The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

But I'll take hitting someone with 4 weak bullets from an automatic over hitting them with 1 powerful bullet from a revolver any day.
 
But I'll take hitting someone with 4 weak bullets from an automatic over hitting them with 1 powerful bullet from a revolver any day.


That assumes you hit them at all.

In reality, even a less powerful bullet is disabling, and potentially fatal. Until you get all the way to the bottom.
 
We foreigners in the Philippines are not allowed to have fire arms. Ironically, flame throwers are not considered to be fire arms.
 
We foreigners in the Philippines are not allowed to have fire arms. Ironically, flame throwers are not considered to be fire arms.


Foreigners with guns in the Philippines has rarely ended well for the Filipinos.
 
Foreigners with guns in the Philippines has rarely ended well for the Filipinos.

No but it’s built us a reputation as the world’s greatest weapon improvisers
 
When it comes to home defense, I think that (by far) the most recommended choice is a 20 gauge self-auto shotgun with #4 shot. It has everything that people want, and the only thing you lose is the enhanced mobility of a pistol. I mean, I might have fallen into an echo chamber or something, but that set-up very commonly floated up to the top
 
Are there any feeding or reliability issues with automatic shotguns? I know the magazines in the AA-12 were a frequent issue at least earlier in its lifetime.
 
Oh! The Mossberg 500 is an absolute favorite, for sure. For home defense, I really like to emphasize the availability of ammunition choices when you have a shotgun. The 20 gauge gets recommended because of the ability to control the recoil so much more easily. It's just me, I don't know your situation, but a 223 ammunition really makes me worry about the neighbor. I like most of the stats on number 4 buckshot. Good levels of energy dumping, you should see a few 10in channels in the ballistic gel, but also can have its energy dissipated as it goes through walls.
 
Good levels of energy dumping, you should see a few 10in channels in the ballistic gel, but also can have its energy dissipated as it goes through walls.

5.56 rounds have variable penetrating ability depending on the type of round you purchase. I try to purchase M193 type rounds since those are designed to fragment and tumble inside their target, lessening the chance of going through the target and hit unintended objects or people behind it. M855 type rounds, while not true armor piercing rounds, are more likely to penetrate right through the intended target and hit unintended objects or people behind it. So I avoid M855 ammo since those are generally not that great for home defense purposes due to the increased risk of causing unintended damage. Thankfully, ammo manufacturers make it easy to distinguish between the two types of 5.56 rounds. M193 types generally have unpainted tips, while M855 ammo generally has green painted tips.

I also go with 55 grain instead of some of the higher loads just for good measure since lower load means lower velocity, which generally means less penetration. Basically, I try to minimize penetration while still maintaining lethality.
 
And in my opinion, if you are going to keep a firearm for home defense, the most important factor you should be considering is "Am I comfortable with this weapon?"
That sounds right to me and I have found this next this you said to be true in my (admittedly limited experience):
This is precisely why I'm not a huge fan of high caliber firearms. Chances are, whatever you are trying to kill isn't going to be wearing body armor so unless you are on a battlefield or hunting large game, smaller calibers with less powder in them work just fine. The reason being that you can be more accurate at higher rates of fire since smaller calibers will have less recoil, allowing you to get back on target faster after each shot. I always hear people talking about how they want some high caliber firearm for home defense and I always find they never take recoil into consideration. Sure, that .357 Magnum may stop someone dead in their tracks, but what if you miss? That recoil means it's going to be longer before you get back on target, giving your attacker more time to close the distance between you.
So I'd prefer the easily concealed, smaller caliber handgun.
Of course this does remind me of a slightly humorous conversation I had in a YouTube comment section. One guy made a sarcastic claim that muskets were the best home defense weapon because of the massive wound it leaves in the target. Someone else came in and said something to the effect of "but you only get one shot, what happens if you miss?". At that point I chimed in with "Then you fix bayonet and charge, duh."
That's not "slightly humorous" that hilarious. :lol: I like to imagine a guy in his PJs and slippers at 3AM, standing in the dark at the end of the hall, or at the top of the stairs... yelling at the intruder, he knows is hiding in the house... "MAKE READY!... AIM... FIRE!... RELOAD!... MAKE READY... AIM... HOLD... HOLD... FIRE!... FIX BAYONETS!... CHARGE!!!

If I was a burglar I'd hightail it out of there on sheer craziness factor alone.:scared:
 
Commodore will explode in 10, 9, 8, 7...

A federal judge on Friday upheld a Massachusetts law banning assault weapons including the AR-15, saying the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment guarantee of Americans’ right to bear firearms does not cover them.

U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston ruled that assault weapons and large-capacity magazines covered by the 1998 law fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s personal right to bear arms.

He also rejected a challenge to an enforcement notice Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey issued in 2016 clarifying what under the law is a “copy” of an assault weapon. Healey announced that notice after a gunman killed 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida.

The decision released on Friday came amid renewed attention to school shootings, gun violence and firearms ownership after a gunman killed 17 students and faculty at a Florida high school in February, prompting a surge of gun control activism by teenage students.

In a 47-page ruling, Young cited former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative who died in 2016, as having observed that weapons that are most useful in military service may be banned. Young said the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle was such a weapon.

He acknowledged arguments by plaintiffs including the Gun Owners’ Action League who noted the AR-15’s popularity in arguing the law must be unconstitutional because it would ban a class of firearms Americans had overwhelming chosen for legal purposes.

“Yet the AR-15’s present-day popularity is not constitutionally material,” Young wrote. “This is because the words of our Constitution are not mutable. They mean the same today as they did 227 years ago when the Second Amendment was adopted.”

Healey, a Democrat, in a statement welcomed the decision.

“Strong gun laws save lives, and we will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools,” she said.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs did not respond to a request for comment.

They had filed their lawsuit in 2017 and based part of their case on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling Scalia authored in 2008 that held for the first time that individual Americans have a right to own guns.

The justices have avoided taking up another major gun case in the years since and in November refused to hear a similar case challenging Maryland’s 2013 state ban on assault weapons.

Essentially, Scalia's opinion set out two categories: [military] weapons and [civilian] arms. Only arms are protected by the Second Amendment. Weapons, including the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, can be banned.

The Supreme Court has already declined to hear a similar ruling out of Maryland.
 
Commodore will explode in 10, 9, 8, 7...

Nah. I've long since given up on the Supreme Court striking these rulings down and it's not a federal ban, just a state ban. And since I don't live in Massachusetts and don't plan on living there, I'm not too riled up about it. I mean, I'm upset that this is happening, but I also realize there's nothing I can do about it except keep voting for people that won't try to do this in Ohio.

EDIT: Kinda related to this: I saw that South Carolina's state legislature has introduced a bill that, if passed, would allow the state government to consider secession from the Union if they feel the federal government is infringing on 2nd Amendment rights. Their reasoning being that the Bill of Rights was put in place as a condition of ratification of the Constitution, so if the federal government changes that would make the agreement to be a part of the Union established by that Constitution null and void. Basically, South Carolina is treating the Constitution like a contract, and they are saying that altering or violating the Bill of Rights in any way would be similar to breach of contract, thus making the contract unenforceable.

Now, normally talk of secession is something I readily dismiss, but South Carolina was the first state to secede last time around, so...

The last civil war started with the shelling of Fort Sumter, will this one start with the shelling of Fort Jackson or Parris Island?

Would you admit that I know a little more than "nothing" about firearms?

Mayhaps...
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom