View Full Version : Probably a stupid question...
As the resident "gun nut" among my circle of friends, I've had the opportunity recently to answer questions about the current debate, most coming from non-gun enthusiasts.
As with many of you, I'm sure, I hear the "why do you need an AR-15 for home defense."
After going through the technical issues (mag capacity, lack of recoil, relative effectiveness of cartridge, etc) to whatever degree they can understand, I have occasionally said "ask any Spec-ops soldier what gun he would choose to defend his home and family, and nearly all of them will pick an AR-15/M4 type gun."
After saying this a few times, I realized I was basically assuming this, with no real way of knowing if it's true.
Do you think this is true? I don't like to say things that aren't.
(And if my question or subsequent discussion is somehow inappropriate, I apologize in advance.
While it is not a specific answer to your question, this may help answer many related questions.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=121974
As the resident "gun nut" among my circle of friends, I've had the opportunity recently to answer questions about the current debate, most coming from non-gun enthusiasts.
As with many of you, I'm sure, I hear the "why do you need an AR-15 for home defense."
After going through the technical issues (mag capacity, lack of recoil, relative effectiveness of cartridge, etc) to whatever degree they can understand, I have occasionally said "ask any Spec-ops soldier what gun he would choose to defend his home and family, and nearly all of them will pick an AR-15/M4 type gun."
After saying this a few times, I realized I was basically assuming this, with no real way of knowing if it's true.
Do you think this is true? I don't like to say things that aren't.
(And if my question or subsequent discussion is somehow inappropriate, I apologize in advance.
I think it depends on the spec ops troop.
That really doesn't matter overall. What does are the legitimate potential reasons why a civilian might need more than ten rounds.
Use recent past scenarios such as Katrina or the LA riots to bolster the argument. Use the very real potential for mass civil unrest due to a natural disaster like the prior, or even that of the woman who ran out of ammo protecting her children in GA thus allowing the intruder to drive away.
Many will counter that you won't need what Spec Ops need so you'll need to come up with better.
OK, never mind. I suck at posting.
OK, never mind. I suck at posting.
Not at all, in fact this seems to be a glaring weakness within the NRA and most pro-2A groups as a whole. I still have yet to see a well orchestrated and publicized movement highlighting the numerous potential and legitimate reasons that a civilian might suddenly need a 30 round magazine, ones' which if properly presented would (ok, should) easily cement their viability.
We seem to need more than the Constitution these days, so where are the big thinkers?
Talk to them about rights not needs, but if they insist ask what other areas should the govt. determine what we need.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=120960
First, make sure they know it has nothing to do with hunting.
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which could include their own government."
-George Washington
I was really only looking for opinions on the probably stupid question about which one gun most highly trained gunfighters would choose to defend themselves in their home.
I, too, am frustrated by the seeming ineffectiveness of a forceful, coherent, fact-based argument in favor of AR-type guns for self-defense. Not so much because I don't believe they are being presented, but more so because our national cultural discourse has been so feminized that rational, fact-based arguments are not welcome, thus not effective.
I am increasingly frustrated by badass gunfighters like Piers Morgan and Jerry Nadler mocking me for needing an AR with 30rd mags to defend myself and my family.
Straight Shooter
01-28-13, 16:08
Who says that "home defense" is the only role the rifle plays?
Myself, I live in an apt. complex and mine is the LAST thing Id use here to defend myself, or others. Why do we have to have a "need"
for it? I tell people almost daily... SHOW ME THE WORD "NEED" IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS, OR WHERE IT SAYS ONE HAS TO "NEED" SOMETHING IN ORDER TO HAVE IT.
This assinine question pisses me off every time I hear it. Why do people own any ****in thing then?! Our rights arent based on NEED.
I can have anything, DO anything right up until I interfere or impose on someone elses rights. Its a ****in ridiculous question that I wish someone would shove this answer up peoples ass, especially that Brit **** who apparently asks it every night.
I don't know what SOF believe or recommend either. I try to argue for rights not a perceived need angle (usually). A fellow over at another forum out of Ca. said something to the effect "I don't need an AR anymore than Rosa Parks needed to sit at the front of the bus, It's just my right", I thought that was pretty good.
It's a bill of rights, not a bill of needs. There used to be a saying, guns are for liberals too. It's the only thing standing in the way of you being sent to Guantanamo bay without a trial by George W Bush. Chicago is the one of the best examples of why gun control doesn't work. Gun free zones are another. Criminals don't obey the law.
Since its a right, we don't NEED to legitimize it. There are examples though. Hunting feral hogs that tear up farmland. Without it crop prices would go up and then they'd be saying the government needs to do something. Other predators that attack farm animals. Same scenario. The Rodney king riots. Some of the Asians armed themselves and loosely formed what is a militia, not against tyranny, but against a populace that thought they have the right to their property. They were exercising their rights.
Just because some of us don't use some of our rights everyday doesn't mean they're not needed. I don't use my right to a speedy trial or a lot of other of my God given rights that are acknowledged by our Constitution. And that's what it boils down to. Liberty is a birthright from God, it is not given to us by government, it can only be taken away.
Who says that "home defense" is the only role the rifle plays?
Myself, I live in an apt. complex and mine is the LAST thing Id use here to defend myself, or others. Why do we have to have a "need"
for it? I tell people almost daily... SHOW ME THE WORD "NEED" IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS, OR WHERE IT SAYS ONE HAS TO "NEED" SOMETHING IN ORDER TO HAVE IT.
This assinine question pisses me off every time I hear it. Why do people own any ****in thing then?! Our rights arent based on NEED.
I can have anything, DO anything right up until I interfere or impose on someone elses rights. Its a ****in ridiculous question that I wish someone would shove this answer up peoples ass, especially that Brit **** who apparently asks it every night.
The 2A, as written, frames it as a need, but I agree with you that each individual's needs are subject only to their own imagination.
Someone else telling you what you "need" is tyranny.
So yeah, WE'RE past that hurdle, but apparently that isn't sufficient for some.
I have my guns to shoot someone, if necessary. Sure, I USE them for recreation, but that's not why I have them.
We need to counter this notion that, when fighting for my life, I need to handicap myself somehow to make it sporting.
I lived through the L.A. Riots. The incident with Reginald Denny happened within walking distance of my home. There was one point where we had three car loads of gangbanger-types stop at the "T" at the end of my street. 6 men per car, 18 total. These men parked their cars in the middle of the street, got out, and were clearly looking for trouble. My mother was hysterically yelling at the 911 operator while Dad and I nervously watched the "invaders" out the window. Here is the gist of the 911 call:
Mom: Three car loads of gang members are circling our block at idle speed with their stereos rattling our windows. Please send help.
911 Operator: Sorry ma'am. No one is available. You are on your own.
Mom: You send somebody RIGHT NOW! We NEED the police!
911: All officers are on other calls. No one is available.
Mom: They've stopped their cars in the middle of the road three houses down and they are all getting out. My son says there are 18 men!
911: Stay in your house and lock the door ma'am.
Mom: What if they come to the door?
911: Don't answer it.
Mom: What if they kick the door in?
911: Run out the back door.
Mom: ...dead silence..., then... I AM A "BLANK" YEAR OLD LADY! I CANNOT OUT RUN 18 FIT YOUNG MEN, WHO ARE CLEARLY HERE TO DO ME HARM!!! YOU SEND THE F*CKING POLICE HERE RIGHT THIS F*CKING MINUTE!!!
911: (calmly) Ma'am. There are NO officers available. They are all on duty, most of them on triple overtime and every single one of them are out on calls just like yours. You are on your own and we CANNOT help you. We will send someone as soon as they are available... click...
This is the moment that my vehemently anti-gun, liberal voting mother, finally understood why we had guns in the house. She now votes Republican, does not donate to the policeman's ball, has taken gun classes, and has her very own .45, that she now knows how to use.
When the first AWB was being talked about in '93, I asked her, how many rounds she wanted all of us to have in our mags that day. She said, "How big do they make them?" It would really suck to have to fight off 18 attackers with only 10, or even worse 7, round mags.
So as not to leave you hangin', here's the end of the story:
as if on cue, like in an old Western, all the men of each house up and down the block all stepped out onto our porches, guns in hand, at the same time. We had shotguns. Pistols next door. Old man up the street had a deer rifle, etc... The belligerent young men in the middle of the street looked up one side of the block and down the other. Their posture changed significantly. They quietly, meekly, got back in their cars, turned the stereos off, and very calmly drove away, obeying all traffic laws as they went. Not a word was spoken. Not a shot was fired. And our neighborhood saw no more trouble throughout the duration of the riots.
You go ahead and set that scenario up for your friends and family, and then ask them how many rounds we should be "allowed" to have in our mags. When they ask you why you "need" more than ten" you tell them because there are more than ten bad guys in the world.
Magic_Salad0892
01-28-13, 17:05
Ask them why they'd want to deprive a home owner of the most effective tool they can use to defend themselves, their family, and their property.
So we're clear, I wasn't debating anti-gunners, just trying to help frame the current debate for people I know who are not gun enthusiasts.
I was trying to counter the common lefty tactic of claiming no one "needs" an AR with a 30rd mag to protect their home. I informed them of the advantages it has over other guns, with those advantages being the same ones that make it the choice of the world's spec-op soldiers. I used the same arguments people on this site use when talking to people who think a handgun or pump 12ga is the best HD tool.
I certainly mentioned that criminals often work in groups, that under stress you may have more hits than misses, and that you can't count on any one shot ending the fight.
Of course I am going to pick the most effective weapon, with the most firepower, with the most effective round for the purpose, if I am in a fight for my life. You'd have to be stupid not to, which then puts the lefty idea on the defensive.
I am also curious why no one has asked these guys who claim to know what we need to defend ourselves when was the last gunfight they were in.
I lived through the L.A. Riots. The incident with Reginald Denny happened within walking distance of my home. There was one point where we had three car loads of gangbanger-types stop at the "T" at the end of my street. 6 men per car, 18 total. These men parked their cars in the middle of the street, got out, and were clearly looking for trouble. My mother was hysterically yelling at the 911 operator while Dad and I nervously watched the "invaders" out the window. Here is the gist of the 911 call:
Mom: Three car loads of gang members are circling our block at idle speed with their stereos rattling our windows. Please send help.
911 Operator: Sorry ma'am. No one is available. You are on your own.
Mom: You send somebody RIGHT NOW! We NEED the police!
911: All officers are on other calls. No one is available.
Mom: They've stopped their cars in the middle of the road three houses down and they are all getting out. My son says there are 18 men!
911: Stay in your house and lock the door ma'am.
Mom: What if they come to the door?
911: Don't answer it.
Mom: What if they kick the door in?
911: Run out the back door.
Mom: ...dead silence..., then... I AM A "BLANK" YEAR OLD LADY! I CANNOT OUT RUN 18 FIT YOUNG MEN, WHO ARE CLEARLY HERE TO DO ME HARM!!! YOU SEND THE F*CKING POLICE HERE RIGHT THIS F*CKING MINUTE!!!
911: (calmly) Ma'am. There are NO officers available. They are all on duty, most of them on triple overtime and every single one of them are out on calls just like yours. You are on your own and we CANNOT help you. We will send someone as soon as they are available... click...
This is the moment that my vehemently anti-gun, liberal voting mother, finally understood why we had guns in the house. She now votes Republican, does not donate to the policeman's ball, has taken gun classes, and has her very own .45, that she now knows how to use.
When the first AWB was being talked about in '93, I asked her, how many rounds she wanted all of us to have in our mags that day. She said, "How big do they make them?" It would really suck to have to fight off 18 attackers with only 10, or even worse 7, round mags.
So as not to leave you hangin', here's the end of the story:
as if on cue, like in an old Western, all the men of each house up and down the block all stepped out onto our porches, guns in hand, at the same time. We had shotguns. Pistols next door. Old man up the street had a deer rifle, etc... The belligerent young men in the middle of the street looked up one side of the block and down the other. Their posture changed significantly. They quietly, meekly, got back in their cars, turned the stereos off, and very calmly drove away, obeying all traffic laws as they went. Not a word was spoken. Not a shot was fired. And our neighborhood saw no more trouble throughout the duration of the riots.
You go ahead and set that scenario up for your friends and family, and then ask them how many rounds we should be "allowed" to have in our mags. When they ask you why you "need" more than ten" you tell them because there are more than ten bad guys in the world.
At least the 911 operator had the decency to tell you straight. Today I think they'd bullshit you with "the call is logged and we'll send help as soon as possible."
i have pretty much stopped socializing with friends who question my firearms ownership. I can sum it up quite clearly, "Im not a klingon and today is NOT a good day to die". One of my friends was mugged just saturday evening for the second time in three years, my parking lot at work has seen a string of attempted armed robberies, snatch and grabs, and vehicle thefts...including my truck. I live in a very low crime portion of palm beach county, but the scum sometimes seeps in. Ill be damned if the PBSO is going to make an "I regret to inform you" call to my mother concerning her only son. When one of my friends asked why I keep a black rifle for personal defense, I told him that Im not going rounds, it ends as instantly if not sooner.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.