Quoted:


I agree.  However, if you already own it, your additional cost is $0.00.  Deciding to invest in an AR can only intelligently be done if you have a notion of how much extra juice you are going to get for the extra squeeze.

Quoted:
Stop aggressive behavior.  That is what we want in a home invasion.  Killing is secondary.  We want the invader or invaders to STOP - right?

Quoted:


Nope.

http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=59541

Quoted:


Which to anybody with an intellect above a potato knows has less than jack and/or shit to do with which is more effective.

Quoted:

The fact that ive told you 3 times in this thread. In shootings there is a fucking tiny percentage of shots that hit their target than not....

Quoted:


Yes, and they determined that the AR (or in their case the M4) is the more effective weapons system when it comes to making bad people stop doing bad things.

And that's with less effective ammo that what civilians can use.

Some of us call that "a clue". Perhaps you should explore obtaining one.

Quoted:


What is that percentage for home invasion shootings?  How many shots does it take, on average, to end a homeinvasion shooting?

Quoted:
Unless you destroy the CNS you have no guarantee of stopping anything. Without a brain stem hit you have no guarantee of CNS disruption to the point of a stop. I have no doubt that a shotgun blast may kill someone, but that doesn't matter if they stab you before they bleed out.
 

Quoted:


I've read about it in general.  I never claimed to have access to a data set related to specifically home invasions.

Do you?

Quoted:


When and who made such a determination?  What criteria did they use, and what testing did they do?

Quoted:


You know he's not going to do that.

He's going to continue to bukakke derp all over the keyboard muttering all about screen doors, TV shows from the '70s and nonsense about statistics in a miserable attempt to justify a decision he's clearly already made.

He's got a shotgun already, ergo it is the most effective.

For all the words and cyber tapdancing that's the sum-total of his argument. He's poor, can't afford an AR and so he's going to do whatever he can to justify his boomstick.

End of fucking transmission.

Quoted:

http://i47.tinypic.com/2i74p3k.png

Quoted:


Unless, of course, like my father - YOU ALREADY OWN ONE.  In which case your additional cost is $0.00.

Which is more likely to be found in a home, even at this late date?  A semi-auto shotgun, or an AR platform?

Quoted:
I am not talking about "central nervous system shutdown".  That's good if you can get it.  No argument there.  What we are discussing, I though, was stopping a home invasion.



Some people will stop with a functioning CNS , yes?  Sometimes, non-lethal things can indeed stop someone - yes?

Quoted:


You forgot the screen doors.

Quoted:


So now we've determined the shotgun is the superior choice because your father made a derpy choice of picking a shotgun over a rifle design that has been around since the late 50s?

Quoted:


Pretty sure fish & game wouldn't let him shoot geese with an AR.

Quoted:

No doubt. Pretty sure that infantry doesn't take down hadji with a shotgun room to room either.

Quoted:

  Shouldn't you not be telling us about this?

Wont knowing about Psychogunnery cause us to mess up the future or something? Or is that accounted for?

Quoted:


You forgot the screen doors.

Quoted:


Pretty sure fish & game wouldn't let him shoot geese with an AR.

Quoted:
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/51/bf/0e/51bf0eb04031e82d811d9e266b867f4e.jpg
Better than a shotgun.

Quoted:
Sigh.



You're totally missing the point I'm trying to make. Climb down off your high horse and pay attention to what I am saying.



First, you've got absolutely no scientific rigor behind your calculations.You're literally making things up, with no actual, observed data to back it up, and it isn't as impressive as you think it is. Show me where you are deriving "if I shoot somebody with a twelve gauge, then x% of the time, y will happen." If you're going to attempt to attack this problem with a scientific outlook, then you need to use proper methodology. I don't think you can, because you're biased towards a 12 gauge. Hence why I won't attempt to discuss this matter scientifically, I am biased, to start with, and second, I can't afford to pay the money to properly test or research it. Anything I put forth, scientifically, would be dismissible at best, and a lie at worst.



Second, you have calculated, very roughly, the possibility of the bullet impacting. Now calculate how likely it is that the person shot and continues fighting.(Which is what occurred in this situation, until a medic grabbed him.) Applying that to a more relevant home invasion scenario, you're going to have to, at least, account for: How well the homeowner shoots,(Including how much training he has, how awake he is, etc.) how the target reacts to being shot, (Does he keep fighting until his body shuts down? Does he have a gun and shoot back? Does he know how to shoot?) whether the invader is intoxicated,(How high is he? Functional, dazed, angry because he needs a fix?) whether any one of the pellets or fragments sufficiently damage the CNS of the target,(How likely is the 5.56 load to fragment and perform acceptably? How does the 12 gauge react? Buck, slugs, both?) etc.

I do not think you, or anyone else, can adequately calculate the outcomes of a home invasion, at least not without a stronger background in chaos theory than I suspect anybody in this thread has got.

I can tell you flat out, I do not have the background in mathematics to be able to properly calculate this, I'm 'just' a physics student now, but I am aware of how the scientific method functions. Then again, I'm not trying to wave my dick in an attempt at sounding more intelligent than everyone else, as if that's relevant to the discussion at hand.

More to the point, if you can account for every one of the abundant variables in this issue, in a realistic way, and I might care about your mathematics. Using numbers doesn't scare or impress me, or make you win the argument.



At best, I suspect anything you come up with is going to be fulfilling the common gun owner fallacy of preparing for, what I call, the 'best case home invasion scenario." Statistically, it's unlikely you'll ever use a gun for self defense, but you prepare for the statistic improbability of having to defend your life. Why would you prepare for the best case home invasion? (One suspect, you shoot him and he immediately goes down.)



The fact that you're attempting to claim you're more intelligent than someone, a person you literally know nothing about, says more about you than I ever could. My position is at least supported by demonstrable personal experience, combined with the experience of the others in this thread, some of whom have spent more time in Afghanistan than I spent in the military. When Rusted_Ace, _ERIK_, or 30calTBLkidIt speak, they're speaking as subject matter experts; they know more about this subject than either I or you could ever hope to know. I know, hard to believe, R_A is more than just funny cartoons.

Furthermore, the use of a 5.56 rifle for fighting in close confines is corroborated by just about every police and military agency in the US; they're carrying rifles and pistols, and using shotguns to breech doors.





So, to sum it up, put up or shut up. Show me your calculations, based on information I can't argue with, that has nothing I can see as a bias. I'm not interested in your purse swinging, silly egotism, and attempts to argue from authority.