why anyone wants an "assault rifle"
 

Here is one dictated by reason instead of emotion/passion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R3uLTnzs60

When "Gun Free" advicates talk about guns is like the Pope preaches about sex, neither one has any clue.

I don't really agree with his assessment of assault rifles being the best self-defense weapon. I think his idea of what sort of situations he may find himself in where he needs to defend himself might make more sense if he was still over seas on deployment rather than what would be more in line with reality stateside. From the way he describes potentially getting into firefights, it sounds like he's thinking of most of his self defense scenarios playing out more like military engagements than things like being the target of a crime of opportunity.

For urban environments and home defense, a shotgun would seem to make far more sense a top choice than an assault rifle. Loud, intimidating, larger margin for error on aiming, and less problems with over-penetration. An assault rifle would be the clear choice if you were considering protracted firefights with targets at around 500 feet but given the realities of crime in the US that scenario makes for a piss poor basis on which to recommend it as the best self-defense weapon. Outside the home a handgun would seem to make more sense.

There are some scenarios in which something like an AR-15 would be a better choice even for the non-agressor, but they aren't likely enough for it to make sense to call the class of weapon the best for self defense. The qualities of these sorts of weapons in which they are generally superior tend - such as ammo capacity, as well as ability to penetrate at range with accuracy - tend to be most important when facing multiple opponents outside of extreme close quarters.

Unless those opponents are coming in the form of a team from the sheriff's office, it may be difficult for some to imagine a plausible situation where you see aggressors approaching from some distance and have the opportunity and justification to engage them in numbers or at ranges where an assault rifle would be a more ideal choice than a shotgun or a more readily available handgun. There may certainly be some and there could be one or two modern examples where someone defended themselves with an assault rifle in which they would not have been better able to do so with another form of weapon. Given the perceived implausibility of such situations though, the estimation that these are the best weapons to have for self-defense makes it appear as though the speaker sees these kinds of threats as abounding where others do not or they have a far different idea of self-defense than the legal one.

Considering more likely situations one may encounter as a target of violent crime, it could be very misleading and unhelpful to give the impression that if someone were looking for a gun for self-defense that they should consider assault style semi-automatic rifles as the best choice. That assumes they are already of a like mind with regard to legal and political issues involved. For those that do not see a need for this weapon but may be open to being convinced to support the right to own it, this labeling of assault rifles as "the best for self-defense" will come across as either disingenuous or as the product of delusion.

To those who might be convinced but are predisposed to otherwise disagree, this may be like attempting to defend the free speech rights of groups like Westboro Baptist by explaining why you think we need hate groups. Arguing for the need to allow something some find distasteful or dangerous as part of a larger right or set of rights tends to be much more successful than trying to argue for the necessity that particular thing.

"An assault rifle does a better job defending me than a hand gun does"

And a tank does a better job at defending me than assault rifle does. Let's all start driving tanks…

Yeah, shows the insanity of it all.

I carry a pistol for defense. Why a pistol? Is it because it is the best tool for the job? Not at all. It is because it is convenient enough that it can be carried at all times, both comfortably, and without sending the hoplophobes fleeing in terror. The assault rifle is far superior from an accuracy standpoint (important for a variety of obvious reasons) as well as its ability to inflict lethal damage.

The only time shotguns are the better weapon is in a situation where both you and your target are moving quickly. In every other circumstance a decent rifle is the better weapon.

And of course the final piece of the puzzle. The rifle is much more capable of being a proactive weapon than either a pistol or a shotgun, which is why we're having any of these discussions in the first place.

thanks for all the sensible inputs, choosing the right tools for a particular situation definately requires knowledge, training and exprience. I would not underestimate the effectiveness of hand to hand combat in close encounters.

What's most powerful/effective weapons? reminds me of a Chinese board game, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungle_(board_game)

@Warmark, on the contrary, it only demenstrates how nonsense Z's respond… like the Federal "War/Defence" Dept, spending this country into oblivion.

Not in an urban environment it isn't - particularly in an appartment - where "over penetration" could be somewhat problematic. Even using hollow-points won't nescessarily help depending on the construction as drywall can become lodged in the cavity and prevent the deformation which one might have been counting on keeping it from going through a wall.

If someone were to use an assault rifle as their home defense weapon I would hope they knew enough to use lightweight frangible ammunition - and in an apartment setting they should probably opt for a shorter barrel.

a decent guide:
http://whichgun.com/articles/choosin…efense-firearm

Accuracy is my highest priority. And a shotgun may over penetrate less (proper ammo selection not withstanding), but if your potential collateral damage ever happens to be say, a family member standing right next to or in front of your intended target, I think you'll find yourself wishing you had almost any other gun in the world in your hands. Shotguns are cool, and shooting skeet is a lot of fun, but it is probably the last gun I would grab for defense use. If I lived completely alone, and without any pets, I might change my mind. Maybe.

Also, a short barreled assault rifle fired indoors can pretty easily exceed decibel levels capable of causing instant and permanent hearing loss. Stick with 14.5+ unless you wear amplified hearing protection (even normal hearing aids should be fine) or keep a can on your rifle.

Having assault weapons around is just flat out dumb. Self defense? Please. What are you expecting? A small army of attackers? Be honest with yourself. Getting an assault weapon has nothing to do with defense and everything to do with feeling powerful.

OK, I guess I should bother to take apart this idiot's video post:

1. No it is not more intimidating. All a gun can do is kill you and they can all do that. An assault rifle doesn't make me any more dead than any other gun. Why should I be more scared of it?

2. I suppose if you've got somebody coming after you with a pistol and you've got an assault rifle then you've got the upper hand (though I think by far the biggest advantage is going to go to whoever it is that sees the other first and recognizes him/her as a threat).

3. The 2nd Ammendment was passed by MANY people. Saying it is there for one reason only is silly. Even if they did have one reason, who cares? The political situation and the technology has changed completely in the past couple hundred years. Not that the 2nd Ammendment is actually under threat, of course.

4. Yes Mr. Whoever You Are, your paranoia about the goverment coming in and taking over your life is pretty sad. The fact that you think you could delay such a thing by more than a few hours with your assault rifle is also laughable.

5. Ah, the inevidable "banning guns will not make crime go away" argument. If it's not a silver bullet it's a worthless bullet, huh? No, getting rid of guns doesn't make the problem go away but it sure makes it a lot smaller.

6. Given your rather clear paranioa about the government coming in and taking over your life, how is it you count as somebody trustworthy enough to carry a gun?

Exactly :biggrin:

Ah, the smell of dipshit in the morning… The fact of the matter is that many, if not most, handguns lack the power to put a person down without a magazine dump. Even if you hit something biologically important, it generally takes a couple minutes for a person to bleed out. A couple minutes when the attacker will be able to retaliate. Rifles have sufficient power to rip apart enough meat to kill quickly. You've been watching too many movies, where the bad guys die instantly and the good guys always keep it together long enough to delivery some weighty lines with their last gasp. You might consider talking to someone in the military or the police so you can actually know how the real world works.

"Real world", are you freaking kidding me? Are you confronted by armed attackers often in your real world? What is their motivation for risking their lives, stealing your TV? More likely they want your fancy gun.

All this hard man talk of magazine dumps and ripping apart meat amazes me - do you hear yourself?

An assault rifle does require more training to be effective in closed spaces and to facilitate safe and rapid movement through doorways. I would probably go for a 45 if I was in an apartment. Long hallways with wide doorways I would go for a rifle like a bushmaster.

I think people should have the option of choosing a suitable weapon for their defense.

OK, so hold your nose. We're talking about deadly weapons, so there probably won't be too many rainbows and unicorns in the discussion. I notice that you don't have anything to say about the facts of my post. I wonder why that might be.

edit- and while we're at it, my wife had an armed criminal break into her workplace about a week ago while she was on duty. Guy was looking for drugs (she works at a nursing home). Not like we're in a rough area, but criminals live everywhere.

Your "facts" sound like the sort of rubbish 15 year old boys come up with after a six pack of beer.

So a guy breaks into your wife's workplace looking for drugs - give him the drugs. He's a desperate messed up loser yes, but a) that doesn't mean he deserves to be shot to death, and b) are you telling me that you'd have prefered your wife was armed and therefore could have taken a man's life? What an awful thing to wish for; she'd have to live with that.

If this "self defense at all costs" bollocks is so ingrained in you that you can think that way then there's no hope, but just think about what you're saying. Of course criminals are everywhere, but the odds are that people who break into nursing homes, houses, etc are not doing so to kill the occupants. They want drugs or cash. Something they can sell easily. I live in an area where there is crime and our house would be pretty easy to break into so I've thought about it a lot. I will protect my wife and kids at all costs if it comes to that, but I strongly believe that confronting an intruder with a weapon is the worst way possible to resolve the issue.

Let the government allow for house holders, public access buildings, school teachers, etc' etc' to possess taser/stun guns, so that brain dead psychopaths can be quickly disabled and shackled or whatever - no killing, no need for bullets.

I like the flashlight stun gun, looks just like any normal flash torch but with one hell of a kick.

http://www.stunguns-usa.com/diablo

would need to be careful with kiddies around obviously but in reality the security benefit assurance would have to outweigh the safety element.

I have a very simple take on this problem of having a gun (for whatever reason sake). I am a sentient, I have consciousness of what a gun can do to me or any other human being. I know what could happen, what I could do whith a gun in any silly situation, as after an evening drinking or smoking (or both) or whatever. Given that knowledge and understanding of my own potential weaknesses, why in hell would I carry a gun for ?! Self defense ? I rely on my ability to fight bare handed and if the supposed agressor is handling a gun then so be it, surrendering is not a shame and I don't cling that much to any belongings anyway so… Would I be married and having children then I won't jeopardize their lives in a gunfight. Some are ready to die or kill for preserving some material stuff but I'm not that kind of person. I wouldn't like being killed for stealing a TV set or a car and wouldn't kill someone for such things neither. There's nothing material deserving we kill each others for. What's the point in killing to save another's life ? Most americans take pride in their so called religious beliefs but I don't get it that way. That doesn't make any sense to me and I'm an atheist though. How can a christian or any other religion inclined person can justify the killing of another human being in the name of any so called god ? That principle eludes my common sense and the small parts of intelligence I pretend to possess. Make love not firefights and have a merry christmas and a happy new year feeling alive and instead of smelling gunpowder try smelling the natural weed smell, its way better and safer despite what the governments and industries tell us. Peace !

Any what would happen if you country was invaded in the future? What if society as we know it collapsed? What is an environmental disaster wiped out most of the worlds population? It may sound far fetched but the peaceful society the we enjoy now in most of the world is but a blip on the timeline of humanity. What if a riot got out of control and a gang of 20 men came to rape your wife?

Who do you think is going to be better off? The guy with the assault rifle with an extended 60 bullet magazine or the guy with a stun gun?

tl,dr version: I'm irresponsible, so everyone else must be too.

If you can't handle the responsibility of owning a firearm, then don't own one. Simple.

Handguns have a very poor track record as manstoppers. That is they can be lethal (Although last I checked only 1 out of 7 people wounded by a handgun in the US die from said wound), but they rarely incapacitate people instantly. This is based off of thousands of compiled reports by various Law Enforcement Agencies.
Now that solution is the sort of rubbish an addled adolescent teen mind would come up with. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess your exposure to any sort of criminality has been confined to watching television.
I imagine dte just wants his wife to come home to him at the end of the day. Everything else is weak conjecture.
Never understood people who say they will protect their family "at all costs" but weren't actually willing to do anything to ensure their success in the matter. My philosophy of defense puts me on as close to equal ground as possible with someone that might want to harm me or my family. Your's puts you completely at their mercy. Even a 15 year old with a six pack of beer in his belly could figure that one out.

Here, I'll actually supply you with some facts, although I get the feeling that you're not really interested in those.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun_effectiveness