View Full Version : Ar (and other military style rifles) poor choice for self defense?
Found a very interesting article on the matter. A study was conducted with a hypothetical self defense situation and mock jurors in a psychology class (go figure). They examined the jurors decision based on gender of the shooter and juror and the weapon used. The weapons focused on were primarily the mini-14 and an ar-15. Overall the sentence for shooter with the ar-15 was over 50% longer. People are stupid. That being said it seems like using a less "scary" looking rifle would be to your benefit. Even if it is self defense... you never know. It's not unlikely to go before a grand for self defense shootings and should you get charged... well... I think we all know that prosecutors care much more about their record than they do about whether the defendent is innocent or not.
Wasn't sure if this should go in teh AR forum or general. It won't let me make a thread in general so it's going in here.
http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2009/09/will-it-hurt-me-in-court-weapons-issues-and-the-fears-of-the-legally-armed-citizen/
In 1995, Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp testified that her inability to legally carry a handgun prevented her from stopping a 1991 Killen, Texas restaurant massacre. Dr. Gratia-Hupp had a 38 SPL Smith handgun in her car and pointed that out to legislators after the murders shook the state of Texas. Her testimony was crucial to passing the Texas concealed carry law. Sharon Jo Ramboz's use of an AR-15 assault rifle to defend her home was not compelling in the 1995 Congressional hearings leading to the Assault Weapons Ban (Homsher, 2001). Did the AR-15 make her less persuasive?
Firearms are ubiquitous in American society. Roughly one in every two households may possess at least one gun and studies indicate that citizens use privately owned firearms in defensive situations much more often than once believed (Kleck, 1997). There has been intensive criminological research on civilian self-defense usage of firearms (Kleck, 1991, 1997). Called a defensive gun usage (DGU), the number of such incidents is arguably in the order of one to two million a year. Legislation allowing the carrying of firearms is now quite common with a large majority of states (40 at the time of writing) issuing easy to obtain permits or licenses for the concealed carry of handguns. Some states issuing these instruments also require instructions for these civilians on the laws, ethics and consequences of using deadly force. Following the November 2008 Presidential election there has been a buying binge of firearms and ammunition. Many have underappreciated the change in American gun culture which, traditionally, has been oriented towards hunters and sportsman. Today, a somewhat separate and large culture of defensive gun users has developed (Wyant & Taylor, 2005).
Predictably, the defensive gun culture is concerned with the legal ramifications of gun usage. Popular gun magazines are full of legal cautions by their columnists such as Massad Ayoob and with tales of defensive usage such as the American Rifleman's Armed Citizen column. Understanding these ramifications is important to gun users and legal professionals for a variety of reasons, and understanding how defensive gun usage affects others' views of gun users is equally important.
There has been a small but coherent set of studies relating to the psychological factors of firearms usage and influence on social cognition. A firearm's appearance can have a powerful psychological impact on decision-making and memory . Eyewitnesses to a crime may focus on the gun to the detriment of recalling other details (weapons focus effect – Kramer, Buckhout, & Eugenio, 1990; Pickel, 1998; Steblay, 1992). Firearms also can prime aggressive ideation and reactions (weapons effect). The mere presence of a weapon may cause folks to act more aggressively to others (Anderson, Benjamin & Bartholow, 1998; Berkowitz, 1993; Berkowitz and LePage, 1967).
Weapons-related Factors and Gender Can Influence Jury Decisions
Researchers have concluded weapons presence can influence legal proceedings through jurors' evaluation of motives (Berkowitz & LePage, 1967). Dienstbier, Roesch, Mizumoto, Hemenover, Lott, and Carlo (1998) found with increased weapon salience, due to more direct exposure, mock jurors attributed more guilt and assigned longer sentences to the gun user – in that case an armed burglar. Females gave longer sentences and were more affected by weapons exposure.
Branscombe, Crosby, and Weir (1993) conducted mock trial research involving a homeowner who shot a burglar, and found incompetent male shooters and competent female shooters were dealt with more harshly than the reverse pairing. The interaction seemed due to whether or not homeowners breached stereotypical standards (males being competent shooters and females incompetent). Shooters who violated gender roles were perceived more negatively for their use of a firearm than those who did not breach normal gender roles.
Can the appearance and characteristics of a firearm influence a jury decision? Legal scholars have suggested that appearance of excessive force in a self-defense situation (i.e. the martial arts) can affect tort liability (Whitaker, 1995-1996) and that might apply to firearms. Certainly, there is ongoing discussion of banning so-called 'assault weapons' even though past legislative endeavors seem to have no effect on crime rate indices (Koper & Roth, 2001).
Weapons appearance has been discussed in criminal cases. In a recent Court TV televised trial (Florida v. Roten, 2000), the defendant was accused of a hate crime shooting. Roten used a modified SKS (an older Soviet pattern 7.62 mm semiautomatic military rifle) with accessories that might make the rifle appear fiercer than some. A commentator asked why anyone would need such a weapon.
Many people believe that certain types of guns are "good for only one thing – to kill" (Kleck, 1997, p. 16). Self-defense writers discuss in the popular gun press whether an aggressive looking weapon can influence your trial with articles such as "Firepower: how much is too much?" (Ayoob, 2000) and commented on how juries can be influenced by media impressions of assault rifles (Rauch, 2004). Owners of such weapons are portrayed as deranged and militarized appearing weapons are demonized. Even in the overall gun culture there can be a dichotomy of views. Bartholow, et al (2005) found that hunters had negative views about assault weapons as compared to guns primarily designed for sport. A gun writer – Jim Zumbo unleashed a firestorm on himself when as a hunter he denounced assault rifles and later had to recant (Zumbo, 2007).
A weapon's appearance can also be a concern to police. There has been significant debate over whether military style weapons are appropriate for civilian law enforcement (for example: Associated Press, 2002). Assault weapons' paramilitary appearance can color the public's attitude towards their usage. Clearly, some believe the decision to use a certain weapon type may be an indicator that a user's mindset is more aggressive than simple self-defense.
However, whether such factors actually influence jurors' perceptions of civilian and police gun users is an empirical question. We tested this in our article that recently appeared in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology (Meyer, Banos, Gerondale, Kiriazes, Lakin, & Rinker, 2009). We explored the influence of various types of weapons on simulated juror decisions. Are defendants judged more harshly if they use a more fearsome seeming weapon? It would be a likely prediction. We also varied the gender of the mock jurors and the shooter. We would expect that women may give harsher sentences but that might interact with defendant gender. Last, we tested weapons effects with civilians and police officers. The latter are more familiar with the use of deadly force. The studies incorporated six different weapons used by the homeowner. Images and descriptions are presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Firearms used in the studies and their characteristics. Not to scale. From Meyer et al – Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2009.
Importantly, folk wisdom may discriminate between good and bad types of guns (Kleck, 1997). Good guns are used for hunting and sport purposes. Bad guns are designed explicitly for inflicting pain and death on others. AR-15s are commonly called assault rifles due to their military ancestry. Their appearance may suggest a sinister purpose (Kleck, 1997, p. 16; Owen, 1996), and some see them without any justifiable civilian purpose and as a societal threat. We hypothesized that the AR-15 would be the most effective firearm in priming negative attributions to the defendant (as per Bartholow et al., 2005).
The other guns were chosen for various characteristics that might mediate their effect on participants. For instance, the Ruger Mini-14 rifle is equivalent in power and lethality to the AR-15 but it is a wooden stocked rifle of a more sporting appearance. It serves as an important comparison to the AR-15. Shotguns were used because they are common in American households and the two handguns were chosen as many people own these type of handguns purely for protection (Kleck, 1991, 1997). For each pair of weapons, one is more likely to be perceived as an aggressive weapon or menacing weapon.
Finally, after the case presentations, participants were asked to render a verdict by assessing guilt and/or assigning a sentence. Mock jurors were drawn from two separate populations: college students at Trinity University – a liberal arts college in San Antonio, Texas; or community college students at the Alamo Community College, also in San Antonio, Texas. In the first study with Trinity University liberal arts students, the burglar was male and the homeowner was male. We presented the case scenarios and asked mock jurors to recommend sentencing judgments (time periods of incarceration) for the homeowner-defendant based on six different possible guns used in the shooting.
The Effects of Juror Gender and Weapon Type
Women delivered the homeowner defendants higher sentences than men (Male average = 3.9 years and female average = 5.7 years). Importantly the average recommended sentence when the homeowner used the AR-15 weapon was 7.2 years for male subjects and 8.5 for females. This was significantly higher than any of the other gun types. The handguns had the lowest recommended sentences (in the two to four year range).
We replicated the experiment with students from the local community college who were older and had different socio-economic status and life experiences than liberal arts students. We focused on two gun scenarios, the AR-15 and the Ruger Mini-14. Both are equally potent but the latter looks less aggressive to some. We also analyzed judgment of guilt versus innocence. In direct comparison – the AR-15 yielded significantly longer mean recommended sentences in the order of seven to nine years as compared to the Ruger (approximately two and a half years). On the verdict side, the percent of guilty judgments was approximately 65% for the AR-15 vs. 45% for the Ruger.
The Interaction of Juror Gender, Shooter Gender and Weapon Type
In the third and final experiment of the burglary series we added a female shooter to the mix. Women's armed self-defense has become a focus in the firearms world for marketing purposes. There is also a strong literature on empowering women to defend themselves in the feminist, sociological and psychological literature. Some do not view being a passive victim as an acceptable alternative for women, even though some society values seem to still encourage it (Hollander, 2009). In fact, some frown upon a woman taking a strong position of self-defense. The literature also suggests that gender differences can be potent in firearms based decisions and societal attitudes towards women's use of force (Homsher, 2001; Howes & Stevenson, 1993; McCaughey, 1997; Stange & Oyster, 2000). While unprecedented numbers of women are learning to maim, knock out and shoot men who assault them (McCaughey (1997), not all feminists enthusiastically endorse gun usage. Anderson (2001) argues that teaching women to use guns dis-empowers them. Analyses of popular culture is useful as well. In an analysis of women, guns and film, Dole (2000) states: "Despite widespread support for strong images of women in the media, mainstream film viewers and academic feminists alike have hesitated to celebrate cinematic women with guns, even those who are upholders of law" (p.11).
Thus, we tested the same burglary scenario with a female homeowner/shooter in addition to a male. Based on Branscombe, et al (1993) we expected mock jurors to judge female shooters more harshly. Interactions with weapon type might be expected as using the AR-15 might violate gender stereotype more than the Mini-14.
Participants in this study were students in introductory psychology classes. The same materials and procedure were used again in this experiment. Participants were asked to make a guilty/not guilty judgment. Next, participants where asked to assign a sentence assuming the defendant was found guilty, that could range up to 25 years. Except for the mention of the homeowner's gender, no specific points about risk based on being a female were made. Each participant saw only one scenario.
We found the overall effect of gun type was significant. AR-15 shooters were given longer sentences. The most telling finding was that female mock jurors gave female AR-15 shooters the harshest sentences – a mean of approximately eight years as compared to a male average of five and a half years. In comparison, the lowest average recommended sentence was for a male shooting a Ruger Mini – about two and a half years. Thus, gun type and gender could be a potent combination in sentencing. See the summarized data presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Mean sentences in Experiment Three: Intruder stealing VCR. From Meyer et al – Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2009.
Our analyses of guilty and non-guilty verdict decisions found that females were more likely to find the defendant guilty (regardless of defendant gender). The other effects didn't reach statistical significance (though some were close) but there was some indication that the AR-15 usage was detrimental to a defendant's chances of acquittal. The female shooter with the AR-15 did receive the highest percent of guilty verdicts (about 75%). The literature (Diamond, 1997) suggests that simulations using dichotomous variables may not be that sensitive, even though yes/no on guilt is of obvious importance in the courtroom.
Police Perceptions of Weapon Types
An intentional but mistaken shooting of civilians by police is traumatic for all involved. The best known case is that of Amadou Diallo who on Feb. 4, 1999 was shot 19 times and killed near his Bronx apartment building when police mistook his wallet for a gun (Cooper, 1999). Police use of assault rifles like the AR-15 is also controversial – and has increased after notorious shoot-outs (like the North Hollywood Shout-out) and as a response to terrorism and rampage shootings.
So we explored a research scenario in which research participants were law enforcement officers with real world experience using lethal force. We tested a police shooting gone awry. The basic scenario was that an officer arrived at the scene of a convenience store robbery. Three people fled through the front door and the officer shot them in mistake, thinking they were perpetrators. The shots could have been fired from an AR-15 or a Glock (a standard police pistol). The officer was put on trial for aggravated assault. The participants in this study were, in fact, police officers – not college students.
In summary, we found that weapons and gender effects are relevant to police officers as well as civilian mock jurors. The male officers using an AR-15 were sentenced harshly but not as harshly as females using a Glock. Women were also more likely to be viewed as guilty using the Glock. Overall, the results are consistent with gender based expectations. Men should be competent with a rifle but one might not expect women to be. However, they should be competent, at least, with their service side arm. The fact that a female shooter made a shooting mistake with a simple handgun may result in more negative views of that shooter by male police officers.
Conclusions and Practical Applications
Our results pull together various threads in the professional and popular literatures. First, gender is an important factor to perceptions of weapon use. Gender main effects in several of the experiments were significant, with women participants judging shooters more harshly. Gun type is also an important factor. We found some level of risk associated with AR-15 guns in all the experiments that applied to both male and female shooters. The increased risk for civilian women with AR-15s is consistent with previous findings of harsher judgments of women who violate gender-based weapon use stereotypes (Branscombe et al., 1993). Using an AR-15 was likely to be such a violation. McCaughey (1997) in a feminist analysis of women who train in self-defense tactics suggest they are at risk at trial for not seemingly womanly and victim-like. Branscombe and Weir (1992) argued that behavior which does not fit classic schema of the female stereotype will be construed as abnormal. It is then easier to assign alternate outcomes and blame to the supposed victim. In short, shooters using an AR-15 may violate the perceived norms of someone in a defensive mode. Mock jurors may not see an AR-15 as a 'normal' defensive weapon for the typical homeowner. This viewpoint may be even more damaging for women.
The police findings are interesting, and puzzling in part, as there was clearly an effect of the AR-15 for the male officers as defendants in the sentence judgment. Sentences for male officer defendants who used the AR-15 were twice as long as those of male officers who used the Glock 19. However, if anything, the female officer defendants were more harshly evaluated for using the Glock 19, the standard handgun, in both sentencing and guilt ratings. In many departments, AR-15s are not usually issued. The findings might be a special case of Branscombe et al's (1993) competent shooter effect. Male officers are expected to be more competent than females by many male law enforcement officers. Thus the misuse of a specialized firearm by a male may be seen as more grievous than by a female. Similarly, the handgun usage should reflect at least minimal competence as a basic tool of an officer. The female who cannot show that minimal competence is more harshly treated, especially if she violates a perceived male domain. Unfortunately, we could not gather enough females participants to investigate the effect of participant gender. The data from the male officers are of interest. It is the case that above analysis is speculative in the case of the Glock 19 effect for females.
Our findings confirm the general role of gender stereotype in decision-making. Also, weapons priming of negative attributions are extended to specific weapon types. Legal applications are varied. Prosecuting and defense attorneys may want to consider weapons and gender interactions during voir dire and trial. Law enforcement officers and homeowners may want to consider the interaction of weapons appearance and legal risk. This is not to say that effective weapons should not be used, but one would be foolish not to have knowledge of potential problems. As Branscombe et al. (1993) points out in response to suggestions that females not use guns, as they may be at an increased risk at trial, a defense attorney should be cognizant of these weapons effects. The defense attorney may then use appropriate arguments and experts to diffuse them. It is important to note that the AR-15 was not specifically discussed as being an assault rifle or in some way unusual but only in technical terms and matched with equally lethal weapons. A law enforcement officer suggested that for the issue of weapons type to be important at trial, an attorney would have to bring it up and a judge might not allow that. However, our studies and earlier studies indicate that the simple presence of the weapon can be influential. Attorneys should be cognizant of the gun presence, gender and gun type effects/gender interactions so as to mount an effective defense for their client.
Interesting based on your summary but what you quoted was way too long to read. You may want to just post the link.
wolf_walker
10-03-15, 21:39
This is right up there with being cooler in high school because you have the popular pair of sneakers or jacket.
IMO, unless you have no neighbors within 300yrds or more or a heck of a big yard/property/pasture/etc, a pistol or shotgun is really a better home defense option imo.
I've always thought "home defense" was a weak leg to stand on for a centerfire semi-auto rifle with military heritage.
I love em as much as the next guy but "home defense" is never what I say, if I say, when asked why I have them.
wildcard600
10-03-15, 21:39
My state is very liberal (in the classical sense) when it comes to self defense law so I am going to use what i find to be the most effective weapon available to me in a defensive situation, which is an AR-15.
YMMV
Interesting based on your summary but what you quoted was way too long to read. You may want to just post the link.
there's a link right above the quoted article
This is right up there with being cooler in high school because you have the popular pair of sneakers or jacket.
IMO, unless you have no neighbors within 300yrds or more or a heck of a big yard/property/pasture/etc, a pistol or shotgun is really a better home defense option imo.
I've always thought "home defense" was a weak leg to stand on for a centerfire semi-auto rifle with military heritage.
I love em as much as the next guy but "home defense" is never what I say, if I say, when asked why I have them.
Don't really follow you on the being cool thing. And I'm talking any self defense setting in general. Truck gun or home defense. Plus this doesn't really apply to just rifles... the issues discussed really apply to any scary looking gun whether it be a KSG, pistol caliber carbine, or M&P 22lr.
Just post the link. As in delete the quoted text.
there's a link right above the article
Most reading here suggests that with the proper ammo selection, 5.56 is a viable candidate for home defense.
This is right up there with being cooler in high school because you have the popular pair of sneakers or jacket.
IMO, unless you have no neighbors within 300yrds or more or a heck of a big yard/property/pasture/etc, a pistol or shotgun is really a better home defense option imo.
I've always thought "home defense" was a weak leg to stand on for a centerfire semi-auto rifle with military heritage.
I love em as much as the next guy but "home defense" is never what I say, if I say, when asked why I have them.
wolf_walker
10-03-15, 21:52
there's a link right above the quoted article
Don't really follow you on the being cool thing. And I'm talking any self defense setting in general. Truck gun or home defense. Plus this doesn't really apply to just rifles... the issues discussed really apply to any scary looking gun whether it be a KSG, pistol caliber carbine, or M&P 22lr.
When I was in high school in the early 90's, certain types of shoes and jackets and some other things were what the "cool kids" had. It's a human trait and beyond any reasonable length explanation here. Ask around, it's a thing. It's the flip side of what the OP is talking about, instead of seeing a pair of reebok's and thinking it's cool, they see a particular color or shape firearm and think it's scary when in reality it has nothing to do with either the character of the person wearing/using them or the function of the item itself. Both are lamentably common and dumb. High school taught me to ignore such and the people that don't see it for what it is and rise above.
This is right up there with being cooler in high school because you have the popular pair of sneakers or jacket.
IMO, unless you have no neighbors within 300yrds or more or a heck of a big yard/property/pasture/etc, a pistol or shotgun is really a better home defense option imo.
I've always thought "home defense" was a weak leg to stand on for a centerfire semi-auto rifle with military heritage.
I love em as much as the next guy but "home defense" is never what I say, if I say, when asked why I have them.
Why does the distance of my neighbors have to do with weapon choice? A 9mm will still kill at 300 yards.
wolf_walker
10-03-15, 22:03
Most reading here suggests that with the proper ammo selection, 5.56 is a viable candidate for home defense.
There is proper ammo to minimize over penetration and such absolutely, but would you be willing to gamble on a given joe having the proper
ammo in his (now cheap to buy) AR? I wouldn't. I talk to my neighbors about such whenever I possibly can. The enlightened and trained are the minority in my experience and observation, I dread the day someone with a "home defense" AR using cheap ball ammo kills his neighbor shooting at an intruder and the media catches on, if it hasn't already happened.
Over penetration is an issue with darn near any firearm to one degree or another, but ball ammo in 5.56 has a real gift for zipping right through things. Don't get me wrong,
I think everyone should have one and they have a hundred and one uses, and it's certainly better than nothing if one needs a do-it-all.
wolf_walker
10-03-15, 22:13
Why does the distance of my neighbors have to do with weapon choice? A 9mm will still kill at 300 yards.
So will a .22, but it's a matter of likelihood. Call it 500 or 800 or 1000. It seems reasonable to assume, and playing around shooting stuff since I was a kid
says a rifle will penetrate more and more often than a small caliber pistol. Lot of variables, but it's been my observation. It's an iffy risk imo. I'm sure there is
as another poster mentioned better suited ammo for such, but it's not really common and I haven't had any experience with it.
So you think the handgun and shotgun are better for home defense because someone might use ball ammo in an AR and kill a neighbor?
wolf_walker
10-03-15, 22:32
So you think the handgun and shotgun are better for home defense because someone might use ball ammo in an AR and kill a neighbor?
For the average joe, I think it's better advice. Yes. Blowing through a wall can surely still happen with either, and proper ammo in the AR and lots of training
may very well be a better answer, but I'm a realist. I don't expect non-enthusiasts to keep and practice and use that ammo and become proficient. I expect
most of them to buy a cheap AR, and cheap ammo, and not shoot it very often.
I'm also of the opinion that anything we can do, as a community, to keep the AR pattern rifle out of the limelight and off the
lips and minds of those that might take it from us is a positive thing.
Umm, if someone is want to use 55gr ball in an AR, and compare the over penetration to a 12 gauge with 00 buck, or even a 9mm round, I can pretty much promise that the buck shot, or the pistol slug is going to go through more walls and shit than the 55gr ball round, which is going to frag damn fast, trust me I have tested this particular theory and even through light brush the round with destabilize and go to hell in a hurry. Let us face facts that one of the biggest complaints of the 5.56 is its poor barrier penetration. So if you are worried about smoking your neighbors through walls then a 5.56 round may actually make more sense here than a shotgun or pistol.
Also, there is the old saying that is ringing in my ears to the effect that I would rather be tried by 12 than carrier by 6. If the shoot is righteous is shouldn't matter if I used a pistol, a shotgun, an AR, or a ****ing minigun as long as all are legal.
wolf_walker
10-03-15, 22:43
That might be, but with what shooting at boards and fake walls and crap I've done myself personally to see what would go through what that wasn't the impression I came away with.
I'm practically always open to being wrong, but I don't decide the things I decide just for giggles.
I wouldn't use 00 buck either, that stuff is pretty brutal.
And as the OP indicated, like it or not, good shoot or not, you're apt to be judged differently depending on what your firearm looks like.
Just like you were judged by how trendy your clothes were in highschool.
Life's a bitch sometimes. People suck. Etc, etc, etc...
edit: Here's a good-ole-boy demonstrating in a very simple fashion the sort of thing I've always drawn
my conclusions from. Of course this is a mightily oversimplified example, but it's pretty plain.
The 5.56 fmj blows through, intact and moving on, a lot more than most common pistols do.
This is the root of my very simple opinion on the matter.
https://youtu.be/5BeOlRl8ZLI
I'd say that a person should now how to use ANY gun for home defense. People not knowing how to properly use a weapon is not a problem only attributed to ARs. I can't even think of any time I've investigated a ND with an AR but I can remember several with shotguns and handguns.
Either way, the lack of training on the AR (and the like) doesn't change the fact that it has several advantages over handguns and shotguns.
wolf_walker
10-03-15, 23:13
It has lots of advantages, that's why I have one. :)
A Porsche has lots of advantages too, but I don't recommend them to most folks.
I do agree though.
Overall the sentence for shooter with the ar-15 was over 50% longer.
Maybe I missed it, but what are these people supposedly being charged with?
Being sentenced with anything would indicate that it was not, in fact, a self defense shooting.
wolf_walker
10-03-15, 23:23
Maybe I missed it, but what are these people supposedly being charged with?
Being sentenced with anything would indicate that it was not, in fact, a self defense shooting.
I think I might have inadvertently derailed us into self defense land. Sorry..
Exactly. This whole thing is nonsense. You aren't going to be charged if the shooting was legit. This study was done 6 years ago and was discussed previously at one point IIRC. Bottom line is that I am going to use the most effective weapon I am that I am the most competent with and some ridiculous study by so-called legal experts isn't going to change that.
Maybe I missed it, but what are these people supposedly being charged with?
Being sentenced with anything would indicate that it was not, in fact, a self defense shooting.
Maybe I missed it, but what are these people supposedly being charged with?
Being sentenced with anything would indicate that it was not, in fact, a self defense shooting.
it doesn't say
Perhaps it wasn't a stand your ground/castle doctrine state and was something along the lines of using manslaughter/excessive force. I don't think it really matters honestly, everyone of us runs the risk of being charged criminally should we have to shoot someone in an even obvious case of self defense. This country is ****ed, and the justice system is not about justice.
HighDesert
10-03-15, 23:35
I'd say that a person should now how to use ANY gun for home defense. People not knowing how to properly use a weapon is not a problem only attributed to ARs. I can't even think of any time I've investigated a ND with an AR but I can remember several with shotguns and handguns.
Either way, the lack of training on the AR (and the like) doesn't change the fact that it has several advantages over handguns and shotguns.
I think it's a pretty well documented statistic that the gross majority of gun owners have zero training in addition to whatever course was needed to get the permit to buy or carry (which for rifles or shotguns really isn't too common).
MountainRaven
10-03-15, 23:38
Actually low-skill shooters are going to be better off with an AR-15 than either a shotgun (heavy, long, manipulation intensive, limited ammunition capacity, slow to reload) or pistol (weak, difficult to use effectively). Never mind that buckshot and pistol bullets are much more likely to over-penetrate than rifle bullets.
The only disadvantages that a carbine has is that it's going to be very, very loud in a confined space and it will also still be fairly long, unless in a registered SBR/braced AR-pistol format - in which case it will be even louder.
I think I might have inadvertently derailed us into self defense land. Sorry..
No prosecutor is going to bring a castle doctrine shooting to trial if it looks even slightly legitimate.
This whole thread is pretty pointless and not even touching on the fact that 5.56 fmj penetrates worse than 9mm ball.
Plus, you (probably, I'm not familiar with the criminal codes of all 50 states + DC and PR) DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A JURY. If that's honestly your biggest concern, ask for a bench trial.
Berserkr556
10-03-15, 23:46
There's a reason the FBI SWAT teams went from the MP5 to 5.56 SBRs. Read their studies of why they switched. I use an AR with Hornady TAP rounds for home defense.
That was a lot of presumptuous, emotional dribble and I wish I hadn't read it.
Looks like I was beaten to the punch in calling it out, as well.
echo5whiskey
10-04-15, 00:24
If one does not realize that a large portion of this country's citizens are clueless when it comes to the "scary black rifles," one needs to get off of m4carbine.net for a while, and get back out into the real world. Look at how many threads have been opened by members here still debating the HD issue(s) as mentioned afore.
As far as the article is concerned, without knowing which school this took place in, just about any college or university is going to be crammed full of liberal professors and/or students who are being influenced by them.
BoringGuy45
10-04-15, 00:29
Maybe I missed it, but what are these people supposedly being charged with?
Being sentenced with anything would indicate that it was not, in fact, a self defense shooting.
When I worked at Cabelas (ugh), I was chewed out by a fudd co-worker (one of many) for recommending a home defense 870. He said that if a person ever uses that, a semi-auto handgun or rifle, in a self-defense case, the police would take one look at that and, knowing that it was a weapon specifically designed for defense, would hook you up for murder. Why? Because they would interpret having a defensive weapon as planning for a deadly encounter. Planning=premeditation.
Your Joe Biden approved double barrel, however, says you never planned for a deadly encounter, and you simply grabbed the first thing you could to defend yourself on a night you never dreamed would come.
Scary gun=You're a violent man who was praying to kill someone
Fudd gun=You're an otherwise anti-gun liberal who likes to shoot clays sometimes.
Really, it's just another reason fudds pull out of their ass as to why they should get to look down their nose at the ugly black "machine guns".
If one does not realize that a large portion of this country's citizens are clueless when it comes to the "scary black rifles," one needs to get off of m4carbine.net for a while, and get back out into the real world. Look at how many threads have been opened by members here still debating the HD issue(s) as mentioned afore.
As far as the article is concerned, without knowing which school this took place in, just about any college or university is going to be crammed full of liberal professors and/or students who are being influenced by them.
iirc it was community collegest
Hate to say it but the general public as well as judges and prosecutors tend to be clueless and misinformed when it comes to guns.
Take the gary fadden incident as an example of how you can take it in the ass and be in debt for 10 years for defending youself with a scary gun.
https://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/threads/the-gary-fadden-incident-now-with-100-more-harry-beckwith-incident.11941/
wolf_walker
10-04-15, 00:33
When I worked at Cabelas (ugh), I was chewed out by a fudd co-worker (one of many) for recommending a home defense 870. He said that if a person ever uses that, a semi-auto handgun or rifle, in a self-defense case, the police would take one look at that and, knowing that it was a weapon specifically designed for defense, would hook you up for murder. Why? Because they would interpret having a defensive weapon as planning for a deadly encounter. Planning=premeditation.
Your Joe Biden approved double barrel, however, says you never planned for a deadly encounter, and you simply grabbed the first thing you could to defend yourself on a night you never dreamed would come.
Scary gun=You're a violent man who was praying to kill someone
Fudd gun=You're an otherwise anti-gun liberal who likes to shoot clays sometimes.
I'd LOVE to see how that trial goes:
"Officer, you testified that the deceased was a convicted felon, was carrying a firearm illegally, was wanted for murder, and had a history of home invasions. The 911 tape has shown that my client repeated warned the deceased, who then fired first before he was killed. Explain how that situation led you to develop probable cause for murder."
Officer: "Well, he had a scary looking gun."
Judge: "I think I've heard enough. I pronounce the sentence of death to be carried out immediately."
Yep, that makes a lot of sense.
Don't make no sense, but a jury of "peers" is apt to be full of people like your idiot co-worker. Scary stuff. They vote too.
This is one of the reasons being friendly and teachers/ambassadors of the Gun is important to me.
You're citing a case that has been puppetted for years. McFadden used a machine gun. He was targeted by an anti-gun prosecutor. The mindset of people has changed and so have the laws. Many states have Caste Doctrine or Stand Your Ground Laws to address this.
I can probably find at least 3 cases right now of semi-auto rifles being used by civilians that resulted in no criminal charges.
iirc it was community collegest
Hate to say it but the general public as well as judges and prosecutors tend to be clueless and misinformed when it comes to guns.
Take the gary fadden incident as an example of how you can take it in the ass and be in debt for 10 years for defending youself with a scary gun.
https://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/threads/the-gary-fadden-incident-now-with-100-more-harry-beckwith-incident.11941/
Exactly. This whole thing is nonsense. You aren't going to be charged if the shooting was legit. This study was done 6 years ago and was discussed previously at one point IIRC. Bottom line is that I am going to use the most effective weapon I am that I am the most competent with and some ridiculous study by so-called legal experts isn't going to change that.
Yep. It's like people forget that the goal of any defensive encounter is to survive.
You're citing a case that has been puppetted for years. McFadden used a machine gun. He was targeted by an anti-gun prosecutor. The mindset of people has changed and so have the laws. Many states have Caste Doctrine or Stand Your Ground Laws to address this.
I can probably find at least 3 cases right now of semi-auto rifles being used by civilians that resulted in no criminal charges.
it was a machine gun, but it was legal, just like everyones AR.
Yes I'm sure the majority of cases result in no criminal charges. That doesn't really change anything though. The possibility is very real that you may be charged, and a scary looking gun isn't going to help in any way.
Odds are you will most likely be fine... most likely.
You're missing the point entirely. When that incident happened, NFA was not nearly as mainstream as today. Whether the weapon was legal or not, doesn't matter. I don't know what state you live in nor does it matter. Unless the shoot was unlawful, the weapon or ammo will be irrelevant.
Can we find a few cases sure. Just like there are plenty of cases of self defense shootings that legal when they started and ended up in criminal charges because the other party did something unlawful afterwards (pursuing the suspect and shooting him in the back 2 blocks away, delivering a coupe de grace, etc....
it was a machine gun, but it was legal, just like everyones AR.
Yes I'm sure the majority of cases result in no criminal charges. That doesn't really change anything though. The possibility is very real that you may be charged, and a scary looking gun isn't going to help you should it go to jury.
Odds are you will most likely be fine... most likely.
titsonritz
10-04-15, 04:11
That was a lot of presumptuous, emotional dribble and I wish I hadn't read it.
I got though about a paragraph and a half before I said screw this crap. You guys can have this one.
Deleted...already been covered.
recall Dr Hupp's parents were killed if it's her I'm thinking of...Lubbys cafeteria. She's Pro NRA.....
I agree with the findings of the study. It is sad but true. Perception doesn't trump the law but I can see how it could influence a mind numb jury. 22 year old single mom kills intruder with a frying pan vs 22 year old high school dropout kills intruder with AK47... Which one would you rather defend in this political climate?
BoringGuy45
10-04-15, 08:44
Don't make no sense, but a jury of "peers" is apt to be full of people like your idiot co-worker. Scary stuff. They vote too.
This is one of the reasons being friendly and teachers/ambassadors of the Gun is important to me.
Yeah, but the fact remains that using a scary looking gun doesn't suddenly give probable cause to arrest someone in otherwise open and shut case of self defense. I might worry if someone drove up my driveway and, with no reason to suspect that they're up to no good, I still decide to unload a whole 30 round mag into their vehicle. Some convicted rapist kicks down my door in the middle of the night looking to kill me and rape my wife, I don't think I have to worry if I use my AR.
I keep a 9 on the bedside table for things that go bump in the night, and an 870 under the bed for when I don't have my contacts in. :D
Eurodriver
10-04-15, 10:25
Yeah, but the fact remains that using a scary looking gun doesn't suddenly give probable cause to arrest someone in otherwise open and shut case of self defense.
You stop right there with that logic.
Threads like this are all about hearsay and nonsense. Bringing up intelligent counter-points only serves to create flame wars. Let them think what they think.
556BlackRifle
10-04-15, 10:34
You wake up at 03:00 to find an intruder in your house. You grab your defensive weapon and confront the intruder. The intruder raises his weapon – you fire killing the intruder. The intruder’s momma goes on TV and says; “He was a good boy. He was about to start college next semester. If he had a gun it was only for protection. He was mixed up and went into the wrong house by mistake. Why couldn’t he have just shot him in the foot? Why’d he have to kill my baby? He didn’t do nothing to nobody.” Next thing you know there’s an unruly crowd outside the courthouse demanding you be prosecuted for murder. News media reports that you are a gun nut. You killed this young college student with an evil scary looking military assault rifle. Political pressure applied. Charges are filed. Couldn’t happen in America? Yeah, right…… Watch the news lately!?!
I think we all know that prosecutors care much more about their record than they do about whether the defendent is innocent or not.
That is a broad generalization. My best friend is an Assistant District Attorney for a major metropolitan area and has been in charge of prosecuting gun crimes for the past seven years. As an Iraqi war vet and gun owner himself, he has zero interest in going after law abiding citizens who defend themselves, regardless of the type weapon used, as long as it is legally owned. Sure there are plenty of anti gun prosecutors out there, but a lot of them do care about justice.
Bottom line is that I am going to use the most effective weapon I am that I am the most competent with and some ridiculous study by so-called legal experts isn't going to change that.
I'm with IG, this report, while interesting doesn't chance anything from my point of view. For me and my family, an AR with a light, an Aimpoint and the proper ammunition is vastly superior to a similarly equipped handgun or a shotgun in terms of accuracy, controllability and ballistics.
A justified shoot is a justified shoot. If the issue is whether the use of a "scary" rifle led to longer sentences, we're already outside the realm of a justified shooting. I think people spend too much time and energy worrying about how a prosecutor is going to demonize the firearm they used in a defensive shooting. In my experience on both sides of that equation, this is of minimal concern. You would be better served doing what you can to make sure your hard skills and software/mindset are honed (as best you can) than worrying about what a DA is going to say about your rifle.
With that said, a rifle is an excellent choice for defense of home, self and others. From ease of use, lethality and interior wall penetration, the evidence indicates that a rifle is a more than viable option. In addition, if you (like me) feel more confident using a rifle than a pistol or shotgun, the opinions of a jury and/or DA are (IMO/E) less important than going into a fight with a tool that may stack the deck in your favor.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm with IG, this report, while interesting doesn't chance anything from my point of view. For me and my family, an AR with a light, an Aimpoint and the proper ammunition is vastly superior to a similarly equipped handgun or a shotgun in terms of accuracy, controllability and ballistics.
Yes yes yes. The afterwords is all hypothetical. You have to survive the encounter first. You have to deliver accurate deadly fire under extreme stress. What do you shoot the best? What does every responsible person in your household shoot the best? What are they willing to put hours in training and practicing with? Make your own choices, and those based on the real world. The hits count and that is it. If you miss with any defensive caliber worth a salt there will be over penetration issues.
You wake up at 03:00 to find an intruder in your house. You grab your defensive weapon and confront the intruder. The intruder raises his weapon – you fire killing the intruder. The intruder’s momma goes on TV and says; “He was a good boy. He was about to start college next semester. If he had a gun it was only for protection. He was mixed up and went into the wrong house by mistake. Why couldn’t he have just shot him in the foot? Why’d he have to kill my baby? He didn’t do nothing to nobody.” Next thing you know there’s an unruly crowd outside the courthouse demanding you be prosecuted for murder. News media reports that you are a gun nut. You killed this young college student with an evil scary looking military assault rifle. Political pressure applied. Charges are filed. Couldn’t happen in America? Yeah, right…… Watch the news lately!?!
couldn't have said it better
That might be, but with what shooting at boards and fake walls and crap I've done myself personally to see what would go through what that wasn't the impression I came away with.
I'm practically always open to being wrong, but I don't decide the things I decide just for giggles.
I wouldn't use 00 buck either, that stuff is pretty brutal.
And as the OP indicated, like it or not, good shoot or not, you're apt to be judged differently depending on what your firearm looks like.
Just like you were judged by how trendy your clothes were in highschool.
Life's a bitch sometimes. People suck. Etc, etc, etc...
edit: Here's a good-ole-boy demonstrating in a very simple fashion the sort of thing I've always drawn
my conclusions from. Of course this is a mightily oversimplified example, but it's pretty plain.
The 5.56 fmj blows through, intact and moving on, a lot more than most common pistols do.
This is the root of my very simple opinion on the matter.
https://youtu.be/5BeOlRl8ZLI
I just want to point out that in this YouTube penetration test the two .223/5.56 rounds used were 55 grain TULA, which has a steel jacket, and 62 grain PMC green tip. Clearly a well thought out test. Don't need to watch the video to know that both the TULA and the green tips had some great penetration.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
wolf_walker
10-04-15, 12:15
I just want to point out that in this YouTube penetration test the two .223/5.56 rounds used were 55 grain TULA, which has a steel jacket, and 62 grain PMC green tip. Clearly a well thought out test. Don't need to watch the video to know that both the TULA and the green tips had some great penetration.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Did you mean steel core for the tula? The pistol ball ammo was steel jacketed too wasn't it?
It's a good example of the cheap ammo I was referring too a few pages back.
wolf_walker
10-04-15, 12:29
You wake up at 03:00 to find an intruder in your house. You grab your defensive weapon and confront the intruder. The intruder raises his weapon – you fire killing the intruder. The intruder’s momma goes on TV and says; “He was a good boy. He was about to start college next semester. If he had a gun it was only for protection. He was mixed up and went into the wrong house by mistake. Why couldn’t he have just shot him in the foot? Why’d he have to kill my baby? He didn’t do nothing to nobody.” Next thing you know there’s an unruly crowd outside the courthouse demanding you be prosecuted for murder. News media reports that you are a gun nut. You killed this young college student with an evil scary looking military assault rifle. Political pressure applied. Charges are filed. Couldn’t happen in America? Yeah, right…… Watch the news lately!?!
This is the sort of thing that worries me.
A lot of people say use the best tool for the job, it's about survival, damn the consequences and that a good shoot is a good shoot.
While I do not disagree with any of it, and I believe it is all absolutely true, there are some unpleasant realities about our society like the hypothetical
the above quoted lays out that are hard to forget about to me. I woke up this morning and first thing I read is the father of that sick miserable sob that shot up that school the other
day is saying if it weren't for the guns his son wouldn't have hurt anyone. People believe this sort of thing, it get's airtime, it creates associations in the public's
mind and I firmly believe that public opinion/perception effects if not the laws themselves then the interpretation of and/or future laws.
I struggle with this sort of thing myself, where do you draw the line between making the best tactical decision regarding
safety and defense, and mitigation of legal/public/financial ramifications that could ruin my/my family/my household/,my future as much as an act of violence itself?
It's not just this particular issue either, it's a number of things. I carried a pistol for a lot of years back east, now I'm in CA of all places (long story) and I cannot. Logic would dictate that safety trumps possible legal persecution and I should carry anyway as it's the best tool for the job, right? Is it just an odds game? Am I more likely to need to defend myself with a
pistol than I am being found out and arrested?
I do not know.
Luckily I live in a really nice small place that I honestly feel no need to carry, but it's a legitimate concern and something I think real hard about off and on,
especially on the rare occasions I go somewhere I do not feel safe.
Is anyone selling self-defense insurance yet?
There were people who have used Class 3 in self defense and walked.
A righteous shoot is a righteous shoot.
I used what I had to stop the closest part of the most immediate threat.
Bing bang boom.
ETA Should your case ever go to trial, a competent defense will explain that a legally owned weapon is a legally owned weapon and is irrelevant to the matter of self defense. If it meets your state's criteria them anything else doesn't matter.
Did you mean steel core for the tula? The pistol ball ammo was steel jacketed too wasn't it?
It's a good example of the cheap ammo I was referring too a few pages back.
To my knowledge, steel cored ammo is considered armor piercing by the ATF. IIRC, Tula rifle ammo is made from soft lead and a steel jacket, and does not fragment like 55 grain m193. My point was that both steel jacketed tula and "penetrator" green tip are terrible choices if you are looking for less penetration. There is lots of info by some smart people in stickies in the terminal ballistics sub forum that is worth checking out.
sevenhelmet
10-04-15, 14:20
Yet another "experiment" which fails to account for all the variables. Bad science, you are dismissed.
wolf_walker
10-04-15, 14:46
To my knowledge, steel cored ammo is considered armor piercing by the ATF. IIRC, Tula rifle ammo is made from soft lead and a steel jacket, and does not fragment like 55 grain m193. My point was that both steel jacketed tula and "penetrator" green tip are terrible choices if you are looking for less penetration. There is lots of info by some smart people in stickies in the terminal ballistics sub forum that is worth checking out.
Yes, we covered a few posts back that there are some good options for 5.56 ammo to minimize stray round penetration and such.
My point was it's unlikely most folks with, as I said earlier, a cheap AR they don't shoot a lot in a "home defense" role
are using such ammo or have practiced enough to be proficient and safe, but far more likely using cheap fmj.
It's been my experience and observation anyway. You fine folks that are up to speed and using appropriate ammo
and have trained enough, professionally or otherwise, to be proficient are not the rule, but rather the exception I'm afraid.
Eurodriver
10-04-15, 14:50
You wake up at 03:00 to find an intruder in your house. You grab your defensive weapon and confront the intruder. The intruder raises his weapon – you fire killing the intruder. The intruder’s momma goes on TV and says; “He was a good boy. He was about to start college next semester. If he had a gun it was only for protection. He was mixed up and went into the wrong house by mistake. Why couldn’t he have just shot him in the foot? Why’d he have to kill my baby? He didn’t do nothing to nobody.” Next thing you know there’s an unruly crowd outside the courthouse demanding you be prosecuted for murder. News media reports that you are a gun nut. You killed this young college student with an evil scary looking military assault rifle. Political pressure applied. Charges are filed. Couldn’t happen in America? Yeah, right…… Watch the news lately!?!
Counterpoint:
You wake up at 3am (Because you're a ****ing civilian so you read the clock like one) to find an intruder in your apartment. You grab your 870 from under the bed because you "don't have your contacts in" and want to make sure the "buckshot spread" definitely "gets the guy". You fire once and miss the intruder, who has an AK type rifle and begins firing at you. In your daze and confusion, you stovepipe the ejection of the 870 and now you've already been shot twice. Luckily the intruder is retreating and runs out of the house leaving you to crawl to your phone and dial 911. Barely alive, you make it to the OR in time to save your life. When you awake from surgery, you find yourself handcuffed to the bed awaiting arraignment upon recovery. When you ask what the hell happened, you find that your buckshot actually didn't miss, those balls over penetrated your wall and killed a sleeping girl next door. Now you've been shot, you've got medical bills, you're gonna owe the neighbors everything you own, and you're facing a manslaughter charge because you were concerned that using an AR15 type rifle made you more likely to be prosecuted.
The only difference between this scenario and the one you described is that George Zimmerman walked. You won't.
This is the sort of thing that worries me.
A lot of people say use the best tool for the job, it's about survival, damn the consequences and that a good shoot is a good shoot.
While I do not disagree with any of it, and I believe it is all absolutely true, there are some unpleasant realities about our society like the hypothetical
the above quoted lays out that are hard to forget about to me. I woke up this morning and first thing I read is the father of that sick miserable sob that shot up that school the other
day is saying if it weren't for the guns his son wouldn't have hurt anyone. People believe this sort of thing, it get's airtime, it creates associations in the public's
mind and I firmly believe that public opinion/perception effects if not the laws themselves then the interpretation of and/or future laws.
I struggle with this sort of thing myself, where do you draw the line between making the best tactical decision regarding
safety and defense, and mitigation of legal/public/financial ramifications that could ruin my/my family/my household/,my future as much as an act of violence itself?
It's not just this particular issue either, it's a number of things. I carried a pistol for a lot of years back east, now I'm in CA of all places (long story) and I cannot. Logic would dictate that safety trumps possible legal persecution and I should carry anyway as it's the best tool for the job, right? Is it just an odds game? Am I more likely to need to defend myself with a
pistol than I am being found out and arrested?
I do not know.
Luckily I live in a really nice small place that I honestly feel no need to carry, but it's a legitimate concern and something I think real hard about off and on,
especially on the rare occasions I go somewhere I do not feel safe.
Is anyone selling self-defense insurance yet?
Let me spell this out again for you.
1) better to be alive than dead. If they come at you with armor, a shotgun or pistol won't do much to save you. ARs are far easier to use than a pump action and won't fail based on muzzle pressure or hand placement like a semi auto pistol. They are simply better weapons in every way.
2) if you're worried about over penetration, 5.56 penetrates less than 9mm or 00 buck. Furthermore, it's far easier to make sure all rounds go through a person before hitting a wall when using a rifle.
3) prosecutors would not waste their precious time and tax payer money as well as intentionally worsen their record/statistics by taking a castle doctrine case that protects you by statue, regardless of weapon used. This isn't their first rodeo.
4) if it does make it to court, you can request a bench trial to remove the variable of the jury, especially if you live in a very liberal anti-gun area.
5) even if you take a jury, your lawyer(s) will attempt to select a jury with firearm knowledge.
6) legal costs may be helped by a multitude of organizations, including possibly the NRA.
wolf_walker
10-04-15, 14:54
Yet another "experiment" which fails to account for all the variables. Bad science, you are dismissed.
Like I said, "simple".
The variables are practically too numerous to count.
In my personal experience, not what I read on the internet, not what someone told me, but
my personal trigger pulling putting holes in things experience, a cheap FMJ 5.56 will go through
more of the material found in most homes than a cheap FMJ 9mm or .40 or whatever pistol will.
That very simple video illustrates such and a very basic way. Absolutely there is more to it than that,
I I probly said as much a few posts back, but it still stands.
Eurodriver
10-04-15, 14:55
There were people who have used Class 3 in self defense and walked.
A righteous shoot is a righteous shoot.
I used what I had to stop the closest part of the most immediate threat.
Bing bang boom.
ETA Should your case ever go to trial, a competent defense will explain that a legally owned weapon is a legally owned weapon and is irrelevant to the matter of self defense. If it meets your state's criteria them anything else doesn't matter.
You're speaking that logic too. Stop it. Everyone knows that an overzealous DA can charge anyone with murder if some protected class folks start screaming racism.
Like all these people who used AR15s and were prosecuted.
http://www.wral.com/homeowner-shoots-intruder-in-vance-county-break-in/13638825/
http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/148344-story
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/24/no-shots-fired-home-intruders-decide-not-to-stick-around-after-seeing-their-victim-holding-an-ar-15/
http://www.khou.com/story/local/2015/10/04/11333122/
wolf_walker
10-04-15, 14:57
This is the point in these sorts of threads where we all end up repeating ourselves.
I've said all I can say in several different ways and am going to unsubscribe and get on with my
Sunday now.
I respect all of your opinions and right to them and will take the optimistic view that you each have good
reasons for having them, I hope none of us ever have to put this stuff to the test. Cheers.
Interior walls are just a couple layers of drywall with insulation in between, an exterior wall is drywall, insulation, plywood, and siding, I wouldn't count on any of that to stop any kind of bullet, be it a 5.56, 9mm or 00 buck. If you have to shoot in your house in self defense you better be damn sure what direction you're shooting in, and what lies beyond your walls. In a home defense situation I would absolutely grab my AR because I'm confident with it, I can shoot it quicker and more accurately than any pistol or shotgun, and the capacity is 30 rounds, as a defense weapon it's tough to beat.
jaybirdritenour2
10-04-15, 15:34
There's a reason the FBI SWAT teams went from the MP5 to 5.56 SBRs. Read their studies of why they switched. I use an AR with Hornady TAP rounds for home defense.
Not just that. That is why SBR's were created. To have a much more lethal round in a manageable weapon for clearing a smaller space and yes that why subguns(200 meter range with a mp5) were benched in most cases because the rifle round outperforms them. lol. Any rifle round is more lethal than a pistol caliber period. Will they both kill/incompasitate yes but one does it better for your safety from the bad guy. And if you buy the right rounds you can minimize penetration anyways. AND IT ALL DEPENDS ON YOUR BUILDING. The house I live in has block walls on the exterior so unless i shoot through a window 5.56 it isn't hitting a neighbor.
Found a very interesting article on the matter. A study was conducted with a hypothetical self defense situation and mock jurors in a psychology class (go figure). They examined the jurors decision based on gender of the shooter and juror and the weapon used. The weapons focused on were primarily the mini-14 and an ar-15. Overall the sentence for shooter with the ar-15 was over 50% longer. People are stupid. That being said it seems like using a less "scary" looking rifle would be to your benefit. Even if it is self defense... you never know. It's not unlikely to go before a grand for self defense shootings and should you get charged... well... I think we all know that prosecutors care much more about their record than they do about whether the defendent is innocent or not
This whole thing is a strawman argument. If the case being tried was self defense as claimed, there would be no sentence at all
There are good points on both sides.
We are on the same team here, but we're just debating tactics regarding how to deal with irrational and opportunistic prosecutors, ignorant sheeple and the media that propagate their insane worldviews.
It is a shame that effective, ergonomic, lightweight and reliable tools of self-defense are portrayed as "designed for killing", whereas less modern, dare I say obsolete, tools are viewed as "sporting" and thus somehow more legitimate.
I don't fault anyone for their choice of self defense tool.
Oh boy, where to begin? The people who put this together are either not very thoughtful, reaching too hard, or intellectually dishonest.
Let's take a look at some of what they say:
In 1995, Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp testified that her inability to legally carry a handgun prevented her from stopping a 1991 Killen, Texas restaurant massacre. Dr. Gratia-Hupp had a 38 SPL Smith handgun in her car and pointed that out to legislators after the murders shook the state of Texas. Her testimony was crucial to passing the Texas concealed carry law. Sharon Jo Ramboz's use of an AR-15 assault rifle to defend her home was not compelling in the 1995 Congressional hearings leading to the Assault Weapons Ban (Homsher, 2001). Did the AR-15 make her less persuasive?
Not a valid comparison. The state legislature of TX is not the same as the US congress. Different members, different environment, different politics. If that were not the case we would have national concealed carry.
Further, this occurred 20 years ago when times were different. Since then many states have adopted concealed carry laws, castle doctrine. Things have changed since then. At that time AR's and such were not as popular as they are today. Right now they are the most commonly type of longarm manufactured in the US. They are also the most common longarm used by police.
There has been a small but coherent set of studies relating to the psychological factors of firearms usage and influence on social cognition. A firearm's appearance can have a powerful psychological impact on decision-making and memory . Eyewitnesses to a crime may focus on the gun to the detriment of recalling other details (weapons focus effect – Kramer, Buckhout, & Eugenio, 1990; Pickel, 1998; Steblay, 1992). Firearms also can prime aggressive ideation and reactions (weapons effect). The mere presence of a weapon may cause folks to act more aggressively to others (Anderson, Benjamin & Bartholow, 1998; Berkowitz, 1993; Berkowitz and LePage, 1967).
Again, look how old these studies are--20 plus years. Again the AR is now the most popular longarm in the US and the most commonly bought type of longarm for police use.
Weapons appearance has been discussed in criminal cases. In a recent Court TV televised trial (Florida v. Roten, 2000), the defendant was accused of a hate crime shooting. Roten used a modified SKS (an older Soviet pattern 7.62 mm semiautomatic military rifle) with accessories that might make the rifle appear fiercer than some. A commentator asked why anyone would need such a weapon.
First, this was a hate crime, presumably a homicide. The guy would be on trial regardless of the firearm he used. So it is intellectually dishonest of the writer to try to draw parallels between a gun used in a homicide to a self defense shooting.
Secondly, there will always be people who question 'why anyone would need such a weapon?' If you are going to dictate your choice of firearms why won't own anything more aggressive than an over and under shotgun.
The article also makes reference to some mock juries deciding on the sentencing of someone who shot a burglar in their home and claim that the defender would serve less time if using a less threatening looking gun.
Ironically, these mock juries were held in TX, a state that has castle doctrine which allows the use of deadly force against a burglar. So the hypothetical case would not have wound up in court to begin with unless the homeowner did something that was grossly unjustified that fell outside of the Castle Doctrine.
Having said all this, I would not consider using an AR for home defense anyplace where you cannot legally own one, like NY, and would be very careful and possibly consider using something else in states that restrict it like NJ, MA, CA, etc. Each of those states has their own restrictions, which vary from special licensing, legal possession of only pre-ban guns and magazines, to outright bans on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
Good points.
Another thing to clarify... I'm not suggesting that people choose a handgun (not that it's a bad choice), double barrel, or hunting rifle for home defense. More like just proposing the idea that a (relatively) similar rifle with a different appearance such as a mini or even an sks may be the smarter choice.
Good points.
Another thing to clarify... I'm not suggesting that people choose a handgun (not that it's a bad choice), double barrel, or hunting rifle for home defense. More like just proposing the idea that a (relatively) similar rifle with a different appearance such as a mini or even an sks may be the smarter choice.
Th FBI Miami shoot out gun...nah...certainly it would be considered an AW
daddyusmaximus
10-04-15, 20:54
You wake up at 03:00 to find an intruder in your house. You grab your defensive weapon and confront the intruder. The intruder raises his weapon – you fire killing the intruder. The intruder’s momma goes on TV and says; “He was a good boy. He was about to start college next semester. If he had a gun it was only for protection. He was mixed up and went into the wrong house by mistake. Why couldn’t he have just shot him in the foot? Why’d he have to kill my baby? He didn’t do nothing to nobody.” Next thing you know there’s an unruly crowd outside the courthouse demanding you be prosecuted for murder. News media reports that you are a gun nut. You killed this young college student with an evil scary looking military assault rifle. Political pressure applied. Charges are filed. Couldn’t happen in America? Yeah, right…… Watch the news lately!?!
This is a scary thing because it could go down just this way.
You're speaking that logic too. Stop it. Everyone knows that an overzealous DA can charge anyone with murder if some protected class folks start screaming racism.
Like all these people who used AR15s and were prosecuted.
http://www.wral.com/homeowner-shoots-intruder-in-vance-county-break-in/13638825/
http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/148344-story
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/24/no-shots-fired-home-intruders-decide-not-to-stick-around-after-seeing-their-victim-holding-an-ar-15/
http://www.khou.com/story/local/2015/10/04/11333122/
Even a cop transporting a criminal in a police van can be charged with murder.
Good points.
Another thing to clarify... I'm not suggesting that people choose a handgun (not that it's a bad choice), double barrel, or hunting rifle for home defense. More like just proposing the idea that a (relatively) similar rifle with a different appearance such as a mini or even an sks may be the smarter choice.
A similar rifle with a different appearance could very well be the difference if you live in a anti-gun area, or have anti-gun folks in your government in the area, or have a high percentage of minorities in your area, or a million other things. I agree that looks are used to judge firearms. It is allowable, and a prefered method of the left to deal with guns, but heaven forbid we judge based on deviant sexual behaviours, or blue hair nose rings and tats... I am aware that I will be judged by others in the way most in like with their agenda.
Having been a soldier, and carried an AR style rifle in the employ of the U.S. Army, I think that for me personally, if I am ever put in this position, I should be able to get good enough lawyers to convey that I was simply using the tool I am most familiar with. I am confident in my choice of an AR SBR as a home defense gun... For my situation... in my area. (still want a can) I even have Hornady ammo that said "TAP FPD (For Personal Defense)" right on the box to show the judge.
If I lived in a liberal area, (and I'd rather eat poop) I probably would choose differently, because I know I would be portrayed as a out of control combat vet with PTSD who needs to be locked away... for the safety of all those poor misguided kids about to start college.
People are very judgemental. I know I can be sometimes. Liberal lawyers, prosecutors, and media sure as hell will be.
Good points.
Another thing to clarify... I'm not suggesting that people choose a handgun (not that it's a bad choice), double barrel, or hunting rifle for home defense. More like just proposing the idea that a (relatively) similar rifle with a different appearance such as a mini or even an sks may be the smarter choice.
I don't think either is a smarter choice compared to a quality AR, assuming you live someplace where you can legally own an AR.
The SKS is longer, heavier, less ergonomic, holds less rounds, and penetrates too much.
The Mini-14 is not as ergonomic, reliable, or durable as a quality AR. Here is a post from Larry Vickers on the Mini-14: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?171509-Whats-the-word-on-the-Ruger-Mini-30:
My guess is the entire gun world has basically hit the delete button on the Mini 14 awhile back. I rarely ever see them in classes and when I do their performance is abysmal. In this day and age no one I know is going to tolerate that for very long. They are borderline worthless for anything more than plinking - basically a 10/22 in a bigger caliber. For any kind of serious use they should be avoided like the plague.
All things equal, anyone who chooses a poor performer due to asthetics, as LAV says, needs to take a piss test. If I shoot it's legal. I'll roll the dice with the weapon. Being that ARs are what the standard issue cop carries now adays, I'm not worried about it.
Performance wise, an ar makes the most sense for the most people. There are outliers, but they are rare.
These threads... they keep getting worse. I don't know who just assumes a study is correct. If it hasn't gone through a peer review process then it is never a good idea to take it too seriously. More importantly people should have the basic scientific understanding to recognize that you need to have someone who knows how to read the results to let you know if a study is complete junk or if you can legitimately reference it. I could post a study on a blog saying that electron electron repulsion does not work in microgravity and I could quite literally produce actual data that suggested this without faulty equipment. Should you trust that? No, don't use your perception bias as an excuse to cry "I told you so". Bringing up one off cases that aren't legally relevant is also questionable. Arguing your neighbor will want to send you to San Quentin because she voted for Obama is a similarly unreliable statement. Writing off everyone in the world as "steeple" is equally illegitimate. My dad may not know much about firearms and may be very anti-gun but he can notice a poor CCW job about as fast as I can. Make sure to take time to objectively think before running your mouth.
Gunnut12,
Based on the post with which you started this thread, what do you think would happen to someone who who used something that resembled a sawed-off shotgun to shoot and kill several robbers in New York City?
Being that ARs are what the standard issue cop carries now adays, I'm not worried about it.
When I was young the saying was always "carry what the local police carry. So that way if your weapon choice ever comes up in a defensive shoot you can say its what the poice use to defend themselves".
Now that Im older I realize thats a crock of shit. Ive investigated/been on scene of/privvy to the info of, several self defense shootings. Including some where an AR or other "assault weapon" was used. A good self defense shoot is usually very easy to see right away. The conversation usually goes something like this.
Cop A (morning crew): Hey bro Im here to relieve you, what happened?
Cop B (night shift): Oh you know... Johnny Mcmethhead broke into this dudes house all whacked out on meth waiving a knife and homeowner shot him
Cop A: Nice.... Someone smoked old Johnny huh? What did he shoot him with?
Cop B: AR15
Cop A: Yeah?!? Nice. Did it **** him up?
Cop B: Oh yeah its gruesome. Headshot.
Sergeant walks up: Hey, someone go get the some coffee at Mcdonalds and grab the homeowner a McMuffin.
This. What's funny is that the people who would argue against the AR would also say that they "carry ammo that the cops carry" so as to stay out of jail.
I was made privy to a shooting in Los Angeles in which the homeowner fired at a burglar (missed) and he fled. The homeowner couldn't leave it alone, so he chased him and shot him down the street in the back. He was charged with voluntary manslaughter and convicted.
Seems like most of these shit stories are like that.
When I was young the saying was always "carry what the local police carry. So that way if your weapon choice ever comes up in a defensive shoot you can say its what the poice use to defend themselves".
Now that Im older I realize thats a crock of shit. Ive investigated/been on scene of/privvy to the info of, several self defense shootings. Including some where an AR or other "assault weapon" was used. A good self defense shoot is usually very easy to see right away. The conversation usually goes something like this.
Cop A (morning crew): Hey bro Im here to relieve you, what happened?
Cop B (night shift): Oh you know... Johnny Mcmethhead broke into this dudes house all whacked out on meth waiving a knife and homeowner shot him
Cop A: Nice.... Someone smoked old Johnny huh? What did he shoot him with?
Cop B: AR15
Cop A: Yeah?!? Nice. Did it **** him up?
Cop B: Oh yeah its gruesome. Headshot.
Sergeant walks up: Hey, someone go get the some coffee at Mcdonalds and grab the homeowner a McMuffin.
titsonritz
10-05-15, 05:08
Ar (and other military style rifles) poor choice for self defense?
"The foregoing is quite obviously not an approved outlook in current sociological circles. That is of no consequence. We are concerned here simply with survival. After we have arranged for our survival, we can discuss sociology" - Jeff Cooper.
Counterpoint:
You wake up at 3am (Because you're a ****ing civilian so you read the clock like one) to find an intruder in your apartment. You grab your 870 from under the bed because you "don't have your contacts in" and want to make sure the "buckshot spread" definitely "gets the guy". You fire once and miss the intruder, who has an AK type rifle and begins firing at you. In your daze and confusion, you stovepipe the ejection of the 870 and now you've already been shot twice. Luckily the intruder is retreating and runs out of the house leaving you to crawl to your phone and dial 911. Barely alive, you make it to the OR in time to save your life. When you awake from surgery, you find yourself handcuffed to the bed awaiting arraignment upon recovery. When you ask what the hell happened, you find that your buckshot actually didn't miss, those balls over penetrated your wall and killed a sleeping girl next door. Now you've been shot, you've got medical bills, you're gonna owe the neighbors everything you own, and you're facing a manslaughter charge because you were concerned that using an AR15 type rifle made you more likely to be prosecuted.
The only difference between this scenario and the one you described is that George Zimmerman walked. You won't.
Thanks for narrowly saving me from certain death at the hands of that jihadist, horseshit scenario. You made several assumptions I wouldn't have, like me taking an unpredictable shot, first. Why would I want to lose the tactical advantage of sight and hearing when I can slide a blade between the intruder's ribs? My house, my hiding spots, no kids and the neighbors are safely far enough away I can use an AR 10 if I want.
The willingness to predict my outcome is as bad as liberals wanting the NRA declared a Terrorist Organization based on their logic.
You totally blew over the Biden/shotgun "open the door and spray a few blasts and that ought to take care of it." Didn't you?
Gunnut12,
Based on the post with which you started this thread, what do you think would happen to someone who who used something that resembled a sawed-off shotgun to shoot and kill several robbers in New York City?
A sawed off shotgun or something that resembled a sawed off shotgun? If the first and you didn't pay the 200... prison. Otherwise... anywhere from no charges to bernhard goetz.
Lots of people are getting defensive itt (not directed at anyone particular). I made this thread to simply because I thought it would be an interesting discuscussion I'm not telling anyone to do anything.
sevenhelmet
10-05-15, 18:49
My take on the AR for SD/HD is it's more of a tool against an escalated threat (think mobs, riots, etc.) For regular duty HD, I think it's fine, but only when suppressed and with backstop considerations met. I find pistols to be easier to maneuver in close quarters, and they are less likely to incapacitate the shooter when fired indoors. That being said, if a carbine is what you prefer, and you've considered all the above, then you're all set to do the job with one.
When you discharge any firearm indoors it will be irrelevant. Having been on the receiving end of a .45 at close range the noise was the last thing on my mind.
My take on the AR for SD/HD is it's more of a tool against an escalated threat (think mobs, riots, etc.) For regular duty HD, I think it's fine, but only when suppressed and with backstop considerations met. I find pistols to be easier to maneuver in close quarters, and they are less likely to incapacitate the shooter when fired indoors. That being said, if a carbine is what you prefer, and you've considered all the above, then you're all set to do the job with one.
sevenhelmet
10-05-15, 19:08
Fair point. Having never been in a gunfight indoors, I can only imagine.
PatrioticDisorder
10-05-15, 19:28
If someone breaks into my home and I'm able to get to my AR (suppressed SBR) that is what I'm using for home defense, "social acceptance" be damned in a life or death situation. I want the most effective tool I can get my hands on.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.