Do you think this would of gone better if they did not have an AR rifle or would it of been better if they had used a shotgun? For the Pro-gun people I know you will say this is a good reason and I agree, For anti's I know you will say about shooting through a wall however if you know the bad guy is there it is a good way to hit. (Penetration) I do have to agree always worry about what else is behind the wall But do you think it would of worked better if he had some other means and what do you think would of worked. Shootout at Inkster tax preparation business caught on camera http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/21202112/wild-shootout-at-inkster-tax-business-caught-on-camera
Actually .223 penetrates less than either buckshot or any of the traditional handgun calibers in terms of walls. A projectile that small going that fast is both less structurally strong, and has more force put upon it.
i think an Ithaca Auto and Burglar would be perfect for this, but it is hard to buy because some politician didn't like the way it looked for some reason. in light of the governments overreach in this. in an urban situation. a tactical shotgun is likely the best way to go. as one dose not have to worry about excessive penetration. and merely working a pump shotgun, usually scares perpetrators away. not to say the AR doesn't have its uses. ranchers use it around the open range, and ranch house, some sportsmen use AR's for hunting, or varmint shooting. and it is an enjoyable gun to shoot at paper targets.
Still wondering what the Anti-gun, Anti Assault Rifles people think of this? Superior firepower did help these people out. Do you think stricter gun laws might of prevented it? How?
