7 ms·

I agree that it is disconcerting to see guns like an AR-15 being targeted merely because they look scary or military-like, but they do have a number of attribut

by suresk 14y ago

I agree that it is disconcerting to see guns like an AR-15 being targeted merely because they look scary or military-like, but they do have a number of attributes that make them ideal for mass-shootings, which tend to occur at short-to-medium ranges. They are smaller and lighter than many of the other guns you mentioned, they have minimal recoil, and while .223/5.56 rounds are small, they are still quite lethal at the ranges involved in mass shootings. The lighter rounds also mean that you can carry far more of them and it is easier to use extended magazines with them. Compared to a handgun: Better range, more capacity, higher velocity. Compared to a shotgun: Better range, more capacity. Compared to an AR10/M14: More capacity, less recoil. Also, compared to a lot of other guns, ARs in general have less general utility - they are poor for home/personal defense and you generally don't use them for hunting (other than various pests, usually). I will grant you that they are enjoyable guns to own and shoot, though.

bmelton 14y ago
I don't disagree in the slightest, if you consider the AR as it is traditionally packaged and sold. The AR though, like the Linux nerd-reference I made earlier, is more of a platform than a gun itself. I have seen ARs in 50 cal beowulf configurations, .300 whisper, etc. So, they can be used very effectively for hunting. A friend of mine has one that he uses for 'plinking' cans and targets, and by swapping the upper to .300, is able to effectively deer hunt with it. As for home defense, that's very subjective. To me, the best weapon for home defense is the one that I can shoot the most easily. The AR is so loved because it IS easy to use. The first time I actually fired one was when I was volunteering at a disabled veterans charity range event. There were many veterans who had sustained injuries that prevented them from being able to handle regular rifles. Many of their guns were configured with forward grips in a variety of angles (depending on their ability to handle it), and found it to be an all around useful for utility. Another aspect is that standard capacity magazines (20-30, depending on manufacturer) make them great for self defense in untrained hands. That they are "scary looking" doesn't hurt their ability to deter would-be attackers, but compared to the AR10, the .223 round does have substantially less 'stopping' power (I'll be happy to dispute the meaning of that in another venue, because while I agree that physics make it such that no bullet has stopping power, the ability to impair the target is a different issue altogether), and anecdotally, people I know that have used the AR in self defense or military situations generally attest that you double tap targets before they're considered neutralized. No such generality exists for .308 or 7.62NATO rounds. Lastly, if my wife were the subject of a home invasion, the last thing in the world that I would want to happen to her is to run out of bullets and for the bad guys to know that. Joe Biden recently advised that in the event of a home invasion, you should own a shotgun and fire two warning blasts -- my contention in response to that is that 2 shots effectively empties most shotguns, and disarming yourself before an attacker has even moved seems silly. Add to that that in many areas discharging a firearm as such is a crime, and that will likely damage somebody else's property in urban environments. As for the utility of it for home defense, that depends on many factors. I live out in the woods. It's a suburb, but I'm in a hilly area geographically, so I could fire a gun level in three directions and not have to worry about hitting anything other than ground. If I were in a denser city, I would almost certainly prefer a shotgun -- ideally something like a 12-round, magazine fed Saiga. But as for the argument of ARs not having utility, I'd say that's only true if you never take it apart. Once you swap uppers, it becomes, effectively, a set of lincoln logs for you to do with whatever you like (and are allowed to do).
- suresk 14y ago
  Those are fair arguments. The main reasons I think ARs are poor for home defense: 1) Their size makes them unwieldy in the home. My AR15, with the stock fully collapsed, is still 32" long, which makes it less than ideal for navigating around in a home. 2) The muzzle velocity and the fact that you typically don't have hollow point rounds laying around makes it highly likely that you are going to hit a lot of things you don't mean to. Even if you hit your target, there is still a high probability of overpenetration when you are talking about something that is going ~3000 fps. I somewhat disagree with the fact that the 30 round magazine matters much - a decent handgun can contain 10 or more rounds, and if you haven't knocked down your target by that many shots, running out of ammo is going to be the least of your problems. If I were concerned about home defense, I'd prefer either a shotgun (like you say, the Saiga would be a decent choice) or a 9mm pistol.
  - bmelton 14y ago
    I don't disagree that overpenetration should be a concern for a lot of people. It isn't for me, so I like the AR15 for home defense. I've got a cabin that is even more remote, and comes replete with occasional threats from various wildlife, and I like it there too -- but that is with the knowledge that the nearest human being should be no closer than 50 acres away. Regarding the ammo, for a small caliber weapon, and the accuracy of the average person who shoots, your odds of stopping an assailant with 10 rounds is pretty good, at about 85.1%. If there are multiple assailants though, 10 rounds doesn't provide particularly great odds - at 35%. 12 rounds gets you 50% odds against 2 assailants. The main reason I argue against ammunition capacity restrictions for citizens though, is that generally speaking, criminals have the advantage of preparation in their crime, and aren't going to respect magazine limitations -- especially those of the more ludicrous nature like found in New York, where there is a 7 round limit. You can have a larger than 7 round magazine, but may only fill it with 7 rounds. No criminal preparing to engage in criminal activities is going to observe that restriction, while there may well be law abiding folks naive enough to obey such a law and find themselves out of ammunition when they need it. Further, according to the Supreme Court, bans on arms "in common use" are effectively unconstitutional, and banning down to a 7 round capacity limit is a violation of that decision. As you said, there are numerous handguns containing 10 or more rounds, with Glocks generally fairing on the higher side of capacity, and older weapons like the 1911 being 7 or 8+1, but standard capacities are usually somewhere between 12 and 18 rounds on the most common of firearms. For the AR15, 20 rounds is the norm, and as such, should be protected. Per Alan Gura (the attorney of record for DC v Heller and Chicago v McDonald), you can't make what is "in common use" a result of a restriction either, so that they can't ban all but five found magazines, then rule that as a result of that ban, a five round magazine is what's protected as common use.

by suresk 14y ago

bmelton 14y ago

I don't disagree in the slightest, if you consider the AR as it is traditionally packaged and sold. The AR though, like the Linux nerd-reference I made earlier, is more of a platform than a gun itself. I have seen ARs in 50 cal beowulf configurations, .300 whisper, etc. So, they can be used very effectively for hunting. A friend of mine has one that he uses for 'plinking' cans and targets, and by swapping the upper to .300, is able to effectively deer hunt with it. As for home defense, that's very subjective. To me, the best weapon for home defense is the one that I can shoot the most easily. The AR is so loved because it IS easy to use. The first time I actually fired one was when I was volunteering at a disabled veterans charity range event. There were many veterans who had sustained injuries that prevented them from being able to handle regular rifles. Many of their guns were configured with forward grips in a variety of angles (depending on their ability to handle it), and found it to be an all around useful for utility. Another aspect is that standard capacity magazines (20-30, depending on manufacturer) make them great for self defense in untrained hands. That they are "scary looking" doesn't hurt their ability to deter would-be attackers, but compared to the AR10, the .223 round does have substantially less 'stopping' power (I'll be happy to dispute the meaning of that in another venue, because while I agree that physics make it such that no bullet has stopping power, the ability to impair the target is a different issue altogether), and anecdotally, people I know that have used the AR in self defense or military situations generally attest that you double tap targets before they're considered neutralized. No such generality exists for .308 or 7.62NATO rounds. Lastly, if my wife were the subject of a home invasion, the last thing in the world that I would want to happen to her is to run out of bullets and for the bad guys to know that. Joe Biden recently advised that in the event of a home invasion, you should own a shotgun and fire two warning blasts -- my contention in response to that is that 2 shots effectively empties most shotguns, and disarming yourself before an attacker has even moved seems silly. Add to that that in many areas discharging a firearm as such is a crime, and that will likely damage somebody else's property in urban environments. As for the utility of it for home defense, that depends on many factors. I live out in the woods. It's a suburb, but I'm in a hilly area geographically, so I could fire a gun level in three directions and not have to worry about hitting anything other than ground. If I were in a denser city, I would almost certainly prefer a shotgun -- ideally something like a 12-round, magazine fed Saiga. But as for the argument of ARs not having utility, I'd say that's only true if you never take it apart. Once you swap uppers, it becomes, effectively, a set of lincoln logs for you to do with whatever you like (and are allowed to do).

suresk 14y ago
Those are fair arguments. The main reasons I think ARs are poor for home defense: 1) Their size makes them unwieldy in the home. My AR15, with the stock fully collapsed, is still 32" long, which makes it less than ideal for navigating around in a home. 2) The muzzle velocity and the fact that you typically don't have hollow point rounds laying around makes it highly likely that you are going to hit a lot of things you don't mean to. Even if you hit your target, there is still a high probability of overpenetration when you are talking about something that is going ~3000 fps. I somewhat disagree with the fact that the 30 round magazine matters much - a decent handgun can contain 10 or more rounds, and if you haven't knocked down your target by that many shots, running out of ammo is going to be the least of your problems. If I were concerned about home defense, I'd prefer either a shotgun (like you say, the Saiga would be a decent choice) or a 9mm pistol.
- bmelton 14y ago
  I don't disagree that overpenetration should be a concern for a lot of people. It isn't for me, so I like the AR15 for home defense. I've got a cabin that is even more remote, and comes replete with occasional threats from various wildlife, and I like it there too -- but that is with the knowledge that the nearest human being should be no closer than 50 acres away. Regarding the ammo, for a small caliber weapon, and the accuracy of the average person who shoots, your odds of stopping an assailant with 10 rounds is pretty good, at about 85.1%. If there are multiple assailants though, 10 rounds doesn't provide particularly great odds - at 35%. 12 rounds gets you 50% odds against 2 assailants. The main reason I argue against ammunition capacity restrictions for citizens though, is that generally speaking, criminals have the advantage of preparation in their crime, and aren't going to respect magazine limitations -- especially those of the more ludicrous nature like found in New York, where there is a 7 round limit. You can have a larger than 7 round magazine, but may only fill it with 7 rounds. No criminal preparing to engage in criminal activities is going to observe that restriction, while there may well be law abiding folks naive enough to obey such a law and find themselves out of ammunition when they need it. Further, according to the Supreme Court, bans on arms "in common use" are effectively unconstitutional, and banning down to a 7 round capacity limit is a violation of that decision. As you said, there are numerous handguns containing 10 or more rounds, with Glocks generally fairing on the higher side of capacity, and older weapons like the 1911 being 7 or 8+1, but standard capacities are usually somewhere between 12 and 18 rounds on the most common of firearms. For the AR15, 20 rounds is the norm, and as such, should be protected. Per Alan Gura (the attorney of record for DC v Heller and Chicago v McDonald), you can't make what is "in common use" a result of a restriction either, so that they can't ban all but five found magazines, then rule that as a result of that ban, a five round magazine is what's protected as common use.