"an AR is crap for home defense, pistols and shotguns are far better."
Not necessarily true. It depends on the residence/property.
AR-15s, are they just popular because they look "cool"?
- Thread starter Colonoscopy
- Start date
"an AR is crap for home defense, pistols and shotguns are far better."
Not necessarily true. It depends on the residence/property.
So after reading this thread:
1) Semi automatics offer an advantage over non semi-automatics.
2) Semi automatics with large easily reloadable magazines better yet.
3) Semi automatics with reloadable cartridges and long barrels (shotguns) better yet due to improved accuracy.
4) AR-15, in particular, are popular in part because of the before mention items (a good combo of 3) but also because they look cool and are customizable.
1) Semi automatics offer an advantage over non semi-automatics.
2) Semi automatics with large easily reloadable magazines better yet.
3) Semi automatics with reloadable cartridges and long barrels (shotguns) better yet due to improved accuracy.
4) AR-15, in particular, are popular in part because of the before mention items (a good combo of 3) but also because they look cool and are customizable.
High velocity, accuracy, large magazines, semi auto... unless the person is right on top of you, what would be better?
I would take my AR style 12 gauge with 20 round magazine with slugs and buckshot and do twice the amount of damage as you could do with a AR15. Unless you are looking to shoot over a 100 yards, that is the only time a AR15 could do more damage.
Gun nuts are right that the media likes to focus on the AR-15 because it looks deadly and because it's been used more often in these cases, maybe because of the focus on them. That said, the gun nuts also hurt themselves by revealing that it's not just the AR-15 that's the problem. If you get rid of the AR-15 there are tons of other guns that can do as much if not more damage. An AR-15 is actually a poor weapon in a school because it's a rifle. So unless they're trying to shoot from range, a pistol is actually a better weapon to hit more people.
It's why I think banning the AR does nothing if it's all you do. If gun nuts were smart they'd voluntarily push to get rid of it knowing that there are tons of rifles just like it that just look different and that they don't really lose anything except that one gun. The research shows that all semi-automatics lead the cause in gun deaths, and MOST of these types of shootings take place from men under 21. So the best solution is to ban all people under 21 from having semi-automatic weapons of any kind.
Sure, members of "criminal organizations" might still be able to get their hands on one and still commit homicide. No action is ever going to rid us of ALL homicide. But the people committing mass murders are not members of criminal organizations and finding access to illegal weapons are going to be much more difficult for them.
Grandfathering in the semi autos and high cap mags were part of the Clinton ban in the 90s.
In my opinion that ban which had a sundown clause written so it could expire is what caused the proliferation of "AR" type weapons.
ARs were relatively few in number prior to the Clinton ban. Human nature is to covet what we cannot have and after the ban expired demand exploded. So did the number of mass shootings.
Last edited:
There was an interview with the inventor on HBO real sports. The design of the weapon was to inflict high casualties to where someone could be shot in the limb and die. Too bad the video is not available. Very interesting. Below is an article on the popularity of the gun.
The AR-15 was developed in the late 1950s as a civilian weapon by Eugene Stoner, a former Marine working for small California startup called ArmaLite (which is where the AR comes from). The gun, revolutionary for its light weight, easy care and adaptability with additional components, entered the mainstream in the mid-1960s, after Colt bought the patent and developed an automatic-fire version for troops in Vietnam, called the M16.
The civilian model wasn’t mass produced until the 1980s, after the original patent expired and a variety of companies began making them. That transformed a specific brand to a more generic offering on which a mini-industry would flourish.
When the AR-15 and other semiautomatic rifles began to turn up in shootings, a movement began to restrict their manufacture and sale. Much of the outrage stemmed from the militaristic appearance of those guns, and their ability to fire rapidly.
But there was also a more visceral reason, involving flesh and blood. AR-15s inflict much more damage to human tissue than the typical handgun, which is used in most shootings. That's largely because of the speed at which projectiles leave the weapons; they are much faster out of the muzzle of an AR-15, or similar rifle, and deliver a more devastating blow to bones and organs. Those projectiles are also more likely to break apart as they pass through the body, inflicting more damage.
“The higher muzzle-velocity projectiles, if they strike an organ, you’re more likely to have severe injury and bleeding and dying than with lower muzzle-velocity munitions,” said Donald Jenkins, a trauma surgeon at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio and the owner of several guns, including an AR-15.
The backlash peaked in 1994, when President Bill Clinton signed a ban on the sale of many types of semiautomatic rifles deemed “assault weapons,” including versions of the AR-15. Manufacturers continued making versions of the AR-15 that complied with the new law, which was allowed to expire in 2004. That set the stage for an explosion in AR-15 sales.
By then, military-style weapons were becoming a more common sight in America, due largely to the response to the 9/11 attacks. Anti-terror police forces began patrolling cities and transportation hubs, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were covered intimately. That higher visibility seemingly fed a desire among gun owners to get what the troops and cops were using.
With encouragement from the gun industry, the AR-15 grew popular not only among people who enjoyed owning the latest tactical gear, but also among recreational and competitive target shooters, and hunters. Many saw it as a pinnacle of firearms engineering — ergonomic, accurate, reliable.
www.nbcnews.com
From Vietnam to the mainstream
The AR-15 was developed in the late 1950s as a civilian weapon by Eugene Stoner, a former Marine working for small California startup called ArmaLite (which is where the AR comes from). The gun, revolutionary for its light weight, easy care and adaptability with additional components, entered the mainstream in the mid-1960s, after Colt bought the patent and developed an automatic-fire version for troops in Vietnam, called the M16.
The civilian model wasn’t mass produced until the 1980s, after the original patent expired and a variety of companies began making them. That transformed a specific brand to a more generic offering on which a mini-industry would flourish.
When the AR-15 and other semiautomatic rifles began to turn up in shootings, a movement began to restrict their manufacture and sale. Much of the outrage stemmed from the militaristic appearance of those guns, and their ability to fire rapidly.
But there was also a more visceral reason, involving flesh and blood. AR-15s inflict much more damage to human tissue than the typical handgun, which is used in most shootings. That's largely because of the speed at which projectiles leave the weapons; they are much faster out of the muzzle of an AR-15, or similar rifle, and deliver a more devastating blow to bones and organs. Those projectiles are also more likely to break apart as they pass through the body, inflicting more damage.
“The higher muzzle-velocity projectiles, if they strike an organ, you’re more likely to have severe injury and bleeding and dying than with lower muzzle-velocity munitions,” said Donald Jenkins, a trauma surgeon at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio and the owner of several guns, including an AR-15.
The backlash peaked in 1994, when President Bill Clinton signed a ban on the sale of many types of semiautomatic rifles deemed “assault weapons,” including versions of the AR-15. Manufacturers continued making versions of the AR-15 that complied with the new law, which was allowed to expire in 2004. That set the stage for an explosion in AR-15 sales.
By then, military-style weapons were becoming a more common sight in America, due largely to the response to the 9/11 attacks. Anti-terror police forces began patrolling cities and transportation hubs, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were covered intimately. That higher visibility seemingly fed a desire among gun owners to get what the troops and cops were using.
With encouragement from the gun industry, the AR-15 grew popular not only among people who enjoyed owning the latest tactical gear, but also among recreational and competitive target shooters, and hunters. Many saw it as a pinnacle of firearms engineering — ergonomic, accurate, reliable.
How the AR-15 became America's most popular rifle
The Instagram tag #ar15 has over 1.7 million posts, with updates by the minute
www.nbcnews.com
Sure you can buy AR Style shotguns out there but they arn't as common or easy to find, so they reach for what's easy to find. There is also the psychology of the gun "looking cool" involved. That's why they reach for the AR. Not one recent mass shooting of note that I'm aware of has involved a shotgun. Many involved an AR.
Again I say a lot of these people would be deterred by even small barriers. You wouldn't think that would be the case given the gravity of the decision they are making but you would also think given the gravity that there would be a lot of pre-planning involved, but that only really happened with the Vegas shooting. A lot of them just got a gun, walked into a place of convenience or a place that enrages them and just started firing making very little effort beyond that to try to max out their body count.
An AR is not optimal for closed quarters combat. If you're in a home defending yourself I'll take a 12 gauge shotgun all day long.
Pistol may be better in terms of registering hits but it won't register as many kills due to much lower power.
The other issue is it has a much lower ammunition capacity and I'm not sure the rifle is that big of a disadvantage. Sure other guns might give you a maneuverability advantage but how big of a deal is that when no one is shooting back?
I thought rifles would be more accurate than pistols. Or maybe that changes/doesn't matter as range is reduced.
Discussing COMBAT where the person you are shooting is actively trying to hurt you and massacre where they are not are two different things.
I agree with you about a shotgun being better for home defense. But that's because I want a quick deploying weapon with close range power and spread. But I only really need that shotgun to drop 1 maybe 2 people. So I probably will never need to reload.
That's very different from trying to drop as many fleeing targets as you can.
They are . . . his post is confusing combat with massacres.
A rifle indoors does have a big negative when it comes to combat because it's so long you can't turn corners as quickly or easily. That's a big deal when both sides are trying to shoot one another. Also if you only have 1 or 2 people trying to hurt you, ammunition capacity and fast reloads are not that big of a deal.
Turning corners faster is not a big deal when your objective is to drop as many people fleeing from you as possible. Here they just want to be able to fire off as many rounds as they can in as short of time as they can.
There are reasons why none of these mass shooters has ever used a shotgun. (So when talking about this I claim scoreboard as my lead is about 250 to nothing at this point.) A big one is quite frankly that it isn't as cool looking. But a practical one is that shotguns have smaller capacities and take longer to re-load. Remember these are kids that know often know guns inside and out too. It's not like the shotgun would have never crossed their minds.
One person did mention a shotgun with a magazine similar to an AR. That would be pretty deadly too but they arn't as easy to find as an AR is.
Last edited:
Kind of. In unknown indoor CQB situations I would much rather have a MP or SBR with max mag capacity. The rest is spot on.
