‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules

[Belsnickel]

(02-24-2017, 12:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're certainly entitled to disagree, but you'd also have to admit there is nothing close to a consensus on this in the firearms community.  In the home a shotgun is no less unwieldy than your standard AR.  If you're worried about over penetration then there are bullets designed not to over penetrate.  You know we both agree on open carry and it's uselessness so of course a handgun is the only practical solution for self defense outside the home.  As to standard capacity magazines I'd say it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.  Which is, of course, a huge reason people concealed carry in the first place.  The fact that the vast majority of self defense situations last less than ten shots is going to be of no comfort to the person whose situation goes over ten rounds and they run dry.

The shotgun in the home is partially about over-penetration, but it is also about ease of use. Best home defense scenario is to get family in one room, behind barricade, and if someone comes through the door you fire into it. Shotgun will fill the opening with pellets. A rifle, especially in a high-adrenaline situation with your typical untrained civilian, runs the risk of not hitting the mark. Even if you aren't able to get into that defensive posture, the spread from a shotgun still affords someone a better chance of hitting their target.

I mean, ten years ago when I was doing this sort of thing there was a pretty good consensus on it. Shotgun was the top home defense weapon. Not sure what has changed, really.