Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules
#29
(02-24-2017, 12:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quite a bit actually.  There is no consensus on what is best and you'll find a lot of people who find the shotgun less practical than an AR.  You'll find a lot of argument on whether it's better to use 00 buck or #8 birdshot as well.  It's no different than the caliber wars that are unending and likely to remain so.  What can't be disputed, and why the AR for home defense argument exists, is the one stop incapacitating power of a rifle round over a hand gun.  One need look no further than the FBI shoot out that prompted the adoption of the 10mm cartridge as an example.  The suspect was hit early in the exchange by a 100% lethal 9mm round, meaning the wound was going to absolutely cause his death.  He was able to continue firing back for some time.


You did highlight something that deserves further mention, the "untrained civilian".  No one who owns firearms should be untrained.  I'd be willing to wager heavily that your standard AR owner is much better trained on the use of their firearms than the average gun owner who owns a pistol or two and a shotgun.  Regardless, gun owner and untrained don't belong together.

Even that is disputable. There are complaints about the M4 that the high muzzle velocity is allowing the 5.56mm rounds to pass through and through instead tumbling through the body as designed allowing the enemy to continue fighting. 





Messages In This Thread
RE: ‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 02-24-2017, 01:43 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)