From Backwoods Home Magazine: 2nd Amendment, the Bill of Rights...long read, but worth it

[wshngtn1]

A high capacity shotgun would be best but having quick access to it is tough with kids in the house. Who said anything about using a rifle? I would rather have a 17 rd mag than a 7 rd mag in any situation or scenario whether its one intruder or 20. It may not save my family but neither will crossing my fingers.

[ZoEd]

You realize, of course, that the NRA has blocked any "thorough and extensive research" into this subject for decades, don't you?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us...anted=all&_r=0

Let me use the Predictotarian response.

You don't expect me to take that liberally slanted paper serious do you?

[Kindred]

Let me use the Predictotarian response.

You don't expect me to take that liberally slanted paper serious do you?

Here's another:
How the Government Stifled Gun Research | LiveScience
http://www.livescience.com/26253-gov...-research.html

[sacase]

If they are just there to rob you, I think it's likely that firing a few shots and taking cover will be your best strategy to scare them away. No matter how many rounds are in your gun, one against four is not good odds.

And while we're thinking about this, what if 10 armed thugs break into your house? It would suck to only have a semiautomatic rifle with a 50-round magazine. We'll have to legalize belt-fed automatic weapons if we are going to have a chance.

And what if 30 armed thugs break into your house? It's going to suck to only have the one machine gun. I guess we'll have to legalize grenades and flame throwers and apache helicopters.

We're all going to have to face the fact that no matter how well we arm ourselves, there will be situations where it is not going to be possible to defend ourselves without additional backup. So can we have a reasonable discussion about what guns are necessary for home defense without coming up with wild scenarios?

Considering our soldiers in Iraq and Astan never use burst just semi when clearing a house I think I will take my chances with a semi auto rifle

[Redskins Diehard]

So how long does it take to reload then? Sometimes seconds are all you need in situations like this.

How many seconds are you claiming it will take? I honestly have never done more than shoot through a magazine at a gun range, so I have never tried to change out a clip as fast as possible. But to detach a magazine, grab another magazine, insert it, and reacquire the target and start shooting again, you are saying that can typically be done in 1 second? SW81 said it would take "seconds." Do you disagree with that?

Are we talking average person or the guy that its around practicing it all day and always keep it in exactly the same place? It can take anywhere from a second to an embarrassingly long time. I doubt that most mass murderers are well oiled machines that practice countless hours in order to get changing the mag programmed into muscle memory. Thus the massive capacity mag.

I am not talking seconds. I have mentioned a few times in the past that it does not require much practice at all to become proficient in changing magazines. Sure, if the person that has bought the weapon, ammunition, and magazines decides to put them in their pocket then it could take a while to change them. The scenario that Dj brought up was a jam and that is a far more time consuming process than a magazine change. It is faster to shoot say 30 rounds from 1 30 round magazine than it would be to shoot 30 rounds from 3 10 round magazines.(Well aimed shots) But we are not talking about massive amounts of training or practice to make that difference "negligible". And definitely not "countless hours". To be clear...I don't oppose a limit to magazine capacity. I don't see it making a difference in many of the situations that it is meant to address. As I have mentioned before...I believe damage was MITIGATED by the magazine choice of Aurora shooter.

---------- Post added January-18th-2013 at 07:28 PM ----------

I'd hate to be your neighbor if you are seriously considering using an assault rifle for home defense. Those bullets are going to go through several nearby houses before they even slow down. Heck, I'd hate to be your kids - ceilings are no protection either.

Home defense: shotgun. Accept no substitutes.

Hey, there are plenty of people that we would hate to have as our neighbor for any variety of reasons.

While I would not argue the point of the best weapon for the job. Pass through several houses before they slow down is probably a bit of an exaggeration.

[sacase]

I'd hate to be your neighbor if you are seriously considering using an assault rifle for home defense. Those bullets are going to go through several nearby houses before they even slow down. Heck, I'd hate to be your kids - ceilings are no protection either.

Home defense: shotgun. Accept no substitutes.

Sigh......false....stick to law. A 5.56mm/.223 is a high velocity round that fragments. Once it passes through an interior wall the chance of wounding go down a lot. Exterior wall are thicker and would lower the wound potential even more. You have far more to worry about from a heavier hand gun round than a 5.56mm. In fact double ought buckshot is more dangerous than your evil AR-15. While I agree that a shotty is better, its more due to the point and shoot aspect under stress.

[Redskins Diehard]

I'd hate to be your neighbor if you are seriously considering using an assault rifle for home defense. Those bullets are going to go through several nearby houses before they even slow down. Heck, I'd hate to be your kids - ceilings are no protection either.

Home defense: shotgun. Accept no substitutes.

Hey, there are plenty of people that we would hate to have as our neighbor for any variety of reasons.

While I would not argue the point of the best weapon for the job. Pass through several houses before they slow down is probably a bit of an exaggeration.

[wshngtn1]

If they are just there to rob you, I think it's likely that firing a few shots and taking cover will be your best strategy to scare them away. No matter how many rounds are in your gun, one against four is not good odds.

I seriously doubt they will give me ample time to ask if they are only here to rob me. If you think firing 3 of your 7 shots to scare them and then taking cover is the best plan...well, hey, go for it and I wish you the best! But because you think that is best doesnt mean I think that is best. We all base a lot of decisions on probability...and I think the probability of 4 intruders is just a tad bit higher than your wild scenarios.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I know it pisses you off when I say anything now, but I have to ask you what you mean here. How is the "government" different from "the democratic process?"

What you quoted is one of the most mind blowing things I've ever read on this site.... Which ncludes all threads by China.

[PleaseBlitz]

I seriously doubt they will give me ample time to ask if they are only here to rob me. If you think firing 3 of your 7 shots to scare them and then taking cover is the best plan...well, hey, go for it and I wish you the best! But because you think that is best doesnt mean I think that is best. We all base a lot of decisions on probability...and I think the probability of 4 intruders is just a tad bit higher than your wild scenarios.

You are 37. Has your home been invaded by 4 intruders during that time?

[Destino]

I'm calling bull**** on it not taking a lot of practice to get mag swaps down to a second or less. It takes a lot of practice and it requires conditions to be right, like spares being in the exact same spot you've trained yourself to reach for them. Add to that the stress of a real situation and the possibility of people fighting back and there is a goddamn WORLD of difference between having to swap out or simply continuing to fire.

[sacase]

You are 37. Has your home been invaded by 4 intruders during that time?

Probably hasn't been in a mass shooting either. But he is far more likely to have his home invaded than be in a mass shooting

[PleaseBlitz]

Probably hasn't been in a mass shooting either. But he is far more likely to have his home invaded than be in a mass shooting

Was I asking you?

[wshngtn1]

You are 37. Has your home been invaded by 4 intruders during that time?

No, but unless you can guarantee that it will never happen, that doesn't mean much. I understand the probability is low. The probability of my house getting destroyed is low too, but I still insure it.

[Burgold]

No, but unless you can guarantee that it will never happen, that doesn't mean much. I understand the probability is low. The probability of my house getting destroyed is low too, but I still insure it.

What is the probability that you will get hit by a drunk driver? Are you willing to make drunk driving legal?