Its go time. SCOTUS to hear Heller gun ban case

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Except most scholars admit the 2nd is an individual right.
More to the point, why would our founding fathers pen out 9 individual rights and 1 collective?

"Most" is a tricky word there. And while I tend to think that it's an individual right as well, remember that the supreme court has spoken already and explicitly stated it is not.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Except most scholars admit the 2nd is an individual right.
More to the point, why would our founding fathers pen out 9 individual rights and 1 collective?

"Most" is a tricky word there. And while I tend to think that it's an individual right as well, remember that the supreme court has spoken already and explicitly stated it is not.

Do you truly think the SC isnt in some ways influenced by their own personal views and opinions?
And when I say "most", I also mean quite a few very left leaning scholars.

But, this should (hopefully) be the case to finally settle the issue once and for all.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
If the choice is nobody has guns or everyone has guns, I'd take the second option any day of the week. The problem is that even if we could magically whisk all the guns away, crime would still exist, only in many cases, the criminals would have the distinct advantage.

Yes, the problem is that it is not physically possible to make it so nobody has guns. Otherwise it would be a nice idea.

If we tried to outlaw guns entirely, they?d just flow across our border unchecked straight into the hands of criminals. Then we?d have to secure our border. Now I know we?re capable of ensuring government takes away our rights, but we sure as hell know they?ll never secure the borders.

This nation will always have firearms, legal or not.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Rainsford
If the choice is nobody has guns or everyone has guns, I'd take the second option any day of the week. The problem is that even if we could magically whisk all the guns away, crime would still exist, only in many cases, the criminals would have the distinct advantage.

Yes, the problem is that it is not physically possible to make it so nobody has guns. Otherwise it would be a nice idea.

If we tried to outlaw guns entirely, they?d just flow across our border unchecked straight into the hands of criminals. Then we?d have to secure our border. Now I know we?re capable of ensuring government takes away our rights, but we sure as hell know they?ll never secure the borders.

This nation will always have firearms, legal or not.

No, it's not a nice idea. Then you'd have Joe Criminal carrying around a board with a nail on it, or a baseball bat, and he would rule us all. Guns are the great equalizer because they can be wielded equally well by a giant man or a little old lady.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: teclis1023
Apparently I don't know much about guns, which I agree with. I'm not versed enough to really know what should and shouldn't be allowed. All I can say is that if I went to a friend's house and he showed me his assault-style rifle with bullets dedicated toward piercing armor, I'd probably never want to go over there again. I find very few reasons to own assault weaponry, automatic or not.

Don't worry about your lack of knowledge, it hasn't stopped any of the major gun control advocates from drafting silly legislation that they know nothing about.

Sounds like you're just operating on fear of guns. That's extremely common. I've had lots of friends that were afraid of guns, because they say them as evil killing machines. The truth is a gun is just an object, though a constitutionally protected one, and shouldn't be treated any differently than a pen, or a knife, or a blender. All of them can hurt you or someone else if you are careless, wreckless or ignorant. Banning guns just makes people who are afraid of them feel better, while doing absolutely nothing to make them safer. But their percieved safety goes through the roof when Senator McCarthy gets up and says she will see barrel shrouds banned.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Rainsford
If the choice is nobody has guns or everyone has guns, I'd take the second option any day of the week. The problem is that even if we could magically whisk all the guns away, crime would still exist, only in many cases, the criminals would have the distinct advantage.

Yes, the problem is that it is not physically possible to make it so nobody has guns. Otherwise it would be a nice idea.

If we tried to outlaw guns entirely, they?d just flow across our border unchecked straight into the hands of criminals. Then we?d have to secure our border. Now I know we?re capable of ensuring government takes away our rights, but we sure as hell know they?ll never secure the borders.

This nation will always have firearms, legal or not.

No, it's not a nice idea. Then you'd have Joe Criminal carrying around a board with a nail on it, or a baseball bat, and he would rule us all. Guns are the great equalizer because they can be wielded equally well by a giant man or a little old lady.

How many women actually carry around guns to surprise their would-be muggers with?

In theory this is good, in practice our laws already prevent the average person from being prepared in this scenario. Moreover, this only equalizes the situation unless the mugger has a gun and can surprise the victim before they even know of his presence.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Except most scholars admit the 2nd is an individual right.
More to the point, why would our founding fathers pen out 9 individual rights and 1 collective?

"Most" is a tricky word there. And while I tend to think that it's an individual right as well, remember that the supreme court has spoken already and explicitly stated it is not.

Actually, the founders didn't pen out 9I/1C rights. It's more like 5/5 when you read "the people" can be plural in many of the amendments.

I have argued in other threads and it can be implied in this one also that I am anti 2nd and I want to go on record as stating that is categorically false.

I am a firm believer is individual freedoms but believe that there should be a common sense approach to those liberties. I understand, accept and agree with the current limits on free speech.

I think that the same common sense limits should be placed on weaponry or those that fight for the lack of those restrictions accept responsibility if/when their weapons are used in a crime whether they are the abuser or not.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Rainsford
If the choice is nobody has guns or everyone has guns, I'd take the second option any day of the week. The problem is that even if we could magically whisk all the guns away, crime would still exist, only in many cases, the criminals would have the distinct advantage.

Yes, the problem is that it is not physically possible to make it so nobody has guns. Otherwise it would be a nice idea.

If we tried to outlaw guns entirely, they?d just flow across our border unchecked straight into the hands of criminals. Then we?d have to secure our border. Now I know we?re capable of ensuring government takes away our rights, but we sure as hell know they?ll never secure the borders.

This nation will always have firearms, legal or not.

No, it's not a nice idea. Then you'd have Joe Criminal carrying around a board with a nail on it, or a baseball bat, and he would rule us all. Guns are the great equalizer because they can be wielded equally well by a giant man or a little old lady.

How many women actually carry around guns to surprise their would-be muggers with?

In theory this is good, in practice our laws already prevent the average person from being prepared in this scenario. Moreover, this only equalizes the situation unless the mugger has a gun and can surprise the victim before they even know of his presence.

Approximately 50,000 women in Texas carry guns on a regular basis (out of 250,000 Texas total.)

How do our laws prevent people from being prepared? People prevent themselves from being prepared by being sheep.

As for your second argument, you're saying that that it would be better to be unarmed and just give up than have a fighting chance. Sure, you might get suprised, someone might get the jump on you. That doesn't mean you shouldn't even consider fighting.

Is your conservative-core malfuntioning? You sound like a liberal, wanting the government to protect you with laws so that you feel safe.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
Self defense was not the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

Valid point.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Rainsford
If the choice is nobody has guns or everyone has guns, I'd take the second option any day of the week. The problem is that even if we could magically whisk all the guns away, crime would still exist, only in many cases, the criminals would have the distinct advantage.

Yes, the problem is that it is not physically possible to make it so nobody has guns. Otherwise it would be a nice idea.

If we tried to outlaw guns entirely, they?d just flow across our border unchecked straight into the hands of criminals. Then we?d have to secure our border. Now I know we?re capable of ensuring government takes away our rights, but we sure as hell know they?ll never secure the borders.

This nation will always have firearms, legal or not.

No, it's not a nice idea. Then you'd have Joe Criminal carrying around a board with a nail on it, or a baseball bat, and he would rule us all. Guns are the great equalizer because they can be wielded equally well by a giant man or a little old lady.

Yes, thank you, that was exactly my point. The problem with gun bans isn't that they are impossible to carry out, it's that even if they WERE possible, the outcome would be pretty undesirable.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JD50
Its kind of funny to see the same people that bitch and moan about the Bush administration taking away all of our rights, come in here and clamor AGAINST the 2nd amendment. At least there are some people like Teclis that can give their point of view without insulting gun owners.

It would help if gun owners could argue for their rights without insulting non-gun owners...the complete lack of respect seems to flow both ways.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: teclis1023
When you argue logically, SpecOp, you present a great case. You've helped inform me a bit and perhaps swayed me a bit.

It's very simple, blame the finger not the trigger.

You can throw a rock and kill someone, hell you can throw the gun and kill someone.

Did the rock or the gun do the killing?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Nebor
...
Off the top of my head, I can think of two legal shoots with semi-auto rifles. Some kids got home invaded in florida, one hid in a closet with an AK, and shot the bad guy through the closet door. Then in Arlington, Texas, a guy saw 5 teenagers stealing his wheels and stripping out the interior of his car, right outside his house. He stepped out on the porch with his AR and stopped them.

I think the problem is that most people greatly overestimate the effectiveness of a handgun for killing people. A handgun is a sidearm, a last resort for killing people. There's a phrase, "a handgun is good for fighting your way to a rifle." Even a relatively weak rifle, like a 5.56x45 or 7.62x39 packs several times more energy than your average handgun. A typical 9mm delivers approximately 450 ft-lbs of energy, while a 5.56x45 round delivers approximately 1400 ft-lbs of energy. Not to mention the much greater ease of aiming, higher magazine capacity, and less overpenetration risk.

The AR-15 has replaced many shotguns in the bedroom, just as it's replaced the shotguns in police cars. It's an excellent defensive or offensive weapon. I keep a shorty PS90 next to my bed, loaded with the good stuff (SS190 armor penetrating,) because I know how useful a carbine is.

I'm a little new to guns, but I can't see why an AR-15 is a better home defense weapon than a shotgun. What you're saying about handguns makes perfect sense, but for home defense, a shotgun would seem to have many advantages. The most obvious would be that it's relatively easy to get a lethal or at least incapacitating shot even if you're half asleep or not a very good shot. Obviously an AR-15 becomes better at longer ranges, but for close quarters like you'd find in most houses, a shotgun seems like the more foolproof weapon. The only advantage I can see to an AR-15 is in terms of overpenitration, although a shotgun loaded with birdshot is still pretty deadly and probably won't overpenetrate.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Rainsford
If the choice is nobody has guns or everyone has guns, I'd take the second option any day of the week. The problem is that even if we could magically whisk all the guns away, crime would still exist, only in many cases, the criminals would have the distinct advantage.

Yes, the problem is that it is not physically possible to make it so nobody has guns. Otherwise it would be a nice idea.

If we tried to outlaw guns entirely, they?d just flow across our border unchecked straight into the hands of criminals. Then we?d have to secure our border. Now I know we?re capable of ensuring government takes away our rights, but we sure as hell know they?ll never secure the borders.

This nation will always have firearms, legal or not.

No, it's not a nice idea. Then you'd have Joe Criminal carrying around a board with a nail on it, or a baseball bat, and he would rule us all. Guns are the great equalizer because they can be wielded equally well by a giant man or a little old lady.

How many women actually carry around guns to surprise their would-be muggers with?

In theory this is good, in practice our laws already prevent the average person from being prepared in this scenario. Moreover, this only equalizes the situation unless the mugger has a gun and can surprise the victim before they even know of his presence.

Approximately 50,000 women in Texas carry guns on a regular basis (out of 250,000 Texas total.)

How do our laws prevent people from being prepared? People prevent themselves from being prepared by being sheep.

As for your second argument, you're saying that that it would be better to be unarmed and just give up than have a fighting chance. Sure, you might get suprised, someone might get the jump on you. That doesn't mean you shouldn't even consider fighting.

Is your conservative-core malfuntioning? You sound like a liberal, wanting the government to protect you with laws so that you feel safe.

I don't know, he sounds like a pretty good conservative to me...just can't seem to engage that thing between his ears and really THINK about an issue. :roll:

Self-defense isn't a liberal/conservative issue. Hell, I'm pretty liberal on the vast majority of issues, and I'm all for self-defense...and I'm not alone among my liberal friends. Sure, there are plenty of liberals who are just waiting for the government to protect them...but there seem to be a ton of conservatives in that camp as well. Just because the latter group does it with fear-based "anti-terrorism" laws instead of fear-based gun control laws doesn't mean it's not exactly the same thing.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: teclis1023
When you argue logically, SpecOp, you present a great case. You've helped inform me a bit and perhaps swayed me a bit.

It's very simple, blame the finger not the trigger.

You can throw a rock and kill someone, hell you can throw the gun and kill someone.

Did the rock or the gun do the killing?

I think you're on the wrong point.

The handguns increase the likelihood, the efficiency, the numbers, of killing.

If I told you someone was going to shoot a handgun at you, or was going to throw a rock or handgun at you, which would you prefer?

Are people more likely to kill someone if they're carrying a handgun, or not where they have to find some other means, more dangerous, more hassle, and so on?

Are criminals more likely to plan a crime around having a handgun, than they are to plan the crime without one?

Before you take this to the extreme on one side 'then what about banning knives' - take it to the other - 'nuclear weapons don't kill, fingers that detonate them do'.

It should seem fairly clear the debate is not black and white but where to draw the line on harm/benefit. Handguns are well-designed for crime, while long guns are good for defense.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: teclis1023
When you argue logically, SpecOp, you present a great case. You've helped inform me a bit and perhaps swayed me a bit.

It's very simple, blame the finger not the trigger.

You can throw a rock and kill someone, hell you can throw the gun and kill someone.

Did the rock or the gun do the killing?

I think you're on the wrong point.

The handguns increase the likelihood, the efficiency, the numbers, of killing.

If I told you someone was going to shoot a handgun at you, or was going to throw a rock or handgun at you, which would you prefer?

Are people more likely to kill someone if they're carrying a handgun, or not where they have to find some other means, more dangerous, more hassle, and so on?

Are criminals more likely to plan a crime around having a handgun, than they are to plan the crime without one?

Before you take this to the extreme on one side 'then what about banning knives' - take it to the other - 'nuclear weapons don't kill, fingers that detonate them do'.

It should seem fairly clear the debate is not black and white but where to draw the line on harm/benefit. Handguns are well-designed for crime, while long guns are good for defense.

You are guilty of the slippery slope.

It is in fact clear as black and white, yes or no.

You are trying to have it both ways and that is not possible.

Words like "more likely" is pussification.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

It is in fact clear as black and white, yes or no.

Black = ban everything that can possibly be used to kill someone. Gun, knife, rock.

White = allow freedom to own all things that can be used to kill someone. Gun, nuclear weapon, tank, mortar, dynamite.

Which are you for, black or white?

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

It is in fact clear as black and white, yes or no.

Black = ban everything that can possibly be used to kill someone. Gun, knife, rock.

White = allow freedom to own all things that can be used to kill someone. Gun, nuclear weapon, tank, mortar, dynamite.

Which are you for, black or white?

White please!

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Nebor
...
Off the top of my head, I can think of two legal shoots with semi-auto rifles. Some kids got home invaded in florida, one hid in a closet with an AK, and shot the bad guy through the closet door. Then in Arlington, Texas, a guy saw 5 teenagers stealing his wheels and stripping out the interior of his car, right outside his house. He stepped out on the porch with his AR and stopped them.

I think the problem is that most people greatly overestimate the effectiveness of a handgun for killing people. A handgun is a sidearm, a last resort for killing people. There's a phrase, "a handgun is good for fighting your way to a rifle." Even a relatively weak rifle, like a 5.56x45 or 7.62x39 packs several times more energy than your average handgun. A typical 9mm delivers approximately 450 ft-lbs of energy, while a 5.56x45 round delivers approximately 1400 ft-lbs of energy. Not to mention the much greater ease of aiming, higher magazine capacity, and less overpenetration risk.

The AR-15 has replaced many shotguns in the bedroom, just as it's replaced the shotguns in police cars. It's an excellent defensive or offensive weapon. I keep a shorty PS90 next to my bed, loaded with the good stuff (SS190 armor penetrating,) because I know how useful a carbine is.

I'm a little new to guns, but I can't see why an AR-15 is a better home defense weapon than a shotgun. What you're saying about handguns makes perfect sense, but for home defense, a shotgun would seem to have many advantages. The most obvious would be that it's relatively easy to get a lethal or at least incapacitating shot even if you're half asleep or not a very good shot. Obviously an AR-15 becomes better at longer ranges, but for close quarters like you'd find in most houses, a shotgun seems like the more foolproof weapon. The only advantage I can see to an AR-15 is in terms of overpenitration, although a shotgun loaded with birdshot is still pretty deadly and probably won't overpenetrate.

Any long gun is much easier to wield effectively than a handgun. Loading birdshot for home defense is widely regarded (in the gun community) to be absolutely foolish. First of all, because birdshot penetrates less than 4" in ballistic gelatin (human flesh) thus earning a rating of "non-lethal." Second, because all those pellets are going somewhere, ie: messing up your house.

I'm not saying a shotgun is a bad HD weapon, I just prefer a carbine myself, and for non-gun collectors who have to choose between the two, it's a choice of skeet shooting\bird hunting or target shooting\deer hunting.

Like I said, I keep a 10" barrel PS90 by my bedside, with an Aimpoint Micro and a surefire on the rails. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

It is in fact clear as black and white, yes or no.

Black = ban everything that can possibly be used to kill someone. Gun, knife, rock.

White = allow freedom to own all things that can be used to kill someone. Gun, nuclear weapon, tank, mortar, dynamite.

Which are you for, black or white?

White please!

Yup, I'll choose white. If I'm incenerated when some nutjob hits the button on his nuke, at least I died free.

Besides, only the ultra wealthy would be able to afford nuclear weapons and the maintenance that goes with them. And plenty of private citizens own and operate tanks, from WW1 all the way up M1 Abrams. You just have to register the main gun as a destructive device with the NFA Branch of ATF. Of course, I think that requiring such registration is unconstitutional and wrong.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

It is in fact clear as black and white, yes or no.

Black = ban everything that can possibly be used to kill someone. Gun, knife, rock.

White = allow freedom to own all things that can be used to kill someone. Gun, nuclear weapon, tank, mortar, dynamite.

Which are you for, black or white?

white

Just like locks only keep honest people out.

If everyone had a gun you would see a lot more honest people.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Nebor
...
Off the top of my head, I can think of two legal shoots with semi-auto rifles. Some kids got home invaded in florida, one hid in a closet with an AK, and shot the bad guy through the closet door. Then in Arlington, Texas, a guy saw 5 teenagers stealing his wheels and stripping out the interior of his car, right outside his house. He stepped out on the porch with his AR and stopped them.

I think the problem is that most people greatly overestimate the effectiveness of a handgun for killing people. A handgun is a sidearm, a last resort for killing people. There's a phrase, "a handgun is good for fighting your way to a rifle." Even a relatively weak rifle, like a 5.56x45 or 7.62x39 packs several times more energy than your average handgun. A typical 9mm delivers approximately 450 ft-lbs of energy, while a 5.56x45 round delivers approximately 1400 ft-lbs of energy. Not to mention the much greater ease of aiming, higher magazine capacity, and less overpenetration risk.

The AR-15 has replaced many shotguns in the bedroom, just as it's replaced the shotguns in police cars. It's an excellent defensive or offensive weapon. I keep a shorty PS90 next to my bed, loaded with the good stuff (SS190 armor penetrating,) because I know how useful a carbine is.

I'm a little new to guns, but I can't see why an AR-15 is a better home defense weapon than a shotgun. What you're saying about handguns makes perfect sense, but for home defense, a shotgun would seem to have many advantages. The most obvious would be that it's relatively easy to get a lethal or at least incapacitating shot even if you're half asleep or not a very good shot. Obviously an AR-15 becomes better at longer ranges, but for close quarters like you'd find in most houses, a shotgun seems like the more foolproof weapon. The only advantage I can see to an AR-15 is in terms of overpenitration, although a shotgun loaded with birdshot is still pretty deadly and probably won't overpenetrate.

As already stated, birdshot is terrible for defense. And self defense isn't about killing the other guy, but stopping him. An AR15 or other rifle cartridge carbine is leaps of improvement over a handgun when it comes to defense. One hit will pretty much end it at close range.

Higher capacity, lower recoil, shorter, and lighter than a shotgun.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Nebor
...
Off the top of my head, I can think of two legal shoots with semi-auto rifles. Some kids got home invaded in florida, one hid in a closet with an AK, and shot the bad guy through the closet door. Then in Arlington, Texas, a guy saw 5 teenagers stealing his wheels and stripping out the interior of his car, right outside his house. He stepped out on the porch with his AR and stopped them.

I think the problem is that most people greatly overestimate the effectiveness of a handgun for killing people. A handgun is a sidearm, a last resort for killing people. There's a phrase, "a handgun is good for fighting your way to a rifle." Even a relatively weak rifle, like a 5.56x45 or 7.62x39 packs several times more energy than your average handgun. A typical 9mm delivers approximately 450 ft-lbs of energy, while a 5.56x45 round delivers approximately 1400 ft-lbs of energy. Not to mention the much greater ease of aiming, higher magazine capacity, and less overpenetration risk.

The AR-15 has replaced many shotguns in the bedroom, just as it's replaced the shotguns in police cars. It's an excellent defensive or offensive weapon. I keep a shorty PS90 next to my bed, loaded with the good stuff (SS190 armor penetrating,) because I know how useful a carbine is.

I'm a little new to guns, but I can't see why an AR-15 is a better home defense weapon than a shotgun. What you're saying about handguns makes perfect sense, but for home defense, a shotgun would seem to have many advantages. The most obvious would be that it's relatively easy to get a lethal or at least incapacitating shot even if you're half asleep or not a very good shot. Obviously an AR-15 becomes better at longer ranges, but for close quarters like you'd find in most houses, a shotgun seems like the more foolproof weapon. The only advantage I can see to an AR-15 is in terms of overpenitration, although a shotgun loaded with birdshot is still pretty deadly and probably won't overpenetrate.

Any long gun is much easier to wield effectively than a handgun. Loading birdshot for home defense is widely regarded (in the gun community) to be absolutely foolish. First of all, because birdshot penetrates less than 4" in ballistic gelatin (human flesh) thus earning a rating of "non-lethal." Second, because all those pellets are going somewhere, ie: messing up your house.

I'm not saying a shotgun is a bad HD weapon, I just prefer a carbine myself, and for non-gun collectors who have to choose between the two, it's a choice of skeet shooting\bird hunting or target shooting\deer hunting.

Like I said, I keep a 10" barrel PS90 by my bedside, with an Aimpoint Micro and a surefire on the rails. Different strokes for different folks.

I've heard that about birdshot, but a shotgun loaded with buckshot seems like a pretty good home defense weapon to me. I suppose I can see the "messing up your house" problem, but a shotgun seems easier to use to me.

On the other hand, I've heard that learning to shoot a rifle in the kind of distances you're likely to find in home defense situations is pretty easy, and I like the idea of having more rounds and more accuracy.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Nebor
...
Off the top of my head, I can think of two legal shoots with semi-auto rifles. Some kids got home invaded in florida, one hid in a closet with an AK, and shot the bad guy through the closet door. Then in Arlington, Texas, a guy saw 5 teenagers stealing his wheels and stripping out the interior of his car, right outside his house. He stepped out on the porch with his AR and stopped them.

I think the problem is that most people greatly overestimate the effectiveness of a handgun for killing people. A handgun is a sidearm, a last resort for killing people. There's a phrase, "a handgun is good for fighting your way to a rifle." Even a relatively weak rifle, like a 5.56x45 or 7.62x39 packs several times more energy than your average handgun. A typical 9mm delivers approximately 450 ft-lbs of energy, while a 5.56x45 round delivers approximately 1400 ft-lbs of energy. Not to mention the much greater ease of aiming, higher magazine capacity, and less overpenetration risk.

The AR-15 has replaced many shotguns in the bedroom, just as it's replaced the shotguns in police cars. It's an excellent defensive or offensive weapon. I keep a shorty PS90 next to my bed, loaded with the good stuff (SS190 armor penetrating,) because I know how useful a carbine is.

I'm a little new to guns, but I can't see why an AR-15 is a better home defense weapon than a shotgun. What you're saying about handguns makes perfect sense, but for home defense, a shotgun would seem to have many advantages. The most obvious would be that it's relatively easy to get a lethal or at least incapacitating shot even if you're half asleep or not a very good shot. Obviously an AR-15 becomes better at longer ranges, but for close quarters like you'd find in most houses, a shotgun seems like the more foolproof weapon. The only advantage I can see to an AR-15 is in terms of overpenitration, although a shotgun loaded with birdshot is still pretty deadly and probably won't overpenetrate.

As already stated, birdshot is terrible for defense. And self defense isn't about killing the other guy, but stopping him. An AR15 or other rifle cartridge carbine is leaps of improvement over a handgun when it comes to defense. One hit will pretty much end it at close range.

Higher capacity, lower recoil, shorter, and lighter than a shotgun.

I guess I didn't consider the recoil and weight aspect of it. I realize that a handgun is not the best weapon for home defense, but I suppose weight and recoil can make a shotgun less desirable in many circumstances as well. And honestly, I don't get the ban on a lot of more automatic rifles...they don't seem real suited to the kind of gun crimes we should be worried about. I can see the argument for home defense, but honestly, how far are you going to get outside carrying an AR-15 around? It doesn't seem practical to the criminal-type.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Is your conservative-core malfuntioning? You sound like a liberal, wanting the government to protect you with laws so that you feel safe.

Feel free to hand me a quote on that.

I'll hand in one for you. I support the second amendment, and government is as useless as what I flush down the toilet.