Houston man uses AR-15 to defend his home against three violent thugs

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 hours ago, dentsflogged said:

but the big picture is this: recent events have shown us that having access to weapons like AR15's will allow a single person (or 2-3 people acting together) to quickly and effectively maim or kill a much, MUCH larger number of people than even the most inept doctor could manage (short of deliberate action, which when found out will hold serious concequences of their own) , in a tiny fraction of the time. 

 

So me, personally?  I'm not saying no more guns.  I'm not even saying no more big guns.  I'm saying there needs to be a very good, very robust system of checks - background check at the very minimum.  Does someone have a wrap sheet for violent crimes (as opposed, say, to a speeding ticket), do they have a history of mental health issues, have they got a bunch of massive red flags such as multiple restraining orders, threats of violence etc etc)?  Then maaaaybe don't give them access to weapons right now.  Not even forever - allow for a re-review every so many years.  People change, after all.  People that were genuine little bastards and problem children in their late teens and early 20's can turn their lives around in just a few years.  

You sound as if you have never bought a gun in the US.  (If this is wrong, I apologize in advance).  But your suggestion of a BG check has been in place, for many years.  In fact, it is harder to buy a gun (legally) today than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Certainly, our current system of BG checks needs to be improved, or at least the other sources of info that SHOULD link to a bun purchase BG check, needs an overhaul.  Any time a person with a history of domestic violence or other mental health issue is able to buy a gun legally, then the system is indeed broken.

 

As to the ability of guns to kill many, quickly... A lot of that depends on the skills of the shooter.  A very large amount of damage could be done with any gun besides an AR-15.  I won’t go into details, but I can assure you with 100% confidence this is a true statement.  The AR-15 is popular, and so gets a lot of attention.  But it isn’t the weapon of choice for this shooting.  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

17 minutes ago, Italian_in_NYC said:

I played with the terms on purpose. A semi-automatic weapon is very similar to a machine gun, that's why I called it a semi-machine gun.

There is no reason to own an AR-15 for self-defense, that's all.

Wanna have fun shooting it? Go to a range and shoot it there, but can't walk out of there with it.

You’ve said this twice.  Why not?

[Italian_in_NYC 259]

Just now, IDWAF said:

You’ve said this twice.  Why not?

Because it's clearly an offensive weapon meant to shoot as many people as possible in a short span of time.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

3 minutes ago, Italian_in_NYC said:

Because it's clearly an offensive weapon meant to shoot as many people as possible in a short span of time.

Then why does the military use a similar style weapon as the primary self-defense weapon?

[Italian_in_NYC 259]

Just now, IDWAF said:

Then why does the military use a similar style weapon as the primary self-defense weapon?

The military has to defend itself from other armies or guerrillas or a group of well-trained terrorists.

Not the typical civilian's case.

Why not owning artillery at this point?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, Italian_in_NYC said:

The military has to defend itself from other armies or guerrillas or a group of well-trained terrorists.

Not the typical civilian's case.

Why not owning artillery at this point?

Let’s keep is real, please.  No hyperbole needed.

 

A criminal can be well-trained too.  

 

But to be fair, I actually agree with you, it’s NOT the best home-defense weapon.  A short-barreled 12 gauge shotgun is actually much better.  Nothing quite like staring down that gaping cylinder to make one reconsider the need for your personal belongings.  And the protector is much likely to miss in a high-adrenaline situation.

 

However, that does not mean the AR-15 is a bad weapon.  It’s great for shooting varmints at ranges from 50-300 meters.  Wouldn’t be my choice for what it was used for, but not everyone uses the most appropriate weapon every time they pull out a gun.

[Italian_in_NYC 259]

Just now, IDWAF said:

Let’s keep is real, please.  No hyperbole needed.

 

A criminal can be well-trained too.  

 

But to be fair, I actually agree with you, it’s NOT the best home-defense weapon.  A short-barreled 12 gauge shotgun is actually much better.  Nothing quite like staring down that gaping cylinder to make one reconsider the need for your personal belongings.  And the protector is much likely to miss in a high-adrenaline situation.

 

However, that does not mean the AR-15 is a bad weapon.  It’s great for shooting varmints at ranges from 50-300 meters.  Wouldn’t be my choice for what it was used for, but not everyone uses the most appropriate weapon every time they pull out a gun.

If a criminal is well trained, then the civilian is dead, 99% of the time, let's be real.

We need to face the problem. These kind of weapons have to be strictly limited or school shootings will continue.

It is absurd that a 19 year old who couldn't buy a beer could legally buy such a lethal weapon. It just doesn't make any sense.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

10 minutes ago, Italian_in_NYC said:

If a criminal is well trained, then the civilian is dead, 99% of the time, let's be real.

We need to face the problem. These kind of weapons have to be strictly limited or school shootings will continue.

It is absurd that a 19 year old who couldn't buy a beer could legally buy such a lethal weapon. It just doesn't make any sense.

School shootings will continue if every single AR-15 were to magically disappear today.  Don’t kid yourself.  The issue is NOT the weapon my friend.  The issue is deeper.  The AR-15 is no more lethal than a .243 or a .22 or a .308.  Less so, in fact, particularly with ball ammo.

 

And back to the proper use of the AR-15... you are posting in the thread about the Houston shooter.  In his case, the AR-15 was THE PERFECT weapon for the job.  And obviously, the man knew how to employ it effectively, because (thankfully) he won against three thugs who tried to do him harm.   The aforementioned 12 ga. would have been useless in this situation, as would handguns.  I applaud his use of the weapon.  At least two bad guys will never again hurt anyone.

Edited February 20, 2018 by IDWAF

[smilesammich 10,727]

still haven't read any details about the op, all we have is an image of a news report headline.

[Sonea 138]

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

I’m guessing here, but I think JG’s comment was sarcasm, because many posts from anti-gun people here (I think Jim did it about three times in one day) immediately go to “STRAWMAN! STRAWMAN!” if anyone tries to compare shootings to any other medium of death in the US.

Oh sorry I didn't pick up on the sarcasm. Now that you mention it, I realize he was repeating an earlier post.

[Sonea 138]

1 hour ago, Italian_in_NYC said:

I played with the terms on purpose. A semi-automatic weapon is very similar to a machine gun, that's why I called it a semi-machine gun.

There is no reason to own an AR-15 for self-defense, that's all.

Wanna have fun shooting it? Go to a range and shoot it there, but can't walk out of there with it.

Machine guns, mechanically, are radically different than a semiautomatic rifle. One of the primary differences is that most (not all) fire from an open bolt. IE when the trigger is pressed the bolt closes and detonates the round before resetting. This system allows for rates of fire anywhere from 500 rounds per minute (say a British Bren gun) to 1200 rounds ( like a German MG42).

 

Open bolt guns have a "funny" recoil impulse which makes them less accurate.

 

In a self defense situation with 2 or more attackers, you don't need 500 rounds per minute. You need anywhere from 10-20 rounds and the ability to put them on target quickly. Does it have to be the AR15? No. Any semiautomatic carbine will do the trick. The thing is, an AR15 isn't really any more lethal than a run of the mill 9mm carbine, or even say the 80 year old m1 carbine at ranges under 25 yds.

 

Could you defend yourself with a revolver? Sure if there is only 1 maybe 2 attackers. Therefore any carbine is more suitable for self defense than the alternative you are suggesting. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, Sonea said:

Machine guns, mechanically, are radically different than a semiautomatic rifle. One of the primary differences is that most (not all) fire from an open bolt. IE when the trigger is pressed the bolt closes and detonates the round before resetting. This system allows for rates of fire anywhere from 500 rounds per minute (say a British Bren gun) to 1200 rounds ( like a German MG42).

 

Open bolt guns have a "funny" recoil impulse which makes them less accurate.

 

In a self defense situation with 2 or more attackers, you don't need 500 rounds per minute. You need anywhere from 10-20 rounds and the ability to put them on target quickly. Does it have to be the AR15? No. Any semiautomatic carbine will do the trick. The thing is, an AR15 isn't really any more lethal than a run of the mill 9mm carbine, or even say the 80 year old m1 carbine at ranges under 25 yds.

 

Could you defend yourself with a revolver? Sure if there is only 1 maybe 2 attackers. Therefore any carbine is more suitable for self defense than the alternative you are suggesting. 

Truth in weapons.  Love the accuracy of your posts.

[Sonea 138]

1 hour ago, Italian_in_NYC said:

Because it's clearly an offensive weapon meant to shoot as many people as possible in a short span of time.

Pretty much every gun ever manufactured has this as an end goal. Samuel Colt had this goal when he designed the paterson revolver in the 1830s.

[dentsflogged 352]

10 hours ago, IDWAF said:

You sound as if you have never bought a gun in the US.  (If this is wrong, I apologize in advance).  But your suggestion of a BG check has been in place, for many years.  In fact, it is harder to buy a gun (legally) today than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Certainly, our current system of BG checks needs to be improved, or at least the other sources of info that SHOULD link to a bun purchase BG check, needs an overhaul.  Any time a person with a history of domestic violence or other mental health issue is able to buy a gun legally, then the system is indeed broken.

 

As to the ability of guns to kill many, quickly... A lot of that depends on the skills of the shooter.  A very large amount of damage could be done with any gun besides an AR-15.  I won’t go into details, but I can assure you with 100% confidence this is a true statement.  The AR-15 is popular, and so gets a lot of attention.  But it isn’t the weapon of choice for this shooting.  

I haven't bought a gun in the US, but I'm familiar with the process as I was with my partner's brother when he got his new hunting rifle (fun day out getting to know the fam!)   I'm aware that BG checks are required (only in some states, as far as I'm aware, but happy to be told I'm wrong) but the current system doesn't do a good enough job. They need to be much more robust, fully encompassing red flags that are present even if they never resulted in criminal proceedings and so on. 

I've been around guns my whole life.  I'm not afraid of them, nor of using them.  But I totally disagree on the "skills of the shooter" - if we are talking about things like AR15s, all the "skills" it requires is the ability to know how to load and discharge the firearm, and which end to point at people.  "Spray and pray" is the term in online gaming and is accurate in this example.  When firing into a crowd of people, especially a big crowd or a group of people in confined spaces (like in Florida and the Las Vegas shootings) the law of averages says that if someone can hold a weapon steady and pointed in the right general direction, damage can/will be done, and it takes a surprisingly small amount of damage to result in death. 

 

I'm not in favor of unilaterally restricting or removing guns altogether, I do agree that they have a place, but I'm damned if I can agree with the arguments that just because there is one instance where an AR15 was used successfully for personal defense, that they should continue to be available for purchase and use on the strength that "school shootings will still happen" - yes, sadly, they will. I'm not so much of an idealist as to think they won't.  But maybe, just maybe, without access to high powered, easy to use, semi-or-fully automatic weapons, they'll become less deadly, with less people seriously injured. I just wish that there was a way for people to agree that just because US Citizen have a "right" to bear arms, it does not mean that everyone should have that right, because realistically the death, injury and maiming of children and teenagers and innocent concert/club goers should be enough to prove otherwise.   Driving a car is not a right, it's a privilege  - as evidenced by the requirement to have a drivers licence which can and is taken away for not following the rules. Same as having a licence to practice medicine, or to fly a plane, or any number of other things which can conceivably cause mass casualties - I'd just love to see gun ownership - or at least heavy/high powered gun ownership, treated the same way. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, dentsflogged said:

I haven't bought a gun in the US, but I'm familiar with the process as I was with my partner's brother when he got his new hunting rifle (fun day out getting to know the fam!)   I'm aware that BG checks are required (only in some states, as far as I'm aware, but happy to be told I'm wrong) but the current system doesn't do a good enough job. They need to be much more robust, fully encompassing red flags that are present even if they never resulted in criminal proceedings and so on. 

I've been around guns my whole life.  I'm not afraid of them, nor of using them.  But I totally disagree on the "skills of the shooter" - if we are talking about things like AR15s, all the "skills" it requires is the ability to know how to load and discharge the firearm, and which end to point at people.  "Spray and pray" is the term in online gaming and is accurate in this example.  When firing into a crowd of people, especially a big crowd or a group of people in confined spaces (like in Florida and the Las Vegas shootings) the law of averages says that if someone can hold a weapon steady and pointed in the right general direction, damage can/will be done, and it takes a surprisingly small amount of damage to result in death. 

 

I'm not in favor of unilaterally restricting or removing guns altogether, I do agree that they have a place, but I'm damned if I can agree with the arguments that just because there is one instance where an AR15 was used successfully for personal defense, that they should continue to be available for purchase and use on the strength that "school shootings will still happen" - yes, sadly, they will. I'm not so much of an idealist as to think they won't.  But maybe, just maybe, without access to high powered, easy to use, semi-or-fully automatic weapons, they'll become less deadly, with less people seriously injured. I just wish that there was a way for people to agree that just because US Citizen have a "right" to bear arms, it does not mean that everyone should have that right, because realistically the death, injury and maiming of children and teenagers and innocent concert/club goers should be enough to prove otherwise.   Driving a car is not a right, it's a privilege  - as evidenced by the requirement to have a drivers licence which can and is taken away for not following the rules. Same as having a licence to practice medicine, or to fly a plane, or any number of other things which can conceivably cause mass casualties - I'd just love to see gun ownership - or at least heavy/high powered gun ownership, treated the same way. 

BG checks are required in all states, and actually run thru federal databases.  Obviously not perfect due to lack of reporting TO those databases, but if a person happens to be in the database, he or she won't be able to get that gun without first clearing their name, at least the legal way.

 

And then there is the illegal way.  Won't go into it, but it's not all that difficult.

 

You're wrong on the skills part.  I have taught people to shoot who really had no idea what they were doing.  Yes, spray and pray works on your video games,  but I assure you it does not in real life. Especially at the distance during the Vegas shooting.  (Not sure the distance in FL).  But full auto on an M-4 is so inaccurate that it is almost never used.  Single shot or burst is, because then you can actually hit your target.

 

You bring up good points, because both of those activities (folks with drivers licenses and medical licenses) kill thousands of times more people than idiots with guns.  But we are not allowed to talk about that here.

Edited February 21, 2018 by IDWAF