Are AR-15's really necessary?

[Sgt.Murtaugh]

Being a proud owner of 2 AR platform rifles (Daniel Defense M4, Les Baer Varmint), I got to thinking about my need for these rifles as they pertain to self-defense purposes. I think either one of these rifles would be the last weapon I would grab in a scenario where I had to defend myself and my home. I see absolutely no scenario where I would be in a seige situation at my home, which would be the only scenario where I would use one of those rifles. Here's why.

I live in Dallas in a rather densely populated neighborhood and choosing a .223 to protect myself would simply not be smart as I would be afraid of over-penetration/missed shots hitting my neighbors' homes or worse, my neighbors. The houses in my neighborhood are separated by no more than 12 feet. In addition to this, in my house, a situation where I would need to fire a gun would call for maybe a 10 ft shot, tops (yes it's a small house).

My first choice to defend my home would EASILY be my Benelli M4 and I would grab my Springfield XD(m) 5.25 or my Range Officer as a backup gun to carry with me as I clear the house. If, and only IF, I ran out of ammo in both of those guns and a threat still loomed, I would then look to my DD M4 as a last ditch effort to defend my home. I see that as a very unlikely scenario unless there are more than 4 intruders.

I would like to say that in no way am I anti-gun. I am an NRA life member and own 12 guns, including the 2 AR's mentioned. The recent events at the Batman showing really have me worried about our ability as gun owners to retain our rights to own AR-15's. I got to thinking about all the reasons why I even want my AR's and none of them involve self-defense. I love shooting them and I actually shoot prairie dogs and coyotes with my varmint rifle, but the gun-grabbers will tell you that you can hunt with a different platform. I agree - it's just more fun to hunt with an AR. My DDM4 was a gift and I have added optics and various accessories to make it "tacticool" but it's really more for fun/hobbyist reasons than anything. I guess what I am saying is that I am preparing to have to concede something to new gun legislation and I would rather it be my AR's than my handguns. I have even heard Brady folks talking about the need to ban combat shotguns but I really don't see that happening.

You may have a different view and that's exactly why I started this thread because I want to hear others' thoughts on this. I could see a scenario if I lived in a rural area and I had multiple trespassers on my property, intending me harm, that an AR platform rifle would be not only useful, but possibly ideal.
For me, personally, I have absolutely no use for one in a self defense scenario. Please give your opinion here.

Thanks.

 

[mnhntr]

No they are not. You should box them up and send them to me. All joking aside it is not very prudent to start a platform debate as you can hunt anything with a muzzleloader. So why would a guy need anything alse? See my point? I love my ARs and will be keeping them.

 

[Tommygunn]

Are they any more "necessary" than any gun?

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

Any particular gun might not be a good choice for a certain person. If you lived on a ranch with a lot of wide open land and had criminals on it, a .38SP revolver might be insufficient -- a good rifle (like your AR-15) would be better.

The antigunners complain about the firepower of the AR-15, the high cap magazine....
but I have an M-1 Carbine and that would be equally as effective in the Aurora massacre. I don't hear the antis complain about the carbines and they've been around since WW2.

We need to stand together .... or we'll hang separatly....

 

[hso]

The question isn't whether they're "necessary" because we have plenty of things that may not be seen as necessary by the next person.

Does one horrific incident make for a reason to "do something" if it is actually just an isolated case? Look at the statistics from the FBI and you don't see any reason to think there's a public safety problem from ARs because they are a tiny fraction of the firearms used in violent crimes.

Also, what of the other firearms used in this horrific case? Do you want to consider the 870 or the Glock as not being necessary? Since you don't think your handguns fall under this discussion, you may not think these other firearms used in the crime do also, but the AR jammed and quit working while the shotgun and pistol didn't.

No, it isn't a question of whether they're necessary or not since anyone can make an argument that you could get by on pepper spray or reasoning with a criminal or complying with them, but the real question is whether there's enough of a reason to see that any difference can be made in making us ALL safer by doing anything.

 

[fireman 9731]

I live in a rural area, and I couldn't shoot a neighbors house if I tried.

I have had multiple trespassers/thieves on my property before. My AK is my primary defense rifle.

Why would you concede anything to the antis?!?!?!??!?!?! Don't give them an inch that they don't deserve.

 

[benEzra]

An AR with appropriate defensive ammo is easier to hit with than a pistol and is less likely to exit an exterior wall than almost any 9mm/.40/.45 pistol round.

I don't own any shotguns and probably never will, so my 16" AR is my HD long gun. It is exactly the same as a shotgun in that role.

 

[CoRoMo]

...a scenario where I had to defend myself and my home.

You've identified a need in this statement. This is excellent.

I see absolutely no scenario where...

Then you claim that need doesn't exist in this statement.

...choosing a .223 to protect myself would simply not be smart as I would be afraid of over-penetration/missed shots...

You haven't noticed the ocean of evidence opposing that assumption. Fix that.

...as I clear the house.

Seriously reevaluate your plans to confront intruders. Attempting to clear you house is not as intelligent a decision as you may think.

...I would then look to my DD M4 as a last ditch effort to defend my home.

You've revisited the scenario that you earlier claimed did not to exist. Awesome.

I see that as a very unlikely scenario unless...

I think you might be coming around in the midst of your own argument against this idea. Kudos.

...I am preparing to have to concede something to new gun legislation and I would rather it be my AR's...

I would rather that you not concede my AR's. Thank you. You have no right to them.

I could see a scenario if I lived in a rural area and I had multiple trespassers on my property, intending me harm, that an AR platform rifle would be not only useful, but possibly ideal.

But at the same time, you're willing to watch our government tear those AR's out of the hands of those rural folks who are so unlike you. That's sweet.

...I have absolutely no use for one in a self defense scenario.

That's great. Just don't offer mine up to the antis. Please. I have come to the realization that the anti crowd would by no means call it a compromise; it'd simply be another hill taken, another battle won, in their war to take your handguns, your Benelli, and your bolt rifles.

Seriously. You need to come to grips with the reality of the fascists who would utterly disarm you.

 

[jon86]

choosing a .223 to protect myself would simply not be smart as I would be afraid of over-penetration

You may want to do some research on the over penetration issue of 12 gauge vs 223.

 

[Gaffer]

I was never into black rifles until I started to realize that should our society collapse due to the huge mess we find ourselves in today, one would be very useful. If society breaks down and it becomes dog eat dog, I want an AR 15 platform to defend my self and family. I recently read the book, "One Second After" and realized just how fragile our society is and what would happen if we were suddenly plunged into a survival scenario. That is why I got a black rifle and much ammo, just in case.

 

[Sgt.Murtaugh]

I agree with you, hso. I don't think these isolated incidents should be enough to warrant bans on the weapons used.

I do think, though, that regardless of what I think, there will be strong attempts at legislation to ban AR's (what uninformed antis call "assault rifles") and I guess what I was saying is, in my particular situation, losing my AR would not be near as upsetting to me as losing my handguns.

Let's be clear on one thing: I in no way support the ban of AR platform rifles and shudder at the thought of it.

I do, however, understand where antis are coming from, even if many of them are uninformed. It would be foolish for anyone not to at least try and see things from someone else's perspective and that's what makes some of us rational beings. Others are so narrow minded and one-sided in their arguments, they come off as ignorant and stubborn. There is such thing as a gun-nut (like myself) who doesn't blindly spew NRA talking points. In short, I guess I understand some of the public backlash against AR's. that's all.

 

[tyeo098]

Situation does not apply to you therefore it should not apply to anyone.

What about the cattle rancher who needs the AR-15 to keep coyotes from eating his herd?

 

[CoRoMo]

...losing my AR would not be near as upsetting to me as losing my handguns.

Imagine both, because that's the goal of the uninformed antis.

Don't be so naive to believe they will enjoy your use and ownership of handguns.

 

[heeler]

I have never owned one and am thinking about buying one simply because some types are saying that I should not be allowed to own one.
There.

 

[Skribs]

I actually think that many properties make the AR-15 a better defensive platform than a 12-gauge shotgun, even for one intruder.
1) Your average AR will be slightly smaller than your average shotgun, which helps should you need to move through the halls (i.e. grabbing kids).
2) Lighter recoil means faster follow-up shots, which are useful because not all hits even with a shotgun are 1-hit stops, and because statistics show that 55% of the time there will be 2 assailants (it was brought up in another thread, approximately 55% of the time 2 assailants, 25% 1 assailant, 20% 3 assailants, and 1% 4 or more...I know it's 101% but there was rounding involved).
3) The AR bullet is actually less likely to overpenetrate than a shotgun shell. Handgun JHP rounds are the worst.

The downside of an AR over a shotgun is cost, and the shotgun will be a little quieter. Also note that I did not include the advantages of magazine capacity or how fast it is to reload an AR compared to a shotgun (unless you don't have a spare loaded mag), because we're just talking about encounters with 2-3 attackers.

So yes, even though I don't currently own an AR - I plan to get one, and I believe it is necessary. It is good at what it does, which is WHY it was chosen for this attack. If you don't believe it acceptable to have an AR, I'll gladly take one off your hands for you.

 

[JagerRanger]

For me, personally, I have absolutely no use for one in a self defense scenario.

I could imagine a few scenarios where the AR15s come handy.

FYI, I have no use, at the moment, for ATWs or choppers.

 

[Sgt.Murtaugh]

...a scenario where I had to defend myself and my home.
You've identified a need in this statement. This is excellent.
Quote:
I see absolutely no scenario where...
Then you claim that need doesn't exist in this statement.
Quote:
...choosing a .223 to protect myself would simply not be smart as I would be afraid of over-penetration/missed shots...
You haven't noticed the ocean of evidence opposing that assumption. Fix that.
Quote:
...as I clear the house.
Seriously reevaluate your plans to confront intruders. Attempting to clear you house is not as intelligent a decision as you may think.
Quote:
...I would then look to my DD M4 as a last ditch effort to defend my home.
You've revisited the scenario that you earlier claimed not to exist. Awesome.
Quote:
I see that as a very unlikely scenario unless...
I think you might be coming around in the midst of your own argument against this idea. Kudos.
Quote:
...I am preparing to have to concede something to new gun legislation and I would rather it be my AR's...
I would rather that you not concede my AR's. Thank you. You have no right to them.
Quote:
I could see a scenario if I lived in a rural area and I had multiple trespassers on my property, intending me harm, that an AR platform rifle would be not only useful, but possibly ideal.
But at the same time, you're willing to watch our government tear those AR's out of the hands of those rural folks who are so unlike you. That's sweet.
Quote:
...I have absolutely no use for one in a self defense scenario.
That's great. Just don't offer mine up to the antis. Please. I have come to the realization that the anti crowd would by no means call it a compromise; it'd simply be another hill taken, another battle won, in their war to take your handguns, your Benelli, and your bolt rifles.

Seriously. You need to come to grips with the reality of the fascists who would utterly disarm you.

Taking comments out of context is not going to help you look smarter. I am not saying there is no need for AR's in general. I am saying that in my circumstances, I think the last thing I would ever use is an AR platform rifle. I am much more confident in my ability with a pistol and shotgun and given the close proximity of the houses next to me, I think those 2 guns would suit my needs and skills much better than an AR.

The thread title was to get people to come in here and discuss. So far, it's working.

Also, your comment about not conceding your guns is interesting. If the govt mandates that you hand in your AR, what are you gonna do? Use it against them until they pry it from your dead hands? doubtful. Move to another country? doubtful. My guess is you're gonna cry and complain (as will I) and you're gonna hand over the gun or refuse to do so and be taken to jail.

 

[Sgt.Murtaugh]

Situation does not apply to you therefore it should not apply to anyone.

What about the cattle rancher who needs the AR-15 to keep coyotes from eating his herd?

good point. This is why I started this thread.

I have people who love to argue the merits and use of AR's and I have never once conceded an argument to them. That's why I come here. A thing called perspective.

 

[Certaindeaf]

I think only gangbangers, drug cartels, the government, ruling elite etc should have semi/full-auto carbines/rifles.

that was a joke

 

[MrDig]

You are correct they are absolutely unnecessary, as are any semi-automatic weapon we should ban them all.

Ok all sarcasm aside Those of us who already jumped through all the legal hoops we have to own firearms need to make no more concessions regarding ownership.
Banning certain types of guns, further limiting access, putting caps on rounds that can be ordered or putting restrictions on "internet" sales will not do anything but punish those who already abide by the law.
Finding a way to predict which of us who can legally purchase will snap and become the next perpetrator is not possible so what will help?
I don't have the answers but neither do the people that want all of the above solutions, they are not really solutions but placebos to make the more "Civilized" content.

 

[CoRoMo]

If the govt mandates that you hand in your AR...

We would find ourselves on opposing sides of that dispute, wouldn't we. You've already stated that you are prepared to concede these rifles. I'm not.

True colors.

 

[Sgt.Murtaugh]

I actually think that many properties make the AR-15 a better defensive platform than a 12-gauge shotgun, even for one intruder.
1) Your average AR will be slightly smaller than your average shotgun, which helps should you need to move through the halls (i.e. grabbing kids).
2) Lighter recoil means faster follow-up shots, which are useful because not all hits even with a shotgun are 1-hit stops, and because statistics show that 55% of the time there will be 2 assailants (it was brought up in another thread, approximately 55% of the time 2 assailants, 25% 1 assailant, 20% 3 assailants, and 1% 4 or more...I know it's 101% but there was rounding involved).
3) The AR bullet is actually less likely to overpenetrate than a shotgun shell. Handgun JHP rounds are the worst.

The downside of an AR over a shotgun is cost, and the shotgun will be a little quieter. Also note that I did not include the advantages of magazine capacity or how fast it is to reload an AR compared to a shotgun (unless you don't have a spare loaded mag), because we're just talking about encounters with 2-3 attackers.

So yes, even though I don't currently own an AR - I plan to get one, and I believe it is necessary. It is good at what it does, which is WHY it was chosen for this attack. If you don't believe it acceptable to have an AR, I'll gladly take one off your hands for you.

It's comments like these that sway opinion. thanks for that. I will look into those things.

 

[Sgt.Murtaugh]

We would find ourselves on opposing sides of that dispute, wouldn't we. You've already stated that you are prepared to concede these rifles. I'm not.

True colors.

Ok, fair enough. what do you mean by "I am not?" Does that mean you are going to attack any govt. official who tries to take it from you? Does that mean you are going to move out of the country?

Or, does it simply mean you are going to implore your congressmen to vote against banning these guns? Because that's all I am prepared to do. I will do everything in my power to make sure that law doesn't get passed but if it does, I will hand them my gun, biitch and moan about it, and move on with my life. I will not move to another country nor will I make them take it from me forcefully.

 

[mljdeckard]

A .223 using good defensive ammo is LESS likely to overpenetrate than most pistol rounds. However, I am of the philosophy that you should assume every round you fire from any defensive firearm is going to hit a few layers behind it, and I plan accordingly. It's not like you can ASSUME it won't. Some of your shots may miss, and aren't going to be stopped by the bad guy at all. Overpenetration is FAR down on my list of concerns when choosing a cartridge.

I will never use a handgun when I have the option of using a long gun. My primary is the shotgun loaded with #4 buck. My backup, (and my wife's primary) is an M-1 carbine.

The anti-gunners have invented an arbitrary standard where they say 'weapons of war' have no place in the hands of civilians. They are entirely ignorant to the fact that throughout history, 'weapons of war' have been side by side with civilian arms, often exactly the same. They are trying to convince the public that there is a difference, just because arms have become more modern.

Here's the key thing to remember. They aren't after ARs. They aren't after handguns. They aren't after 'combat shotguns'. They aren't after hunting guns. They are after ALL guns. In dividing them into categories, they are trying to divide US into groups, and get us to go against each other, and be willing to throw each other under the bus, they don't have to take all of us on at once. If you admit that a certain kind of gun is just a hobby, and not NECESSARY, then you admitting that you would be willing to give it up.

Rights are not justified by need. Make THEM compromise. We don't compromise.

 

[GEM]

The AR is a better home defense long arm than the shotgun mantra. Long debate but that's my view having trained with both. The over-penetration myth - do some checking.

Anyone recall the story of the museum worker in New Orleans who saved his bacon with an AK - he was written up or had some ties with the NRA.

Guns are for SD and defense against tyranny. So ARs are certainly justifiable.

 

[CoRoMo]

...implore your congressmen to vote against banning these guns? Because that's all I am prepared to do.

Earlier you said that you are preparing to make this concession. I guess I can't understand how someone could hold both positions.