Lexicus
Deity
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.
Well, I'm assuming I miss like the other 8 shots actually, and perhaps the other 5 with the revolver.
Ever play "Golden Eye" on N64? Proximity mines FTW.
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.
Never had that game, had to make due with Perfect Dark.Ever play "Golden Eye" on N64? Proximity mines FTW.
The type of firearm that is best for home defense is a topic of frequent debate in the gun community.
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.
That sounds right to me and I have found this next this you said to be true in my (admittedly limited experience):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?"
So I'd prefer the easily concealed, smaller caliber handgun.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.
That's not "slightly humorous" that hilarious. 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!!!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."
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.
This is precisely why I'm not a huge fan of high caliber firearms.
Commodore will explode in 10, 9, 8, 7...
Would you admit that I know a little more than "nothing" about firearms?