Guns for "Defense?"

[MineralMan]

You hear that a lot from some gun owners. They need their firearms to "defend themselves." So, what do they buy? AR-15s or some similar semi-auto rifle. My question is: What threat is it that requires that type of weapon for defense? I can't really imagine the situation where that is the weapon of choice as a defensive weapon. Nope.

What are you defending? Your home? Then a far superior choice of firearms is a 12 ga. shotgun. Your AR-15 or similar semi-auto rifle isn't going to be of a lot of use if someone is breaking down your door or coming through the window you left unlatched. See, it needs to be aimed accurately, since it fires a projectile that is just over 1/4" in diameter. Will you have time to aim accurately? I think not. A shotgun is far superior for home defense, simply for that reason. It's a "point and shoot" sort of weapon.

Do you need to defend yourself on our perilous streets? Well, your AR-15 isn't much use for that, either. You're not going to carry it around at "port arms," ready to shoulder it and fire. Nope. Instead, you'll carry it around with a sling on your back. It will take you a few seconds to prepare to defend yourself.

You're choosing a weapon that is obviously unsuited for the job. Which leads me to believe that it's not really "defense" that you have in mind, but "offense." An AR-15 is a pretty good offensive weapon. You can fire it at people far away from you from a shielded position, taking time to aim carefully for maximum effect. That's why soldiers carry weapons like that in the field. They're good offensive weapons.

For close quarters defense, though? Not so much. So, don't tell me you need to own several military-looking semi-auto rifles to "defend" yourself and your family. That's not what they were designed for. You have another reason for owning them, and I know what that reason is. You're saying the thing that is not when you talk about such weapons being defensive tools.

Me? I trained on the M16 when I enlisted in the USAF in 1965. We trained by shooting at targets quite some distance from our positions. We aimed carefully. We fired our rifles. I got a perfect score with an M16, so I got an Expert Marksman ribbon. But, we did not train on using the M16 in close quarters. That's because that's not what it's designed for.

Defense? Nope. That's a lie. That's not why you own them. Not at all.

[Wounded Bear]

1. All firearms are really offensive weapons, not defensive...

[MineralMan]

4. Yes, but that's another issue.

I'm simply debunking one argument people offer for owning such weapons.

[The Magistrate]

2. The Thing Is Rediculous Anyway, Sir

Risk to life increases with the presence of a gun in a household. Whether from loss of temper, negligent handling, or suicide.

[MineralMan]

5. I don't disagree.

[The Magistrate]

7. Didn't Think You Did, Sir

You are a fellow of some wisdom.

It seemed worth laying out. Even occasional uses in successful self-defense come nowhere near balancing out the increased risk, in actuarial terms.

[MineralMan]

8. That's true, too.

[BlueGreenLady]

3. Unfortunately, I think the GOP wants

teachers to have them mounted on their desks. Based on gun humpers I am acquainted with, I do not think the GOP will ever be willing to outlaw machine guns.

[MineralMan]

6. If an armed police officer couldn't stop an 18-year-old outside a school,

I guarantee that an armed teacher will not be able to stop one in the classroom. That idea is folly.

[BlueGreenLady]

9. I fully agree to that and

I also would not expect a police officer to have to charge in to face a mass murderer with an AR-15 armed only with a hand gun. I don't think suicide is a job requirement, even in the military. Am I wrong there?

[MineralMan]

10. Well, it would be surprising if a cop ran in there and

confronted the shooter at close range. That has happened, of course, but often at the cost of the cop's life.

Preventing 18-year-olds from obtaining such weapons and defensive body armor is the only real solution. Eventually, in such a situation, someone will shoot the attacker in the head, but not before many lives are lost.

Had that person not had the weapon he had, nor the protective armor, the situation would not have happened. Prevention is the cure, not reaction after the fact. We don't do that here, though, apparently.

[Joenobody]

20. Almost every cop had

An AR 15 and a 12 Guage available in their cruiser. They learned their lesson in Hollywood '97

Cops in the US are rarely going to be outgunned by a single attacker with an AR outside of a total ambush. Now, their proficiency in combat will greatly vary from dept to dept.

[SYFROYH]

11. Yes, guns for defense.

AR-15 (or similar firearm) is a good weapon for defense of self and others in the home or in rural areas.

A shotgun is good, too, but yes at a distance of 15-25 feet (room distance) an AR can be aimed effectively to hit a dangerous person. In some ways, it is superior to the shotgun for the quality you mentioned. There is a slight spread of buckshot at room distances which means some of the buckshot might miss the target and hit someone else when traveling through walls. There is a tradeoff between both types of weapons. I'd rather be accurate.

AR-15s often have 16-inch barrels which makes them compact rifles (carbines) which makes them very suitable for indoor use and moving around corners. Much more so than your 20" M-16 barrel from days of yore.

You imagine that ARs must owned for offensive purposes. If so, why do police use them now instead of shotguns even when they are apprehending a single person who has not even shown to have a weapon? Police cannot use their weapons offensively -- only defensively. Those criminals that police apprehend are the same criminals who victimize non-police civilians.

Answer to my question: it's because they are very useful in close combat situations for defensive purposes.

Yes, AR-type guns for defense. It is not a lie. You're imaginative.

[anarch]

35. personally one of the things I worry most about being confronted with is a pack of Nazis

armed with AR-15s or similar--there are several groups of them around, and they are all heavily armed and itching for a chance to kill people like me. And I'm also not allowed to defend my home with claymores, which would work better than any kind of firearm in a lot of situations, and present a lot less risk to the defender really, but I guess are banned for other reasons besides their offensive/defensive role.

[doc03]

12. Yea but what if 30 bad guys storm your parimiter, you

need the fire power? You could have a pack of wolves attack you at the local grocery store.

[MineralMan]

13. Well, there is that scenario.

[vercetti2021]

14. I carry for my own safety

Being trans in Texas and this day of age. I don't wanna be a statistic. But other than that. All my other rifles are not semiautomatic rifles. Just basic. I'd never own a military weapon.

[PTWB]

15. A shotgun makes a poor home defense weapon comparatively.

Unless the home you’re defending is massive, with huge open areas. It is a common misconception that buckshot spreads quickly.

In reality, there is almost no spread whatsoever at typical self defense distances of 10 to 21 feet (spread about 1 inch at 10 feet and 2.5 inches at 30 feet). You’re still going to have to aim very precisely with buckshot and a shotgun.

Not only that, but buckshot over penetrates walls compared to a lightweight, frangible bullet like an HP .223 — one of the key factors in selecting a home defense weapon is minimizing or eliminating over penetration because you can’t control what’s happening on the other side of a wall. The last thing you want is a round going through the burglar, your wall, your neighbor’s wall, and then your neighbor.

An AR loaded with defense oriented ammunition and equipped with an attached flashlight for illuminating your target is simply a better choice for a home defense weapon than a shotgun. There is no contest.

[shrike3]

23. Oh, Bullshit

My husband has carried all his life. Protected his home all his life, with a shotgun. I just read your statement to him. He laughed.

[PTWB]

26. There's a lot of flat out incorrect information out there.

Poor practices and misinformation are prevalent.

What specific part of my post does your husband dispute? I’m happy to provide evidence of every claim I made. Let me know what he takes issue with.

[shrike3]

27. His question is, where do you live that you'd need that kind of weapon to protect your property?

And at a time like this, why are you so worried about gun details? Seriously? THAT'S what you're worried about? Twenty-one people are dead. And you're freaking worried about "misinformation" regarding your weapon of choice? Really?

How you sleep at night, I don't know ...

[PTWB]

29. Are you replying to the right person?

My post explained why a shotgun is a poor choice for a home defense weapon compared to an AR. Clearly your husband feels the need to protect his home as you said he uses a shotgun to do so. I also feel the need to protect mine. What does that have to do with where either of us live?

I choose to defend my home responsibly though, which is why I would never use a 12 gauge. The ammunition I’ve chosen is highly frangible and will not over penetrate walls like 00 buckshot or slugs will. My weapon has minimal recoil, is highly accurate, has sufficient capacity, and was easily equipped with a light to make sure I can see my target so that no tragic mistakes are made.

Again, what specific claim in my post does your husband dispute? Does he dispute that the buckshot or slug fired from his shotgun will over penetrate compared to a frangible 223 round? Does he dispute that a shotgun spread is minimal at typical self defense distances? What, exactly, is his objection?

[shrike3]

31. How could I reply to the wrong person? You're the only one consumed with his weapon of choice.

His objection is this: anyone who is such a poor shot that he'd need an AR has no business having a gun of any sort.

He's defended his home with a shotgun for thirty years, and has even had to use it. But he can shoot.

[PTWB]

32. So he has no objection then.

At least not to any of the factual claims that I made in my post.

Got it, thanks for clarifying!

[shrike3]

33. And thank you for not disputing you are such a crappy shot

That you need an AR in order to hit ANYTHING.

Gun people. Starting to think y'all are the most selfish people on this earth. People die, and your first thought is yourselves. And your guns.

[PTWB]

34. Are you under the impression that I started this thread?

I did not.

Accuracy is important. It’s critically important in a self defense situation. Are you really suggesting that one should not take the accuracy of a weapon into account when selecting it for the purpose of self defense?

I made several evidence based points in the post you originally replied to about why the AR is better than the shotgun for home defense. You’ve replied to me numerous times but have yet to point to a single claim that I made which you or your husband disputes.

I own an AR and I also own a 12 gauge. I would never reach for the 12 gauge to defend my home because it is irresponsible to do so.

Just because someone has been doing something wrong for “30 years” doesn’t mean that it is any less wrong.

[shrike3]

36. No, darlin'. Mineral Man posted this thread. He's a sane man.

You're obviously not. Thus, someone like you would never post a thread like this one.

Are you EVER going to acknowledge that 19 kids died? No. Of course not. Because nothing in this world in this world is as important as your gun. That's the problem here. You're like any other gun nut I've ever encountered. Most selfish people on earth. Thanks for proving that.

"Just because someone has been doing something wrong for “30 years” doesn’t mean that it is any less wrong."

Just read that to my husband. He laughed again.

And he asked, "Just who is this guy defending his home from? The Russians?"

[PTWB]

38. You're accusing me of not acknowledging the murder of these innocent children now?

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=16730233 Children have been murdered. Is that not horrific enough? Do we really need to embellish details about the already deadly weapon used to murder them?

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=16721749 Why are you so hellbent on making this shooter a white male when all evidence to points to the contrary? Is the death of at least 14 innocent children not shocking enough?

Here's me acknowledging the lethality of the AR-15 and the murdered children in the very same post:

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=16730215 There is no doubt that the AR-15 is a deadly weapons platform. But it isn’t equivalent to its fully automatic, military grade cousins.

Children have been murdered. Is that not horrific and sensational enough? Do we really need to embellish our description of the weapon used to commit those murders?

And another one acknowledging the lethality of the AR-15:

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=16731309 There is no dispute about the AR-15’s lethality. It’s an incredibly effective killing machine.

And one acknowledging that the AR-15 is the weapon of choice for mass shooters these days:

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=16731565 Yes, it's the weapon of choice for mass shooters these days.

And yet despite all these acknowledgements, when it comes to home defense, an AR-15 loaded with the correct ammunition is still superior to, and more responsible than, a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot or slugs.

[shrike3]

39. Thanks for all the entertainment you provided yesterday.

I shared your "opinions" with a few others yesterday. One of them couldn't believe you were real until I cut and pasted for him.

Now, all these statements:

"Children have been murdered. Is that not horrific enough? Do we really need to embellish details about the already deadly weapon used to murder them?"

Looks to me like your outrage is more about the "embellishment" of the weapon than about the murder of the kids.

"Why are you so hellbent on making this shooter a white male when all evidence to points to the contrary? Is the death of at least 14 innocent children not shocking enough?"

"There is no doubt that the AR-15 is a deadly weapons platform. But it isn’t equivalent to its fully automatic, military grade cousins.

Children have been murdered. Is that not horrific and sensational enough? Do we really need to embellish our description of the weapon used to commit those murders?"

Outrage, again, re your beloved weapon.

This time you're outraged about the ethnic background of the shooter.

"There is no dispute about the AR-15’s lethality. It’s an incredibly effective killing machine."

About the weapon.

"Yes, it's the weapon of choice for mass shooters these days."

About the weapon

"Why are you so hellbent on making this shooter a white male when all evidence to points to the contrary? Is the death of at least 14 innocent children not shocking enough?"

More outraged about the misidentification ethnicity of the shooter than about the kids.

Every statement up there is made through the lens of a man consumed with his weapon of choice. You're outraged, not because they're dead, but because your beloved AR is being dissed.

You are like every right-wing gun nut I have encountered online. How you've lasted here, I have no idea. Maybe everyone's put you on ignore. Maybe I should do the same.

I also think you might want to reflect on your life and your life choices if you live in a place where the only thing that can protect you is an AR.

[PTWB]

40. Goodness gracious!

You shifted those goalposts very quickly once I proved you wrong!

I have been strong advocate for gun control, regardless of your viscous attacks and mischaracterizations, and continue advocate for gun control.

My advocacy for gun control does not blind me to the fact that a 12 gauge shotgun is a poor choice for home defense, for the reasons already explained, when compared to an AR-15.

You’ve yet to address a single shortcoming of the shotgun and instead rely on ad hominem attacks to try to score points.

You’ve claimed your husband has made the choice to use a shotgun for home defense while ignoring the fact that 00 buckshot and slugs will easily penetrate numerous walls and risk the lives of anyone on the other side of those walls. It’s incredibly dangerous and irresponsible to use a shotgun for home defense and equally terrible to advocate for others to do so.

If you’re going to use a firearm to defend your home, you must educate yourself about what is and isn’t safe.

[shrike3]

41. Sweetheart, you kind of proved yourself wrong.

Your main concern is your weapon of choice. In ever Every quote you posted had more to do with that weapon than the deaths of children, or of anything else. Every single quote involved that weapon. (save for the obvious tell about the ethnicity of the shooter. Fragile white guys get riled up by that topic) The kids are kind of secondary. It's all about you, dear. And what you want. Like every single gun humper I've encountered. Never thought I'd find one on DU, but hey. You're everywhere.


Every responsible gun owner I've ever known (and I live in a ruby red area) has said that an AR is not necessary for home defense -- unless the Russians are attacking. Afraid of the Russians, are we? Here's some advice. Practice. Improve your shooting capabilities. You'll get there. Or maybe not.

[PTWB]

42. Nonsense.

You stated, and I quote, “Are you EVER going to acknowledge that 19 kids died? No. Of course not. ”

I showed you post after post where I lamented the horrific murder of these innocent children. And post after post where I talked about the extreme lethality of the AR-15 and the propensity of mass shooters to select that weapons platform.

You level personal attack after personal attack against me, calling me a “gun nut” (while ignoring the fact that I’m a strong gun control advocate as evidenced by numerous posts I’ve made trying to get universal background checks, mandatory safe storage laws, and minimum standards for concealed carry licenses).

Why have you chosen to attack me personally instead of discuss the points I made in my initial post? Perhaps it’s because you know you were wrong.

Now you’re claiming that I’m saying an AR-15 is “necessary” for home defense (another false claim). I’ve never said an AR-15 is necessary for home defense.

What I have said is that using a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot or slugs is a terrible choice for a home defense weapon. And I’ve listed the many reasons why, but most importantly because 00 buckshot and slugs will penetrate your interior walls, your exterior walls, your neighbors exterior walls, and your neighbors.

Properly designed home defense ammunition is designed specifically NOT to over penetrate.

While I am a strong gun control advocate, I do not let my advocacy blind me to reality. I do not let emotion supersede logic, evidence, or rationality.

I’m sorry that you and your husband were insulted and offended that I admonished him about how irresponsible (reckless, really) his choice is to use a shotgun for home defense.

[shrike3]

43. I keep wondering how bad you're going to get. Each time you get worse.

You did not lament the deaths of these children. You lamented as how the AR is misunderstood. Every post you made revolved around the weapon. You don't care about kids. You want to 'mansplain how weapons work. So I'm not wrong, darlin'. You are.

You're a gun control advocate? Not today, apparently.

Every right wing gun nut I've ever encountered has given me your arguments, almost word for word. Minute details about how weapons work. Blah, blah, blah. WHO THE HELL CARES? Except for fellow gtun

You didn't insult my husband. He isn't insulted by people who don't know what they're talking about. Namely, gun nuts.

I'm not so much insulted as incredulous that someone like you is on DU.

Well, dear, you did say the AR is "the responsible choice for home defense." Kinda close, there

I wonder if you've noticed yet that NO ONE agrees with you. NO ONE has responded positively to you. Other than me, and that's because I'm gobsmacked someone like you is actually here. You're probably on everyone's ignore list. Maybe you should be on mine.

[PTWB]

44. When comparing the two weapons

The AR-15, loaded with proper home defense ammunition, is FAR more responsible than a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot or slugs. See, sticking with reality and facts isn't so hard.

I never said that the AR-15 is necessary to defend your home with, despite your mischaracterizations. And I mourn the murdered children repeatedly and often, again despite your mischaracterizations.

I am a strong gun control advocate. I’ve posted repeatedly here for universal background checks, mandatory safe storage laws, and minimum standards for concealed carry permits.

But I don’t let my gun control advocacy blind me to reality. I don’t let my emotions overwhelm my rationality.


Let me be clear: when someone makes a choice to purchase a firearm for home defense, it is incumbent upon that person to select a weapon which meets minimum standards. It is incumbent upon them to eliminate as many variables as possible that could lead to a tragic outcome.

A 12 gauge shotgun, loaded with 00 buckshot or slugs, for most homeowners, is a terrible choice because it is an irresponsible choice. It does not eliminate those variables. You’re selecting a weapon with which the effective ammunition is going to put your neighbors and other household members at undue risk. Your 00 buckshot will easily pass through your walls and into your neighbors walls and into your neighbors.


WHY would you select a weapon that does not control over penetration when that weapon is being specifically utilized for home defense? It’s insanity, it’s irresponsible, and it’s irrational.

You’ve repeatedly mistaken my comparison between the AR-15 and the 12 gauge shotgun as advocacy that an AR-15 is necessary. Yet each of my posts clearly indicates that my advocacy here is for folks not to use shotguns for home defense. That shouldn’t make you want to run out and buy an AR, it should, however, make you rethink your husband’s choice for using a 12 gauge shotgun.

It is incumbent upon gun owners to know their firearms, be proficient with their firearms, and minimize the risks to their household members and neighbors. A 12 gauge shotgun maximizes those risks.

[shrike3]

45. Darlin', all you've done is trumpet the merits of the AR.

Which is kind of what gun nuts do. At least they admit they have the balls to admit what they are. You don't. Do you have any idea how many times I've watched gun nuts spout this stuff? It's classic right-wing. Classic.

And if this is what you call mourning the deaths of children, I sure hope you don't have any of your own.

"The AR-15, loaded with proper home defense ammunition, is FAR more responsible than a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot or slugs. See, sticking with reality and facts isn't so hard." Yet another doofus on line who says he's the expert.

"That shouldn’t make you want to run out and buy an AR, it should, however, make you rethink your husband’s choice for using a 12 gauge shotgun." Like I'm going to trust some doofus on line and not the man I've been married to for thirty years. You must not be married, either.


I think there's something wrong with you, but I honestly don't want to spend the time speculating as to . I'm joining the other DUers -- and there must be many -- who've put you on ignore.

[shrike3]

46. Just visited your journal. You don't like poor people either, eh? On ignore you go.

[PTWB]

47. LOL that's absolutely preposterous.

More false claims, though. I’m not surprised. Insults and lies don’t make up for a lack of argument, a lack of evidence.

Please, take a class about firearm safety if you’re going to insist on having a weapon in the home. I’m deeply troubled that someone who can’t tell the difference between responsibility and necessity owns a firearm.

Yikes.

[onethatcares]

16. I've been looking closely lately

and I haven't seen any reports of large scale home invasions with platoons of crooks. Jewelry stores, yes, but not in suburban neighborhoods and it would seem to me that home invasions are predicated on someone knowing what you have in your domicile and wanting it.

At that point the sound of a pump shotgun racking a round is unmistakable.

The noise of a shotgun fired in the house is even more unmistakable.

Seriously, aside from bank robbery and attempted jewelry store heists how many squad size robberies have you all heard of?

NetFlix/Prime or movies don't count.

[doc03]

17. Mineral man I agree with you that a 12 GA. shotgun is

a better home defense weapon than an AR 15.

People go to all kinds of extremes to justify the need of an AR 15. A intruder is in your house you need acuracy, bullshit. I can shoot a 6 inch group with a 12 GA riifled slug at a hundred yards. At 25 or 30 feet you can put them through the same hole, so needing accuracy with a buckshot load in one's home is ridiculous. If you chamber a round in a pump shotgun it makes an unmistakable sound that will scare the crap out most intruders and send them running. For home defense a shotgun, a 40 cal., 10 MM or a
45 handgun would be a better weapon in my opinion and you wouldn't kill the next door neighbor in addition to the bad guy. The gun people would justify having a tank if they could afford to buy one. You could blow them away a mile before they got to your house you know.

[MineralMan]

18. Well, I'm not a big fan of pistols for that purpose.

That's for a number of reasons, including the fact that they are just too easy to pick up, point, and fire.

I agree with the recognizable sound of chambering a round in a shotgun. I'm not such a fan of slug loads, though. 00 buckshot is just fine. Even turkey or goose loads are adequate for home defense, really.

[doc03]

19. I was just showing that accuracy is not a factor in home

defense. I would use buckshot or regular hunting loads myself. I have a .40 cal. semi auto pistol with a laser sight in my night stand and a 870 shotgun is available if needed. I have no kids in the house.

[MineralMan]

21. I rely about 95% on excellent locks, etc.

at my home. My level of concern about a home invasion sort of robbery is minimal. We also have two dogs who begin barking at the least unusual noise you can imagine. Rattle a door knob and you'll hear them clearly.

The shotgun is in a closet. If you didn't know it was there, you wouldn't find it on casual inspection. It's loaded but there's no round in the chamber. We have no children in the home.

[Kaleva]

24. I've spent hundreds on reinforced doors, quality locks, exterior lighting,

and ring surveillance cameras

Even the master bedroom door is reinforced and has a deadbolt.

[shrike3]

25. We've had an alarm system for years after a few break-ins.

Husband has guns, but keeps them unloaded. Said his father told him, "Never keep a loaded gun in the house."

[Kaleva]

22. I agree that a semiauto rifle is more of an offensive then a home defense weapon

For my particular situation, it's overkill and not as practical for home defense then the revolver I have.

[Bettie]

28. Iowa just passed a bill allowing

AR's for hunting.

I wonder when they'll declare open season on school children.

[sarisataka]

30. Depends on your background

I have had CQB training and could very effectively use an AR platform for home defense.

On the other hand I can also use a pistol or shotgun very well. For the little hunting I do I prefer to use a bolt action and I have one chambered in the same .223 round. So in my case it is simply a practical matter, I have no need to spend a $1000 dollars on something that in all likelihood I would never use.

[Happy Hoosier]

37. The idea that shotguns don't need to be aimed....

…. Is quite wrong. The spread of the shot at close range is not very large. There may be other reasons a shotgun might be preferable, but aiming isn’t really one of them. If I had time to prepare, the AR-15 would be my choice in such a situation. But I don’t live in fear, so my guns are locked up. I use them recreationally. But I advocate for very tight control of such weapons and would turn them in happily if we could get such bans passed.

Most of my guns are antiques and not particularly useful except as an historical curiosity.

[Fla_Democrat]

48. Wow

and I do mean, wow.




I miss Voda.