Setup AR-15 for Home Defense

[drop bear]

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]

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.

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

 

[CB Jones]

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]

God, so hate firearms.

 

[drop bear]

God, so hate firearms.

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

 

[Deleted member 39746]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You mean a TAC-14 ?

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

 

[Deleted member 39746]

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.

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]

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]

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?)