Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/1/2005 1:23:34 PM EDT
I was wondering how it would look in court or to a jury if they saw your ar that you used in self defense. Has anyone used their ar in self defense and had experiences with the press or court giving them a hard time for using a tactial rifle.
Thank you
Bradley
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 1:31:12 PM EDT
Self defense isn't about what you use.
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 1:33:53 PM EDT
That is true. I was wondering if it went to trial and the other lawyer held up my gun do you think it would make me look guilty. Like I was out looking for a fight? What made me think of this was the recent change by police to dao for decresed liability.
Thank you
Bradley
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 1:52:40 PM EDT
As Tom Givens said, any time you use deadly force you have three main goals:
1 Stay alive.
2 Stay out of jail.
3 Stay out of the poor house.

I think your local political climate would have a lot to do with liability when using an ar-15 for self defense. This was brought up in another board and the one good point was that you dont want to look like someone who is training and preparing to kill people, you want to look like someone who is defending himself/family. While a silencer has uses for home defense, do you want to be infront of a jury trying to explain that? Something to think about.


And here is the dumbass statement of the year:

An easy way to get around this is to have your fully decked out AR plus a bolt action .223
Then if you have to defend yourself, when the police come just tell them you fired the bolt gun not the AR.
I doubt they will do a ballistics test.
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 1:56:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/1/2005 1:59:05 PM EDT by Yojimbo]
If its a good and justified self defense shooting it will not matter what you used. Some dumbass liberal lawyer might try to make an issue of it but won't hold any water as long as you were in the right.

Seriously, if anyone has any references to any cases where a justfied self defense shooting went against the victim because of the type of weapon they used please post it.
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 2:03:15 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 2:14:03 PM EDT
Let's face it guys, The AR was designed to be an "Offensive" weapon. It is also a very "Intimidating Weapon" to the general public (or so all of my girl friends have said.)

I agree with the others. You have the right to defend yourself any way you can against a mortal threat. It has been said "Better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6". I agree with this, but you most certaintly would be judged by that 12 on many issues if the prosecuting attorney is any good.

By the time you're done, the public will know exactly how many weapons you own, how many rounds of ammo you have, the condition of those weapons and ammo (meaning ready to go at all times), all of your reloading components, the type of weapons you own, (does the term "Para Military" ring a bell with some of us?), if you own camo clothing, etc. etc etc.

For every point that can be made to discredit you as just a "Law Abiding Citizen" protecting himself, I.e. being a "Paranoid", "Aggressive", prepared for "Offensive Combat" "lunatic", your odds start to decline in winning the case, and the costs will soar as it drags on.

I advocate a "Defensive Weapon" as my primary protection in an "Urban Situation". That would be my 1911 TRP with a SF X200 light. Pistols have always been classified as the most "Defensive" of the firearms. In a rural setting it might be different. There are more reasons to have a rifle ready to go, at least in Colorado where I live, I.e., Coyotes, Bears etc.

Please don't misunderstand where I'm coming from. I just think that if I have an equal chance at defending myself with my 1911, versus my AR, why not use something that will be easier to justify in court?

Just my .02 cents worth.

Tack

Link Posted: 9/1/2005 2:38:18 PM EDT
I live in the city and my neihbors homes are very close to me all around.I choose the AR for my families defense and keeping my neihbors in mind 223 frags better than 9mm or 45 cal.that is one reason for my choice.am I right doing that?after all I am responsible for all rounds fired and accidentally hitting someone outside would be very bad.
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 2:46:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/1/2005 2:48:29 PM EDT by cms81586]
Double tap. Oops......
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 2:47:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MrKasab:
As Tom Givens said, any time you use deadly force you have three main goals:
1 Stay alive.
2 Stay out of jail.
3 Stay out of the poor house.

I think your local political climate would have a lot to do with liability when using an ar-15 for self defense. This was brought up in another board and the one good point was that you dont want to look like someone who is training and preparing to kill people, you want to look like someone who is defending himself/family. While a silencer has uses for home defense, do you want to be infront of a jury trying to explain that? Something to think about.


And here is the dumbass statement of the year:

An easy way to get around this is to have your fully decked out AR plus a bolt action .223
Then if you have to defend yourself, when the police come just tell them you fired the bolt gun not the AR.
I doubt they will do a ballistics test.



Lying could just get you in more trouble though. Tell them that it was the closest weapon to you. Then have your lawyer show them (the jury) the rest of your weapons. Hopefully you have some beltfeds so they think you under-did it!!!
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 2:50:07 PM EDT
Should someone make an issue of it (depends on where you live) they can probably be countered easily by logic, expert witnesses, or whatever. It shouldn't be too hard, if it was a good shoot, to get an officer on the stand to explain why his agency uses AR15s/M16s/M4s and tell the jury that their reasons for using them apply to you as well.

Hell, most cops either have an AR/M4 in their cruiser or wish they did.

And to the poster who suggested lying about the weapon used:

Thats one of the stupider things I've heard lately. No personal offens intended. If they DO run balistics test, or just deduce that you're lying, you're up for some felony jail time for lying, and you'll probably be charged with murder.
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 2:53:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tack:
Let's face it guys, The AR was designed to be an "Offensive" weapon. It is also a very "Intimidating Weapon" to the general public (or so all of my girl friends have said.)

I agree with the others. You have the right to defend yourself any way you can against a mortal threat. It has been said "Better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6". I agree with this, but you most certaintly would be judged by that 12 on many issues if the prosecuting attorney is any good.

By the time you're done, the public will know exactly how many weapons you own, how many rounds of ammo you have, the condition of those weapons and ammo (meaning ready to go at all times), all of your reloading components, the type of weapons you own, (does the term "Para Military" ring a bell with some of us?), if you own camo clothing, etc. etc etc.

For every point that can be made to discredit you as just a "Law Abiding Citizen" protecting himself, I.e. being a "Paranoid", "Aggressive", prepared for "Offensive Combat" "lunatic", your odds start to decline in winning the case, and the costs will soar as it drags on.

I advocate a "Defensive Weapon" as my primary protection in an "Urban Situation". That would be my 1911 TRP with a SF X200 light. Pistols have always been classified as the most "Defensive" of the firearms. In a rural setting it might be different. There are more reasons to have a rifle ready to go, at least in Colorado where I live, I.e., Coyotes, Bears etc.

Please don't misunderstand where I'm coming from. I just think that if I have an equal chance at defending myself with my 1911, versus my AR, why not use something that will be easier to justify in court?

Just my .02 cents worth.

Tack




Some very good points...but personally I'm not going to get outgunned by some gangbang thug with a shotty. Firing on someone is a last ditch effort and if you have to, it won't matter what you use. All you have to do is prove that there was a threat to your life. Innocent before proven guilty...that is unless you live in california...
Link Posted: 9/1/2005 2:58:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cms81586:

Originally Posted By Tack:
Let's face it guys, The AR was designed to be an "Offensive" weapon. It is also a very "Intimidating Weapon" to the general public (or so all of my girl friends have said.)

I agree with the others. You have the right to defend yourself any way you can against a mortal threat. It has been said "Better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6". I agree with this, but you most certaintly would be judged by that 12 on many issues if the prosecuting attorney is any good.

By the time you're done, the public will know exactly how many weapons you own, how many rounds of ammo you have, the condition of those weapons and ammo (meaning ready to go at all times), all of your reloading components, the type of weapons you own, (does the term "Para Military" ring a bell with some of us?), if you own camo clothing, etc. etc etc.

For every point that can be made to discredit you as just a "Law Abiding Citizen" protecting himself, I.e. being a "Paranoid", "Aggressive", prepared for "Offensive Combat" "lunatic", your odds start to decline in winning the case, and the costs will soar as it drags on.

I advocate a "Defensive Weapon" as my primary protection in an "Urban Situation". That would be my 1911 TRP with a SF X200 light. Pistols have always been classified as the most "Defensive" of the firearms. In a rural setting it might be different. There are more reasons to have a rifle ready to go, at least in Colorado where I live, I.e., Coyotes, Bears etc.

Please don't misunderstand where I'm coming from. I just think that if I have an equal chance at defending myself with my 1911, versus my AR, why not use something that will be easier to justify in court?

Just my .02 cents worth.

Tack




Some very good points...but personally I'm not going to get outgunned by some gangbang thug with a shotty. Firing on someone is a last ditch effort and if you have to, it won't matter what you use. All you have to do is prove that there was a threat to your life. Innocent before proven guilty...that is unless you live in california...



Bingo. Or if Greta Van Susteran gets a hold of it.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 4:11:55 AM EDT
In an old Ayoob File, a guy used an AR and other guns to repel bad guys from his gun shop, which was closed. He responded to the alarm with a S&W 76 and an AR. He killed one guy with the AR. The Jury only blinked because he fired the M76 on full auto over their heads to scare them off, didnt hit anyone. Quoting Massad ,"In self defense, semi-auto YES, full auto NO."
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 5:51:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tack:
Please don't misunderstand where I'm coming from. I just think that if I have an equal chance at defending myself with my 1911, versus my AR, why not use something that will be easier to justify in court?

Just my .02 cents worth.

Tack




Probably should go with a shotgun then.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 8:52:28 AM EDT
I would say it depends alot on hwere ya live. Here in TX a jury would die laughing at a prosecutor who tried to charge you for using an AR for self defence (as long as it was a justified shooting)
California on the other hand hinking.gif Im sure you would be charged with something even if it was just reckless endangerment.(Of coarse using some bleeding heart defense like "I used an AR because my mommy didnt hug me enough when I was a kid and I grew up in poverty and played Grand theft auto on PS2" should get you off on probation)
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 2:05:19 PM EDT
Lawyers ARE the reason that I have factory ammo in my mags, though. I do recall a case where they were trying to say that the "defendent" had manufactured his own ammo in an effort to be more "lethal".... lol.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 2:19:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 200-10x:
Lawyers ARE the reason that I have factory ammo in my mags, though. I do recall a case where they were trying to say that the "defendent" had manufactured his own ammo in an effort to be more "lethal".... lol.



Hogwash. I've been looking for a case like this for YEARS either on the ammo or the weapon side. Every claim that someone "once knew someone who was sued" over things like this has fallen apart after even the most basic of review.

I would be HAPPY to hear that I am wrong. Just email me. Meanwhile, this entry in the Ammo-Oracle will remain:

Q. I am never going to use handload/law enforcement only/specialized rounds for self defense because that fact will be used against me in a criminal/civil proceeding to show I am a evil man/woman and be used to imprison/bankrupt me.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 2:37:23 PM EDT
I was told to use only factory ammo when I went through the police academy back in the '80s. I have never heard of a case that justified that warning.
I remember someone researching that topic some time ago and not finding a legitimate reference.
So far all I have heard is anectdotal stories about it.
I don't see how someone could say handloads are more lethal, unless some dumbass uses a file to make his bullets fragment to make wounds worse. I think the warning may have come from the '70s when some used "dum dums", basically a bullet loaded backwards so it would tumble and create a larger wound channel.
I think that as long as accepted loading practices are followed, using normal components, it won't matter.
Jim
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 3:14:50 PM EDT
I don't see how any case where a Prosecutor claims that handloaded ammo is "more deadly" couldn't be solved simply by bringing in a cop who handloads, or an NRA instructor, or other expert witness to testify that its about cost savings.

I don't reload, but plan to start soon. I don't know that I would use handloaded ammo for defense unless I shot a lot of them and was 100% certain that I had a reliable load on my hands.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 3:20:58 PM EDT
You can liability-think yourself into inaction.

Be smart, fight smart. Know your gun, know whats legal for you to do.

If its legal to own where you live, use it. The fact is you can and most likely WILL be sued in civil court, but being alive is Job One. If your AR is the tool that gets you there, then so be it.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 4:22:08 PM EDT
I have an AOW with 00 buckshot. Don't worry about judge, jury or attorneys, only stopping anyone trying to harm me or my family.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 4:23:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2005 5:55:33 PM EDT by Austrian]

Originally Posted By alaman:
I have an AOW with 00 buckshot. Don't worry about judge, jury or attorneys, only stopping anyone trying to harm me or my family.



Switch to hardened #1 buck.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 4:26:21 PM EDT
I was curious about the same thing if the AR was an SBR and you shot someone in your home how the law would treat it. A US Marshal friend told me that he would use a 12 gauge pump because if a person hears you rack that slide theres a 50/50 chance you are bluffing and theres a chance that one pull on that trigger would nearly cut someone in half at close range. I see his point but shotguns are nasty weapons and at close range can hurt others as well who are innocent bystanders due to stray pellets.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 4:30:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Stickman:
Self defense isn't about what you use.




THIS IS THE BEST QUOTE I HAVE SEEN ALL WEEK ON THIS SITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 5:57:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By loadbearing511:
I was curious about the same thing if the AR was an SBR and you shot someone in your home how the law would treat it. A US Marshal friend told me that he would use a 12 gauge pump because if a person hears you rack that slide theres a 50/50 chance you are bluffing and theres a chance that one pull on that trigger would nearly cut someone in half at close range. I see his point but shotguns are nasty weapons and at close range can hurt others as well who are innocent bystanders due to stray pellets.





<yoda>Hear you nothing that I say?</yoda>
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 6:37:39 PM EDT
All this talk about being considered a "gunnut who reloads, etc" is hogwash to my mind. Let's not forget that if the perp hadn't threatened my family, he'd still be alive. THEORECTCALLY, you can shoot the bastard with a Howitzer.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 7:48:50 PM EDT
A large number of Americans take one look at an "assault rifle" and ask, why would one even own such a weapon? This is the weapon you choose to defend your house? Do you think your Rambo?
Don't think this is accurate? ask a few soccer moms. Stick with a good pistol and some store bought defense ammo and leave the AR for zombie invasions.....2 cts
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 8:52:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2005 8:53:39 PM EDT by James_Brown]
I can't stand people who discriminate against ARs because they are a formidable assault rifle. A gun is a gun is a gun. No where in the 2nd ammendment does it say that you can only own/use old fashioned guns and that you can't use Assault Rifles in self defense. If this was the case we would all own flint lock muzzle loaders. Everyone who lives around me thinks I'm a physco maniac because I own an AR.

God Bless soon-to-be Liberal Eastern Pennsylvania
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 8:59:17 PM EDT
Unfortunately it's not reality we have to deal with, but rather the perception of reality.
If the public perceives the AR15 to be an evil assault rifle, because of the media, we have to deal with it. We have to show, through our actions, that they are just rifles and we are not evil assault rifle toting dangers to society.
It sucks, but that is the world we have to deal with. Educating the public is hard and will take time.
Take a youth shooting. Start while they are young so they see the truth. Gun hating adults are beyond reasoning with for the most part.
Jim
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 9:00:45 PM EDT
Well, if even hunters, who clearly love their guns can discriminate and look down on AR owners, average joe and jane american will probably not think very highly of your AR as a defense weapon...

To be honest, the AR is not a good home defense weapon anyway, it's a military style, semi-automatic rifle... and your neighbors and people on the street will probably not favor you using a 5.56 to defend yourself. Overpenetration is probably the biggest "realistic" issue of using a AR for defense... and it's scary looks

A pistol or shotgun is clearly the best for home defense. People say, what if the perp has armor? Well, in the unlikely event that a burglar who is looking to steal your TV has enough money to buy kevlar keep shooting your .45 and knock him to the ground.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 9:06:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pepperbelly:
Unfortunately it's not reality we have to deal with, but rather the perception of reality.
If the public perceives the AR15 to be an evil assault rifle, because of the media, we have to deal with it. We have to show, through our actions, that they are just rifles and we are not evil assault rifle toting dangers to society.
It sucks, but that is the world we have to deal with. Educating the public is hard and will take time.
Take a youth shooting. Start while they are young so they see the truth. Gun hating adults are beyond reasoning with for the most part. Jim



I second that. Most adults around me cant' get enough ATF. They love the Alcohol and Tobacco but can't seem to get down with the Firearms. My mother smokes a pack of ciggarettes a day and drinks 2 glasses of wine a day but wouldn't let me own a BB gun growing up.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 10:45:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2005 10:45:23 PM EDT by Hired_Gun]
check the track record of the D.A. and A.D.A's in your area. This will give you an idea of what you'll be up against in the event of a self defense shootings.

I happen to know a former A.D.A. that loves HK semi auto clones and and guns in general, and he has very little love for scumbags and wasnt known for going the extra mile to get decent people in the pen for simply defending their homes and loved ones. Too bad he didnt work in the DPRK
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 10:57:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2005 10:58:20 PM EDT by Lumpy196]

Originally Posted By loadbearing511:
A US Marshal friend told me that he would use a 12 gauge pump because if a person hears you rack that slide theres a 50/50 chance you are bluffing and theres a chance that one pull on that trigger would nearly cut someone in half at close range.




Have you ever racked a shotgun on someone? Some people are entirely too drunk, entirely too high, or entirely too fucking stupid to care what kind of noise you're making.

Show me one documented case of someone cut "nearly" in half by a single round of any load from a shotgun. I'll show you some documented cases of people that werent impressed by the buck or even slugs they were hit with.

Its a shotgun, not a fucking magic wand.

Link Posted: 9/6/2005 11:10:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:

Originally Posted By loadbearing511:
A US Marshal friend told me that he would use a 12 gauge pump because if a person hears you rack that slide theres a 50/50 chance you are bluffing and theres a chance that one pull on that trigger would nearly cut someone in half at close range.




Have you ever racked a shotgun on someone? Some people are entirely too drunk, entirely too high, or entirely too fucking stupid to care what kind of noise you're making.

Show me one documented case of someone cut "nearly" in half by a single round of any load from a shotgun. I'll show you some documented cases of people that werent impressed by the buck or even slugs they were hit with.

Its a shotgun, not a fucking magic wand.






Link Posted: 9/6/2005 11:13:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gordon_freeman:
Well, if even hunters, who clearly love their guns can discriminate and look down on AR owners, average joe and jane american will probably not think very highly of your AR as a defense weapon...

To be honest, the AR is not a good home defense weapon anyway, it's a military style, semi-automatic rifle... and your neighbors and people on the street will probably not favor you using a 5.56 to defend yourself. Overpenetration is probably the biggest "realistic" issue of using a AR for defense... and it's scary looks

A pistol or shotgun is clearly the best for home defense. People say, what if the perp has armor? Well, in the unlikely event that a burglar who is looking to steal your TV has enough money to buy kevlar keep shooting your .45 and knock him to the ground.



Actually you need to do some research on penetration. 5.56 has been proven to penetrate far less than pistol calibers and shotgun 00 through house walls.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:37:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ANIMUS:

Originally Posted By gordon_freeman:
Well, if even hunters, who clearly love their guns can discriminate and look down on AR owners, average joe and jane american will probably not think very highly of your AR as a defense weapon...

To be honest, the AR is not a good home defense weapon anyway, it's a military style, semi-automatic rifle... and your neighbors and people on the street will probably not favor you using a 5.56 to defend yourself. Overpenetration is probably the biggest "realistic" issue of using a AR for defense... and it's scary looks

A pistol or shotgun is clearly the best for home defense. People say, what if the perp has armor? Well, in the unlikely event that a burglar who is looking to steal your TV has enough money to buy kevlar keep shooting your .45 and knock him to the ground.



Actually you need to do some research on penetration. 5.56 has been proven to penetrate far less than pistol calibers and shotgun 00 through house walls.



+1
5.56 fragment at close to medium range when they hit a surface where as handgun rounds chew through drywall like it wasnt there.
Case in point I was watching mythbusters last week. The myth was diving in water will stop bullets from killing you. Handgun rounds had by far the deepest penatration into water, 12' or so. They shot .223 from an AR, .308 from an M1 and .50Bmg from an unidentified big ass sniper rifle all of which fragmented instantly when hitting the water.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 2:36:41 PM EDT
I will continue to use a shotgun as my primary home defense weapon. This has been argued to death, but here goes. Any rifle or pistol will penetrate too many walls in a house. I use dove/quail loads. The smaller shot won't penetrate enough sheetrock to endanger my family, but at close range, like inside a room, will destroy a human target. #00 buckshot overpenetrates, but not like a rifle or pistol.
The choice depends entirely on your personal circumstances. If you live alone, in the country with no close neighbors the rifle or pistol won't be as dengerous as me with a child in the next room and neighbors next door and across the street.
I still think a short barreled shotgun with a cylinder bore and #7 shot is a better choice. You just point and shoot. It is easier to hit a target after being awakened from sleep than having to aim a pistol or rifle.
You should also have good locks, solid doors and good windows to give yourself time to prepare in case of an intruder.
I agree that a pistol is handier and easier to hide, but when I was a cop and we served a felony wrrant or ran a raid I grabbed the shotgun, everytime! I carried a Colt .45acp as a duty weapon, but preferred a shotgun if the SHTF.
Jim
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:01:41 PM EDT
Lumpy,

The average person would think twice about commiting any further in a home invasion if they heard a 12 gauge shotgun being racked in their vacinity knowing that the gun could make your ass into hamburger in one pull of the trigger. Now if they were pumped up on crystal meth or some other narcotic or amphetamine then they really aren't going to care if you rack it or not because they feel invincible. But if you are in a hallway or close confined area with a pump 12 gauge and some punk sees it then they are going to either attempt to run away or charge in stupidity on a whim thinking you will not fire. I never said a 12 gauge was a magic wand. I was just quoting what a friend told me.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 4:02:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2005 4:03:24 PM EDT by fdawg]


"Actually you need to do some research on penetration. 5.56 has been proven to penetrate far less than pistol calibers and shotgun 00 through house walls."

WRONG....check box of truth/www.theboxotruth.com/ All, I am saying is it won't LOOK good for you when your "Tactical flashlight ladin laser beam havin see through wall optic with a 30 rnd mag" is shown to the jury.. Molly homemaker is going to crap....
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 5:06:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MrKasab:
As Tom Givens said, any time you use deadly force you have three main goals:
1 Stay alive.
2 Stay out of jail.
3 Stay out of the poor house.




Another way to put it is that there are three liabilities you should think about:

1. Tactical Liability (survive). Shooting within 50 feet of a target with an AR poses a quirk that your point of impact is about 2.5" low from point of aim. So you need to aim about that much higher for a precise shot. Not a big deal if you're shooting a badguy's chest, but a point of worry when you need a precise shot in a hostage situation.

2. Criminal Liability (survive within the bounds of the law). Shooting a guy at 50 yards cause you saw he had a machete will most likely end you up in jail. So is anything that can be constituted as a planned murder. Just make sure that your shooting is justified. Justification for using deadly force depends in each state, but the basic is that the badguy had to be an imminent threat to your life as well as have a means be a threat to your life.

3. Civil Liability (how legit is your lifestyle). There is nothing you can do to prevent a civil lawsuit even if you werefound innocent in criminal court (remember OJ?). So, if you used a silencer and high cap mag which are both illegal in your state, and you have 7 DUI's, 3 disturbing the peace, and the police files have a drawer full of noise complaints of you shooting in your back yard at passing helicopters. Then the procecutor holds up your black "assult rifle" to the all ignorant jury...you get the picture. You'll come out the criminal who killed this poor woman's, cousin's, daughter's, nephew who was only trying to steal only money.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 5:30:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2005 5:31:53 PM EDT by Curare]

Originally Posted By loadbearing511:
A US Marshal friend told me that he would use a 12 gauge pump because if a person hears you rack that slide theres a 50/50 chance you are bluffing and theres a chance that one pull on that trigger would nearly cut someone in half at close range. I see his point but shotguns are nasty weapons and at close range can hurt others as well who are innocent bystanders due to stray pellets.



1. The probability of that situation is not .50. Just because there are two options does not mean the probability of either occurence is .50. I'll give you one example that disproves your supposition: If I rack my 870 the probability of it going bang when I pull the trigger is exactly 1.

2. Shotguns pattern tightly at close range. The lay public believes they send a wide spray of pellets at any range. I don't believe your concern about stray pellets hitting bystanders next to your target is any more relevant than injurying bystanders with other firearms. Overpenetration and misses are a potential concern with any of the weapons we've discussed.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 6:05:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wraithtouch:

Originally Posted By ANIMUS:

Originally Posted By gordon_freeman:
Well, if even hunters, who clearly love their guns can discriminate and look down on AR owners, average joe and jane american will probably not think very highly of your AR as a defense weapon...

To be honest, the AR is not a good home defense weapon anyway, it's a military style, semi-automatic rifle... and your neighbors and people on the street will probably not favor you using a 5.56 to defend yourself. Overpenetration is probably the biggest "realistic" issue of using a AR for defense... and it's scary looks

A pistol or shotgun is clearly the best for home defense. People say, what if the perp has armor? Well, in the unlikely event that a burglar who is looking to steal your TV has enough money to buy kevlar keep shooting your .45 and knock him to the ground.



Actually you need to do some research on penetration. 5.56 has been proven to penetrate far less than pistol calibers and shotgun 00 through house walls.



+1
5.56 fragment at close to medium range when they hit a surface where as handgun rounds chew through drywall like it wasnt there.
Case in point I was watching mythbusters last week. The myth was diving in water will stop bullets from killing you. Handgun rounds had by far the deepest penatration into water, 12' or so. They shot .223 from an AR, .308 from an M1 and .50Bmg from an unidentified big ass sniper rifle all of which fragmented instantly when hitting the water.



and to quadruple quote(which I hate but)fuck the neihbors and thier opinions.when I go shooting I sling the AR over my shoulder load it in the truck and hope someone see's me doing it.deterrence is a good thing.if people see then they will think"that guys a nut"or whatever.I don't care.I have been robbed and not since I had a confrontation with it,I even posted in areas visible "what I have is protected by Bushmaster.your life is not worth what I have"


not a single break in attempt since.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 6:27:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 6:34:07 PM EDT
YEAH!baby!
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 7:09:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2005 7:12:02 PM EDT by Aimless]
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 7:28:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fdawg:

"Actually you need to do some research on penetration. 5.56 has been proven to penetrate far less than pistol calibers and shotgun 00 through house walls."

WRONG....check box of truth/www.theboxotruth.com/ All, I am saying is it won't LOOK good for you when your "Tactical flashlight ladin laser beam havin see through wall optic with a 30 rnd mag" is shown to the jury.. Molly homemaker is going to crap....



I'd post the "aww, not this shit again" pic but that's too much work for this crap.

Most 5.56 does less damage to tissue after encountering building materials than even 9mm, much less 00 buck or #1 buck.

This has been proven over and over and over again by authorities up to and including the FBI's FTU.

I can make a BB penetrate 8 boards of plywood. That means zero. What's important it what it does to tissue after that. The box of truth is interesting. You still need to realize what it does NOT say.

This speculation about what "Molly Homemaker" will or will not do is just as much crap unless you've spent time doing jury panel research (and I have). Juries do not think like you. Don't try to get into their heads unless you're a pro. Have you even SERVED on one for a felony case? I doubt it.

Show me one real case. ONE. PLEASE. I've been looking since 1999.

Until then, go hang out with the guy who runs the gunstore on the corner.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 7:29:52 PM EDT
I wonder what the jury would think when the prosecutor holds up my wife's pink AR15 that I use as a defense weapon.
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 8:10:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15:
I wonder what the jury would think when the prosecutor holds up my wife's pink AR15 that I use as a defense weapon.



LOL
Link Posted: 9/7/2005 8:23:32 PM EDT

<------------------------------


Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top