CDZ Is an AR-15 a good self defense weapon...yes.....

[2aguy]

David French goes through the argument that AR-15s are good for self defense...in light of the recent event where a man used one to shoot 3 robbers breaking into his parent's home...killing 2 and wounding the 3rd....

Yes, 'Assault Rifles' Are Good for Home Defense

But don’t take it from me. A number of self-defense experts also choose AR-style rifles to defend their own homes, and as the rifle continues to grow in popularity I would expect more stories like the report out of Oklahoma. An AR-15 isn’t the right self-defense solution for everyone, but for those who know how to use the weapon and can safely store it while still maintaining quick access, it can save innocent lives.

Read more at: Yes, 'Assault Rifles' Are Good for Home Defense

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Killed two but not the third? I'd hate live near anyone who is that bad at shooting. Its a shame that training isn't considered necessary, needed or even desirable. Better to just close your eyes, pull the trigger and hope for the best.

Interesting comments at the link.

 

[westwall]

Killed two but not the third? I'd hate live near anyone who is that bad at shooting. Its a shame that training isn't considered necessary, needed or even desirable. Better to just close your eyes, pull the trigger and hope for the best.

Interesting comments at the link.

The goal is not to kill (only murderous authoritarians, like you, want to kill everybody), the goal is to stop the attacker. If they stop without having to be killed that is the ultimate outcome.

 

[there4eyeM]

"Good" is hardly the correct term. Adequate, sufficient, effective are about as generous as we could get. It is also excessive and unnecessary. A shotgun with rock salt stops without killing. With buck shot, it kills. Still, that AR has such a charming allure...

 

[2aguy]

Killed two but not the third? I'd hate live near anyone who is that bad at shooting. Its a shame that training isn't considered necessary, needed or even desirable. Better to just close your eyes, pull the trigger and hope for the best.

Interesting comments at the link.

And you don't tell the truth about the stance of gun owners.....training is considered necessary, but it is not to be imposed by the government or used to deny people the right to keep and bear arms...which it has become for those countries that only allow the rich to own guns.....training is needed to help use the weapon safely.....and it is not just desirable but important to the safe use and effective self defense use of the weapon.....

But....guns aren't complicated...and actual self defense by civilians with little to no training show that they can and have been used effectively by amateurs....

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

"Good" is hardly the correct term. Adequate, sufficient, effective are about as generous as we could get. It is also excessive and unnecessary. A shotgun with rock salt stops without killing. With buck shot, it kills. Still, that AR has such a charming allure...

Leftist hate the look of it.

 

[2aguy]

"Good" is hardly the correct term. Adequate, sufficient, effective are about as generous as we could get. It is also excessive and unnecessary. A shotgun with rock salt stops without killing. With buck shot, it kills. Still, that AR has such a charming allure...

Not true......a rancher on the border needs more than a shotgun...as do shopkeepers in democrat controlled cities when democrats riot.....an AR-15 on display in the hands of the owners will keep their shop from being burnt to the ground....and an AR-15 can be a good self defense weapon for the home...even if you aren't on an isolated ranch or farm.....

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

Killed two but not the third? I'd hate live near anyone who is that bad at shooting. Its a shame that training isn't considered necessary, needed or even desirable. Better to just close your eyes, pull the trigger and hope for the best.

Interesting comments at the link.

3 for 3 is not good enough for you?

Why is it kill / kill/ kill from the left.

Starting with aborting babies.

Sad really.

 

[2aguy]

Here is the column the author wrote about the AR-15 for self defense...

Dear Anti-Gun Liberals, Don't Tell Me Which Gun I 'Need' for Self-Defense

It’s light, maneuverable, accurate, and highly reliable. While self-defense experts can and do disagree on the optimal weapon for home defense, large numbers choose AR-style rifles for exactly the reasons I do. It provides more firepower — with greater accuracy — than the alternatives. But now I’m told — largely by people who don’t know the first thing about firearms — that no American “needs” an AR-style rifle. But when your life is on the line, what do you want? More accuracy or less? More firepower or less? More recoil or less? More reliability or less? It’s always interesting to take a relatively inexperienced shooter to a range, let them first shoot a handgun (where the bullets generally scatter all over the target), and then hand them an AR. Even rookies will shoot far more accurately with far less recoil.

It’s just easier to use.

But not — in general — for criminals.

For the average criminal, concealment is key.

So they use handguns. Moreover, the average criminal isn’t spending $1,000 (or sometimes more) on their weapon. Rarely (very rarely) extraordinary criminals will use AR-type rifles, but most mass shootings are committed with handguns.

And that brings us to the next point.


If the justification for banning a weapon is simply that “criminals find it easy to use to kill lots of people,” then the quest to narrow private ownership of firearms to the mythical class of weapons that law-abiding civilians find handy for self-defense but that criminals can’t use to commit mass murder will reduce legal gun ownership to the vanishing point.

Any weapon that’s easy for law-abiding citizens to use is just as easy for criminals to abuse.

Read more at: Dear Anti-Gun Liberals, Don't Tell Me Which Gun I 'Need' for Self-Defense

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Killed two but not the third? I'd hate live near anyone who is that bad at shooting. Its a shame that training isn't considered necessary, needed or even desirable. Better to just close your eyes, pull the trigger and hope for the best.

Interesting comments at the link.

The goal is not to kill (only murderous authoritarians, like you, want to kill everybody), the goal is to stop the attacker. If they stop without having to be killed that is the ultimate outcome.

Would you like to post links to where you have read that I want to kill everybody?

No, I didn't think so.

Interesting that you would come up with particular accusation since I have repeatedly said that although I own guns, my go-to for self-defense and home protection is the air taser. You can take out several attackers but not kill any of them.

And one does not have to be a good shot or be calm and cool in the face of being attacked.

 

[westwall]

Killed two but not the third? I'd hate live near anyone who is that bad at shooting. Its a shame that training isn't considered necessary, needed or even desirable. Better to just close your eyes, pull the trigger and hope for the best.

Interesting comments at the link.

The goal is not to kill (only murderous authoritarians, like you, want to kill everybody), the goal is to stop the attacker. If they stop without having to be killed that is the ultimate outcome.

Would you like to post links to where you have read that I want to kill everybody?

No, I didn't think so.

Interesting that you would come up with particular accusation since I have repeatedly said that although I own guns, my go-to for self-defense and home protection is the air taser. You can take out several attackers but not kill any of them.

And one does not have to be a good shot or be calm and cool in the face of being attacked.

The post I responded to for one. "Killed two, but not the third?" As if you are implying that after the attacker was down the victim should have executed him for having the temerity to live through getting shot the first time. Can't have it both ways luddy, no matter how hard you try.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Killed two but not the third? I'd hate live near anyone who is that bad at shooting. Its a shame that training isn't considered necessary, needed or even desirable. Better to just close your eyes, pull the trigger and hope for the best.

Interesting comments at the link.

3 for 3 is not good enough for you?

Why is it kill / kill/ kill from the left.

Starting with aborting babies.

Sad really.

Read my post #10 ^^^

In point of fact, my comment was about the inability to do the job with a semi-automatic.

"Sad really", wouldn't you say?

Seriously, how incompetent would one have to be?

 

[westwall]

Killed two but not the third? I'd hate live near anyone who is that bad at shooting. Its a shame that training isn't considered necessary, needed or even desirable. Better to just close your eyes, pull the trigger and hope for the best.

Interesting comments at the link.

3 for 3 is not good enough for you?

Why is it kill / kill/ kill from the left.

Starting with aborting babies.

Sad really.

Read my post #10 ^^^

In point of fact, my comment was about the inability to do the job with a semi-automatic.

"Sad really", wouldn't you say?

Seriously, how incompetent would one have to be?

Three for three isn't incompetent. Three for three is better than 90% of the police personnel can do.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Killed two but not the third? I'd hate live near anyone who is that bad at shooting. Its a shame that training isn't considered necessary, needed or even desirable. Better to just close your eyes, pull the trigger and hope for the best.

Interesting comments at the link.

The goal is not to kill (only murderous authoritarians, like you, want to kill everybody), the goal is to stop the attacker. If they stop without having to be killed that is the ultimate outcome.

Would you like to post links to where you have read that I want to kill everybody?

No, I didn't think so.

Interesting that you would come up with particular accusation since I have repeatedly said that although I own guns, my go-to for self-defense and home protection is the air taser. You can take out several attackers but not kill any of them.

And one does not have to be a good shot or be calm and cool in the face of being attacked.

The post I responded to for one. "Killed two, but not the third?" As if you are implying that after the attacker was down the victim should have executed him for having the temerity to live through getting shot the first time. Can't have it both ways luddy, no matter how hard you try.

WHAT?????????????????????????

Its an AR-15, right? How incompetent would the shooter have to be?

Again, that is the reason I have air tasers. So that no one has to die.

Please stop making up fictional answers and attributing them to me. Thanks.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

Killed two but not the third? I'd hate live near anyone who is that bad at shooting. Its a shame that training isn't considered necessary, needed or even desirable. Better to just close your eyes, pull the trigger and hope for the best.

Interesting comments at the link.

3 for 3 is not good enough for you?

Why is it kill / kill/ kill from the left.

Starting with aborting babies.

Sad really.

Read my post #10 ^^^

In point of fact, my comment was about the inability to do the job with a semi-automatic.

"Sad really", wouldn't you say?

Seriously, how incompetent would one have to be?

define "doing the job", please?

That would be taking Post 10 out of context.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Killed two but not the third? I'd hate live near anyone who is that bad at shooting. Its a shame that training isn't considered necessary, needed or even desirable. Better to just close your eyes, pull the trigger and hope for the best.

Interesting comments at the link.

3 for 3 is not good enough for you?

Why is it kill / kill/ kill from the left.

Starting with aborting babies.

Sad really.

Read my post #10 ^^^

In point of fact, my comment was about the inability to do the job with a semi-automatic.

"Sad really", wouldn't you say?

Seriously, how incompetent would one have to be?

Three for three isn't incompetent. Three for three is better than 90% of the police personnel can do.

Yep. How often do we read that highly trained cops fire a gazillion rounds but get only a fraction of hits.

Just another reason why civilians should be trained and yet more and more places across the country are letting people hide guns in their pocket while not requiring training.

 

[westwall]

Killed two but not the third? I'd hate live near anyone who is that bad at shooting. Its a shame that training isn't considered necessary, needed or even desirable. Better to just close your eyes, pull the trigger and hope for the best.

Interesting comments at the link.

The goal is not to kill (only murderous authoritarians, like you, want to kill everybody), the goal is to stop the attacker. If they stop without having to be killed that is the ultimate outcome.

Would you like to post links to where you have read that I want to kill everybody?

No, I didn't think so.

Interesting that you would come up with particular accusation since I have repeatedly said that although I own guns, my go-to for self-defense and home protection is the air taser. You can take out several attackers but not kill any of them.

And one does not have to be a good shot or be calm and cool in the face of being attacked.

The post I responded to for one. "Killed two, but not the third?" As if you are implying that after the attacker was down the victim should have executed him for having the temerity to live through getting shot the first time. Can't have it both ways luddy, no matter how hard you try.

WHAT?????????????????????????

Its an AR-15, right? How incompetent would the shooter have to be?

Again, that is the reason I have air tasers. So that no one has to die.

Please stop making up fictional answers and attributing them to me. Thanks.

Your air taser will do nothing against a truly motivated bad guy other than tick him off. What do you do if there is armed lunatic 50 yards from you with a rifle? How about 100 yards? That's the problem with your solution it may, and it's a very big may, defend you, but it won't help your kids, or your neighbors, in a truly bad situation.

 

[heil hitler]

Killed two but not the third? I'd hate live near anyone who is that bad at shooting. Its a shame that training isn't considered necessary, needed or even desirable. Better to just close your eyes, pull the trigger and hope for the best.

Interesting comments at the link.

The goal is not to kill (only murderous authoritarians, like you, want to kill everybody), the goal is to stop the attacker. If they stop without having to be killed that is the ultimate outcome.

Would you like to post links to where you have read that I want to kill everybody?

No, I didn't think so.

Interesting that you would come up with particular accusation since I have repeatedly said that although I own guns, my go-to for self-defense and home protection is the air taser. You can take out several attackers but not kill any of them.

And one does not have to be a good shot or be calm and cool in the face of being attacked.

The post I responded to for one. "Killed two, but not the third?" As if you are implying that after the attacker was down the victim should have executed him for having the temerity to live through getting shot the first time. Can't have it both ways luddy, no matter how hard you try.

WHAT?????????????????????????

Its an AR-15, right? How incompetent would the shooter have to be?

Again, that is the reason I have air tasers. So that no one has to die.

Please stop making up fictional answers and attributing them to me. Thanks.

Said the guy who has probably never fired an AR.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

Killed two but not the third? I'd hate live near anyone who is that bad at shooting. Its a shame that training isn't considered necessary, needed or even desirable. Better to just close your eyes, pull the trigger and hope for the best.

Interesting comments at the link.

The goal is not to kill (only murderous authoritarians, like you, want to kill everybody), the goal is to stop the attacker. If they stop without having to be killed that is the ultimate outcome.

Would you like to post links to where you have read that I want to kill everybody?

No, I didn't think so.

Interesting that you would come up with particular accusation since I have repeatedly said that although I own guns, my go-to for self-defense and home protection is the air taser. You can take out several attackers but not kill any of them.

And one does not have to be a good shot or be calm and cool in the face of being attacked.

The post I responded to for one. "Killed two, but not the third?" As if you are implying that after the attacker was down the victim should have executed him for having the temerity to live through getting shot the first time. Can't have it both ways luddy, no matter how hard you try.

WHAT?????????????????????????

Its an AR-15, right? How incompetent would the shooter have to be?





Again, that is the reason I have air tasers. So that no one has to die.

Please stop making up fictional answers and attributing them to me. Thanks.

Lets rob that Neddite broad - she will only taze us.
Westwall will shoot us anna sh1t - stay away from dere.


Brilliant!!!!

 

[westwall]

Killed two but not the third? I'd hate live near anyone who is that bad at shooting. Its a shame that training isn't considered necessary, needed or even desirable. Better to just close your eyes, pull the trigger and hope for the best.

Interesting comments at the link.

3 for 3 is not good enough for you?

Why is it kill / kill/ kill from the left.

Starting with aborting babies.

Sad really.

Read my post #10 ^^^

In point of fact, my comment was about the inability to do the job with a semi-automatic.

"Sad really", wouldn't you say?

Seriously, how incompetent would one have to be?

Three for three isn't incompetent. Three for three is better than 90% of the police personnel can do.

Yep. How often do we read that highly trained cops fire a gazillion rounds but get only a fraction of hits.

Just another reason why civilians should be trained and yet more and more places across the country are letting people hide guns in their pocket while not requiring training.

I find it amusing that you demand we hold civilians to a higher standard than the police. The facts are that civilians kill more bad guys than police do. By almost two to one. They also rarely, unlike cops, hit anyone other than the intended target. How about this. You fight for police standards to be raised to the level that the civilians already ARE. Then get back to us when you get far.

Thanks!