• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Why you “need” and AR15 (or want) for self/home defense

blackjack50 said:
So rather than discussing the reason why we don’t need a reason to own an AR15, let’s address the reason why an AR15 is an appropriate choice as a self defense weapon regardless of what uncle joe says about shotguns. And I will address these in a numerical fashion so anyone brave enough to discuss can reference them easily.

1) Training: If you want people to have more training on a weapon...this is the long gun of choice. Military and police both have extensive experience. And then rifle shooting in general. Shotguns are not as easy to find training in terms of home defense. You can go shoot clays all day, but birdshot and buck do not have the same dynamics. So you should probably want people to purchase this particular firearm for home defense based purely on training.

2) Round/Shot: 12 gauge buckshot has a major flaw for home defense. If you fire 1 time with buck you will be putting 9-12 lead balls about the size of 1 rifle round in the air. And the penetration factor is much worse. The .223/5.56 will tend to lose energy much faster. And if you decide to use a shotgun slug you are using a .72 inch lead slug it will also penetrate more.

3) Recoil - reduced recoil compared to the shotgun will allow someone to fire a more accurate follow up shot.

4) Not everyone is a shotgun shooter. This goes with training but I feel should be separate a little. Just like some people are natural punchers and others grapplers...some people just “get it” when shooting a rifle or a shotgun. And for a defensive weapon there is no sense in trying to change your instinctual shooting to match something that you perceive as better...when in reality something else is a much better choice for you. That is the reason I will not be using an AR15 as a home defense weapon. I’m absolute dog **** with a rifle. But I can shoot a shotgun like pointing my finger.

So. Feel free to discuss or attempt to counter.
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
JMR said:
In 2015, U.S. fire departments responded to an estimated 365,500 home structure fires. These fires caused 2,560 deaths, 11,075 civilian injuries, and $7 billion in direct damage. On average, seven people die in U.S. home fires per day.
Fire Prevention Week - Fast facts about fire - NFPA

Were there 2,560 deaths due to home invasions?
Click to expand...

The report doesn't say how many deaths, but they do indicate that in 26% of the invasions a resident suffered injury. That's over 250,000 times per years, and some number of those were fatalities.
 
Lursa said:
How about: What are the home invaders breaking into my home carrying?

And then: am I not entitled to at least being equally protected?
Click to expand...

You should probably keep a large selection. That way when they break in you can choose one for the occassion.
 
JMR said:
So the argument that gun ownership is necessary due to potential home invasions is dependent on the neighborhood?
Click to expand...

Why do you use the word "necessary"?
 
blackjack50 said:
So rather than discussing the reason why we don’t need a reason to own an AR15, let’s address the reason why an AR15 is an appropriate choice as a self defense weapon regardless of what uncle joe says about shotguns. And I will address these in a numerical fashion so anyone brave enough to discuss can reference them easily.
Click to expand...

What kind of machine guns and machine pistols are used to protect the president's life?

I would imagine they could all find similar utility to protect a citizen's life.

During the LA riots, the AR-15 worked amazingly well to protect the innocent.
 
Last edited:
JMR said:
I've not move my goal posts. Last 100 posts or so have been about the likely hood of a home invasion where a firearm ( a particular type, which I have forgotten it is so long ago) would save the day. But I don't mind you straying from the topic.
Click to expand...


You asked which was more likely a fire or home invasion.
When pointed out that fires are less likely, you then responded with which one accounts for more fatalities. I think most would agree that is clearly a moving goal post.

While some do over exaggerate the odds of being involved in a situation where a firearm is potentially needed, you are drastically under estimating them.
 
Seems to me this question and some of the responses are kinda wonky. You cant defend the 2nd Amendment and right to keep and bear arms based on a standard of self/home defense.

DO you NEED an AR for home defense. No. Other weapons platforms work.
Does an AR make a good platform for home defense? Hell yes.
Does the lack of a 'need' of an AR for home defense negate the need, or necessity, or right to own an AR. No. They arent in any way shape or form related.
Do I need a 'reason' to own an AR? No.
Outside of home defense are there plenty of other reasons to own ARs? Of course.
 
blackjack50 said:
So rather than discussing the reason why we don’t need a reason to own an AR15, let’s address the reason why an AR15 is an appropriate choice as a self defense weapon regardless of what uncle joe says about shotguns. And I will address these in a numerical fashion so anyone brave enough to discuss can reference them easily.

1) Training: If you want people to have more training on a weapon...this is the long gun of choice. Military and police both have extensive experience. And then rifle shooting in general. Shotguns are not as easy to find training in terms of home defense. You can go shoot clays all day, but birdshot and buck do not have the same dynamics. So you should probably want people to purchase this particular firearm for home defense based purely on training.

2) Round/Shot: 12 gauge buckshot has a major flaw for home defense. If you fire 1 time with buck you will be putting 9-12 lead balls about the size of 1 rifle round in the air. And the penetration factor is much worse. The .223/5.56 will tend to lose energy much faster. And if you decide to use a shotgun slug you are using a .72 inch lead slug it will also penetrate more.

3) Recoil - reduced recoil compared to the shotgun will allow someone to fire a more accurate follow up shot.

4) Not everyone is a shotgun shooter. This goes with training but I feel should be separate a little. Just like some people are natural punchers and others grapplers...some people just “get it” when shooting a rifle or a shotgun. And for a defensive weapon there is no sense in trying to change your instinctual shooting to match something that you perceive as better...when in reality something else is a much better choice for you. That is the reason I will not be using an AR15 as a home defense weapon. I’m absolute dog **** with a rifle. But I can shoot a shotgun like pointing my finger.

So. Feel free to discuss or attempt to counter.
Click to expand...

So solve the problem by not using buckshot. #4 shot will still do the job.
 
For home protection I go with hand guns. It is easier to disarm/deflect a person with a rifle than a handgun.
 
blackjack50 said:
So rather than discussing the reason why we don’t need a reason to own an AR15, let’s address the reason why an AR15 is an appropriate choice as a self defense weapon regardless of what uncle joe says about shotguns. And I will address these in a numerical fashion so anyone brave enough to discuss can reference them easily.

1) Training: If you want people to have more training on a weapon...this is the long gun of choice. Military and police both have extensive experience. And then rifle shooting in general. Shotguns are not as easy to find training in terms of home defense. You can go shoot clays all day, but birdshot and buck do not have the same dynamics. So you should probably want people to purchase this particular firearm for home defense based purely on training.

2) Round/Shot: 12 gauge buckshot has a major flaw for home defense. If you fire 1 time with buck you will be putting 9-12 lead balls about the size of 1 rifle round in the air. And the penetration factor is much worse. The .223/5.56 will tend to lose energy much faster. And if you decide to use a shotgun slug you are using a .72 inch lead slug it will also penetrate more.

3) Recoil - reduced recoil compared to the shotgun will allow someone to fire a more accurate follow up shot.

4) Not everyone is a shotgun shooter. This goes with training but I feel should be separate a little. Just like some people are natural punchers and others grapplers...some people just “get it” when shooting a rifle or a shotgun. And for a defensive weapon there is no sense in trying to change your instinctual shooting to match something that you perceive as better...when in reality something else is a much better choice for you. That is the reason I will not be using an AR15 as a home defense weapon. I’m absolute dog **** with a rifle. But I can shoot a shotgun like pointing my finger.

So. Feel free to discuss or attempt to counter.
Click to expand...

I have a 10Ga magnum automatic shotgun with #4 bird shot with a short barrel for defense - That's almost 400 little steel "bullets". No sense penetrating the neighbors house. Buck shot has too much range and mass.
 
Rucker61 said:
So will a 55 grain vmax, and a lot easier.
Click to expand...
I dont think its always an either or situation. My home is three stories. I can access firearms on all three levels. My primary home defense for things that go bump in the night is a Keltec Sub2k .40 with 30 round Glock sticks. On the main floor I can access any of several handguns (and capsicum pepper foam) and a Remington 870 20 gauge loaded with classic #2 buckshot. The basement...dont come to the basement.
 
TurtleDude said:
well its obvious you have never thought about that. we do. yes its a rare occurrence but we know what to do if one happens. my wife often is upstairs (due to her asthma) and at the end of a hall, if there is a break in she calls the cops and goes to the side of that room which gives her good cover to address a threat coming into the room . My son who is in the first room the top of the stairs has a safe in his room that provides cover from most munitions. He is to get behind it and control access to the hallway someone cannot go down the hall to where my wife sleeps a couple nights a week without exposing themselves to his shotgun If I am alone downstairs in the MB, i cover the entrance to that room which is near the front door
Click to expand...

How often do you hold ‘drills?’ :mrgreen:
 
Fledermaus said:
Instead of 00 Buck, go with No. 4 Buckshot.

Pellet count of 21-24 of approximately .24 diameter vs. 9-12 of .33.... Less penetration (unless you use low power 00Buck) but more than enough to go into a human.
Click to expand...

I will have to do some research on that. I would want to know the science behind the force delivered to the target and the performance of the shot. Always a hard thing to test.
 
chuckiechan said:
I have a 10Ga magnum automatic shotgun with #4 bird shot with a short barrel for defense - That's almost 400 little steel "bullets". No sense penetrating the neighbors house. Buck shot has too much range and mass.
Click to expand...

After seeing a pig shot with bird shot at near pointblank...I would not advice using birdshot on anything larger than...a bird.
 
blackjack50 said:
So rather than discussing the reason why we don’t need a reason to own an AR15, let’s address the reason why an AR15 is an appropriate choice as a self defense weapon regardless of what uncle joe says about shotguns. And I will address these in a numerical fashion so anyone brave enough to discuss can reference them easily.

1) Training: If you want people to have more training on a weapon...this is the long gun of choice. Military and police both have extensive experience. And then rifle shooting in general. Shotguns are not as easy to find training in terms of home defense. You can go shoot clays all day, but birdshot and buck do not have the same dynamics. So you should probably want people to purchase this particular firearm for home defense based purely on training.

2) Round/Shot: 12 gauge buckshot has a major flaw for home defense. If you fire 1 time with buck you will be putting 9-12 lead balls about the size of 1 rifle round in the air. And the penetration factor is much worse. The .223/5.56 will tend to lose energy much faster. And if you decide to use a shotgun slug you are using a .72 inch lead slug it will also penetrate more.

3) Recoil - reduced recoil compared to the shotgun will allow someone to fire a more accurate follow up shot.

4) Not everyone is a shotgun shooter. This goes with training but I feel should be separate a little. Just like some people are natural punchers and others grapplers...some people just “get it” when shooting a rifle or a shotgun. And for a defensive weapon there is no sense in trying to change your instinctual shooting to match something that you perceive as better...when in reality something else is a much better choice for you. That is the reason I will not be using an AR15 as a home defense weapon. I’m absolute dog **** with a rifle. But I can shoot a shotgun like pointing my finger.

So. Feel free to discuss or attempt to counter.
Click to expand...




5) when they come for your guns and to put you in FEMA camps, they will probably be carrying the same, you can loot em after you shoot em! ;)
 
rhinefire said:
For home protection I go with hand guns. It is easier to disarm/deflect a person with a rifle than a handgun.
Click to expand...

I deliberately avoided the handgun issue. I think most of us here would opt for the handgun first. Primarily because of ease of use and manipulation of doors. But if you have a small house or you and a significant other are the only ones there...and you can get a long gun...why use a handgun? You can control a door and a room much better with something bigger. You don’t have to be a 1 man king fu swat team and clear the house alone with a long gun. Just call the police and keep you and yours safe :)
 
trblmkr said:
Come on dude. You are building custom arms. What does that have to do with a guy going to the pawn shop and buying an AR? And my argument works for all long guns. You know where I learned it? I'm a bubblehead. Submarines used Thompson's for repel boarders up until the 70's. Now that is a home defense weapon.
Click to expand...

AR pistols are readily available on the market. In fact you can find one with an arm brace already attached.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Having a gun in your home increases your family's risk of being shot.
Click to expand...

And owning a car increases your chances of getting into a car accident far more so. I thought you ran away after you posted that pathitically dishonest thread comparing the NRA to ISIS.
 
Last edited:
Manc Skipper said:
Having a gun in your home increases your family's risk of being shot.
Click to expand...


Hoplophobic mythology




"Myth #1: A Gun In The Home Means You Are Three Times More Likely To Be Killed
1. Fact: Guns are used more often to save life. Dr. Edgar Suter has pointed out that studies which make the claim that guns are more likely to kill the owner are flawed because they fail to consider the number of lives saved by guns. (1) That is, such claims ignore the vast number of non-lethal defensive uses with firearms. Criminologists have found that citizens use firearms as often as 2.5 million times every year in self-defense. In over 90% of these defensive uses, citizens merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off the attacker. (2)

2. Fact: A study claiming "guns more likely to kill you than help you" is a total fraud. Not surprisingly, the figure claiming one is three times more likely to be killed by one's own gun is a total lie. The author of this study, Dr. Arthur Kellerman, refused to release the data behind his conclusions for years. (3) Subsequently available evidence shows why Kellerman stonewalled for so long:

* Researcher Don Kates reveals that all available data now indicates that the "home gun homicide victims [in Kellerman's study] were killed using guns not kept in the victim's home." (4) In other words, the victims were NOT murdered with their own guns! They were killed "by intruders who brought their own guns to the victim's household."

* In retrospect, Kates found, it was not the ownership of firearms that put these victims at high risk. Rather, it was the victim's "high-risk life-styles [such as criminal associations] that caused them to own guns at higher rates than the members of the supposedly comparable control group."(5)"

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0701.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom