a pistol brace would be hard to beat... It would be more maneuverable in tight quarters, boast superior stopping power when using supersonic loads, and lend itself very well to suppression when using subsonic loads. On that note, the big issue with using a rifle for home defense, that I see, is the noise... I've had a .45 ACP go off about five feet away from me, and, while it sucked, there was no lasting damage. I doubt the same would be true of .223.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 15, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Fair enough.  Still, I'm having a hard time imagining a 100 yard "Personal Defense" event which passes legal muster.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



If you owned a farm or something. Their driveways are plus 100 yards.

I assume these guns are accurate inside that range as well. 

So the shotgun would then have to do something the machine gun doesn't. Because you probably don't want to be changing guns half way through.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 15, 2020)

drop bear said:


> If you owned a farm or something. Their driveways are plus 100 yards.


Often.  So?



> I assume these guns are accurate inside that range as well.


Yes.



> So the shotgun would then have to do something the machine gun doesn't. Because you probably don't want to be changing guns half way through.


This thread has nothing to do with machine guns.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 15, 2020)

Although, I do really enjoy my Scorpion!  35 round magazine for 9mm.  Best of both worlds for smaller close in work like a hallway, multiple rounds same as the AR-15 (for the record, that is just a "stock photo", mine has the magpul grip on it and a Romeo red dot sight).


----------



## drop bear (Sep 16, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Often.  So?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> ...



So if you owned any sort of real property then you might have to engage at 100ft. Or whatever that distance was.

But regardless if the machine gun works fine in close. And works at range. I can see why people would advocate it for home defense.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 16, 2020)

drop bear said:


> So if you owned any sort of real property then you might have to engage at 100ft. Or whatever that distance was.


I've said it several times.  You'd have a hard time proving that it was Self Defense at 100 yards.  100 feet is pretty close.  



> But regardless if the machine gun works fine in close. And works at range. I can see why people would advocate it for home defense.


Let me repeat: THIS THREAD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MACHINE GUNS.  

No one is talking about machine guns.  I don't know why you brought them up.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## drop bear (Sep 16, 2020)

lklawson said:


> I've said it several times.  You'd have a hard time proving that it was Self Defense at 100 yards.  100 feet is pretty close.
> 
> Let me repeat: THIS THREAD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MACHINE GUNS.
> 
> ...



Sorry I work in metric. But I assume their machine gun would have the same range as yours. So if they were far away they could shoot you with the same ability you could shoot them.

So self defence would occur at the range in which you are threatened.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 16, 2020)

drop bear said:


> But I assume their machine gun would have the same range as yours.


There are no machine guns being discussed.  No one is talking about machine guns.  That you keep using that term makes me think that you don't know what's being discussed.  It's a bit like someone talking about the Mata Leao Arm Bar.  The terms don't match.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 16, 2020)

lklawson said:


> There are no machine guns being discussed.  No one is talking about machine guns.  That you keep using that term makes me think that you don't know what's being discussed.  It's a bit like someone talking about the Mata Leao Arm Bar.  The terms don't match.



The irony is that quite often when a person is an expert on terminology they are compensating for a lack of personal experience.

I have never met a kickboxer who knows where the  peroneal is. But plenty of industry SD guys do.

It is almost a guarantee of junk technique.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 16, 2020)

drop bear said:


> The irony is that quite often when a person is an expert on terminology they are compensating for a lack of personal experience.


There is no irony.  You're deflecting.  Deflecting won't work.  No one is talking about machine guns and it's clear that you don't really know what the subject material is.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 16, 2020)

lklawson said:


> There is no irony.  You're deflecting.  Deflecting won't work.  No one is talking about machine guns and it's clear that you don't really know what the subject material is.



You are correct i don't.  That is because nobody knows the subject material. 

Best gun for home defense? Because of all the times that has happened to us right?

Everyone is working hypothetically here. So if someone pretends they know the subject they are lying.


----------



## Steve (Sep 16, 2020)

Drobison491 said:


> I thought everyone had hallways in their homes that were 100 yrds or more....hmmm may need to reevaluate my life.
> 
> Seriously though, your right most people won't be in a situation where they need to engage at 100 yrds or most likely even 50 yrds.  As I said the article was talking about personal defense, not specifically home defense, and was using the distances to show the similar ft-lbs between the weapon systems.


100 yards???  My house is over 3000 sq ft, and the longest hallway in my entire house is a hair over 15 yards, and that's the one that goes from the front door to the back door.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 16, 2020)

drop bear said:


> You are correct i don't.  That is because nobody knows the subject material.


No. It's because you don't know the simple difference between an AR and a machine gun. This, despite being corrected at least three times by someone who is educated on it. This is the point where you continue to try to distract and handwave in hopes that no one will notice. 

You don't know what you're talking about and should be asking questions not arguing.


----------



## Steve (Sep 16, 2020)

For anyone interested, studies have been done on the subject.  Unfortunately, the full study has a fee, but the results in the abstract are interesting:
The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007–2011 - ScienceDirect


> Of over 14,000 incidents in which the victim was present, *127 (0.9%) involved a SDGU*. SDGU was more common among males, in rural areas, away from home, against male offenders and against offenders with a gun. After any protective action, 4.2% of victims were injured; after SDGU, 4.1% of victims were injured. In property crimes, 55.9% of victims who took protective action lost property, *38.5 of SDGU victims lost property*, and 34.9% of victims who used a weapon other than a gun lost property.


So, to sum up, out of over 14k incidents, a whopping 127 involved Self Defense Gun Use (SDGU).  Of those, 49 still lost property.  Anyone wants to buy a copy of this study, I'm interested in reading it. 

This is also helpful from the Harvard Injury Control Research Center:
Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

Some excerpts:


> 9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law-abiding citizens
> 
> Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot.  Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot.  To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals.  But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care.  But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.
> 
> ...


and 





> 11. Self-defense gun use is rare and not more effective at preventing injury than other protective actions
> 
> Victims use guns in less than 1% of contact crimes, and women never use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault (in more than 300 cases).  Victims using a gun were no less likely to be injured after taking protective action than victims using other forms of protective action.  Compared to other protective actions, the National Crime Victimization Surveys provide little evidence that self-defense gun use is uniquely beneficial in reducing the likelihood of injury or property loss.
> 
> ...



Another 18 month study in three cities, including Seattle.  

Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home - PubMed


----------



## drop bear (Sep 16, 2020)

lklawson said:


> No. It's because you don't know the simple difference between an AR and a machine gun. This, despite being corrected at least three times by someone who is educated on it. This is the point where you continue to try to distract and handwave in hopes that no one will notice.
> 
> You don't know what you're talking about and should be asking questions not arguing.



Ok. Say for example i had an AR or a little F1 sub machine gun? (Which I was trained on by the way) or an M60  light machine gun(which I was trained on)

And we substituted those three weapons in to any part of any statement I made.

What difference would it have made?

How would anyone have been confused or misinterpreted anything I said?

So for example.

But I assume their machine gun would have the same range as yours.

But I assume their AR would have the same range as yours.

But I assume their F1 sub machine gun would have the same range as yours.

But I assume their M60 light machine gun would have the same range as yours.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 16, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Ok. Say for example i had an AR or a little F1 sub machine gun? (Which I was trained on by the way) or an M60  light machine gun(which I was trained on)
> 
> And we substituted those three weapons in to any part of any statement I made.
> 
> ...



They are not interchangeable though.  The machine gun is a specific type of military rifle.  The AR (Armalite Rifle) is NOT a machine gun, even if used in fully automatic form by the military.  

This is like saying an M1 Abram tank is the same as a humvee because they are both armored military vehicles.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 16, 2020)

punisher73 said:


> They are not interchangeable though.  The machine gun is a specific type of military rifle.  The AR (Armalite Rifle) is NOT a machine gun, even if used in fully automatic form by the military.
> 
> This is like saying an M1 Abram tank is the same as a humvee because they are both armored military vehicles.




Ok


So. How do my three statements that I used change the outcome?


----------



## lklawson (Sep 17, 2020)

Steve said:


> Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home - PubMed


Don't bother with this one.  This 30-year-old "study" been shredded because of poor construction.  I could give you some links to the breakdown of why it's a bad study but I doubt you need them.  Suffice it to say that this was a <cough> "study" purposely designed to show a desired result, not to find what the actual reality is.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Sep 17, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Ok. Say for example i had an AR or a little F1 sub machine gun? (Which I was trained on by the way) or an M60  light machine gun(which I was trained on)


Only two of those are actually machine guns.



> And we substituted those three weapons in to any part of any statement I made.
> 
> What difference would it have made?


The fact that you keep calling something a machine gun which isn't one is a good place to start.



> How would anyone have been confused or misinterpreted anything I said?


I don't know, if you kept calling a Ford F150 a MRAP, might that not be misenterpreted?  

To repeat; no one in this thread (except you) is talking about machine guns.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 17, 2020)

punisher73 said:


> They are not interchangeable though.  The machine gun is a specific type of military rifle.  The AR (Armalite Rifle) is NOT a machine gun, even if used in fully automatic form by the military.


Well, the M16 was a machine gun.  The AR15 is not.  It's not capable of fully automatic fire or burst; the very definition of a "machine gun."  The AR is one trigger pull, one bullet.  Machine guns are one trigger pull, more than one bullet.

The AR is functionally no different from the Winchester Model 1905 of Teddy Roosevelt's era which Whitney used for hunting on his Arctic expedition.  The AR just has more black plastic.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve (Sep 17, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Don't bother with this one.  This 30-year-old "study" been shredded because of poor construction.  I could give you some links to the breakdown of why it's a bad study but I doubt you need them.  Suffice it to say that this was a <cough> "study" purposely designed to show a desired result, not to find what the actual reality is.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


Got it.  Thanks.  I will admit I am biased against firearms in general, largely based on what I've seen and read over the years.  The NRA still sends me mail directed to my brother who passed away a few years ago.  I usually just pitch it, but occasionally, I read the letters, and they're appalling.  Edit:  Just to add that my opinion is not just formed based on NRA propaganda.  

I would be interested in some impartial data on the subject, if you can point me to it. While I definitely have opinions on the subject, I'm also a big fan of data and information, and my opinions have been known to change over the years.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 17, 2020)

Steve said:


> Got it.  Thanks.  I will admit I am biased against firearms in general, largely based on what I've seen and read over the years.  The NRA still sends me mail directed to my brother who passed away a few years ago.  I usually just pitch it, but occasionally, I read the letters, and they're appalling.  Edit:  Just to add that my opinion is not just formed based on NRA propaganda.


That's internal remarketing designed to drum up donations from those already sympathetic.  It's not intended to sway you.



> I would be interested in some impartial data on the subject, if you can point me to it. While I definitely have opinions on the subject, I'm also a big fan of data and information, and my opinions have been known to change over the years.


I'm not sure what information you're interested in.  I'll try hard not to step over the "no politics" line for this forum.

I'll try to keep this short without writing a book.  The empirical evidence seems to support the notion that firearms are used far more often for defensive purposes, "good," than for criminal misuse, "bad."  Over the years, there have been dozens of DGU (Defensive Gun Use) studies, including several different U.S. Government bodies (specifically the annual FBI "Crime and Victimization" and a little known Centers for Disease Control study).  These studies attempt to track the number of DGU's per year but due to reporting standards either admit to under-reporting the number of DGU's or having to extrapolate (both the Kleck study and the CDC study).  Every year, the FBI/DOJ publishes the National Crime & Victimization Report (CVR).  This report, they admit, captures the lowest number of DGU's and they miss a lot which are never reported to Law Enforcement.  DGU's per year range from a low of 76,000 per year back in the mid-90's to 235,700 for more recent (~2011).   The Hart study, found 650,000 DGU's per year.  The Mauser study found 700,000 DGU's per year.  Gary Kleck, famously reported 2.1 million DGU's per year and was roundly ridiculed for his extrapolation methods and questioned about how his number could be so much greater than the DOJ CVR numbers.  Those complaints lost a lot of wind from their sails when it was found that the (unreported and apparently hidden and not released to the public until 2018) 1998 Centers for Disease Control study found an estimated 2.46 DGU's per year.

Significantly, even using the lowest estimate, 76,000 violent crimes are prevented by armed citizens each year.  Currently, the annual murder rate in the U.S., by any method, is 15,498 per year.  Thus, the number of violent crimes thwarted by armed citizens is about five times the annual murder rate by any means.  If we use the DGU number from the CDC study, then people in the U.S. use firearms for self defense around 159 times more often then people are murdered, by any means, in the U.S.

The 2013, Obama directed, CDC study, titled "Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence," also found that guns are used for self defense frequently and effectively, far outstripping their criminal misuse and, further, that mass shootings are rare.

(It is worth nothing that the CDC is not prevented from studying "gun violence" and they have published several studies.  The CDC is prevented from using public funds to push an agenda.  The Dickey Amendment was passed in 1996 and the CDC has published studies in 1996, 1997, 1998, 2013, and 2015, that I could find - there might be more.)

It seems pretty clear, from just the straight numbers, that negative and criminal uses of firearms in the U.S. are vastly over-represented in the psyche while the justified Defensive uses of guns are, for whatever reason, vastly underrepresented or under reported to the average U.S. Citizen.

I've collected most of the links you need at the end of an article I wrote in 2018.  Here's the link:
Let The CDC Study Gun Violence

Again, as soon as this thread veers into politics, it will get shut down, so I am trying to keep it strictly to the facts and all nice & polite.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Oni_Kadaki (Sep 17, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Well, the M16 was a machine gun.  The AR15 is not.  It's not capable of fully automatic fire or burst; the very definition of a "machine gun."  The AR is one trigger pull, one bullet.  Machine guns are one trigger pull, more than one bullet.



Minor nitpick, the M16 is an assault rifle... the M249 and M240B are machine guns. I would know, I'm qualified on both of the machine guns, as well as the M4 carbine (the M16's little brother). I only bring this up because leftist media in the US has been throwing around the word "machine gun" in connection with police use of force lately, and I find that wording to be manipulative and deceptive as, to my knowledge, no police department regularly issues light machine guns.


----------



## Steve (Sep 17, 2020)

lklawson said:


> That's internal remarketing designed to drum up donations from those already sympathetic.  It's not intended to sway you.


It's horrifying, to be honest. Alarming.   

I'll avoid anything political, and will take a look at the CDC study.  I'm looking forward to seeing how they define a DGU.  It's been a while since I've done any significant research on this topic, but I ended up pretty firmly in the camp that the likelihood of things going wrong with a gun are way, way higher than of things going right.  Simply put, if you have a gun in your home, the chances of something bad happening (i.e., someone being shot that shouldn't have been) is much higher than you being a hero and saving the day by either brandishing or actually firing your weapon at a "bad guy."  

I'm not saying the above to try and convince anyone.  Just putting my cards out on the table.


----------



## Steve (Sep 17, 2020)

Oni_Kadaki said:


> Minor nitpick, the M16 is an assault rifle... the M249 and M240B are machine guns. I would know, I'm qualified on both of the machine guns, as well as the M4 carbine (the M16's little brother). I only bring this up because leftist media in the US has been throwing around the word "machine gun" in connection with police use of force lately, and I find that wording to be manipulative and deceptive as, to my knowledge, no police department regularly issues light machine guns.


Oh boy.


----------



## Steve (Sep 17, 2020)

lklawson said:


> That's internal remarketing designed to drum up donations from those already sympathetic.  It's not intended to sway you.
> 
> I'm not sure what information you're interested in.  I'll try hard not to step over the "no politics" line for this forum.
> 
> ...


Hey, I didn't see any links to the actual CDC studies.  Sorry, am I misunderstanding?


----------



## lklawson (Sep 17, 2020)

Oni_Kadaki said:


> Minor nitpick, the M16 is an assault rifle... the M249 and M240B are machine guns. I would know, I'm qualified on both of the machine guns, as well as the M4 carbine (the M16's little brother). I only bring this up because leftist media in the US has been throwing around the word "machine gun" in connection with police use of force lately, and I find that wording to be manipulative and deceptive as, to my knowledge, no police department regularly issues light machine guns.


The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) legally defined a "machinegun" in U.S. Law.  According the revised NFA a "machinegun" is defined as "_Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, *automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger*"_

Because Assault Rifles are defined as having Select Fire capabilities (the ability to switch between semi-auto fire and either multi-round burst or full auto/fully automatic fire) they are, by legal definition of NFA, a "machinegun."  M16's are a subset of machineguns. Not all machine guns are M16's but all (real) M16's are machine guns.  Which is why when drop bear repeated uses the term "machine gun" in a thread only discussing AR15's he needs to be corrected.  Because an AR is not a machine gun.  

Ref to the BATFE on NFA/machineguns:
Firearms - Guides - Importation & Verification of Firearms - National Firearms Act Definitions - Machinegun | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Sep 17, 2020)

Steve said:


> It's horrifying, to be honest. Alarming.
> 
> I'll avoid anything political, and will take a look at the CDC study.  I'm looking forward to seeing how they define a DGU.  It's been a while since I've done any significant research on this topic, but I ended up pretty firmly in the camp that the likelihood of things going wrong with a gun are way, way higher than of things going right.  Simply put, if you have a gun in your home, the chances of something bad happening (i.e., someone being shot that shouldn't have been) is much higher than you being a hero and saving the day by either brandishing or actually firing your weapon at a "bad guy."
> 
> I'm not saying the above to try and convince anyone.  Just putting my cards out on the table.


Please understand that I'm not poopooing your concerns.  However, accidents with a firearm are at a literal all time low.  I mean, literally the lowest per capita number of "accidental gun deaths" since they began keeping records more than a century ago.

I know that you've been told that "if you have a gun in the home there's more chance of it killing you than a bad guy."  That's what the discredited "study" from earlier claimed.  But it is not actually true.

The truth is that gun owner training, particularly in safe handling protocols, is better, more comprehensive, and more spread through the gun owning population than it has ever been.  And that is driving down, year after year, accidents in the home.  While I agree completely that any accident is a tragedy, it is just not as common as many in the U.S. have been lead to believe.  The numbers don't lie.

Ref:
Unintentional Firearm Fatalities Reach All-Time Low :: Guns.com

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Sep 17, 2020)

Steve said:


> Hey, I didn't see any links to the actual CDC studies.  Sorry, am I misunderstanding?


Kleck had to accidentally find the study and request it from the CDC.  Not sure how much it costs.  They talk about it briefly in this article:
CDC unpublished study: Over 2 million defensive gun uses every year

It made a big splash in the firearms circles when the news came out.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## drop bear (Sep 17, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Only two of those are actually machine guns.
> 
> The fact that you keep calling something a machine gun which isn't one is a good place to start.
> 
> ...



The thing is, if you have a look at my posting history. I do take issue with systems that are all image and no aplication. All the Aikidos and ninjitsus and apparently tactical gun. Where people sit from their arm chairs thinking that if they have their banter down they can convince people they are some sort of expert.

And all it winds up doing is putting the focus on the wrong thing which allowes in far too much misinformation and BS. That then everyone believes because there is no way to test.


Hence sports like MMA where the experts are actually in the field doing the thing they are advocating. 

So machine gun or assault rifle or gunnny gun gun or whatever image you are desperate to create doesn't actually make a lick of difference.

Because there are no lies on the mat. 

Now I understand tactical gun people have, like aikido or ninjitsu have removed the mat and have abandoned any sort of practical testing for dogma. But that doesn't really effect me does it?

So if you don't want to call an AR a machine gun you are more than welcome to. But to be an expert in home defence I think you would probably wanted to have defended your home with said AR or machine gun.

Because otherwise you are making things up and pretending that you are not.

As I said. Aplication is the king of the conversation when it comes to practical matters. Terminology is for pretenders.


----------



## Steve (Sep 17, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Please understand that I'm not poopooing your concerns.  However, accidents with a firearm are at a literal all time low.  I mean, literally the lowest per capita number of "accidental gun deaths" since they began keeping records more than a century ago.
> 
> I know that you've been told that "if you have a gun in the home there's more chance of it killing you than a bad guy."  That's what the discredited "study" from earlier claimed.  But it is not actually true.
> 
> ...


I do plan to take a look.  But to clarify, when I say that, I have in mind things like kids shooting their friends, relatives shooting each other, accidents and non-accidents where drugs or alcohol are involved, collateral injury and death from criminals AND cops, and things like that.  Kind of spills out of the home a bit in some of those situations, but all are related to the idea of guns for "safety".


----------



## lklawson (Sep 17, 2020)

drop bear said:


> The thing is, if you have a look at my posting history. I do take issue with systems that are all image and no aplication. All the Aikidos and ninjitsus and apparently tactical gun. Where people sit from their arm chairs thinking that if they have their banter down they can convince people they are some sort of expert.


I don't care.  You are simply wrong.



> And all it winds up doing is putting the focus on the wrong thing which allowes in far too much misinformation and BS. That then everyone believes because there is no way to test.


Stop deliberately using the wrong terminology, even after corrected, and the problem *goes away.*



> So machine gun or assault rifle or gunnny gun gun or whatever image you are desperate to create doesn't actually make a lick of difference.


Wrong again.  It makes a *HUGE* difference.  10 years in Prison, $250,000 fine, a Felony Record, and permanent (legal) Disability from firearms rights.  THAT is the difference between a "machinegun" and an AR.  So, yeah.  Use the right d@mn term.  It makes a difference.



> Because there are no lies on the mat.


You can explain it to the ATF.



> Now I understand tactical gun people have, like aikido or ninjitsu have removed the mat and have abandoned any sort of practical testing for dogma. But that doesn't really effect me does it?


First, that's laughable and shows you don't know much about what is going on in the "training community" and second, it doesn't make any difference to the fact that you kept using the wrong term and are now desperately obfuscating, hand-waving, and crying about ninjitsu or some such bullsqueeze.  You were wrong.  Just admit it.



> So if you don't want to call an AR a machine gun you are more than welcome to.


Yeah yeah, go tell the United States Congress and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives that they can't get a definition right and some rando in Australia bitching about ninjitsu needs to school them in correct terminology.  Please.  And video that.  I haven't had a good laugh in seconds.



> As I said. Aplication is the king of the conversation when it comes to practical matters. Terminology is for pretenders.


Words matter.  You hosed it up and are too scared of looking silly to nut up and admit your mistake.  Grow a pair.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 17, 2020)

Steve said:


> I do plan to take a look.  But to clarify, when I say that, I have in mind things like kids shooting their friends, relatives shooting each other, accidents and non-accidents where drugs or alcohol are involved, collateral injury and death from criminals AND cops, and things like that.  Kind of spills out of the home a bit in some of those situations, but all are related to the idea of guns for "safety".


OK.  But, quite honestly, those things are all (statistically speaking) very rare occurrences.  The places where they do occur more often are frequently associated with tighter government controls on firearms rights, which were put in place supposedly to try to curtail those things.

Violence, it turns out, is not about what tools are available but rather a factor of social issues and relative economic issues.  To be overly abbreviated, the poor and those in poverty relative to the rest of their society, are far more likely to engage in criminal violence and those who's social structures are designed around violence as a norm are more likely to engage in violence.  As an example, the recently lowered murder rate in Britain & Wales is (according to google) 11.2 per capita (down from 15.7 per capita) whereas the murder rate in the U.S. is roughly 5.0 per capita.  Even accounting for differences in reporting methodologies, the murder rate in Britain & Wales is higher than the U.S. despite very stringent gun and knife laws.  Availability of the tools doesn't matter near as much as other factors.  So when someone throws out that trite sounding byte that "guns don't kill people; people kill people" it turns out that there's more truth to it than is comfortable for some people.

Further, although no one would know it, crime and violence in the U.S. has been down trending for a generation and may be reaching an "all time low."  Even Bloomberg's paper admits it.  But, you know how it works.  "If it bleeds, it leads" and that creates a false sense of the actual violence levels in the U.S.

(bloomberg ref: Pssst: Crime May Be Near an All-Time Low )

I suspect that the recent riots in the U.S. will put a major blip on that chart, but I think an argument can be made that the riots are a different type of criminal violence from the drugs, gangs, etc. we were talking about above.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve (Sep 17, 2020)

lklawson said:


> OK.  But, quite honestly, those things are all (statistically speaking) very rare occurrences.  The places where they do occur more often are frequently associated with tighter government controls on firearms rights, which were put in place supposedly to try to curtail those things.
> 
> Violence, it turns out, is not about what tools are available but rather a factor of social issues and relative economic issues.  To be overly abbreviated, the poor and those in poverty relative to the rest of their society, are far more likely to engage in criminal violence and those who's social structures are designed around violence as a norm are more likely to engage in violence.  As an example, the recently lowered murder rate in Britain & Wales is (according to google) 11.2 per capita (down from 15.7 per capita) whereas the murder rate in the U.S. is roughly 5.0 per capita.  Even accounting for differences in reporting methodologies, the murder rate in Britain & Wales is higher than the U.S. despite very stringent gun and knife laws.  Availability of the tools doesn't matter near as much as other factors.  So when someone throws out that trite sounding byte that "guns don't kill people; people kill people" it turns out that there's more truth to it than is comfortable for some people.
> 
> ...


Believe me, you're preaching to the choir where self defense is concerned.  In this case, maybe we see the same data and come to different conclusions. I see the real risk of being the victim of a violent crime and think that there are things we can do to further mitigate the risk, but learning to fight (or carrying a weapon) are not likely to be helpful.  Like, let's work on opoid addiction, let's address mental health and homelessness, let's talk about poverty.  Because these things put people at risk. I don't think, let's arm everyone. 

We can talk 2nd amendment or what have you.  But if we're speaking strictly self defense, I'm not convinced that carrying a gun is effective.  Maybe if we're talking home invasion protection, but I'd like to see some data to suggest that that's more effective than having a St. Bernard for deterring crime, because, I'll tell you what, my St. Bernard scares the s**t out of anyone who comes near our house, and she can hear them from the street.

Like I said, it's been a while so I plan to take some time to look at current statistics.  But I've looked into this and related data before, and posted a lot of it on this site, and I think, at best, it's just not clear so each side creates a self serving narrative (at least on the gun topic).


----------



## EdwardA (Sep 17, 2020)

Growing up, my uncle, an MD and Hunter had lots of weapons of all types (locked up at all times)...a Frenchman, in his late 20s he was in the French underground, captured by the Nazis twice and escaped twice.  Around 4 to 6 years old, he took all the kids out in the country a few times and taught us all gun safety and how to shoot.

That works.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 17, 2020)

lklawson said:


> Well, the M16 was a machine gun.  The AR15 is not.  It's not capable of fully automatic fire or burst; the very definition of a "machine gun."  The AR is one trigger pull, one bullet.  Machine guns are one trigger pull, more than one bullet.
> 
> The AR is functionally no different from the Winchester Model 1905 of Teddy Roosevelt's era which Whitney used for hunting on his Arctic expedition.  The AR just has more black plastic.
> 
> ...



Fully auto is what defines an assault rifle sort of. The fire selector switch.

Which is contentious here because of the A1L1 which is an assault rifle and I will punch any man who says different.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 17, 2020)

Steve said:


> Oh boy.



And he is right.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 17, 2020)

lklawson said:


> I don't care.  You are simply wrong.
> 
> Stop deliberately using the wrong terminology, even after corrected, and the problem *goes away.*
> 
> ...



I don't think you understand the subject.

I hose it up on purpose. Because actions are more important than words. 

You remind me of Sean Bean from Ronin.

You think you sound like a high speed guy. But you really kind of don't.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 18, 2020)

Steve said:


> Believe me, you're preaching to the choir where self defense is concerned.  In this case, maybe we see the same data and come to different conclusions. I see the real risk of being the victim of a violent crime and think that there are things we can do to further mitigate the risk, but learning to fight (or carrying a weapon) are not likely to be helpful.  Like, let's work on opoid addiction, let's address mental health and homelessness, let's talk about poverty.  Because these things put people at risk. I don't think, let's arm everyone.
> 
> We can talk 2nd amendment or what have you.  But if we're speaking strictly self defense, I'm not convinced that carrying a gun is effective.  Maybe if we're talking home invasion protection, but I'd like to see some data to suggest that that's more effective than having a St. Bernard for deterring crime, because, I'll tell you what, my St. Bernard scares the s**t out of anyone who comes near our house, and she can hear them from the street.
> 
> Like I said, it's been a while so I plan to take some time to look at current statistics.  But I've looked into this and related data before, and posted a lot of it on this site, and I think, at best, it's just not clear so each side creates a self serving narrative (at least on the gun topic).


Probably the most convincing reference currently comes from the Obama ordered the CDC study (prepared by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council) which says, (quoting) 
_“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found *consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims* compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
CDC study, 2013_​
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/p...reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence​
I would point to the DGU numbers.  Using the 498,000 number of DGU per year according to a 1994 Centers for Disease Control study, that far outweighs the number of accidents and criminal misuse.  (ref: Estimating intruder-related firearm retrievals in U.S. households, 1994 - PubMed )

While it's a little bit dated now, the Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But *when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful*.  (Ref: U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities, 1979, p. 31.)

Really, the numbers are pretty clear.  Accidents and criminal misuse of firearms are greatly outweighed by the lawful defensive use of firearms and that the defensive use of firearms in the U.S. is both highly effective and comparatively easy.

That said, I think a lot of it has to do with your comfort level.  I certainly am not going to tell you that you *must* carry a gun for self defense.  While the numbers are pretty clear that using a gun for self defense is particularly effective, if you just aren't comfortable with it, then you shouldn't do it.  Naturally, I have problems with someone who wants to tell everyone else that they can't.

What I would strongly recommend is to get training.  Honestly, find a reputable firearms instructor in your area and take a basic course or two.  The first thing you're going to find is safety and safe handling is, literally, the first rule.  In NRA courses, there is a *HARD* rule that during classroom work there is no live ammunition in the classroom.  The 3 Rules are observed and enforced.  Safety safety safety.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Sep 18, 2020)

drop bear said:


> Fully auto is what defines an assault rifle sort of. The fire selector switch.
> 
> Which is contentious here because of the A1L1 which is an assault rifle and I will punch any man who says different.


None of which applies to the AR15, which is what's being discussed here.  Double check the thread title if you're having a hard time.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 18, 2020)

drop bear said:


> And he is right.


No he's not.  The legal definition of a "machinegun" applies to an Assault Rifle.  It's in the clear language of the National Firearms Act of 1934 and linked to in the BATFE regs.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 18, 2020)

drop bear said:


> I don't think you understand the subject.


I understand it perfectly; you keep attempting to conflate an AR15 with a "machine gun" and it isn't.  A "machine gun" is any "firearm" which _"shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, *automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger*"  _If you can pull the trigger back and spits out 2 or more bullets, then it's a "machinegun."  This clearly includes Select Fire Assault Rifles and clearly excludes AR15's.

AR15's are not machine guns.  Stop implying that they are.

Nut up and admit that you were way off base.  Or at least stop posting wrong info.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 18, 2020)

lklawson said:


> I understand it perfectly; you keep attempting to conflate an AR15 with a "machine gun" and it isn't.  A "machine gun" is any "firearm" which _"shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, *automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger*"  _If you can pull the trigger back and spits out 2 or more bullets, then it's a "machinegun."  This clearly includes Select Fire Assault Rifles and clearly excludes AR15's.
> 
> AR15's are not machine guns.  Stop implying that they are.
> 
> Nut up and admit that you were way off base.  Or at least stop posting wrong info.



Thank you captian terminology.

But the subject isn't whether an AR is a machine gun or not. Never was and It doesn't matter.

Exept to you. And for some weird reason a lot of the tactical set. Who value image over application.

All trying to sound like they are tactical guys. But wind up sounding like what they think tactical guys would sound like. 

I find the whole dynamic hilarious.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 18, 2020)

lklawson said:


> No he's not.  The legal definition of a "machinegun" applies to an Assault Rifle.  It's in the clear language of the National Firearms Act of 1934 and linked to in the BATFE regs.



I will stay with the military definition.

And I am pretty sure it is not illegal for me to call an AR a machine gun.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 21, 2020)

drop bear said:


> I will stay with the military definition.
> 
> And I am pretty sure it is not illegal for me to call an AR a machine gun.





drop bear said:


> Thank you captian terminology.
> 
> But the subject isn't whether an AR is a machine gun or not. Never was and It doesn't matter.
> 
> ...


Good grief, you're still blathering inaccurate crap about this?  I stopped paying attention to your fevered imagination last week.


----------



## Buka (Sep 21, 2020)

I hadn't stopped in on this thread in a while. Glad to see it's gone well. 

Praise the Lord and pass the God damn ammunition!


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2020)

Buka said:


> I hadn't stopped in on this thread in a while. Glad to see it's gone well.
> 
> Praise the Lord and pass the God damn ammunition!


Oh, Kay Kyser.  One of my favorites:






Regarding the rest, either @lklawson is intentionally missing @drop bear 's point, or he doesn't see it.  I'm not sure which.  Leaning to the former.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> Oh, Kay Kyser.  One of my favorites:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That being that deliberately calling an AR a "machinegun" is OK?  It isn't.  As long as he keeps characterizing a tool as something that it isn't, I don't much care about about his ninjitsu rants.

And, yes, words matter very very much, particularly on THIS subject.  That is because many people have historically mischaracterized the AR as a "machinegun," including News Agencies, in a deliberate attempt to frame political discourse and shape public opinion for a political goal.  I can give you examples but I've been trying to avoid politics.

The simple fact is that equating an AR, which is semi-auto, to a machinegun, which is legally either full auto or select-fire, is a political framing.  I've been trying to stop that political re-frame while trying to avoid politics so that this thread doesn't get shut down.

It's pretty obvious that AR's are for many a touchy subject.  We have a responsibility to be accurate about what they are and are not.  The simple fact is that they are not "machineguns" and that misrepresentation needs to be corrected.  AR's are not any sort of military weapon, never mind a "machinegun."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve (Sep 21, 2020)

lklawson said:


> That being that deliberately calling an AR a "machinegun" is OK?  It isn't.  As long as he keeps characterizing a tool as something that it isn't, I don't much care about about his ninjitsu rants.
> 
> And, yes, words matter very very much, particularly on THIS subject.  That is because many people have historically mischaracterized the AR as a "machinegun," including News Agencies, in a deliberate attempt to frame political discourse and shape public opinion for a political goal.  I can give you examples but I've been trying to avoid politics.
> 
> ...


It's clear that the language matters very much to you.  To many, though (myself included, honestly), whether it's a military weapon, a military style weapon, a machine gun, an automatic weapon, or a semi-automatic weapon that approximates an automatic weapon through the use of a bump stock... it doesn't really matter in this discussion. 

In a discussion about getting around gun control laws and maximizing the amount of damage one can do by threading a legal needle, it probably matters a great deal.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> It's clear that the language matters very much to you.  To many, though (myself included, honestly), whether it's a military weapon, a military style weapon, a machine gun, an automatic weapon, or a semi-automatic weapon that approximates an automatic weapon through the use of a bump stock... it doesn't really matter in this discussion.
> 
> In a discussion about getting around gun control laws and maximizing the amount of damage one can do by threading a legal needle, it probably matters a great deal.


I understand.  In some ways, it's like a TKD guy being told by someone else (repeatedly) that he practices karate.  

I will say this about bumpstocks: Almost no one in the firearms community thought of them as more than a toy for turning money into noise at the range.  If one wants to use a bumpstock as a replacement for an actual machinegun, they're going to be greatly disappointed.  The way that they function makes the thing inaccurate (much more so than problems holding target with a real machine gun) and don't run reliably.  They tend to stutter and stop.

To be honest, again, I have issues with each of those characterizations you use.  "military weapon, a military style weapon, a machine gun, an automatic weapon, or a semi-automatic weapon"  4 of them are completely inaccurate and the last, "semi-automatic weapon," carries an unwarranted negative reaction by unnecessarily attaching the term "weapon."  A tool is a tool and it's how it's used that determines it's function.  You could brain someone with a hammer (which is a more common method of committing murder in the U.S. than with Rifles of any kind).

I know that some will say that "rifle used for self defense is definitionally a 'weapon'."  Sure, there's a point.  But how often does someone refer to a home defense shotgun as "a shotgun weapon?"  Or the Browning A5 shotgun as a "weapon" even though it is a semi-automatic shotgun often used for home/personal defense?

The fact is that an AR is *just* a semi-auto rifle.  The design and purpose of an AR is not to "thread the needle" around gun control laws.  All it is is a semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine pretty much like any other detachable mag semi-auto sporting rifle which came before.  The only real functional difference between an AR and a Ruger 10/22 is that most of the time the AR is chambered in for a different cartridge.

And that's part of why you think I'm making a "big deal" of this; a mountain out of a linguistic mole-hill.  Because it appears from your post that you seem to think an AR is a way for gun nuts to get around gun control laws which outlaw supposedly "military weapons."  If you don't believe that, I'm certain that you know people who do.  But it's just not so.

So when discussing the AR, I work really hard to try to separate the facts of the rifle from the myths swirling around now; including that it is somehow a "machinegun."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## drop bear (Sep 21, 2020)

Steve said:


> Oh, Kay Kyser.  One of my favorites:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I still think it is the latter. because it does come around in subjects that are not guns. And I get this literal look of confusion when I bring it up.

And is very much in the domain of this self defence set. Which is a lot more about terminology than practicality. And that is because the military and law enforcement are terminology focused. And industry is terminology focused. The colour codes the odaa loop and all these methods of dogma people adopt to sound qualified and professional.


Knowing the anagram that relates to the subject is as important as knowing the subject.

And of course a lot of your practical pursuits that I hold in much higher esteem don't really do that.

I have trained with plenty of really good guys who will use the wrestling terms for hip throws. Or not even know all the terms Blasphemy I know.

I was thinking more this by the way.






Because as we know a gun is a piece of artillery.


----------



## Brian King (Sep 22, 2020)

In my opinion, when people use wrong terms, it makes them appear ignorant, when they deliberately use the wrong terms it makes any point they are attempting to make look ignorant. When they deliberately use misleading and emotional terms, it proves their opinion ignorant, weak, and often wrong (which is why they are resorting to low form of conversation) and are not to be taken seriously in any way.  

Regards
Brian King


----------



## Steve (Sep 22, 2020)

Brian King said:


> In my opinion, when people use wrong terms, it makes them appear ignorant, when they deliberately use the wrong terms it makes any point they are attempting to make look ignorant. When they deliberately use misleading and emotional terms, it proves their opinion ignorant, weak, and often wrong (which is why they are resorting to low form of conversation) and are not to be taken seriously in any way.
> 
> Regards
> Brian King


That's fair.  I think jargon is often used to deflect and actually avoid the actual point.  In this discussion, undue attention on jargon actual distracts from the larger point.


----------



## Brian King (Sep 22, 2020)

Steve said:


> That's fair.  I think jargon is often used to deflect and actually avoid the actual point.  In this discussion, undue attention on jargon actual distracts from the larger point.



Some might say that continued deliberate use of misleading emotional and incorrect jargon distracts from what ever the larger point is supposed to be. 
Regards
Brian King


----------



## Steve (Sep 22, 2020)

Brian King said:


> Some might say that continued deliberate use of misleading emotional and incorrect jargon distracts from what ever the larger point is supposed to be.
> Regards
> Brian King


And some might say the over emphasis on jargon at the expense of the larger point is exactly the problem.  I see your point, but I don't think you see mine.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Sep 23, 2020)

As someone with no knowledge of guns whatsoever, and not a huge fan of them, I don't understand the purpose of using the wrong terminology. If something's considered a machine gun, call it that. If something's a pistol, call it that. There's no benefit to calling it something it isn't, then when corrected claiming people are being to picky. Especially if you know what it is.

Just call it what it is, and if there's an issue with it, address it properly rather than using terminology that makes it seem worse than it is. 

If you get called out on using wrong terminology, there's proof that you're wrong, and you stick with it, you just kinda seem dumb. And it negates whatever point you were making. Versus you using the correct terminology and you possibly convincing some people of your point.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> That's fair.  I think jargon is often used to deflect and actually avoid the actual point.  In this discussion, undue attention on jargon actual distracts from the larger point.


I would agree if this were only jargon.  I get agravated when someone goes out of their way to correct the term "clip" when the actual term should be "magazine," or when someone gets corrected or ridiculed for asking for "bullets" when they want "ammunition."  Those are examples of jargon and everyone darn well knows that when someone talks about a "clip" they mean a mag, or when someone is trying to buy bullets they probably want ammo. 

But the term "machinegun" isn't jargon.  Everyone "knows" that a machingun spits out more than one bullet when the trigger is pulled.   But the continued misuse of the word applied to an AR is wrong, confuses the subject, and actually spreads misinformation.  In that case, it's not "jargon."

There's a difference.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve (Sep 23, 2020)

lklawson said:


> I would agree if this were only jargon.  I get agravated when someone goes out of their way to correct the term "clip" when the actual term should be "magazine," or when someone gets corrected or ridiculed for asking for "bullets" when they want "ammunition."  Those are examples of jargon and everyone darn well knows that when someone talks about a "clip" they mean a mag, or when someone is trying to buy bullets they probably want ammo.
> 
> But the term "machinegun" isn't jargon.  Everyone "knows" that a machingun spits out more than one bullet when the trigger is pulled.   But the continued misuse of the word applied to an AR is wrong, confuses the subject, and actually spreads misinformation.  In that case, it's not "jargon."
> 
> ...


I understand that when someone says clip when they should say magazine, or machine gun when it's really a fully automatic rifle... those distinctions matter to you for a number of reasons you obviously think are meaningful.  And I understand that when people say these things, you guys believe the person is being disingenuous or ignorant.

What you're explaining above is quintessential jargon.  And I'm trying to tell you that when you focus on the jargon, you are missing the point and it makes you appear disingenuous or ignorant.  In a discussion about deaths, the finer points of whether the bullet came out of a tommy gun or an AR-15 are only important to people who want to preserve a loophole of some kind.

Look, in all the reading I've done recently and in the past, there are just two fundamentally different ways to look at this issue.  You either look at it from the perspective of someone who wants to keep owning guns and preserve the status quo or you look at it from the perspective of someone who wants to reduce the number of casualties and is looking to subvert the status quo.  The rest is building a case to support the argument.

But I will just say that it took no more than a few months after folks started killing people with cars, trucks, and vans, that we took reasonable, common sense steps to mitigate that risk.  Hardened barriers in front of government buildings and along side sidewalks on bridges, etc.   No one argued about jargon.  But when it comes to firearms, for many reasons that people who own those weapons (not tools) think are important, the jargon becomes a strategy for obfuscating the issues and dragging the conversation away from the mass shootings and the ridiculous firepower available to just about anyone, and into the realm of fine distinctions between the characteristics of one weapon vs the other.

I hope this doesn't come across as angry or argumentative.  I see where you guys are coming from, but I just don't agree.  And I'm trying to show you that where you presume ignorance, you likely appear equally as ignorant to the other side.  I wouldn't normally use that word, but since you and others have now used it, I'm hoping it will resonate.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 23, 2020)

I don't have a ton of time right now so I'll reply to the other stuff later on.



Steve said:


> Look, in all the reading I've done recently and in the past, there are just two fundamentally different ways to look at this issue.  You either look at it from the perspective of someone who wants to keep owning guns and preserve the status quo or you look at it from the perspective of someone who wants to reduce the number of casualties and is looking to subvert the status quo.


I'm sorry, but this is fundamentally not right.  Obviously, I run in "gun guy" circles.  And no one is disinterested in reducing the number of casualties.  EVERYONE wants fewer people injured or dead, including me.  I don't think you were intending to be deliberately insulting or to impugn my compassion and humanity.  Nevertheless, when cast that way, it sure sounds like "you want to keep your guns more than you want to stop murders."  It's just not so and it sounds very much like the deliberately politicized and oft repeated statements that gun owners "care more about their guns than children."  I can assure you that this isn't true.

Everyone on either side of the political issue which is being referenced here wants people to be safe.  They just have different beliefs on how to best achieve this and whether or not the opposing method is effective.

I gotta run but I'll try to get back to your other points later today if I can.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve (Sep 23, 2020)

lklawson said:


> I don't have a ton of time right now so I'll reply to the other stuff later on.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but this is fundamentally not right.  Obviously, I run in "gun guy" circles.  And no one is disinterested in reducing the number of casualties.  EVERYONE wants fewer people injured or dead, including me.  I don't think you were intending to be deliberately insulting or to impugn my compassion and humanity.  Nevertheless, when cast that way, it sure sounds like "you want to keep your guns more than you want to stop murders."  It's just not so and it sounds very much like the deliberately politicized and oft repeated statements that gun owners "care more about their guns than children."  I can assure you that this isn't true.
> ...


Definitely not trying to be insulting.  I was talking about the direction that the argument flows.  While you may not be disinterested in the number of casualties, if the choice is to keep guns and maintain the status quo or lose access to some categories of weapons, "gun guys" will (I believe) choose status quo every time.  So, I mean, if you want to characterize it as "you want to keep your guns more than you want to reduce the number of shootings (which include accidental and intentional injuries and deaths, in the home or outside of the home, singly or en masse)."  Then, yeah... if I'm being honest, I do think that the gun "advocates" would opt for status quo vs any kind of gun control or reform to access.  Are you honestly suggesting otherwise?  In fact, I think your use of "murder" is a perfect example of how language is used on both sides to mischaracterize the issue and appeal to emotion.

In some ways, this entire discussion reminds me of how we talked about cigarettes back in the 80's.  The cigarette companies were like, 'Sure, I mean... you're inhaling smoke.  It's not good for you.  But people get cancer from all kinds of things."


----------



## Steve (Sep 23, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> As someone with no knowledge of guns whatsoever, and not a huge fan of them, I don't understand the purpose of using the wrong terminology. If something's considered a machine gun, call it that. If something's a pistol, call it that. There's no benefit to calling it something it isn't, then when corrected claiming people are being to picky. Especially if you know what it is.
> 
> Just call it what it is, and if there's an issue with it, address it properly rather than using terminology that makes it seem worse than it is.
> 
> If you get called out on using wrong terminology, there's proof that you're wrong, and you stick with it, you just kinda seem dumb. And it negates whatever point you were making. Versus you using the correct terminology and you possibly convincing some people of your point.


I think the point is, you don't have to know the difference between a vortex laser rifle and a Garlaxian photon rifle to understand that they are both weapons that are intended to kill people.  Even if you've never heard of them before, if I tell you that they're both weapons that shoot X number of times per minute, and that when they hit people, people are injured and often killed.  And if they both shoot about the same amount of projectiles in about the same amount of time, with similar end effects, getting drawn into a technical discussion about the clear but irrelevant differences between a laser rifle and a photon rifle is a distraction from the larger point.  It's a red herring.  I just made up two fictional weapons, but there's enough information in there for us to all understand what I mean. 

So, when we talk about actual non-fictional weapons, one doesn't need to know the difference between a "clip" vs "magazine" to understand that bullets come out of both into some kind of gun.  If you're talking to someone about gun control from the results back (i.e., People are being killed and we need to do something about it), and he starts trying to educate you on the finer points of an AR-15 vs some other kind of gun that fires about a bullet per second in semi-automatic mode without a bump stock, you're being distracted.

Personally, if I can use the right terminology, I will.  But I completely understand when people will avoid being manipulated into using jargon to appease the folks who are using that jargon to justify maintaining the status quo.  It's a natural reaction.

i mean, earlier in this thread, I was literally scolded for using the term weapon and not "tool."  Give me a break.


----------



## Steve (Sep 23, 2020)

I just googled AR-15 vs Ruger 10/22, and you're right.  I don't see a lot of difference between the two.  They're both touted as easy handling weapons, inexpensive, widely available, with sufficient stopping power, and are well suited for "primary offense" and "go to survival preparation."  Good lord.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 23, 2020)

Brian King said:


> In my opinion, when people use wrong terms, it makes them appear ignorant, when they deliberately use the wrong terms it makes any point they are attempting to make look ignorant. When they deliberately use misleading and emotional terms, it proves their opinion ignorant, weak, and often wrong (which is why they are resorting to low form of conversation) and are not to be taken seriously in any way.
> 
> Regards
> Brian King



And there is definitely a real culture that subscribes to that belief.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 23, 2020)

Steve said:


> I understand that when someone says clip when they should say magazine, or machine gun when it's really a fully automatic rifle... those distinctions matter to you for a number of reasons you obviously think are meaningful.  And I understand that when people say these things, you guys believe the person is being disingenuous or ignorant.
> 
> What you're explaining above is quintessential jargon.  And I'm trying to tell you that when you focus on the jargon, you are missing the point and it makes you appear disingenuous or ignorant.  In a discussion about deaths, the finer points of whether the bullet came out of a tommy gun or an AR-15 are only important to people who want to preserve a loophole of some kind.
> 
> ...



It makes sense how things like scars was once viewed as reputable.


----------



## CB Jones (Sep 23, 2020)

lklawson said:


> I would agree if this were only jargon. I get agravated when someone goes out of their way to correct the term "clip" when the actual term should be "magazine," or when someone gets corrected or ridiculed for asking for "bullets" when they want "ammunition." Those are examples of jargon and everyone darn well knows that when someone talks about a "clip" they mean a mag, or when someone is trying to buy bullets they probably want ammo.



Not gonna lie....At the range, I use the terms clips and bullets just to mess with the gun geaks....lol


----------



## Buka (Sep 23, 2020)

God, so hate firearms.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 24, 2020)

Buka said:


> God, so hate firearms.


Google Image Result for https://i.imgur.com/iPMVETL.gif


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Sep 25, 2020)

Split the diffrence, get a pistol calibre AR15, or commision somone to make one for you.   I know a AR15 in 5.7mm exists, not too sure about convetional pistol rounds. Oh, barring .22lr, those exist. (and are so-so common)


Edit: God i hate the concept of a "AR15 pistol"  That sort of thing only really works if you have full auto/a folding stock.  You are taking soemthing designed to be fired with a stock and holding it out in front of you like a pistol.  Its heavier thana  pistol, has more recoil etc.  Where as a pistol is smaller, lighter and designed to be fired without a stock.   I always thought they were gimmicks/for people who want SBR's.   Or want to game the brace system.

Oh, plus because somone made it legally a pistol, it made the importation of armour piercing ammunition for it unlawful for the U.S.  Thats what happened with the AK pistols.


Addendum:  I did TLDR, but you can see i got to the pistol bit when i decided to put this edit here.

Addendum 2: that sort of thing was largely for vehicle crews, paratroopers and non frontline soldiers, and had folding stocks, not no stock versions.  The folding Ak was for vehicle crew and paratroopers down to how they fight and a non folding rifle being too encumbersome for them.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Sep 25, 2020)

Also, for the other argument that broke, out, dont all long guns serve the same purpose in home defence?  For either property defence or hunkering down for increased firepower? Its prefrence and avalbility for if you choose a shotgun or rifle. 

I used property to mean you my have to defending several buildings/guard a property and not jsut your house. Not to mean shooting somone who has ran off with your bicycle or something


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Sep 25, 2020)

drop bear said:


> It makes sense how things like scars was once viewed as reputable.



I semi fell for it early days, caught it before buying anything.  (no previews, red alarm)  Its pretty bad, over priced no previews.    Nothing in there that may be good, is worth the price or the risk though to be honest. 

Also, excuse the post dump, i just saw 3 seperate things to post on and seemed easier than editing in quotes etc.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 25, 2020)

Steve said:


> Definitely not trying to be insulting.  I was talking about the direction that the argument flows.  While you may not be disinterested in the number of casualties, if the choice is to keep guns and maintain the status quo or lose access to some categories of weapons, "gun guys" will (I believe) choose status quo every time.


No, that's not so.  It assumes that more gun bans, more gun control, and more gun regulations actually will stop people from being killed and stop criminals from assaulting and murdering.   "Gun guys" generally do not believe that gun bans will do that.  And there is a good amount of research (much of what I've already pointed to) seems to agree with them.



> So, I mean, if you want to characterize it as "you want to keep your guns more than you want to reduce the number of shootings (which include accidental and intentional injuries and deaths, in the home or outside of the home, singly or en masse)."


I've already pointed you to proof that accidents are at an all time low and continue to fall.  I've already pointed you to studies, including a CDC study ordered by President Obama, which shows that "mass shootings" are remarkably rare and that self defense with a gun is exceptionally effective.  Did you just forget them?



> Then, yeah... if I'm being honest, I do think that the gun "advocates" would opt for status quo vs any kind of gun control or reform to access.


Because evidence shows that it won't actually do what you want it to.



> Are you honestly suggesting otherwise?


Actually, yes.  I'm actually saying that if you could convince "gun guys" (and gals) that you could 1) make all guns (including black market guns) disappear with 0 access to anyone and 2) that bad guys would stop murdering, assaulting, and injuring, then yes.  They'd be all for it.  Gun Culture 2.0 is all about self defense, personal responsibility, and family safety.  If you could convince them that gun control and gun bans would actually make people safer, they'd buy it in a hot second.  But the evidence just isn't there.



> In fact, I think your use of "murder" is a perfect example of how language is used on both sides to mischaracterize the issue and appeal to emotion.


I use it in a legal context: the unjustified and illegal taking of a human life.  "Homicide" is different.  Homicide might be both legal and justified.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 25, 2020)

Steve said:


> I just googled AR-15 vs Ruger 10/22, and you're right.  I don't see a lot of difference between the two.  They're both touted as easy handling weapons, inexpensive, widely available, with sufficient stopping power, and are well suited for "primary offense" and "go to survival preparation."  Good lord.


And most people who think that an AR is an "assault weapon" and a "weapon of war" generally don't care about, or are OK with, the Ruger 10/22, particularly in a nice "classic" looking stock.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 25, 2020)

Steve said:


> I think the point is, you don't have to know the difference between a vortex laser rifle and a Garlaxian photon rifle to understand that they are both weapons that are intended to kill people.  Even if you've never heard of them before, if I tell you that they're both weapons that shoot X number of times per minute, and that when they hit people, people are injured and often killed.  And if they both shoot about the same amount of projectiles in about the same amount of time, with similar end effects, getting drawn into a technical discussion about the clear but irrelevant differences between a laser rifle and a photon rifle is a distraction from the larger point.  It's a red herring.  I just made up two fictional weapons, but there's enough information in there for us to all understand what I mean.


And, honestly, it reads as gobletygook.  You're trying to compare made-up weapon 1 to made-up weapon 2 saying "they both shoot about the same amount of projectiles in about the same amount of time, with similar end effects" and then extrapolate that from an AR to a "machinegun".    But that is a false equivalance.  An AR simply does not "shoot about the same amount of projectiles in about the same amount of time, with similar end effects" as a machine gun.  Thinking or saying that it does shows a gap in your knowledge about the two.



> So, when we talk about actual non-fictional weapons, one doesn't need to know the difference between a "clip" vs "magazine" to understand that bullets come out of both into some kind of gun.  If you're talking to someone about gun control from the results back (i.e., People are being killed and we need to do something about it), and he starts trying to educate you on the finer points of an AR-15 vs some other kind of gun that fires about a bullet per second in semi-automatic mode without a bump stock, you're being distracted.


It matters a great deal if someone is trying to justify a gun control position about one gun (an AR) by arguing as if it is a second (a "machinegun").  Because they are different.  They function and behave different in a very important way.



> Personally, if I can use the right terminology, I will.  But I completely understand when people will avoid being manipulated into using jargon to appease the folks who are using that jargon to justify maintaining the status quo.  It's a natural reaction.


Using the correct terminology is not jargon, particularly when one <cough> "jargon" <cough" simply does not apply to the other.  It's similar to trying to apply the terminology of cars; a "manual transmission" cannot be accurately described as an "automatic" and it darn sure makes a difference to the person driving it.



> i mean, earlier in this thread, I was literally scolded for using the term weapon and not "tool."  Give me a break.


This is a bow.  Would you call it a weapon?


----------



## elder999 (Sep 25, 2020)

kristian roger said:


> The *custom AR-15* has to be the ultimate answer to safeguard your home. Several people tend to think that the rifle is better than the pistol. But no, just because the sizes differ, it doesn’t mean that the gun is good. The handgun is a much good option for home defense. Since it’s compact, you’ll never need to get confused. Get an AR-15 pistol, and you shall get a better outcome.



Sorry, I can't resist.....


----------



## elder999 (Sep 25, 2020)

CB Jones said:


> I like the shotgun too.  Stopping power is unrivaled.
> 
> I have an 870 with a 14 inch barrel I keep loaded with a slug and then followed by tactical buckshot that maintains a tight pattern.  It is a show stopper.



I'm a big fan of the shotgun too.....

erm...."870 with 14 inch barrel?"


----------



## drop bear (Sep 25, 2020)

Rat said:


> Also, for the other argument that broke, out, dont all long guns serve the same purpose in home defence?  For either property defence or hunkering down for increased firepower? Its prefrence and avalbility for if you choose a shotgun or rifle.
> 
> I used property to mean you my have to defending several buildings/guard a property and not jsut your house. Not to mean shooting somone who has ran off with your bicycle or something



I think it is ultimately sopping power vs range and more bullets. 

So you trade a second of them standing there shooting back for the extra versatility. 

The issue would be if you are in your house and you are for some reason a meter away trading gunfire. That extra second or so means you will have more bullets in you.

But the argument is mostly theoretical. It is not like anyone has shot a bunch of guys from five meters in their own house to say which one is better.

Which is why the conversation revolves more around terminology and status than application or practicality.


----------



## CB Jones (Sep 25, 2020)

elder999 said:


> I'm a big fan of the shotgun too.....
> 
> erm...."870 with 14 inch barrel?"



When I started in LE that is what they issued us for long guns.  When they issued AR-15s a lot of guys turned theirs in but I kept mine.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 25, 2020)

CB Jones said:


> When I started in LE that is what they issued us for long guns.  When they issued AR-15s a lot of guys turned theirs in but I kept mine.


You mean a TAC-14 ?


----------



## CB Jones (Sep 25, 2020)

elder999 said:


> You mean a TAC-14 ?



No its just a regular 870 with a 14 inch barrel.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Sep 25, 2020)

drop bear said:


> I think it is ultimately sopping power vs range and more bullets.
> 
> So you trade a second of them standing there shooting back for the extra versatility.
> 
> ...



Jsut seems like prefrence/avalibility.  5.56 HP's arent exactly going to be nice to be shot with and might be cheaper where you live, or you might just not have a shotgun, or vice versa, you might have a shotgun and no semi automatic rifle.    Going into the micro detaila bit, a more closed property/occupied proeprty might warrant a shotgun mroe thana  rifle, but a more open and sparsely populated one might warrant a rifle.

You are either bunkering witha  shotgun or rifle, or protecting a larger property with secondary buildings in it pretty much.

Oh i forgot, i think AR15's are lighter than 12 gauge and maybe 20 gauge shotguns usually and are more plesant to shoot than them in terms of recoil.  But thats obviously a prefrence game/which one you have used more.  (a pistol is probbly better if you are clearing your house anyway as its more manoverable and does the job suffciently to begin with)


----------



## Steve (Sep 25, 2020)

lklawson said:


> No, that's not so.  It assumes that more gun bans, more gun control, and more gun regulations actually will stop people from being killed and stop criminals from assaulting and murdering.   "Gun guys" generally do not believe that gun bans will do that.  And there is a good amount of research (much of what I've already pointed to) seems to agree with them.
> 
> I've already pointed you to proof that accidents are at an all time low and continue to fall.  I've already pointed you to studies, including a CDC study ordered by President Obama, which shows that "mass shootings" are remarkably rare and that self defense with a gun is exceptionally effective.  Did you just forget them?


You pointed me to a site that was not the CDC.  Couple of things to correct here.  You're talking about gun bans.  I've never mentioned a gun ban.  But you're also arguing from one of the two directions I mentioned.  You're a guy who wants guns, and your conclusion is driving your argument.  Which is, "heck, gun control won't work anyhow!"  





> Because evidence shows that it won't actually do what you want it to.


Jury's out.  I'm not sure either way, for a number of reasons.  One, gun control isn't a single thing.  It's a blanket label for any policy that is intended to reduce the number of gun deaths and injuries.  Are you saying nothing will work?  If that's not what you're saying, help me out. What kind of gun control do you endorse?  What sort of gun control would keep kooks from shooting people, kids from accidentally (or intentionally) shooting their friends, abusive husbands from shooting their wives, dumbasses from accidently shooting themselves, etc?  You're the expert.  is there nothing to be done other than throw open the liquor cabinet and have a good old fashioned free for all?  



> Actually, yes.  I'm actually saying that if you could convince "gun guys" (and gals) that you could 1) make all guns (including black market guns) disappear with 0 access to anyone and 2) that bad guys would stop murdering, assaulting, and injuring, then yes.  They'd be all for it.  Gun Culture 2.0 is all about self defense, personal responsibility, and family safety.  If you could convince them that gun control and gun bans would actually make people safer, they'd buy it in a hot second.  But the evidence just isn't there.
> 
> I use it in a legal context: the unjustified and illegal taking of a human life.  "Homicide" is different.  Homicide might be both legal and justified.


This is such a lame argument.  So, we can't do it 100%, we might as well not do anything.  BS.  Give me a break.  We can't keep bad guys from driving their trucks into people, but that didn't stop us from doing some things that make it harder for them to do that.  We take action ALL THE TIME to help mitigate risk without ever considering that it's not worth it if it's not 100% effective.  That's "gun guy" logic, which is not actual logic.

i don't have time to respond now to the entire second post, but I'll answer quickly that yes, a bow and arrow is a weapon.  A sword is a weapon, too.  They're both somewhat archaic, but that doesn't make them a tool.  A halberd is a weapon, but you just don't see many of them around any more.  A gun is designed to shoot things, injure them, and ideally to kill them.  It's a weapon, whether you use it as one or not.  Calling it a tool is silly.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Sep 25, 2020)

CB Jones said:


> No its just a regular 870 with a 14 inch barrel.



isnt that a NFA item?  I havent looked into short barreled shotgun, i know sub 16inch rifle barrels make it a SBR.   (to be fair, who gets a SBS?)


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 25, 2020)

Rat said:


> isnt that a NFA item?  I havent looked into short barreled shotgun, i know sub 16inch rifle barrels make it a SBR.   (to be fair, who gets a SBS?)



Someone who wants to use it in close quarters, obviously. And bullpup designs, by moving the action into the butt, result in what is effectively a SBS or SBR without running into the NFA rules. 
For that matter, it's not like getting an NFA item is all that difficult. I'm pretty sure if you do a little looking, I've posted a step-by-step guide to doing so. It'll cost you $200 and some paperwork.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 25, 2020)

Rat said:


> Jsut seems like prefrence/avalibility.  5.56 HP's arent exactly going to be nice to be shot with and might be cheaper where you live, or you might just not have a shotgun, or vice versa, you might have a shotgun and no semi automatic rifle.    Going into the micro detaila bit, a more closed property/occupied proeprty might warrant a shotgun mroe thana  rifle, but a more open and sparsely populated one might warrant a rifle.
> 
> You are either bunkering witha  shotgun or rifle, or protecting a larger property with secondary buildings in it pretty much.
> 
> Oh i forgot, i think AR15's are lighter than 12 gauge and maybe 20 gauge shotguns usually and are more plesant to shoot than them in terms of recoil.  But thats obviously a prefrence game/which one you have used more.  (a pistol is probbly better if you are clearing your house anyway as its more manoverable and does the job suffciently to begin with)



Yeah. There will be more and more layers. As you go in to the risks and rewards. 

I mean you might even be some super shotgun guy. In which case just familiarity is a decider.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 25, 2020)

Steve said:


> i don't have time to respond now to the entire second post, but I'll answer quickly that yes, a bow and arrow is a weapon. A sword is a weapon, too. They're both somewhat archaic, but that doesn't make them a tool. A halberd is a weapon, but you just don't see many of them around any more. A gun is designed to shoot things, injure them, and ideally to kill them. It's a weapon, whether you use it as one or not. Calling it a tool is silly.



Which is of course why the terminology war.

Guns are "tools"

Gun owners are "responsible"

And what about the small delicate female who needs to defend herself from a rapist?

And it is kind of funny because you can very quickly go from responsible tool using female to its my right by throwing out a couple of simple ideas.

Suggest mandatory training, registration and research. Nothing that would stop a delicate female owning a gun to protect herself against a rapist. But it goes against the intrinsic identity of gun ownership of freedom and rights. 

And back flippers will backflip


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Sep 26, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> Someone who wants to use it in close quarters, obviously. And bullpup designs, by moving the action into the butt, result in what is effectively a SBS or SBR without running into the NFA rules.
> For that matter, it's not like getting an NFA item is all that difficult. I'm pretty sure if you do a little looking, I've posted a step-by-step guide to doing so. It'll cost you $200 and some paperwork.



Is the SBS barrel length the same as a rifles?   Sub 16 inches is a SBS?

Getting a NFA item is more difficult than not getting one and inheretence etc.    The issue for that and shotguns is you need to keep the tube behind the barrel, so shorter barrel, shorter magazine.    There doesnt seem to be as many nagatives with a SBR as a SBS.  that and some peoples shotgun is there general use shotgun so they need it for hunting and the like as well.  a 14inch AR15 can be a decent general purpose rifle without many drawbacks, and be better for CQB.    

I dont think there is much merit in a sub 14 inch barrel for a AR15.    Im pretty sure the ballstics start to degrade quite a bit  and im not too sure how reliable the shorter systems are.   And i just remmebered there is a 5 inch AR 15 barrel you can get. 


Its fundementally prefrence/micro detail for if a shotgun or rifle would be better, but a shotgun tends to be a general purpose thing for most people and not specilsied to just be for home defence.  That and i dont think SBS's are nearly as popular as SBR's


----------



## Oni_Kadaki (Sep 26, 2020)

I'd be comfortable with a 8-9 inch barrel for a .300 AAC AR-15, but not a 5.56mm.


----------



## Steve (Sep 26, 2020)

lklawson said:


> And, honestly, it reads as gobletygook.  You're trying to compare made-up weapon 1 to made-up weapon 2 saying "they both shoot about the same amount of projectiles in about the same amount of time, with similar end effects" and then extrapolate that from an AR to a "machinegun".    But that is a false equivalance.  An AR simply does not "shoot about the same amount of projectiles in about the same amount of time, with similar end effects" as a machine gun.  Thinking or saying that it does shows a gap in your knowledge about the two.
> 
> It matters a great deal if someone is trying to justify a gun control position about one gun (an AR) by arguing as if it is a second (a "machinegun").  Because they are different.  They function and behave different in a very important way.
> 
> ...


Just getting back to this.  Not much here, except that you did completely miss the point.  This is like seeing an accident where a vehicle plows into a group of people, and the question the bus guys are asking everyone is, "Was it an automatic or a manual transmission?  Was it over 20' long?  Did the guy have a commercial driver's license?"

That's the point.  I made up some gobbledygook, fictional weapons because the things you think are important really are not.  They're red herrings.  If a person invented a way to shoot 400 to 800 arrows from a single bow in about a minute, we'd be talking about those weapons, too.  Particularly if 'bow guys' started talking about them using terms like "primary offense."


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Sep 27, 2020)

Oni_Kadaki said:


> I'd be comfortable with a 8-9 inch barrel for a .300 AAC AR-15, but not a 5.56mm.



That short for a 5.56 is just, no.  god no.  Its detrminetal to ballstics for a 5.56 and pretty sure the gas system is unrelible if its that short and its not a lot of gripping space on the rifle.    

Just looked the carbine length is for 10inches to 18inches aprox.       Such a over specilised rifle, probbly no point in it.   That and the fluff that comes with the NFA things. (and it would tank 55grain ammo effectivness)


----------



## Blitz2.0 (Sep 27, 2020)

Whatever you use for a home defense weapon make sure you get professional training on it! The ar 15 might be right for some houses, but in apartments,mobile homes etc I think a handgun is better. I have been trained only on pistol and shotgun so I'm definitely not using a rifle unless I get the proper training. But whatever you use please make sure you get proper training, punching holes in paper standing static at the range isn't enough. In most residences an ar15 is unrealistic, good luck moving down the hallway of a single wide trailer or an apartment with one. Weapon retention training and force on force training and for the love of all that is good learn to point shoot! It's great to use the sights but most home defense situations aren't at rifle range they are within 15 yards.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Sep 28, 2020)

Rat said:


> Is the SBS barrel length the same as a rifles?   Sub 16 inches is a SBS?



I believe so, yes.


> Getting a NFA item is more difficult than not getting one and inheretence etc.    The issue for that and shotguns is you need to keep the tube behind the barrel, so shorter barrel, shorter magazine.



I'm guessing you've never seen a bullpup style shotgun.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Sep 28, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> I believe so, yes.
> 
> 
> I'm guessing you've never seen a bullpup style shotgun.










A few exist that i think i know of, but that just seems pointless, and its hardly been adopted by anyone probbly for a good reason.


----------



## CB Jones (Sep 28, 2020)

Blitz2.0 said:


> In most residences an ar15 is unrealistic, good luck moving down the hallway of a single wide trailer or an apartment with one.



Absolutely zero problem what so ever.

But I agree with the point point shooting.  The rear sights on a handgun are useless in a self defense situation.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Sep 28, 2020)

Blitz2.0 said:


> Whatever you use for a home defense weapon make sure you get professional training on it! The ar 15 might be right for some houses, but in apartments,mobile homes etc I think a handgun is better. I have been trained only on pistol and shotgun so I'm definitely not using a rifle unless I get the proper training. But whatever you use please make sure you get proper training, punching holes in paper standing static at the range isn't enough. In most residences an ar15 is unrealistic, good luck moving down the hallway of a single wide trailer or an apartment with one. Weapon retention training and force on force training and for the love of all that is good learn to point shoot! It's great to use the sights but most home defense situations aren't at rifle range they are within 15 yards.



Frangible ammunition exists that should break up in the walls of your home.  5.56 is pretty common for that to be cheper and more avalible than say 5.54 frangible. (not currently for obvious reasons, 5.56 is scarce)

If you get barrier blind 9mm ammuntion it can go straight through your walls , or even go straight through somone and through your wall.   Just look at the Underwood pentrator rounds, they zip through quite a lot. 

Plus, long guns for what i have seen are largy for bunkering down or property defence. eg, you dont clear your house with then, you sit with it poitning at your door or at a choke ponjt waiting for the person to come into your line of fire and shoot them. 

I would also argue and say if you can use a shotgun so-so effectively you could transfer sufficent skills over to use a rifle so-so effectively.   You arent going to be the fastest at magzine changes etc, but so long as you know how to charge it and take the safety off etc, you should be good.   You arent likely to need to reload anyway. Vice versa as well for rifle to shotgun.  (semi automatic more so than slide though)

You can argue about training all you want, its not economical for some people nor is it going to stop somone grabbing a pistol to defend themselves. And its not nessisarily good training.  And if you live in a place that crime is so bad, the amount of times you would have to use your firearm would probbly comp your need for formal training. 

addendum: actually thats where a shotgun might be better, birdshot and no 3-4 buck doesnt over pen and usually stops in walls and is fairly common and cheap for shotguns, and thats pretty good home defence ammuntion.   Might be chepaer on average than frangilbe rifle ammuntion.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 28, 2020)

Steve said:


> Just getting back to this.  Not much here, except that you did completely miss the point.  This is like seeing an accident where a vehicle plows into a group of people, and the question the bus guys are asking everyone is, "Was it an automatic or a manual transmission?  Was it over 20' long?  Did the guy have a commercial driver's license?"
> 
> That's the point.  I made up some gobbledygook, fictional weapons because the things you think are important really are not.  They're red herrings.  If a person invented a way to shoot 400 to 800 arrows from a single bow in about a minute, we'd be talking about those weapons, too.  Particularly if 'bow guys' started talking about them using terms like "primary offense."


This is 1) dipping too heavily into politics and *will* get the thread shut down if we continue on it (I've seen it happen before)  2) not going anywhere.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 28, 2020)

Rat said:


> Is the SBS barrel length the same as a rifles?   Sub 16 inches is a SBS?


But for a few notable exceptions, yes.  Shotgun barrels under 18" are considered Short Barreled Shotguns and are regulated.



> I dont think there is much merit in a sub 14 inch barrel for a AR15.    Im pretty sure the ballstics start to degrade quite a bit  and im not too sure how reliable the shorter systems are.   And i just remmebered there is a 5 inch AR 15 barrel you can get.


If it's chambered for 5.56 and the ammo is typical commercial ammo and not specifically loaded for that barrel length (almost a custom job, really), then, yes, you are right.

If it's chambered for something else, such as 300 AAC Blackout then it could change the applicability of the barrel length. 



> Its fundementally prefrence/micro detail for if a shotgun or rifle would be better, but a shotgun tends to be a general purpose thing for most people and not specilsied to just be for home defence.  That and i dont think SBS's are nearly as popular as SBR's


But it shouldn't be, imo.  Ever see someone try to break clays with a 18" bbl Mossberg 500 Tactical?  Ever try to do house clearing with a Remington 870 in the 30" barrel "dove gun" config?

Back in the bad ol' days, shotguns were more like Henry Ford's "you can have it in any color you want as long as it's black."  But now we have more disposable income (as a society), vastly more options, and dramatically better technology in shotguns.  It's entirely reasonable now for most people to be able to have separate shotguns for turkey, deer, dove, and home-defense.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## elder999 (Sep 28, 2020)

drop bear said:


> You are correct i don't.  That is because nobody knows the subject material.
> 
> Best gun for home defense? Because of all the times that has happened to us right?
> 
> Everyone is working hypothetically here. So if someone pretends they know the subject they are lying.



Back in NY, during the crack epidemic, I had someone break into my house while my family was sleeping.

Twice. 

Both times, the "KER-CHUCK" of death, me racking the shotgun at the top of the stairs, and saying, "GET OUT OF MY HOUSE OR I WILL SHOOT YOU" had them scurrying away.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 28, 2020)

Oni_Kadaki said:


> I'd be comfortable with a 8-9 inch barrel for a .300 AAC AR-15, but not a 5.56mm.


You could tune your ammo if you were a hand-loader.  Probably have to "tune" the AR for it as well.  I don't think you'll ever get the same ballistics, but you could definitely improve them from factory standard ammo.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Sep 28, 2020)

Rat said:


> A few exist that i think i know of, but that just seems pointless, and its hardly been adopted by anyone probbly for a good reason.


KelTec, literally, can't make enough of their KSG shotguns and I know for a fact that they're approved and in use in some LEO agencies.  Police One reviewed it a few years ago:
Kel-Tec KSG Shotgun

WATCH: STL Joseph Garcia and the Guns He Uses During a Prison Riot
“We primarily use the KelTec KSG shotguns,” Garcia said.​
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Grenadier (Sep 28, 2020)

*Admin's Note:*

This forum is for the discussion of the actual weapons themselves, which can include technical aspects, functionality, usage, etc., pretty much anything BUT politics.  

Keep the politics out of this forum.  If you want to discuss political matters when it comes to firearms, go here instead:

USMessageboard.com

We've been pretty generous in terms of giving some folks some leeway, but some of you are really treading on thin ice to the point where you're going to get warning points dumped on you without any further warning.


----------



## Steve (Sep 28, 2020)

lklawson said:


> This is 1) dipping too heavily into politics and *will* get the thread shut down if we continue on it (I've seen it happen before)  2) not going anywhere.


It's only political if you make it political, though I agree it's not going anywhere.  When we talk about guns for self defense, the discussion intrinsically brings with it an evaluation of whether the guns are more like to help or hinder that effort.  Simply put, does keeping a gun in the house increase or decrease one's likelihood of being injured or killed?  That's not a political question.  It's a very practical one.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 28, 2020)

Steve said:


> Simply put, does keeping a gun in the house increase or decrease one's likelihood of being injured or killed?  That's not a political question.  It's a very practical one.


The metrics say no.  I've pointed you to several of them now.


----------



## CB Jones (Sep 28, 2020)

Rat said:


> long guns for what i have seen are largy for bunkering down or property defence. eg, you dont clear your house with then, you sit with it poitning at your door or at a choke ponjt waiting for the person to come into your line of fire and shoot them.



Disagree, the AR is a great platform for clearing buildings.  Especially with the ease of adding gun lights to them.


----------



## Steve (Sep 28, 2020)

lklawson said:


> The metrics say no.  I've pointed you to several of them now.


A lot of really useful data, and I appreciate it.  Most of it was "gun guy" sites.  But there's still a disconnect here that I'm pretty sure we're not going to be able to overcome.  I've tried to explain as best I can, and I don't think it's landing on fertile ground. I'm pretty sure you feel the same way.  It's okay to agree to disagree.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Sep 28, 2020)

CB Jones said:


> Disagree, the AR is a great platform for clearing buildings.  Especially with the ease of adding gun lights to them.



I dont disagree, but its role for home defence tends to be hunkering down.  Its ease is entirely dependent on its length.  If you have a 25 inch Ar15, switching to a pistol might be the better choice.  

Lights are a must/need at this point, for any firearm you have and can put one on.  And if you cant, you should have one on your person.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Sep 28, 2020)

lklawson said:


> But for a few notable exceptions, yes.  Shotgun barrels under 18" are considered Short Barreled Shotguns and are regulated.
> 
> If it's chambered for 5.56 and the ammo is typical commercial ammo and not specifically loaded for that barrel length (almost a custom job, really), then, yes, you are right.
> 
> ...



I completely forgot, people handload 5.56 quite often here (used for hunting/pests) and its popularity is partly due to its hand laoding ability and generally being good for foxes.


As for shotguns, if i recall, break actions are smaller for the same barrel length if comapred with slides or automatics.    Funnily enough, given my countries firearm laws, people have done practical shotgun with break actions for sporter/game shotguns.* Granted the length is usually sub 30 inches, but if you bunker down the length isnt largely a issue (beyond spread adjustment)


*Shotguns are easier to get than rifles, so in your case people may have gone clay pigeon shooting with tactical weapons or huntting with them.

that was a tangent, anyway.        Maybe so, but a lot of people still inheret there weapons and if they are poorer to not afford it, overly specing a weapon they use for hunting may be a issue.   and the general avability of supplies also determines what you get.   eg for my case a sporting break action would be cheaper to get and more avalible.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Sep 28, 2020)

lklawson said:


> KelTec, literally, can't make enough of their KSG shotguns and I know for a fact that they're approved and in use in some LEO agencies.  Police One reviewed it a few years ago:
> Kel-Tec KSG Shotgun
> 
> WATCH: STL Joseph Garcia and the Guns He Uses During a Prison Riot
> ...



Just saw that one, doesnt that one feed through two seperate tubes?   So it has the added dyanmic of you being able to load less than lethals and lethals into the shotgun and use them as appropriate?  that for a police weapon seems like a decent feature.


----------



## lklawson (Sep 29, 2020)

Rat said:


> Just saw that one, doesnt that one feed through two seperate tubes?   So it has the added dyanmic of you being able to load less than lethals and lethals into the shotgun and use them as appropriate?  that for a police weapon seems like a decent feature.


Yes, that's right.

But like many of KelTec's products, the consumer demand outstrips production.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------

