AR-15 for Home defense in Philly

[TonyF]

Originally Posted by Farbmeister

5.56 will go through MANY, MANY drywall walls.

Why on gods green earth would a 5.56mm NOT penertriate several walls?

Because of it's exterior ballistic characteristics.

LEO went to AR-15's/M-16's cause they are almost GIVEN away by the Federal Gubment.

Might be true in some cases BUT, the decision to adopt the platform by admin has WAY more to do with it than getting them for free. That and the fact that it CAN penetrate most body armor.

Do you think LEO cares about 'overpenetraition'.

They most certainly do.

Its GOOD to be able to go through several wall and still have enough left to inflict a mortal wound.

In some cases it is. But for civilians and LEO's, how do you justify shooting at a target you can't see? Rule #4.

read the theboxotruth.com and put stop using the term 'overpenetraition'.

Those guys at BoT do some neat stuff but there are much better sources with MUCH better information. Dr. Gary Roberts is one such source.

[danp]

Originally Posted by TonyF

Everyone's certainly entitled to their opinion but with this way of thinking we're basically allowing the anti-gun forces to dictate what we'll be using to defend ourselves with by default. Not to mention using a platform that is less effective on the threat and less safe to others in proximity to the *event*.

I think it's less about letting them dictating our behavior and more about basic risk and liability reduction. If you can get the same safety from a non-"scary" firearm there's no reason choose to use one.

[ChamberedRound]

I understand that an AR could be superior to a handgun in this application. However, given potential legal ramifications along with the possibility of over-penetration of rifle ammo, I'd say a handgun with JHP or a shotgun with the right shot (something small that won't over-penetrate) would be a better choice for home defense.

Just my $0.02.

[dgg9]

They do sell .223 frangible ammo -- a lot of indoor ranges insist on it, for reasons of their own.

In the abstract, a long gun CAN be superior for home defense, but not necessarily. Long guns present retention issues that you have to train for. Also, most people simply are not as quick to do immediate action drills with long guns (specifically, malfunction clearances) as they are with pistols. And then there's the sound of a .223 being fired from a short barrelled AR inside an enclosed space -- best to have electronic earmuffs sitting next to the AR you plan to use for home defense.

IMO, "home defense" consists of two actions:

1. Hunkering inside your safe room, waiting for the BG to come through the door. In this case, the 12ga emerges as the best option.

2. "Clearing" the house, i.e., looking for the BG. This is problematic for any one person to do, even with training. Try it in FoF and see how often you get shot. For most people, the handgun is actually the best choice.

[RAKKASAN]

Originally Posted by TonyF

If the shooting was justifiable the weapon system / platform won't make a difference. The fact that handguns are significantly less effective than a long gun can easily be proven to a jury.

Its just naive to think that because its a justifiable shooting that the weapon used won't make a difference. In last issue Combat Handguns Magazine the Self Defense and the Law column , there are actual cases where a prosecutor painted the defendant as a Rambo because of name of a gun in his collection, In other words because he bought a gun called the eliminator he is a Rambo. It wasn’t the weapon used in the justified shooting or even at the scene, yet it took expert testimony, which means money and time (possibly behind bars) to refute it. A jury of your peers probably isn’t

Originally Posted by TonyF

He'll also tell them that the instructors from whom I've received training, many being current and former LEO's all ADVISED me that the 5.56 is much more effective and SAFER than a handgun or SG.

Also remember that more effective in this context means better at killing, a prosecutor is going to take the fact that that you specifically chose this weapon because it kills better than another and run it around to the point that it wasn’t the responsible choice of a law abiding citizen trying to protect his family but the deliberate decision of a murderer made so he is sure to kill someone’s son or brother or whatever.

By no means am I saying that you shouldn’t defend yourself, if that is the weapon you have at your disposal when it is needed than by all means use it. I am also not saying that you shouldn’t own one, I do and I love it. Just know that a prosecutor won’t hesitate to paint you as Rambo on a killing spree and your choices and actions can help his case or limit it. So Choose wisely.

[TonyF]

Originally Posted by RAKKASAN

Its just naive to think that because its a justifiable shooting that the weapon used won't make a difference. In last issue Combat Handguns Magazine the Self Defense and the Law column , there are actual cases where a prosecutor painted the defendant as a Rambo because of name of a gun in his collection, In other words because he bought a gun called the eliminator he is a Rambo. It wasn’t the weapon used in the justified shooting or even at the scene, yet it took expert testimony, which means money and time (possibly behind bars) to refute it. A jury of your peers probably isn’t

There's no defense against a D.A. who happens to be a prick but it's your attorney's job to refute those ridiculous kinds of inferences.

And another thing, who's to say CH magazine vets the facts of the *actual cases* they print? It's not beyond the realm of possibility that the D.A. tried to paint the defendant as a Rambo because he WAS a Rambo. In that context I think it's perfectly legitimate for a D.A. to play that aspect up to the jury cuz the facts of the case may well point to criminal intent.

Also remember that more effective in this context means better at killing, a prosecutor is going to take the fact that that you specifically chose this weapon because it kills better than another and run it around to the point that it wasn’t the responsible choice of a law abiding citizen trying to protect his family but the deliberate decision of a murderer made so he is sure to kill someone’s son or brother or whatever.

I still maintain this is a twisted way of approaching a weapon of choice to defend yourself and your family. We shoot to stop ..... not kill. But life and death HANGS in the balance and if it comes down to being forced to press the trigger on someone because of their aggressive behavior then I want the most effective means at my disposal.

Sorry guys, this reminds me of the arguments against open carry. It's in that same vein.

To each his own I suppose.

[TonyF]

Originally Posted by RAKKASAN

Its just naive to think that because its a justifiable shooting that the weapon used won't make a difference.

The immediate problem at hand is surviving the experience. One could screw up (from a legal perspective) just as easily with a handgun or SG.

[GunLawyer001]

A big part of life is knowing when to hold your ground at all costs, and when to let it go.

I'll defend my family at all costs. On the other hand, I'll move from an AR-15 with loaded beta mag and tactical lights over to a loaded .45 pistol as my primary go-to weapon for night time intruders, because it's not worth the hassle to change the way the rest of the Commonwealth thinks.

In addition to the loaded pistol, I do keep the AR-15 handy, as well as an FN-FAL with a couple of mags of military ball. But the pistol is the primary home defense weapon, because (a) it's good enough for the likeliest scenarios, and (b) juries in the real world are less likely to be swayed by that choice of weapon against some punk with a knife or a Lorcin, and I happen to live in the real world.

Jurors have mostly been brainwashed by anti-gun propaganda for decades. You aren't going to overcome that as a defendant.

It's tempting to argue that jurors SHOULD be reasonable, that District Attorneys SHOULD ignore the type of weapon used in a lawful defensive shooting, the same way it's comforting to believe that all people are decent at their core, that there's no crime in Disneyland, and that Social Security will be there for us. Unfortunately, we don't live in a world where any of that is true, so the wise man factors reality into his plans.

You should also be able to carry a firearm openly anywhere except Philadelphia without being hassled, but if you try it, you will be hassled. That's just reality.

They say that neurotics build castles in the air, psychotics live in them. It's all well and good to discuss an ideal world where bad guys are invariably punished and good guys are allowed to do as they wish, where peaceably carrying a weapon has no consequences, and where plugging a burglar with a Minigun is regarded as just saving the taxpayers the cost of a burglary trial. We don't live there yet.

[TonyF]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

A big part of life is knowing when to hold your ground at all costs, and when to let it go.

You should also be able to carry a firearm openly anywhere except Philadelphia without being hassled, but if you try it, you will be hassled. That's just reality.

They say that neurotics build castles in the air, psychotics live in them. It's all well and good to discuss an ideal world where bad guys are invariably punished and good guys are allowed to do as they wish, where peaceably carrying a weapon has no consequences, and where plugging a burglar with a Minigun is regarded as just saving the taxpayers the cost of a burglary trial. We don't live there yet.

I'm not directing this to anyone in particular who has replied to this thread but consider the following.

It's common to hear people utter "from my cold dead hands" if or when it comes to gun confiscation.

OTOH, we'll abstain from open carry because we *might* get hassled by an LEO who is ignorant of the fact that it is not prohibited. Or, we'll use a less effective weapon to defend ourselves because a jury *might* perceive us as someone with a Rambo complex.

Does anyone besides me see this as a dichotomy?

We'll make the ultimate sacrifice for gun confiscation but if we get arrested for open carry we don't seem to have the stomach to spend a night in jail and a day in court where it WILL be rectified. Neither will we maximize the ability to save our lives and those of our loved ones out of fear there may be a perceived legal consequence. IMHO this is self-inflicted tyranny.

[rwilson452]

I for one will not choose to use my AR for home defence. Not because of any legal reasoning but because of my concern for unintended injury to innocent bystanders. I really think my pistols and shotgun are up to the task. Should a time come when I think I need it I will use it. I note in my particular case population density is not that of a large urban area. I still have concerns about those around me. It seems to me to be the responsible thing to do. The bottom line is do what you need to do to survive the moment and let the legal stuff sort itself out later. If your dead problems with the DA are mute. As for a DA painting a bad picture, be prepared, gather all those arguments in advance so if the time comes you can coach your lawyer and steal the thunder of the DA.

If you do use your AR or any other firearm and hurt someone you didn't intend your not only going to face a DA but a civil case as well. Ayoob spoke to this. I would much rather spend some time in jail that spend time on a slab in the morgue.

Originally Posted by TonyF

I'm not directing this to anyone in particular who has replied to this thread but consider the following.

It's common to hear people utter "from my cold dead hands" if or when it comes to gun confiscation.

OTOH, we'll abstain from open carry because we *might* get hassled by an LEO who is ignorant of the fact that it is not prohibited. Or, we'll use a less effective weapon to defend ourselves because a jury *might* perceive us as someone with a Rambo complex.

Does anyone besides me see this as a dichotomy?

We'll make the ultimate sacrifice for gun confiscation but if we get arrested for open carry we don't seem to have the stomach to spend a night in jail and a day in court where it WILL be rectified. Neither will we maximize the ability to save our lives and those of our loved ones out of fear there may be a perceived legal consequence. IMHO this is self-inflicted tyranny.