Here is the insanity of the UK. The guy that did this was on a suspended jail term for violence because they thought that sending him to prison would be bad for him. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/domestic-violence-boyfriend-toby-hayden-1764758
I think she means CQC (Close Quarter Combat) With minimum movement but even that would relly highly on the type of gun. Two people fighting one with a knife and one with a rifle/shotgun in a small area wont do too well, A handgun (depenging) will do better. .25 rat gun which isnt anyones "main gun" I would think would be a better choice for close quarter then a full size 1911, However circumstances have to be spot on. I would deffinetly get into an ass kicking contest with a porcupine, I think we and the porcupine would fare well, Against one, I am looking at a better pair of boots, Steel toes.
FWIW, I still think a rifle would be better in each case. If fighting in a hall way, an AR-15 gives you an additiopnal 2-3 feet of reach as a blunt force weapon with the muzzle device. It also adds a fair amount of metal, plastic, or whatever that can block your body if they get in real close. It is also still a gun. Rifles are harder to take away and control if the owner has both hands on it. You just need to learn how to use it.
Yes Assault boots, With the large capacity heel stompers I agree it would be good unless they can manage to sneak up on your or get in close fast. Just because it seems like a better option dosnt always make it a better option. It would also depend on situation and training.
Firearms are tools so I agree that circumstances sometimes call a rifle. That said its never happened. I have never took a rifle instead of a pistol when I expected trouble. A shot gun yes a rifle no, lol. even though my 'go to' rifle is a tiny caliber its still far too much for any trouble I have had in my experience (I own a Bushmaster .223 dissipator) . A 9mm or a .38 is a pop gun in my opinion*, I like a .44 or the best for me a .45. Having 21 rounds in a 9mm is nice but I would rather have seven or eight in .45. I can hit a man sized target at 25 to 50 ft every time I pull the trigger. If I need more than that ten or more rounds will not help me, unless its a combat situation. If going against a platoon sized foe, well that would call for a reassessment of my choice of tool ! * .38 pop gun. Not to be a hypocrite I will admit I carry an alloy .38sp revolver with hand loads for the job. Its a size and weight vs power compromise. If I knew for sure I was going into a bad situation I would carry a firearm I don't own. A small frame sub compact .45. I bought myself a 30.06 instead of my dream carry weapon the mentioned subC hi capacity .45. My full frame .45 is too big and heavy to carry on an everyday basis. reva
let's see..............a Mossberg pump costs couple of hundred bucks...............tell us, how much does it costs to purchase a new home and what is the cost of moving.....I get it. you want us to be both broke and defenseless
yeah, if the gun owner is blind deaf and dumb.....but it would be one for the Progressive Socialist Handbook, wouldn't it? not............................never happen That was my exact scenario when my wife and I were attacked. Two guys, both with knives. I pulled my gun out and one fled. The other one was transported to the hospital with two in his chest.............but I bet that's not the perfect scenario that you were dreaming of?
the handicapped woman would be WAY ahead with a pistol. We need military style rifles in case we ever have to fight the military, or hordes of looters. (same thing, in many parts of the world and might be here, too, one day). Cops are in the same looter bag (after Katrina/NewOrleans).
As the originator of this thread it was my intent to point out that "appearance" and "functionality" are two different categories. Unfortunately "assault weapons" bans are overwhelmingly based upon appearance and not functionality. As some have accurately noted there are different functionalities of firearms and I would point out that we don't need them all. We don't really need a fully automatice M1919 machine gun for any purpose although it still remains legal to own in most of the United States. The 2nd Amendment doesn't state we can own any damn "firearm" we want and doesn't even specify firearms. There are some firearms that, based upon functionality, don't have much of a purpose outside of personal desire to own them. That isn't much of a critieria and it certainly isn't "protected" by the 2nd Amendment. I'd also note that the government has a limited role when it comes to firearms and that relates to the "public safety" alone. What I have in my home is really none of the government's business so long as I never take it out into public. The line is crossed when a person wants to take a firearm into any public place as all firearms represent a potential threat to the public safety that is a legitimate concern of government. When it comes to firearm regulations they need to be based upon compelling arguments of "public safety" and "functionality of the firearm" which has a direct bearing on public safety if they are taken into the public. The fact that a firearm looks "scary" is not a foundation for a compelling argument but functionality can be.
Crime occurs everywhere, so how is moving supposed to help you? I carry a pistol, so obviously I regard it as being capable of doing the job. With normal type ammo, the .45 is quite provably (on animals) not a lick better than the 9mm. At ranges under 10 ft, the pattern spread of buckshot, from a riot gun, is just 2-3". it's only 5" at 5 yds, and that's a longer range than is feasible in almost any home. So it's really little to no help at getting the hit. Once you go outside, the shotgun is pretty much worthless, being limited to about 25 yds with buckshot. Shotgun slugs are so expensive that nobody practices enough with them. I don't even bother to own a shotgun or belt-sized pistol.. If the pocket 9mm aint enough, then the AR15 aint too much. And the AR IS enough, if used well, with the right ammo. A shorty AR, with a suppressor, has many advantages over any other longarm, for fighting or shtf foraging. That's why it's the only longarm that I own. the .38 snub, with normal ammo, is a very poor choice, but there's lots worse choices (like an SA derringer or mini-revolver). My little Sig P938 is a lot more gun than the .38 snub and a lot more "pocketable" as well, since it lies so much "flatter" in the pants pocket than does the revolver. Mine has a spare barrel converted to 356 TSW. Using my handloads of a 45 gr bullet at 2200 fps, for 500 ft lbs of power, with less recoil than 9mm ball ammo. Unless and until shtf, the pistol (used with skill and judgement, and with the right ammo) is plenty of gun for defense. But shtf is coming, so I have an AR15. Meanwhile, the AR is a lot of fun at combat style matches, does fine on deer, hogs, and varmints, and the .22 conversion unit for it does fine on small game and birds.
11/15/2014 Public Blog: Assault Weapons, Thread: ver. 1.0.0 In old England every male, who had attained the required age, was required to own and know how to use a Long Bow. The Long Bow was the very basses of Englands National Defense. In the USA the AR15 has replaced the Long Bow as the bases of civilians being ready to defend our country against intruders. The Second Amendment to the Constitution, of the USA, states we can also bear arms against an oppressive government. This is the reason all male citizens should own and know how to use an assault weapon like the AR15. Ammunition of useable capacity should be made available to the citizens. AR15s are not meant to be hunting rifles, they are part of the national security of the USA and limiting the size of ammunition clips is counterproductive to our national defense. One major difference between a Long Bow and an AR15 is its use by those not qualified to use the weapon for the purposes for which it is intended. Therefore, it is important that the responsible citizens of the USA protect this Assault Weapon from being misused. This usually results in the weapon owner to purchase and use a Gun Safe, Metal Locking Gun Cabinet and or Trigger Locks. Without these safe guards, the general public can come at risk from a misused assault weapon. For personal protection at home from intruders, the handgun, shot gun or baseball bat are common choices. If the handgun is chosen, it should be loaded and kept in a locked handgun safe with easy access by the gun owner and no one else. It takes a few minutes for our brains to activate, on being awaken suddenly, and gun owners shooting someone they are personally close to is common. The short time it takes to remove a loaded handgun from a locked handgun safe allows the brain to wake up and could prevent a gun owner from shooting someone they know. The shotgun could have rounds in the clip but not chambered. Pushing all the right buttons or removing a trigger lock, to chamber a round, would give the brain time to wake up. Plus the sound of a round being chambered could be enough to alert the intruder that they should leave the premises. The accuracy of the shotgun at longer ranges than what is encountered in a home is a moot point. At close range, as encountered in a home, accuracy is not an issue as shooting from the hip would certainly provide enough accuracy to neutralize the intruder. If a gun owner follows the retreating intruder out of the house, they should be behind fencedin-property that prevents the general public from access. Once the threat has been neutralized, that is the end of the legal use of that firearm. If a gun owner follows a retreating intruder and shoots at a retreating intruder, they could very well be convicted of a crime, as their lives are no longer in danger of an immediate threat. The result would depend on what state the incident took place as different states have different laws regarding Immediate threat to ones life. Therefore the accuracy of a shotgun at long ranges is a moot point. In most cases the baseball bat is the best choice for personal protection; it has less complications of safety to the public.
you're full of it about shooting from the hip. at the typical 10ft distances, the shot pattern is just 3" wide. try it at a range sometime, under a bit of stress, you'll miss a full silhouette of a man (often) if you are any faster than the guy who shoulders the shotgun and looks over the barrel at the target. If you are not faster when hip firing, why NOT shoulder it, hmm? wtf makes you think that most of the time, youi'll be asleep? The majority of attacks in and around the home are not committed while the occupants are sleeping. they are done with subterfuge, stealth, or sudden break in. You need a concealed pistol, WORN on your person. then nobody else has access to the gun and you can have it in your hand in less than 1 second. If you have several seconds, to go get a gun or unlock a lock, you could just run up and break the guy's neck. You won't have time to do either one, most likely.
No, the AR15 didn't replace the long bow. In fact the AR15 would be a really crappy weapon to use by a "civilian militia" if the US military was defeated and the United States invaded. A rifle that could be used as a sniper weapon, such as a 30-06 with a scope, would be far superior to an AR-15 because a militia doesn't fight using conventional military tactics. The 2nd Amendment doesn't state that and not even the Declaration of Independence, that actually addresses overthrowing of an existing government, doesn't state that. "Oppressive" is not the terms used in the Declaration of Independence but instead "absolute despotism" is referred to and "absolute despotism" is a far cry from simply living under an oppressive government. The DOI also established the precedent that the determination of whether a government is attempting to subject the population to "absolute despotism" could only be made by consensus. Just because some whack-o right-wing nutcase gun owner thinks the government is being "oppressive" does not give the people the right and duty to overthrow the government.
You don't live in reality. You can ban whatever you want but it does not remove anything. Look how well drug bans have worked.
A shotgun's spread isn't that much, but I do agree a shotgun is a decent home defense weapon, although I prefer a pistol. A baseball bat requires one to get within range to use it. It's not useful as a threat, and once within range, you pretty much have to use it to be effective.
you don't know what you're talking about. Since about 1997, the AR's, in 223, have WON most of the 600 yd NRA rifle matches. That's FAR greater range than any civilian has any biz taking a shot. The military need not CARE if they miss,cause they can call in lots of help if they bite off more than they can chew. YOU, however, better use a lot more discretion. And you need a silencer. A good can, 7.5" long, makes the 14.5" barreled M4 still a handy gun, yet it can snipe quite effectively to 1/4 mile. and unlike your silly bolt action, it can handle the FAR more likely need of rapid multiple hits, inside 100 yds. It's dark half of the time, so you need NVD goggles and either luminous sight inserts or a laser target-designator on the rifle. See, nvd's have to be focused either on your sights, or on "infinity" if they are focused on the sights, you can't see the enemy or where you are walking. If they are focused on infinity, you can't see regular sights. One answer to this problem is to have a scope mounted where the carrying handle normally is, and at 45 degree angle to the side, have a red dot optical sight, for fast work. it works with either eye/shoulder and some of them work just fine in the dark. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuNSB9jkpyQ
For home invasion etc I would rather have a few big heavy rounds than a bunch of little rounds (pistol only). Thats because I practice often, if I need more than one shot per person then I should just shoot myself. Well that is a bit of an exaggeration, lol! Sorry, I don't like the 9mm round but its better than a .380 even though they are not much different in cal. If I thought I was going into anything like a fire fight I would take a double stack .45 ACP. Don't have one, I only have the 1911 style. If forced to chose between a seven cap .45 or say a Glock 17 or 21 in a fire fight with more than one perp I would choose the Glock 9mm. Lastly I like my 30.06 rem. Its highly accurate and hard hitting long range weapon. But if invaded I would grab the bushie and a few bandoliers of ammo, taking the .06 only if I weren't humping it the same for the mossy cruiser .12. I am happy everyone here seems to know their firearms! Its better than discussing religion..........reva
if you are any good with the pistol, you dont need the rifle, unless it's shtf/wrol. but if that IS the case,the pistol will be nearly worthless and yes, you'll need a silenced AR15 and .22 conversion unit. Until such time, the AR is a fine deer, hog, varmint, defense and match rifle, and the .22 unit is a fine small game choice. that versatility is worth a lot more than the $1500 or so that it costs to properly set one up. fortunately, an AR can be bought $150 chunks at a time. and the basic gun can be had for $600.
