4 ms·

> You don't need an AK-47 to defend your home from burglars. Could you elaborate on this? Why not a rifle?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
krapp 5y ago
I'm hoping to avoid a tedious quagmire about gun classification here. A rifle might be appropriate in some situations, like defending against bears or big cats in a rural environment, but not necessarily an urban setting. An RPG would be inappropriate for both. But my point is that self-defense doesn't require access to arbitrary firepower.
- mod 5y ago
  Depending on the scenario, but I'd want a rifle in a lot of self-defense scenarios against humans. Attacker has a rifle? I want a rifle. Multiple attackers? I want a rifle. Attacker is extremely motivated to hurt me and won't quit until they're dead? I want a rifle. One guy breaks in my house with a knife? I guess a handgun will do, or preferably a shotgun. You interestingly just chose a rifle that is a semi-automatic rifle like most other long guns in the US (those that aren't bolt guns). An AK-47 is comparable to an AR15 is comparable to a Remington 742 Woodmaster, which is a nice deer rifle. It's unclear if you think the caliber is a problem, or if you've just decided they're all full-auto or something. I guess it sounded scarier. More importantly, self-defense is not the reason for the amendment. Gun classification is not mentioned. At the time, the founders wanted the citizens to have equal access to arms as the government. I'm not sure they could foresee tanks and fighter jets, so it's hard to say where they would have drawn the line if we asked them.
  - graderjs 5y ago
    > I'm not sure they could foresee tanks and fighter jets, so it's hard to say where they would have drawn the line if we asked them. An interesting thought exercise. I wonder how that would have played out, had it been anticipated: changing the nature of the defense contractor market, and maybe Ford would have ads for "SUV APC" or "Sport Model Tank". On some level the mental demarcation between "civilian tech" and "military tech" is so visually clear for me, it's hard for me to imagine a world where those things are fluidly interchanged, that doesn't seem satirical or dystopian. Doesn't mean it would be tho...Strange utopian possibility is, post WWII with civilian market for military armaments exploding, maybe the "start more wars, sell more weapons" motive for war (if that's a real thing) would have disappeared, and US wouldn't have been in any war in 70 years, because the defense industry would be too busy reaping profits from the consumer sector.
- jakearmitage 5y ago
  Wouldn't you agree that, without frequent training, it is very difficult for a person, under heavy stress, to engage a target at 10 yards with a pistol? What about follow up shots? Wouldn't you agree also that, if handgun efficiency in urban environments was higher than rifles, studies conducted by the PPSC wouldn't indicate that even law enforcement officials lack training? (http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf) Seems like a difficult skill to master, specially given the important variables surrounding defensive gun use (bullet over-penetration, stopping power). A rifle, specifically AR-15-style rifles, in a CQB configuration seems to be ideal for self-defense, knowing that efficacy is drastically increased by ergonomics, recoil management, longer barrel length, and the terminal ballistics of the 5.56 and 300 BLK rounds. LEO's seem to agree with that rationale, knowing that most urban defense task forces are outfitted with AR-15-style rifles with shorter barrels. If you are in a situation of stress, with your life on the line, you want a tool best suited in protecting you in that moment. If LEO's, and studies carried by their departments prove that, employ rifles rather than handguns to defend their lives and the lives of the people they are defending, I'm under the assumption that it is the best tool for self-defense.
  - spfzero 5y ago
    Except that they will be in situations different from a person in their home defending against an invader. They will need accuracy and effect at 50 meters, you only need 5. They will be laying down cover fire to allow repositioning etc. As far as accuracy goes, a rifle’s size might be an issue in close quarters. And once you’ve fired off a few rounds, even if you missed, the intruder now knows you have a loaded gun, you might land the next shot, and the neighbors are allready calling the police.
    - jakearmitage 5y ago
      > They will need accuracy and effect at 50 meters, you only need 5. Do you think a defender, under heavy stress, will be more accurate and effective with a handgun or a rifle? > As far as accuracy goes, a rifle’s size might be an issue in close quarters. That's precisely why I mentioned CQB. Short-barreled rifles are extremely effective in close quarters. 10.3 and 11.5 are popular lengths. For 300 BLK and 7.62x39, 8.3 and 8.5 are also very effective. > And once you’ve fired off a few rounds, even if you missed, the intruder now knows you have a loaded gun, you might land the next shot, and the neighbors are allready calling the police. Not sure what the point of this statement is. Can you elaborate?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

I'm hoping to avoid a tedious quagmire about gun classification here. A rifle might be appropriate in some situations, like defending against bears or big cats in a rural environment, but not necessarily an urban setting. An RPG would be inappropriate for both. But my point is that self-defense doesn't require access to arbitrary firepower.

mod 5y ago
Depending on the scenario, but I'd want a rifle in a lot of self-defense scenarios against humans. Attacker has a rifle? I want a rifle. Multiple attackers? I want a rifle. Attacker is extremely motivated to hurt me and won't quit until they're dead? I want a rifle. One guy breaks in my house with a knife? I guess a handgun will do, or preferably a shotgun. You interestingly just chose a rifle that is a semi-automatic rifle like most other long guns in the US (those that aren't bolt guns). An AK-47 is comparable to an AR15 is comparable to a Remington 742 Woodmaster, which is a nice deer rifle. It's unclear if you think the caliber is a problem, or if you've just decided they're all full-auto or something. I guess it sounded scarier. More importantly, self-defense is not the reason for the amendment. Gun classification is not mentioned. At the time, the founders wanted the citizens to have equal access to arms as the government. I'm not sure they could foresee tanks and fighter jets, so it's hard to say where they would have drawn the line if we asked them.
- graderjs 5y ago
  > I'm not sure they could foresee tanks and fighter jets, so it's hard to say where they would have drawn the line if we asked them. An interesting thought exercise. I wonder how that would have played out, had it been anticipated: changing the nature of the defense contractor market, and maybe Ford would have ads for "SUV APC" or "Sport Model Tank". On some level the mental demarcation between "civilian tech" and "military tech" is so visually clear for me, it's hard for me to imagine a world where those things are fluidly interchanged, that doesn't seem satirical or dystopian. Doesn't mean it would be tho...Strange utopian possibility is, post WWII with civilian market for military armaments exploding, maybe the "start more wars, sell more weapons" motive for war (if that's a real thing) would have disappeared, and US wouldn't have been in any war in 70 years, because the defense industry would be too busy reaping profits from the consumer sector.
jakearmitage 5y ago
Wouldn't you agree that, without frequent training, it is very difficult for a person, under heavy stress, to engage a target at 10 yards with a pistol? What about follow up shots? Wouldn't you agree also that, if handgun efficiency in urban environments was higher than rifles, studies conducted by the PPSC wouldn't indicate that even law enforcement officials lack training? (http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf) Seems like a difficult skill to master, specially given the important variables surrounding defensive gun use (bullet over-penetration, stopping power). A rifle, specifically AR-15-style rifles, in a CQB configuration seems to be ideal for self-defense, knowing that efficacy is drastically increased by ergonomics, recoil management, longer barrel length, and the terminal ballistics of the 5.56 and 300 BLK rounds. LEO's seem to agree with that rationale, knowing that most urban defense task forces are outfitted with AR-15-style rifles with shorter barrels. If you are in a situation of stress, with your life on the line, you want a tool best suited in protecting you in that moment. If LEO's, and studies carried by their departments prove that, employ rifles rather than handguns to defend their lives and the lives of the people they are defending, I'm under the assumption that it is the best tool for self-defense.
- spfzero 5y ago
  Except that they will be in situations different from a person in their home defending against an invader. They will need accuracy and effect at 50 meters, you only need 5. They will be laying down cover fire to allow repositioning etc. As far as accuracy goes, a rifle’s size might be an issue in close quarters. And once you’ve fired off a few rounds, even if you missed, the intruder now knows you have a loaded gun, you might land the next shot, and the neighbors are allready calling the police.
  - jakearmitage 5y ago
    > They will need accuracy and effect at 50 meters, you only need 5. Do you think a defender, under heavy stress, will be more accurate and effective with a handgun or a rifle? > As far as accuracy goes, a rifle’s size might be an issue in close quarters. That's precisely why I mentioned CQB. Short-barreled rifles are extremely effective in close quarters. 10.3 and 11.5 are popular lengths. For 300 BLK and 7.62x39, 8.3 and 8.5 are also very effective. > And once you’ve fired off a few rounds, even if you missed, the intruder now knows you have a loaded gun, you might land the next shot, and the neighbors are allready calling the police. Not sure what the point of this statement is. Can you elaborate?