Page 16 of 19 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 183

Thread: Realistic AR home defense scenarios--things to think about

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    8,703
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Moose-Knuckle View Post
    I'm with you, great posts btw.

    It always amazing reading thoughts of dudes on gun forums of them sitting back and letting invaders have the run of their house cause "muh I ain't cashing in no CONUS kill card over muy TeeVee".

    As one self-defense SME I was listening to an interview of his recently put it, (paraphrased) "the fact that someone broke into your home in the middle of the night in first place IS a deadly use of force situation".

    People either get that or they don't.
    And obviously the person that said that "don't" get it.

    In New Mexico where I live, there's no such thing as self-defense so much as justifiable homicide. Now, unless the laws have changed in the last few years, you can only use deadly force around here if "you are in reasonable fear of your life" and/or are perceiving that deadly force is about to be used against you. If someone breaks into your house and doesn't appear to be an immediate threat you could very well be the one going to prison for a shoot in New Mexico. If you can convince a jury that someone "just being in your house after dark" is a deadly force situation, more power to ya. But I guarantee if you shoot the guy you better pray he was armed.

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    9,937
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Safari View Post
    And obviously the person that said that "don't" get it.

    In New Mexico where I live, there's no such thing as self-defense so much as justifiable homicide. Now, unless the laws have changed in the last few years, you can only use deadly force around here if "you are in reasonable fear of your life" and/or are perceiving that deadly force is about to be used against you. If someone breaks into your house and doesn't appear to be an immediate threat you could very well be the one going to prison for a shoot in New Mexico. If you can convince a jury that someone "just being in your house after dark" is a deadly force situation, more power to ya. But I guarantee if you shoot the guy you better pray he was armed.
    New Mexico Statute:

    30-2-7 . Justifiable homicide by citizen. Homicide is justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:

    A. when committed in the necessary defense of his life, his family or his property, or in necessarily defending against any unlawful action directed against himself, his wife or family;

    B. when committed in the lawful defense of himself or of another and when there is a reasonable ground to believe a design exists to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury against such person or another, and there is imminent danger that the design will be accomplished; or

    C. when necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed in his presence, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in necessarily and lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

    I'd think the key would be this: when there is a reasonable ground to believe a design exists to commit a felony....and....there is imminent danger that the design will be accomplished

    B. when committed in the lawful defense of himself or of another and when there is a reasonable ground to believe a design exists to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury against such person or another, and there is imminent danger that the design will be accomplished

    I think most folks would agree that someone breaking into an occupied residence is committing a serious (aggravated)felony and that as a homeowner you are justified in using lethal force to defend yourself.

    According to my database, what I posted is the current statute as of 2018. IIRC, it was enacted in 1963. The problem that I see is that in 1963, commission of a felony was generally regarded as sufficient cause to use lethal force. That is not the case today. As a result, many states have altered their statutes to reflect current home defense/castle doctrine in more direct terms.

    In 2011 there was a house bill advance to change pertinent sections of the statute to read:

    A. A person is justified in using force against another person when and to the extent the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against another person's imminent or actual use of unlawful force or trespass upon the person's or third person's property.

    B. Subject to Subsections C, D and E of this section, a person is justified in using deadly force against another person only if the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against another person's imminent or actual use of unlawful deadly force or imminent or actual commission of a felony that involves the use of force or a deadly weapon.

    C. A person who uses any level of defensive force, including deadly force, against another person shall be presumed reasonably to believe such force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against another person's imminent use of unlawful deadly force or imminent commission of a felony that involves the use of force or a deadly weapon when:

    (1) the person against whom the defensive force is used, at the time such force is used:

    (a) is unlawfully or forcefully entering, or has unlawfully or forcefully entered and is present within, the dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle of the person using defensive force; or

    (b) has removed or is attempting to remove another person against such other person's will from the dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle of the person using defensive force; and

    (2) the person using defensive force knows or has reason to believe that any of the conditions set forth in Paragraph (1) of this subsection exists.

    D. The presumption set forth in Subsection C of this section does not apply if:

    (1) the person against whom defensive force is used has a right to be in or is a lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle;

    (2) the person using defensive force is engaged in criminal activity; or

    (3) the person against whom defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer engaged in the lawful performance of official duties.


    Do you know what happened? https://www.nmlegis.gov/sessions/11%...se/HB0228.html

    In terms of drilling down to the issue of this thread, apparently some folks don't understand the concept of risk versus reward.

    In my view, unless you need to go mobile to get to a position to defend other family members, you incur more risk than necessary by stalking intruders in your home. Both my military and my LE experiences have borne out that the defender usually has the advantage over the attacker unless there are multiple avenues of attack and overwhelming force.

    It is not a matter of fear or excess caution, it is a matter of knowlegable exploration of your options and choosing the best one without letting ego get in the way.

    I had a friend who exemplified this.

    Let me lay out his creds first - a 9th degree black belt in Kempo Karate, member of the United States team in the First World Tae Kwon Do Championships, Captain of the First United States Team Champions, Three Time All American Heavy Weight Champion, winner in the first “Bare Knuckle-Anything Goes” competition, featured in numerous martial arts magazines including Official Karate, Karate Illustrated, the first Who’s Who in Martial Arts, and in the 2003 Black Belt Magazines “Dirty Dozen.” He trained two World Kick-Boxing Champions and a bunch of Regional, State, and Local champions in all ranks and classes. In other words a genuine badass, who became a police trainer.

    So anyways, my friend was in St. Louis attending a police training conference for an organization of which he was on the international training staff. He was riding the metro and had gotten off to pick up his rental car when he was accosted by an inner city youth with a knife. The young man asked for his wallet, which contained several hundreds dollars in cash. My friend gave him almost $500.00 and let him run away. He did call the police and report it. When he was later asked why, in the context of his skills and willingness to bare-knuckle brawl, di he let the guy take his money, he had this to say: I can always get another $500.00, you have good days and bad days, if I had a bad day and the kid had a good day, I would have got cut, maybe badly. $500.00 wasn't worth it.

    So yeah, if you let a guy walk out of the house with your flat screen, while you're posted up in the hall cutting off access to your family, you are a pussy.
    Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President... - Theodore Roosevelt, Lincoln and Free Speech, Metropolitan Magazine, Volume 47, Number 6, May 1918.

    Every Communist must grasp the truth. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party Mao Zedong, 6 November, 1938 - speech to the Communist Patry of China's sixth Central Committee

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    8,703
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 26 Inf View Post
    New Mexico Statute:

    30-2-7 . Justifiable homicide by citizen. Homicide is justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:

    A. when committed in the necessary defense of his life, his family or his property, or in necessarily defending against any unlawful action directed against himself, his wife or family;

    B. when committed in the lawful defense of himself or of another and when there is a reasonable ground to believe a design exists to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury against such person or another, and there is imminent danger that the design will be accomplished; or

    C. when necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed in his presence, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in necessarily and lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.


    I'd think the key would be this: when there is a reasonable ground to believe a design exists to commit a felony....and....there is imminent danger that the design will be accomplished

    B. when committed in the lawful defense of himself or of another and when there is a reasonable ground to believe a design exists to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury against such person or another, and there is imminent danger that the design will be accomplished

    I think most folks would agree that someone breaking into an occupied residence is committing a serious (aggravated)felony and that as a homeowner you are justified in using lethal force to defend yourself.

    According to my database, what I posted is the current statute as of 2018. IIRC, it was enacted in 1963. The problem that I see is that in 1963, commission of a felony was generally regarded as sufficient cause to use lethal force. That is not the case today. As a result, many states have altered their statutes to reflect current home defense/castle doctrine in more direct terms.

    In 2011 there was a house bill advance to change pertinent sections of the statute to read:

    A. A person is justified in using force against another person when and to the extent the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against another person's imminent or actual use of unlawful force or trespass upon the person's or third person's property.

    B. Subject to Subsections C, D and E of this section, a person is justified in using deadly force against another person only if the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against another person's imminent or actual use of unlawful deadly force or imminent or actual commission of a felony that involves the use of force or a deadly weapon.

    C. A person who uses any level of defensive force, including deadly force, against another person shall be presumed reasonably to believe such force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against another person's imminent use of unlawful deadly force or imminent commission of a felony that involves the use of force or a deadly weapon when:

    (1) the person against whom the defensive force is used, at the time such force is used:

    (a) is unlawfully or forcefully entering, or has unlawfully or forcefully entered and is present within, the dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle of the person using defensive force; or

    (b) has removed or is attempting to remove another person against such other person's will from the dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle of the person using defensive force; and

    (2) the person using defensive force knows or has reason to believe that any of the conditions set forth in Paragraph (1) of this subsection exists.

    D. The presumption set forth in Subsection C of this section does not apply if:

    (1) the person against whom defensive force is used has a right to be in or is a lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, place of work or occupied vehicle;

    (2) the person using defensive force is engaged in criminal activity; or

    (3) the person against whom defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer engaged in the lawful performance of official duties.


    Do you know what happened? https://www.nmlegis.gov/sessions/11%...se/HB0228.html
    Some of what you quoted has been struck, though (I had to boldface those parts):

    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO:

    SECTION 1. Section 30-2-7 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1963, Chapter 303, Section 2-8) is amended to read:

    "30-2-7. [JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE BY CITIZEN] JUSTIFIED USE OF FORCE BY AN INDIVIDUAL.--[Homicide is justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:

    A. when committed in the necessary defense of his life, his family or his property or in necessarily defending against any unlawful action directed against himself, his wife or family];


    B. when committed in the lawful defense of himself or of another and when there is a reasonable ground to believe a design exists to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury against such person or another, and there is imminent danger that the design will be accomplished; or

    C. when necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed in his presence or in lawfully suppressing any riot or in necessarily and lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.]


    At the scene of a shooting, you as the defender may be arrested and put on trial, and so this is what I go by:

    https://lawofselfdefense.com/jury_in...-by-defendant/

    State: New Mexico



    New Mexico Uniform Jury Instructions (UJI)

    NM UJI 14-5183. Self defense; deadly force by defendant.

    Evidence has been presented that the defendant acted in self defense.

    The defendant acted in self defense if:

    1.There was an appearance of immediate danger of death or great bodily harm to the defendant as a result of __________________(illegal act); and

    2.The defendant was in fact put in fear of immediate death or great bodily harm and __________________(defensive act) because of that fear; and

    3.The apparent danger would have caused a reasonable person in the same circumstances to act as the defendant did.

    The burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self defense. If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant acted in self defense, you must find the defendant not guilty.
    I sat in on a couple of jury trials where the whole question came down to whether the defender was actually in danger or just defending property. Guess what? In one of them the guy was found guilty.

    And from the New Mexico Handgun safety course:

    https://www.handgunsafetycourse.com/...031_700132999/

    Remember …
    It is illegal to use deadly force if you are involved in a non-deadly attack.
    And more succinctly stated from your link above:

    https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mex...section30-2-7/

    Boldface mine:

    2011 New Mexico Statutes
    Chapter 30: Criminal Offenses
    Article 2: Homicide, 30-2-1 through 30-2-9
    Section 30-2-7: Justifiable homicide by citizen.

    Universal Citation: NM Stat § 30-2-7 (1996 through 1st Sess 50th Legis)
    30-2-7. Justifiable homicide by citizen.

    Homicide is justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:

    A. when committed in the necessary defense of his life, his family or his property, or in necessarily defending against any unlawful action directed against himself, his wife or family;

    B. when committed in the lawful defense of himself or of another and when there is a reasonable ground to believe a design exists to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury against such person or another, and there is imminent danger that the design will be accomplished; or

    C. when necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed in his presence, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in necessarily and lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.
    Now, the bolded parts APPEAR to allow justifiable homicide to prevent a felony, but you have to notice that big word "and" from the first part of section B, where you're basically already protecting yourself and others during a deadly attack and you just happen to be preventing a felony in the process.

    I'm NOT a lawyer but that's how it's always been quoted to me: You can only use deadly force in New Mexico if deadly force is going to be used on you, and if you just happen to stop a felony in the process, goody for you.

    And a colloquial source:

    https://www.koat.com/article/laws-ab...y-says/5068640

    A defense attorney who spoke with Action 7 News says New Mexico’s law is clear in these situations.

    “You may always use deadly force if you are confronted with deadly force,” said attorney Ousama Rasheed.

    But the law doesn't allow someone to just shoot another for being on their property or trying to steal a vehicle. The person has to have a real, reasonable fear their life is in danger.
    And these people state it better than I can--and this is the reason I quoted the jury instructions:

    https://www.pewpewtactical.com/gun-l...xico-gun-laws/

    Unfortunately, New Mexico does not have any explicit “Castle Doctrine” or “stand your ground” laws on the books, so, it is usually a case-by-case basis when it comes to using deadly force to defend yourself.

    The New Mexico courts have said that “a man’s house is his castle”, and a person does not need to retreat when he is threatened with an attack. This should seem pretty clear-cut, but the problem is that since there are not laws on the issue of self-defense, but just decisions by the courts, it comes down to a jury to decide whether or not use of deadly force was justified.

    Basically, if you are being threatened with deadly force, you will most likely be justified in defending yourself by responding with equal deadly force. However, there’s no guarantee one way or the other since it is ultimately up to a jury. At the end of the day, you will have to use your best judgement to decide if deadly force is appropriate to defend yourself and your family.
    My take: I'm not a lawyer, but I've lived here long enough to know that unless the cops can see pretty pronto that you shot a perp just before he shot you, then you are going to jail where you will face a jury that gets the jury instructions I posted above.

    I don't want to bore everybody by posting more, but the bottom line is that certain New Mexico statutes and court cases DO appear to allow deadly force to protect property, but the precedence of case law has apparently so overwhelmed this in the other direction that now it's pretty clear cut you should only use deadly force to stop deadly force being used on you in New Mexico.
    Last edited by Doc Safari; 10-26-18 at 14:45.

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wakanda
    Posts
    18,863
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron3 View Post
    I try to keep emotions and tactics separate from eachother and recommend it to others.

    I'd rather pick up a new TV than have my body picked up by pall-bearers.
    Emotions will get you killed, they have no place in this equation. It's not about your TV or the life of the misunderstood home invader that grew up without a daddy, how do you know that is all the home invader(s) is there for? Do you have children or grandchildren on the opposite side of the house, an infirmed parent or in-law living with you, et al.? Hunkering down and letting a home invader(s) have the run of your house and or family is no plan at all.

    Where I grew up I saw ONE deputy patrol the country road I grew up on in the eighteen years I lived at home. The SO probably had three to five deputies on patrol at night in the entire county. If you called and needed them it would be 45+ minutes for them to arrive and that is if they weren't tied up on something else at the time.
    Last edited by Moose-Knuckle; 10-26-18 at 15:31.
    "In a nut shell, if it ever goes to Civil War, I'm afraid I'll be in the middle 70%, shooting at both sides" — 26 Inf


    "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." — CNN's Don Lemon 10/30/18

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wakanda
    Posts
    18,863
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Safari View Post
    And obviously the person that said that "don't" get it.

    In New Mexico where I live, there's no such thing as self-defense so much as justifiable homicide.
    Sorry, but I can't help you there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Safari View Post
    Now, unless the laws have changed in the last few years, you can only use deadly force around here if "you are in reasonable fear of your life" and/or are perceiving that deadly force is about to be used against you. If someone breaks into your house and doesn't appear to be an immediate threat you could very well be the one going to prison for a shoot in New Mexico.
    If someone broke into your home while you and your lady were sleeping how could you not have a reasonable fear for your life and or her's?


    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Safari View Post
    If you can convince a jury that someone "just being in your house after dark" is a deadly force situation, more power to ya. But I guarantee if you shoot the guy you better pray he was armed.
    All home invaders all armed that is the nature of a home invasion, go over to Liveleak and watch home invasion vids, you'll see groups of four, five, sometimes as many as ten bad guys armed with handguns rushing through a door single file.

    The vast majority of (if not all) burglars are armed, they just physically defeated your front door frame, window, backdoor with a large screwdriver/crowbar/sledge hammer/etc. that means they are armed.
    Last edited by Moose-Knuckle; 10-26-18 at 19:28. Reason: typo
    "In a nut shell, if it ever goes to Civil War, I'm afraid I'll be in the middle 70%, shooting at both sides" — 26 Inf


    "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." — CNN's Don Lemon 10/30/18

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    The Sticks, TN
    Posts
    4,179
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Think of it this way- a perp breaking into your home (especially at night) knows more than likely it is occupied and is more than likely ready for a confrontation. He isn't a shoplifter wandering the aisles at WalMart.

    And you guys must live in mansions. Even if someone had "the run" of my house he'd still at one point or another pass within 10 feet of me or my family which is dangerously close.
    Philippians 2:10-11

    To argue with a person who renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. ~ Thomas Paine

    “The greatest conspiracy theory is the notion that your government cares about you”- unknown.

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    suburbs of Philly Pa
    Posts
    6,189
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by flenna View Post
    Think of it this way- a perp breaking into your home (especially at night) knows more than likely it is occupied and is more than likely ready for a confrontation. He isn't a shoplifter wandering the aisles at WalMart.

    And you guys must live in mansions. Even if someone had "the run" of my house he'd still at one point or another pass within 10 feet of me or my family which is dangerously close.
    Depends how your house is laid out I guess. 3 floors, 2100sqft. Townhouse. Narrow but long, all bedrooms on the 3rd floor.

    It has to depend on your area too as well as local laws

    Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wakanda
    Posts
    18,863
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Arik View Post
    Depends how your house is laid out I guess. 3 floors, 2100sqft. Townhouse. Narrow but long, all bedrooms on the 3rd floor.

    It has to depend on your area too as well as local laws
    Floor plan is a big part of the equation too. I saw a vid of guy who had a multi-story home. All bedrooms were on the top floor and he had a custom made steel plate made hinged to the floor at the top of the stairs that he would lift and it had it's own supports in the event of a home invasion so as to prevent anyone from accessing the top floor. The steel plate was thick enough to stop 7.62 ball and he had a gun port for his shotgun which gave him the high ground on any one advancing up the stairs to his and his family's position.
    Last edited by Moose-Knuckle; 10-26-18 at 19:36.
    "In a nut shell, if it ever goes to Civil War, I'm afraid I'll be in the middle 70%, shooting at both sides" — 26 Inf


    "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." — CNN's Don Lemon 10/30/18

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    8,703
    Feedback Score
    0
    I found this interesting, and agree with most of it:

    https://www.thegunwriter.com/24717/t...apon-is-an-ar/

    In my humble opinion, the shotgun’s long reign as the home defense weapon-of-choice is over. It’s been supplanted by the AR.

    Here’s why:

    Speed: Given its light weight and incredible ergonomics, you can engage targets — especially multiple targets — much faster with an AR than a shotgun. Compared to an AR, my 870 feels like I’m swinging a railroad tie from target to target, and the rate of fire is much lower. This is crucial, since the ability to make fast and accurate follow-up shots is what wins a gunfight.

    Ammunition capacity: Most tactical shotguns hold between 6-8 shells. Hunting guns, far fewer. In a tactical scenario, you may need to reload. Reloading a shotgun — especially under stress — is not an easy task. While there are some shotguns that accept mags and drums, these bullet-feeders increase the overall weight by pounds. On the other hand, an AR with a standard-capacity 30-round magazine will most likely never need a reload during a gunfight.

    Recoil: I have fired a shotgun during a gunfight and, quite frankly, never even noticed the recoil. Still, compared to an AR, a shotgun’s recoil is punishing . Therefore, it takes longer to reacquire the sights or bead and, contrary to how they’re depicted in Hollywood, you still need to aim a shotgun. For new shooters and shooters of a smaller stature, the recoil makes it harder to train with the weapon because they cannot handle the kick.

    Accuracy: An AR is a very precise, accurate weapon, especially when topped with a red dot. A shotgun, by it’s very nature, is not. In a home defense scenario, precision shooting may mean the difference between tagging a bad guy who’s hiding behind a loved one in the head, and not being able to take the shot for fear of hitting a family member, especially if the shotgun is one of the new non-NFA shorties.

    Flexibility: While I like a slick, clean rifle with just lights and sights, the list of accouterments that you can mount on the AR platform grows every single day. A modern AR is unparalleled in its flexibility. Sure, there are mounting systems now for shotguns, but they too increase overall weight.

    Range: The maximum effective range of an AR, at least for me with 50-year-old eyes and a red dot, is around 250-300 meters. Others can shoot much farther. While range is moot in most home defense situations, for those is rural areas it can be crucial. Effective range for a shotgun with 00 or #4 buckshot is around 50-75 yards. A slug will buy you another 25 yards, at best, but they’re inaccurate at distance.

    Retention: Generally, shotguns are longer than ARs. And, generally, most don’t have a pistol grip. When a bad guy grabs your weapon and the fight is on, shorter weapons with pistol grips are easier to retain. They’re also easier to maneuver into the bad guy’s center mass. You can probably figure out what comes next. Add a single-point sling — my preference — and an AR is even easier to retain.

    Maneuverability: Given their light weight and ergonomics, an AR is the perfect platform for CQB. In the hands of a well trained shooter, the weapon simply flows from room to room. Try clearing corners with a much heavier boomstick. For me it’s far more difficult.

    Familiar platform: Where’s the safety on an 870? A Mossberg? A Benelli? Where is the slide release located on these three guns? Simply put, the controls on a shotgun vary by manufacturer. On the other hand, regardless of the maker, all the controls on an AR are the same. This is one of the reasons for the weapons popularity, especially among veterans. They already know how to operate the weapon, and they usually know how to operate it very, very well. When lives are on the line and seconds count, they won’t be fumbling over the weapons controls. They’ll be ready to engage.

    Psychological deterrent: For decades I’ve heard the old wives’ tale that the kachunk of a pump-action shotgun being racked into battery was enough to force even the hardest bad guys to flee from your home. I’ve never seen any solid proof of this ever working — not once. I look forward to being wrong on this. On the other hand, the sight of a homeowner advancing toward them while armed with a AR will cause even the most degenerate bad guy to skedaddle, probably while filling his shorts. Let’s face it. ARs mean business. For criminals, the sight of a homeowner with an AR means they picked the wrong house.

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    9,937
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    I can't find much that I would disagree with.

    The section where he talks of retention makes me question his breadth of knowledge, though.
    Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President... - Theodore Roosevelt, Lincoln and Free Speech, Metropolitan Magazine, Volume 47, Number 6, May 1918.

    Every Communist must grasp the truth. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party Mao Zedong, 6 November, 1938 - speech to the Communist Patry of China's sixth Central Committee

Page 16 of 19 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •