Has Anti-Gun Propaganda Made the AR15 a less viable defensive rifle?

[CmdrSlander]

A shooting acquaintance of mine recently informed me that he is switching to a Marlin 30-30 for home defense and hanging up his AR15, which he was previously using as home defense rifle, because he fears that if he ever has to use it the jury will be tainted by anti-gun propaganda and equate his use of the AR15 with a lust for violence or vigilantism.

Thoughts?

________________________

My take is that use whatever you think will get the job done, but do consider the way the jury will view your choice of gun. I like to use a M1911 clone in 9mm (it's cheaper to shoot and thus become proficient with) with 147 Grain +P JHP loads in a 10 round magazine, as I'm very comfortable with it and it isn't too disturbing to the "sheeple" who may judge me.

 

[Stress_Test]

Well, a zombie-themed AR with a blood spatter paint job probably isn't a good idea for home defense

 

[Torian]

I think he is overly concerned about the aftermath of using his weapon, and not enough on the action itself.

I would be more concerned about surviving the incident, without injury to self or loved ones, and doing so in a manner that local / state / and federal laws would support.

I can't accurately speculate on the mass ignorance of society when it comes to his referenced concern, so I wouldn't concern myself with it.

On a side note: I would not reach for my Colt 6920 as a home defense weapon unless zombies were invading, or my apartment was being assaulted by a full platoon of North Korean light infantry (Red Dawn).

 

[Baba Louie]

Possible, depending on location, but a justifiable use of lethal force had best be correct no matter the tool at hand. IMO.

One of my CCW Instructors preached that a rifle was an offensive weapon and you'd have to overcome that or deal with it no matter what rifle you have in hand at that moment. Hence his thoughts on a shotgun or handgun being more "defensive" than a rifle.

Having said that, I'd rather turn over a .30-30 to the LEOs as evidence and maybe never get it back than an AR...

YMMV

In the aftermath of being cleared criminally, there might be a civil action one would have to face as well, and then you may very well have to deal with a jury of your peers... or your assailants peers. "How much money does he/she have Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury? Enough to buy a thousand dollar (read: expensive) "Assault Rifle", therefore his pockets must be deep enough to cough up something for the poor deceased "victim's" family members"...

 

[joeschmoe]

Boo-hoo. When they pay for it, then they can choose. If I pay for it, then I choose.

Conversely, if more people use the AR for a defensive weapon then more people will come to associate it as a common defensive weapon, not just the choice of school killers. Since it's the same weapon our local police use, I think that justifies my use too.

 

[Sam1911]

Ironically, I think that was much more of a common belief and/or a valid concern 20 years ago than now. There's been some recent unpleasantness but the AR is far more socially and defensively acceptable now than in decades past.

 

[high_pockets]

Perhaps not, since the DHS calls them "Personal Defense Weapons."

 

[TheGloriousTachikoma]

Let's not forget the science behind choosing a rifle over a handgun or shotgun.

http://how-i-did-it.org/drywall/index.html

 

[SabbathWolf]

If your friend is "that" worried....
He should just get a double-barrel shotgun and say Joe Biden made him do it.

 

[CSG]

As I prefer a pistol (.45) for home defense, my AR's aren't going anywhere.

 

[gym]

great link, thanks.

 

[hso]

Absurd

If he has a real need to protect his life in his home the jury will never even here the case, but if he puts a 30-30 round through the wall and hits and innocent person he'll be hung out to dry.

 

[c1ogden]

Mas Ayoob has a lot of experience with juries and how they are swayed by dishonest lawyers and their prostitute "experts". I remember his writing several articles indicating he'd rather defend a victim who defended himself with something called a "Gold Cup" rather than a "Combat Commander", a "Police Positive" rather than a "Combat Magnum".

That said, he has also written about many cases where innocent people went to jail because their lawyers weren't skilled enough to shoot down prostitute "experts" that told juries things like "hollow point bullets indicate an intent to kill" or "hair triggers make a gun more lethal". Be able to explain and justify your choices. Ayoob frequently recommends using what the local cops use because their records and research could be subpoenaed and you could base your choices on "what the "experts" are using".

As far as a lever gun, I think it was Jeff Cooper who nicknamed it something like the "Brooklyn Equalizer", for those who live in corrupt handgun-free cities. It loads and fires relatively quickly, and has that All-the-good-guys-on-the-white-horses-use-one look that everybody who has ever seen a western is familiar with.

 

[Domina]

AR15 is a light weight, easily controllable option for situations where lethal force is justified that is in common use with lots of options for ergonomics and rounds available appropriate to home defense. True that prosecutors will try to demonize someone for using it, but they successfully put someone for using a 10mm auto as "excessive force" once, so it doesn't really matter what you use within reason. an ar15 is arguably reasonable.

 

[Dave A]

Unless you live in a brick house I would avoid the use of a rifle. The bullet will almost certainly over penetrate your foe, exit your house, and enter a neighbors house with leathel energy.

 

[MedWheeler]

Dave A writes:

Unless you live in a brick house I would avoid the use of a rifle. The bullet will almost certainly over penetrate your foe, exit your house, and enter a neighbors house with leathel [sic] energy.

Dave A, I used to think that, too. I later learned that a .223 caliber round, by the nature of its long and narrow profile, has a tendency to tumble on impact, reducing forward momentum. Numerous demonstrations have shown that such a bullet penetrates far fewer sections of drywall, because of that tumbling and resulting "keyholing", than do typical handgun projectiles, such as 9mm or .38 Special bullets (even JHP ones.)

 

[Leanwolf]

No matter what one uses for self defense -- so long as it is legal and hasn't been banned in one's State -- it is far, far more important that the "shoot" is a "good shoot." Lawful and legal, and justified under the laws of one's State.

I'd worry much more what the laws of self defense were in my State, than what type firearm I used in a self defense situation.

L.W.

 

[Hacker15E]

There's zero evidence of anti-firearm prejudices having that impact. Complete speculation with no basis.

 

[fanchisimo]

I share Baba Louie's fear of losing my AR15 to the evidence locker, regardless of innocence. It is my most expensive possession and I wouldn't have the funds to replace it for a while. That is why I keep my most inexpensive, yet reliable pistol loaded next to my bed instead of my AR. The guy in this link didn't get his firearm back for 3 years after his wife used it in self defense.

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-682448.html

 

[Sam1911]

There's zero evidence of anti-firearm prejudices having that impact. Complete speculation with no basis.

Hacker, I can state quite emphatically that Dr. Meyer would not agree that there is "zero evidence." In fact, he would (and has many times here, and elsewhere) explained that what the gun IS -- its appearance, name, coloring, characteristics, reputation, etc. -- can have quite an effect on a jury's findings.

I can tell you from jury simulation research, presentation of weapons related info has influenced some mock juries. The actual effects are complex and I don't feel like writing a long review now but they are there. The shoot has to have some ambiguity about it for them to operate. I gave a talk about this at the National Tactical Invitational a few months ago.

That's why DAs wave the weapon around. For one example, in the DC Snipe case the DA started by slowing assembling the AR in front of the jury. That's because weapons exposure keys a jury against a defendant with the right circumstances.

And another (from a thread on using a Nazi-marked WWII surplus pistol for self defense)...

would suggest those who ask if x or y or z will influence a jury and then ask for a specific case, to go research the literature on jury influence.

Such literature is based on the impressions that lawyers have of what will influence a jury but is may not be a topic that will make it into the case law explicitly for the most part. They know to play games with jury selection and emotional issues.

The researchers take mock juries and then try these various manipulations and see the results. Since there is a good solid data base that emotional laden issues can influence juries - vividness, presentation style, etc. AND that specific firearms related issues can influence juries - I would not resort to two hoary old chestnuts:

1. If it is a good shoot, it won't matter - Well, if it is a good shoot - you wouldn't be in court, now would you? Why all the lawyers if it was so obviously a good shoot?

2. Show me the case law - such things don't get into the case law except in extreme certain circumstances - like race, repressed memory, etc.. If your case is ambiguous and the jury gets to handle the gun - not a weird thing - or just see a big picture of it and it has some inflamatory symbology - that can do you in and NOT make 'case law'

The folks who do such reseach, do state that one shouldn't be afraid to use efficacious techniques to defend yourself BUT you need a lawyer who knows about such. This was stated back in the early 90's in the literature. Mas just said the same thing in his writings and recently in Combat Handguns or some such popular magazine.

The writings I refer to are in peer reviewed legal and applied legal-psychological journals.

I would value such advice as compared to the two hoary old chestnuts, I mentioned.

If you are faced with such a situation - you need expert opinion and that cost will far exceed the cost of a new gun. I know the cost of expert opinion - about two hours is a brand new gun.

Perhaps he will share more in this thread -- though his quotations about his work abound in our archives.

 

[HorseSoldier]

If a self-defense shooting were deemed a bad shoot and if it resulted in criminal prosecution or a civil suit, I could see the potential for lawyers to spin a scary black rifle into something sinister and some juries to buy into it. But that's all in the realm of the potential and possible, not a guaranteed outcome.

If it's a legitimate home defense shooting, the selection of defensive weaponry should be based on the most effective means to neutralize the threat and defend oneself. If you need a firearm to defend yourself, you're fighting for your life and tying a hand behind your back in the immediate life or death situation against future what-ifs strike me as flawed reasoning.

I share Baba Louie's fear of losing my AR15 to the evidence locker, regardless of innocence.

That's absolutely a legitimate concern. Even without the presumption of sinister motives and obfuscation that many attribute to LE agencies and the court system in these sorts of discussions (and the possible reality of that), evidence in a criminal case (especially something like a felony assault -- assuming a bad shoot leading to prosecution) can be tied up for approximately forever, especially if there are subsequent appeals or other court actions. My agency does not drag its feet on getting guns back to people, but the reality is such that in a couple cases where stolen guns were recovered after use in a crime, my advice to the legitimate owners has been that if they rely on that gun for personal defense they should probably look at buying a replacement.

 

[JRH6856]

Perhaps not, since the DHS calls them "Personal Defense Weapons."

No, the DHS PDWs are selective fire. The AR-15 EBRs are not.

 

[r1derbike]

AR-15 far better defensive weapon. Multiple armed invaders dispatcher. I value my life. Choose proper ammo to minimize collateral damage.

I'll deal with whatever comes. My life's worth it.

I can't argue my case if I'm dead.

 

[Sam1911]

If a self-defense shooting were deemed a bad shoot and if it resulted in criminal prosecution or a civil suit, I could see the potential for lawyers to spin a scary black rifle into something sinister and some juries to buy into it. But that's all in the realm of the potential and possible, not a guaranteed outcome.

Certainly true, and something that GEM has said a couple of times; usually termed along the lines of -- If you're at trial it WASN'T a 'good shoot' in the eyes of those who's opinion now holds your life in the balance.

If you're looking for guaranteed outcomes, better not shoot anybody, ever.

 

[hovercat]

AR-15 is what the police use. That is a pretty good defense.