Discussion in 'General Weapons Discussion' started by kristian roger, Sep 11, 2020.
This thread has nothing to do with machine guns.
Peace favor your sword,
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).
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Another 18 month study in three cities, including Seattle.
Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home - PubMed
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.
So. How do my three statements that I used change the outcome?
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,
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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,
Separate names with a comma.