• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"You don't need an AR15..."

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
47,445
Reaction score
53,125
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A picture is worth a thousand words...

NeedAR15riot.jpg
 
In a free country, does a man have to need a thing in order to own it?
 
No justice, no peace.
 
I'd rather just stick with a pistol, personally.



A pistol isn't remotely as powerful on a per shot basis as most rifles, and weapons like ARs, AKs, and so on have much greater mag capacity, and there are certain situations where that could be critical.



But when out and about, yeah, pistols...
 
A pistol isn't remotely as powerful on a per shot basis as most rifles, and weapons like ARs, AKs, and so on have much greater mag capacity, and there are certain situations where that could be critical.



But when out and about, yeah, pistols...

Thing is, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to properly handle an AR-15. That's why I'd rather have a pistol.
 
A pistol isn't remotely as powerful on a per shot basis as most rifles, and weapons like ARs, AKs, and so on have much greater mag capacity, and there are certain situations where that could be critical.



But when out and about, yeah, pistols...

personally in a courtroom in an urban county, defending dumping a 30 round mag of 556 into a crowd is going to be an uphill battle.

right now in Portland Oregon a blogger is facing serious charges because a crowd was threatening him and he pulled his pistol to scare them back. I doubt an AR-15 would help his case. if you have to defend your property in a riot me thinks that getting 3 or 5 buddies with PR-24 batons and using them in a shield technique would actually be fairly effective. these people are looking for an easy score, not serious resistence.
 
Thing is, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to properly handle an AR-15. That's why I'd rather have a pistol.

if you can use a pistol you can use an AR-15. They are far easier to use effectively then handguns. when I was 17 I was shooting equal to army qualification with an AR-15/

it doesn't require special skills, it's a gun made for vietnam era high school drop out draftees. you won't find a rifle easier to use... other then maybe the AK platform.
 
Thing is, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to properly handle an AR-15. That's why I'd rather have a pistol.



Oh, it's quite simple enough. They're light and so is the recoil, and any competent instructor could teach you to use one effectively in an afternoon if you can already shoot.


Granted, pistols and rifle are different skills to a large degree, but pistols are actually harder to shoot well, at least at moderate distances.



Heck if you lived nearby I'd show ya. :)
 
personally in a courtroom in an urban county, defending dumping a 30 round mag of 556 into a crowd is going to be an uphill battle.

right now in Portland Oregon a blogger is facing serious charges because a crowd was threatening him and he pulled his pistol to scare them back. I doubt an AR-15 would help his case. if you have to defend your property in a riot me thinks that getting 3 or 5 buddies with PR-24 batons and using them in a shield technique would actually be fairly effective. these people are looking for an easy score, not serious resistence.

Starting from the position that actually shooting is a last resort when you have no other viable options, I figure if you're going to shoot you use the most effective weapon available.

Granted, there are states where using an AR might be frowned upon, but the single biggest issue is not going to be what weapon you used but whether you were justified to shoot at all. If yes, the weapon used is unlikely to make the difference between conviction and acquittal.

IMHO. I am not a lawyer but have studied this issue carefully from a legal standpoint. Weapon/ammo choice is hardly ever a deciding factor as long as it was legal.


PR24's would not be my personal choice for dealing with rioters, even if I had some suitably-trained buddies to stand with me... throw in Lexan riot shields and helmets and we're getting closer. Tear gas grenades or OC equivalents preferably, though they are not legal in some places.
 
Thing is, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to properly handle an AR-15. That's why I'd rather have a pistol.

These days your probably safer with an iPhone.
 
A picture is worth a thousand words...

View attachment 67207704

perfer an SLP-1 riot shotgun in that scenario myself but An AR 15 wouldn't be a bad choice. maybe some can tell us why citizens should be limited to 10 shots in a scenario like this?
 
if you can use a pistol you can use an AR-15. They are far easier to use effectively then handguns. when I was 17 I was shooting equal to army qualification with an AR-15/

it doesn't require special skills, it's a gun made for vietnam era high school drop out draftees. you won't find a rifle easier to use... other then maybe the AK platform.

AR 15 is easier to shoot accurately for several reasons

adjustable length stock on most models

peep sight is more accurate than the open sights on the AK

the AR 15 kicks less-M193 ball (55 grains) or SS109 (62) grains has far less recoil impulse than the much heavier but slower moving 762x39 com bloc round where the bullet is around 121 grains or so

the safety lever is far easier to deploy than on the AK
 
AR 15 is easier to shoot accurately for several reasons

adjustable length stock on most models

peep sight is more accurate than the open sights on the AK

the AR 15 kicks less-M193 ball (55 grains) or SS109 (62) grains has far less recoil impulse than the much heavier but slower moving 762x39 com bloc round where the bullet is around 121 grains or so

the safety lever is far easier to deploy than on the AK


If NC is an open carry state and the only reason the police started harrassing Scott is because they saw he had a gun.....then what is the point of having an open carry law?
 
If NC is an open carry state and the only reason the police started harrassing Scott is because they saw he had a gun.....then what is the point of having an open carry law?

that's a good question Moot and if he was carrying legally but I just heard on my local news (CBS) that he had dope and a gun. Now that would make things different. His wife is claiming he had no gun

so right now the facts are rather unsettled. last I checked you cannot carry a weapon (even if you possess it legally) if you are in possession of illegal narcotics. and if you point a gun at a cop, that's pretty much guaranteed to end up badly.

but if cops are harassing someone merely for carrying a weapon legally, then those cops ought to be in jail and crushed with civil judgements under either concept of constitutional torts
 
Last edited:
that's a good question Moot and if he was carrying legally but I just heard on my local news (CBS) that he had dope and a gun. Now that would make things different. His wife is claiming he had no gun

so right now the facts are rather unsettled. last I checked you cannot carry a weapon (even if you possess it legally) if you are in possession of illegal narcotics. and if you point a gun at a cop, that's pretty much guaranteed to end up badly.

but if cops are harassing someone merely for carrying a weapon legally, then those cops ought to be in jail and crushed with civil judgements under either concept of constitutional torts

Point taken. I forgot about the alledged joint. Now I guess we have to wait for the autopsy.
 
Oh, it's quite simple enough. They're light and so is the recoil, and any competent instructor could teach you to use one effectively in an afternoon if you can already shoot.


Granted, pistols and rifle are different skills to a large degree, but pistols are actually harder to shoot well, at least at moderate distances.



Heck if you lived nearby I'd show ya. :)

USPSA-which right now attracts the best talent of American handgun shooters-features high speed scenarios with multiple targets. USPSA recently started a new class called PCC-or Pistol cartridge Carbine which are essentially AR 15 carbines or similar firearms chambered in 9mm, 40 SW or 45 ACP rounds. Ideal home defense weapons-indeed, one of the first PCCs readily available (before the gun import bans at the end of BUSH 1 and the start of the Clinton regime) was a semi auto version of the UZI carbine-it was marketed as

1) easier to shoot accurately under stress

2) and legal in areas where handguns were severely restricted or banned

since I suspect those using PCC in these events will be shooting the same scenarios as those using race guns (light recoiling 25 round pistols with electronic sights) or "limited" or production guns (which are much like home defense handguns-iron sights-10-18 round magazines etc), we will see if the scores are much better for the rifles or less competitive. I would suspect the carbines are going to be more accurate and would have an advantage on longer targets. On very short range targets-probably not
 
Back
Top Bottom