ok so you are clueless about home defense. You are dismissed as being ignorant of this topic and when you claim you should only own one gun-well that's like saying you ought to play 18 holes of golf with one club. I am not going to bother with this sort of nonsense anymore-rather I am merely going to shred future silliness I expect to see from you on this topic.
if someone is in your home seeking to kill those in it-you best be armed when you try to retrieve a child. The PROPER response is the father take a handgun, retrieve the child while the mother barricade a safe room with preferably a shotgun. You see the father might have to carry the child and that makes the handgun the best choice.
BTW a police officer has no duty to protect and serve any specific individual. Look it up-the Supreme court has so ruled. and given the average response time of most PDs in urban areas, you are pinning your hopes on a pipe dream
Your dismissive attitude does not serve the purpose of intelligent debate. I think it follows that I need to make a distinction. Perhaps you have misunderstood my position on gun ownership and home ownership and how home defense works in harmony with both.
First, self defense is not limited to home owners. Homeless people are protected under the second amendment. In the context of this thread, the application of the second amendment to the use of an AR-15 only goes so far as to say that the government will not infringe on your right. The second amendment does not authorize you to use deadly force. The second amendment applies to the relationship between the people who exist within the state's jurisdiction, bearing in mind the necessity of the militia and not home ownership. This is clearly distinct from the castle doctrine, which should be applied according to home ownership.
Your attempt to use fear to promote your agenda does not detract from the consistent logic by which the law may be applied. Your comparison of gun ownership and gun use to recreational activities like reading and sports is facetious. So allow me to ask you a clarifying question.
Do you agree that defense is implicitly actionable, and that an attack must exist in order for someone to defend his home?
Note that I am not saying the attack must be violent. I believe that protection and defense of one's home are both active and not passive. It follows from repeatedly bringing up the concept of an assailant that home defense with a weapon is an armed conflict. To that end, deadly force only rests on the premise that this conflict could be escalated to the point where it becomes a matter of life and death. Gun ownership is not a direct consequence of that premise. Much like the extent of the power of the state being of the capacity that it is not limited by the constitution, the castle doctrine provides limits under which civilians may use force within their homes.
Defending your home does not mean that you only face cloak and dagger tactics, or that your home will at any point be attacked. So in that sense, owning an AR 15 does not cause criminals to appear in your home. The use of any kind of weapon, including the AR-15 does not guarantee that your defense will be successful. Moreover, the use of weapons by only an adult male is a serious limitation on the effectiveness of your defense. Compare and contrast the use of one kind of weapon by an entire family to only one member of a family being able to use weapons. There is just a slight hint of hypocrisy in your argument.
As this thread relates to the superior quality of a particular caliber of firearm, or particular quality of munitions for home defense, I suggest you realize a third component to home defense. The militia may serve its state, however as you pointed out, police response times are very high. It is in the best interest of the militia and others to be consistent and accessible. Therefore, accessibility to adequate defense is an important factor. The AR-15 is very accessible because it is a popular weapon in military and civilian life.
eace
