Setup AR-15 for Home Defense

[lklawson]

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]

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]

Often. So?

Yes.

This thread has nothing to do with machine guns.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

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]

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]

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.

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

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention. 2002; 8:236-238.

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.

This article helps provide accurate information concerning self-defense gun use. It shows that many of the claims about the benefits of gun ownership are largely myths.

Hemenway D, Solnick SJ. The epidemiology of self-defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys 2007-2011. Preventive Medicine. 2015; 79: 22-27.

Another 18 month study in three cities, including Seattle.

Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home - PubMed

 

[drop bear]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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