There is no reason to have an Assault Rifle--Really?
- Thread starter Hummer70
- Start date
- Status
azrocks
Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2016
- Messages
- 659
First off, no story is going to convince someone who's anti-gun to turn the other way. A personal experience might. But not a story.
Second, what actually happened isn't relevant. What could have happened is. It's quite clear to anyone with a rational mind that things could easily have gone south. Worrying about what irrational minds may make of the story is an exercise in futility.
Good example in my opinion, Hummer
It sounds like the guys took off just from hearing her yell without ever knowing if she was armed or not. Sounds to me like they weren't expecting anyone to be home. At least that's what it sounds like.
Clearly an AR wasn't needed in this scenario, nor was any firearm, but it could have gone that way very quickly. I think she handled it very well. With the phone call to dad though I might have added "home invasion multiple guys". Dad's probably going to be calling 911 himself on the way over or at least he should be. Don't let help roll in completely blind.
Clearly an AR wasn't needed in this scenario, nor was any firearm, but it could have gone that way very quickly. I think she handled it very well. With the phone call to dad though I might have added "home invasion multiple guys". Dad's probably going to be calling 911 himself on the way over or at least he should be. Don't let help roll in completely blind.
Hanzo581
Member
To play devil's advocate....it is often said by our side that magazine size doesn't matter. The same damage can be done with three ten round magazines as one thirty round...so this argument could be used against us in this case, at least regarding magazine capacity.
RevDerb
Member
I just scanned through all of the posts in this thread and not one person has questioned the use of the term "assault rifle"?
Its a legal term. Has nothing to do with full auto capability.I just scanned through all of the posts in this thread and not one person has questioned the use of the term "assault rifle"?
TRX
Member
> Lady yells at bad guys to leave and it worked.
> No shots were fired.
> No display of any weapon was required.
Focusing on the actual situation and not the politics, that's pretty much a maximum win when it comes to a home invasion scenario.
An awful lot of luck was involved there, though.
> No shots were fired.
> No display of any weapon was required.
Focusing on the actual situation and not the politics, that's pretty much a maximum win when it comes to a home invasion scenario.
An awful lot of luck was involved there, though.
RevDerb
Member
I don't see the connection between my post and your response, sir. Perhaps it's because I'm old with an addled brain.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I was assuming you were referring the old gun guy definition of an assault rifle only being a select fire weapon. Kind of like the clip/magazine thing where we all know what someone is referring to when they reference a "clip" yet someone always has to pipe in that its a "magazine". Assault weapon and assault rifle are legal terms in this country.
OP
OP
Hummer70
Member
AZrocks,
You got the gist of my thread perfectly. If it had gone South and they all rushed her it could have been very bad as she did not have enough gun. Women generally want small dainty little guns.
When I taught CWP Classes for the State Law Enf. Division my opening statement in the lecture phase was, "Handguns are not very good for self defense." then I went out to recall about half a dozen scenarios of law enforcement having to shoot folks multiple times. For instance when I was at FLETC we heard of a shooting out in SW where three agents shot a guy 57 times with 9MMs and he was still on his feet and as they changed out mags, the guy laid his gun down and raised his hands! ! ! !
Colonel Fackler head of the Army Wound Ballistics Lab told me he had attended two autopsies of guys that took point blank blasts from 12 ga and both had made it over 50 yards before they went down and their hearts were obliterated ! ! ! ! !
Jimmy Cirillo worked at FLETC as firearms instructor. He had been on the NYPD Stakeout Squad (had killed five officially in 5 shootings) and he told me their first day the squad hit the street four of them were riding in a plain wrapper and got a silent alarm call from a liquor store and they rolled up with 870s and three of them had stepped out before the car stopped and two guys were backing out of the liquor store from different doors with handguns.
They were told to "freeze" and both turned their guns and first guy got hit with a 12 ga slug and guy racked the 870 and went for the second and he noticed the first guy was still standing so he shot the second guy and went back to the first one and gave him a second slug and he went down. The shooter walked over and ripped his shirt open and found both 12 ga slugs were dead center and 2" apart. Point being if you can't depend of a 12 gage stopping things immediately name me a handgun that has more delivery than a 12 gage. Jimmy pointed out that even though he did not go down on first shot he just stood there in shock till the second one arrived.
Thus the point was young lady could have had all kinds of bad things happen to her because if they had rushed her, the chances of her stopping all five was probably 1% on a good day. Personally I don't like those odds.
Brings to mind another shooting in SC back in 70s. Kid about 12 got home from school and was in the head taking a whiz and hears car pull up behind house and guys get out with wrecking bars and are heading for basement entrance. The kid goes to the gun cabinet, gets a box of 30-30 ammo, a Marlin, the phone with long line and goes back to bathroom locks the door and as he is loading calls sheriff's office.
After hearing nothing for a while he eases out in hall and the two guys exit the kitchen heading for bedrooms and spot him. The guy in the back told the guy in front, "Get the kid." and the guy headed for him and the kid dropped him with the 30-30 and the other guy ran. He was arrested the next day.
Obviously the point being you may get a solid hit with a 12 ga or big centerfire rifle and it may not work immediately but at least your odds of a second or third shot being needed is severely reduced.
I got engaged and gave her the ring. I asked her what kind of handgun did she want, stainless or blue? She now tells friends she thought she was getting a cute little pistol. Two weeks later I gave her a Ruger Speed Six 357 and taught her how to shoot and it was loaded with 158 357 JHPs. She was initially shy of handguns then she had a incident on the way down to see me on the weekend with some guys on the I 95. Then right after we were married she had this guy following her around a shopping center and she lost him. Got to her car and looked up and he was sitting in car right in front of her. No cell phones in those days so when she pulled out he fell in behind her so she drove five blocks to Fed Law Enf Tng Center and drove in gate and he didn't make the turn. She has been a believer in guns ever since.
We have two recliners in front of TV and she has the 357 next to hers on the floor all the time with two speed loaders. If I am not here it is in recliner with her and if someone comes to the door she has it in her hand behind her.
Now with the above happening we are rethinking tactics.
You got the gist of my thread perfectly. If it had gone South and they all rushed her it could have been very bad as she did not have enough gun. Women generally want small dainty little guns.
When I taught CWP Classes for the State Law Enf. Division my opening statement in the lecture phase was, "Handguns are not very good for self defense." then I went out to recall about half a dozen scenarios of law enforcement having to shoot folks multiple times. For instance when I was at FLETC we heard of a shooting out in SW where three agents shot a guy 57 times with 9MMs and he was still on his feet and as they changed out mags, the guy laid his gun down and raised his hands! ! ! !
Colonel Fackler head of the Army Wound Ballistics Lab told me he had attended two autopsies of guys that took point blank blasts from 12 ga and both had made it over 50 yards before they went down and their hearts were obliterated ! ! ! ! !
Jimmy Cirillo worked at FLETC as firearms instructor. He had been on the NYPD Stakeout Squad (had killed five officially in 5 shootings) and he told me their first day the squad hit the street four of them were riding in a plain wrapper and got a silent alarm call from a liquor store and they rolled up with 870s and three of them had stepped out before the car stopped and two guys were backing out of the liquor store from different doors with handguns.
They were told to "freeze" and both turned their guns and first guy got hit with a 12 ga slug and guy racked the 870 and went for the second and he noticed the first guy was still standing so he shot the second guy and went back to the first one and gave him a second slug and he went down. The shooter walked over and ripped his shirt open and found both 12 ga slugs were dead center and 2" apart. Point being if you can't depend of a 12 gage stopping things immediately name me a handgun that has more delivery than a 12 gage. Jimmy pointed out that even though he did not go down on first shot he just stood there in shock till the second one arrived.
Thus the point was young lady could have had all kinds of bad things happen to her because if they had rushed her, the chances of her stopping all five was probably 1% on a good day. Personally I don't like those odds.
Brings to mind another shooting in SC back in 70s. Kid about 12 got home from school and was in the head taking a whiz and hears car pull up behind house and guys get out with wrecking bars and are heading for basement entrance. The kid goes to the gun cabinet, gets a box of 30-30 ammo, a Marlin, the phone with long line and goes back to bathroom locks the door and as he is loading calls sheriff's office.
After hearing nothing for a while he eases out in hall and the two guys exit the kitchen heading for bedrooms and spot him. The guy in the back told the guy in front, "Get the kid." and the guy headed for him and the kid dropped him with the 30-30 and the other guy ran. He was arrested the next day.
Obviously the point being you may get a solid hit with a 12 ga or big centerfire rifle and it may not work immediately but at least your odds of a second or third shot being needed is severely reduced.
I got engaged and gave her the ring. I asked her what kind of handgun did she want, stainless or blue? She now tells friends she thought she was getting a cute little pistol. Two weeks later I gave her a Ruger Speed Six 357 and taught her how to shoot and it was loaded with 158 357 JHPs. She was initially shy of handguns then she had a incident on the way down to see me on the weekend with some guys on the I 95. Then right after we were married she had this guy following her around a shopping center and she lost him. Got to her car and looked up and he was sitting in car right in front of her. No cell phones in those days so when she pulled out he fell in behind her so she drove five blocks to Fed Law Enf Tng Center and drove in gate and he didn't make the turn. She has been a believer in guns ever since.
We have two recliners in front of TV and she has the 357 next to hers on the floor all the time with two speed loaders. If I am not here it is in recliner with her and if someone comes to the door she has it in her hand behind her.
Now with the above happening we are rethinking tactics.
Last edited:
CapnMac
Member
Actually, I do not believe federal code has any sort of definition for "assault rifle."
Whatever legal meaning "assault weapon" had, sunsetted with the AWB, which no longer exists in federal law.
Now some few, very few, States may have defined those terms. But, A, they are not "this country" ipso facto, and B, are not universal amongst themselves, either.
Since, for example, NY, CT, MA, and CA each define "assault weapons"/"assault rifles" differently, the terms cannot inform me about any other State, or the Nation as a whole.
Yet you understand what someone is talking about when they refer to whatever weapon you do not feel is an assault weapon/rifle as an assault weapon/rifle...whatever. Its a commonly used colloquial term. We're speaking the same language.
I load clips into my assault rifles when i use my silencers.
As defined by Merriam Websters :: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use.
No, actually, we don't.
When a lot of people use that term they don't even know what they think it means, they just use it because they hear it. And sometimes when you ask them what they mean, what they describe is actually a machine gun, or a short barrel rifle, or an AOW, or something vague and undefined like it's a "really big gun".
BTW silencer is a perfectly correct term according to both the inventor of the damn thing and the ATF
Not buying that. The vast majority of people consider an "assault rifle" to be a black gun. Semiautomatic, not necessarily even full auto select fire. magazine fed, pistol grip etc. Pretty much what they were trying to "ban" when they did the 94 ban. trying to straighten out the terms to make them more "friendly" is a pedantic debate that wins no one over . While none of those things make a gun any more dangerous the fact is the majority of the general public and bureaucrats consider those features to be important when they are presented something that is represented as an "assault rifle" . Functionally they are just added features.
I used the "silencer/suppressor to show what happens when some marketing guy in the 70's tried to reinvent the silencer to make it more palatable to gov't purchasing agents. Now internet experts all over refuse to call them silencers.
The vast majority of people I come across that use the term legitimately cannot even quantify what it is they mean by it.
Straightening out terms to make them accurate and consistent is the name of the game. I don't give a crap if they are "friendly" or not, I think assault rifles, the legitimate term, meaning select fire, should be every bit as lawful as regular ole title I semi automatics are now...and I will call THOSE assault rifles since it is an accurate term.
Speedo66
Member
The term home invasion has been used here. However, it seems more like a burglary attempt. Once they realized someone was home they left, as most burglars do not wish to confront an owner.
Multiple burglars are not unusual. The presence of an occupant would not have stopped a planned home invasion. Totally different scenario.
Multiple burglars are not unusual. The presence of an occupant would not have stopped a planned home invasion. Totally different scenario.
P5 Guy
Member
Why would I need an 'assault rifle'?
Because Tench Coxe said it is my birthright.
Now please go away.
Because Tench Coxe said it is my birthright.
Now please go away.
Carne Frio
Member
The Department of Homeland Security says that the
AR 15 type rifles are "suitable for personal defense".
http://radioviceonline.com/departme...rt-rifle-ar-15-suitable-for-personal-defense/
AR 15 type rifles are "suitable for personal defense".
http://radioviceonline.com/departme...rt-rifle-ar-15-suitable-for-personal-defense/
OP
OP
Hummer70
Member
Carne Frio
You get 100 ATTTABOYS for that post. WOW great info. Everyone should cut and paste that whole page for future usage.
Again many thanks.
Hummer
I just hope I find out when they go to court. I want to be there for that even if they plead. Multiple burglars around here is generally two. Never heard of 5 before.
You get 100 ATTTABOYS for that post. WOW great info. Everyone should cut and paste that whole page for future usage.
Again many thanks.
Hummer
I just hope I find out when they go to court. I want to be there for that even if they plead. Multiple burglars around here is generally two. Never heard of 5 before.
vaupet
Member
So if they are not suitable for personal self-defence, why are they carried by LEO?
The point of the "assault weapons" campaign has been to undermine the idea that the 2A writers ever considered any weapon capable of holding and firing multiple rounds.
Unfortunately for them, those same Constitutional Framers were very much entertaining entrepreneurs who developed weapons capable of repeating fire in 1777: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...rs-knew-repeating-rifles-bill-rights-drafted/
That's a good 14 years earliier than the 2A was written. Our Founding Fathers were quite aware of technological advances going on at the time and we shouldn't underrate their knowledge of it.
Should YOU own an assault rifle? By most modern definitions - and even in some of the worst interpretations, sure - why not? Better you than thugs or those who would force their will on you unlawfully. It's what they can use - arming yourself with anything less leaves you at a disadvantage.
It's been a continuous theme in history to stop ownership of firearms and it's pretty obvious from the record that the ones doing it have a serious political agenda behind it. Across the board they are not "democratizing" countries and spreading freedom. They institute dictatorships of individuals or elite groups who take away the rights of the majority.
If you can't resist - you are just another victim.
Unfortunately for them, those same Constitutional Framers were very much entertaining entrepreneurs who developed weapons capable of repeating fire in 1777: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...rs-knew-repeating-rifles-bill-rights-drafted/
That's a good 14 years earliier than the 2A was written. Our Founding Fathers were quite aware of technological advances going on at the time and we shouldn't underrate their knowledge of it.
Should YOU own an assault rifle? By most modern definitions - and even in some of the worst interpretations, sure - why not? Better you than thugs or those who would force their will on you unlawfully. It's what they can use - arming yourself with anything less leaves you at a disadvantage.
It's been a continuous theme in history to stop ownership of firearms and it's pretty obvious from the record that the ones doing it have a serious political agenda behind it. Across the board they are not "democratizing" countries and spreading freedom. They institute dictatorships of individuals or elite groups who take away the rights of the majority.
If you can't resist - you are just another victim.
has anyone seen that story from a more reliable source? thetruthaboutguns gets almost everything wrong about guns, so i don't really trust him as a historian.
wikipedia has a bit on it and describes it as a roman candle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock
wikipedia has a bit on it and describes it as a roman candle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock
Salmoneye
Member
Belton seems to be well documented:
Here is a wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock
And here is the first citation:
Harold L. Peterson (2000). Arms and Armor in Colonial America, 1526-1783. Courier Dover Publications. pp. 217–218. ISBN 0-486-41244-X.
ADDING:
Sorry, I missed your wiki link, Taliv...
Here is a wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock
And here is the first citation:
Harold L. Peterson (2000). Arms and Armor in Colonial America, 1526-1783. Courier Dover Publications. pp. 217–218. ISBN 0-486-41244-X.
ADDING:
Sorry, I missed your wiki link, Taliv...
Predator55
Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2016
- Messages
- 139
There are situations where a semi auto rifle makes sense. In that scenario I would be happy with my benelli with #4 buck, one and done. Glad it worked out for her.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked