The Right To Bear Arms

[Rigby5]

Here's 8

Thank you---
I asked, you provided. Again thanks for your reply -

Still I must add, 98% of your examples were for home defense, not in the public arena. Still you point was made, thanks again

Defense is defense it matters not where it occurs

There has been NO evidence that you are more or less safer armed. That's another Kleck/Lott BS finding using really fuzzy math that has been debunked. But I do agree what not knowing if a home is armed or not does make a difference. I like the sign, "Screw the Dog, beware of the owner" and "This Property controlled by Smith and Wesson". Either one will get a chuckle out of the bad guy and he will probably move on to the next home.

I never said I was safer because I carry. I also never said I was less safe for carrying.

Safety is an illusion as all life is risk. Some people choose to ignore all risk and place their safety in the hands of others I choose not to place my safety in the hands of others because other people most likely won't be around if I am ever in danger.

If a gun neither makes me more safe or less safe then why do you have a problem with anyone who is legally eligible owning and carrying?

Of course carrying a gun makes you safer.
It gives you more control and options.
If carrying a gun did not make you safer, then police would not be carrying them.

 

[Rigby5]

Then you would be wrong. One can't find something that doesn't exist. Since you keep citing it, YOU find it and tell the rest of where it is so we can view it. As I stated, one person claimed to have found it only to have his line read "Page Not Found". The reason it doesn't exist, Congress got wind of it and found that the CDC was playing politics and stopped them before the CDC had a chance to publish their "Report".

It, as you know, is quite detailed and in book form. Here you can order one for $38.00.

Unless it is one I've used for a long time, you'll never find a "Page Not Found" on any of the links I provide. It's too much fun watching Progressives squirm!

CDC Gun Study 2013 (Pro-gun Quick facts), Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence : progun

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence
(2013)
Consensus Study Report

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/p...reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence

Two names come up on that report as experts and contrubutors.

RONALD C. KESSLER, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA GARY KLECK, Florida State University, Tallahassee

Kessler and Kleck have been defrocked for using really fuzzy math. In fact, much of their work is supposed to be about civilian shootings but the included Police and Military shootings in those figures making the output completely erroneous. Any report with their names on it is subject to doubt on it's accuracy.The only name left off was Klecks partner in crime Lott.

I have looked over the whole thing. And it didn't cost any money. You left out the fact that you can download a PDF version for free. Kind of shoots things down the tubes fast, don't it. Here is an exert from a vox.com writeup on lott and kleck who actually started the gun cult we see in here today. It's based on false premises and leads back to the Kleck research for Lott in 1998.

In any case, extrapolating from the Kleck-Gertz survey leads to manifestly absurd results. For there to be more than 2 million defensive gun uses, homeowners would have to defend themselves with a firearm in more than 100 percent of burglaries (to choose one category of crime). And if other findings in the Kleck-Gertz survey were correct, more than 100,000 criminals would be injured by law-abiding gun owners annually. Hospital records reveal no such armies of wounded. (Kleck stands by his findings.)

No, you clearly are wrong in this.
Of course there should be expected MANY times more defensive used of firearm than there are successful burglaries.
Only about 1 out of 5 burglaries are successful.
Most are scared off, either by a person with a firearm, or someone pretending to have a firearm.
What is obviously WRONG about your claims attempting to debunk the defensive use of firearm statistics is the false claim that these defensive uses of firearms should have matching hospital records. That is just silly. No one in their right mind is going to actually shoot someone just for attempting to break into a home, garage, cars, etc. They most likely will not even fire a shot into the air, because they don't want anyone to call the police and have to do the paper work for firing a shot inside city limits. They could even end up getting arrested themselves or having their firearm confiscated.
But no almost no one is going to go out into their dark yard to scare off an intruder unless they are armed.
So clearly you are wrong on this.

The video is also completely wrong.
The main cause of gun violence in the US can not be anything to do with guns, because historically we had more of them and easier access. The number and access has been reducing as their use in violence had gone up. So clearly the causes of gun violence have nothing at all to do with their number or access. The most likely cause of the increase in gun violence is lack of mental health access, since Reagan ended federal mental health funding in 1986, and likely because the media focuses so much on those who commit gun violence, encouraging with their 15 minutes of fame.

 

[Markle]

Then you would be wrong. One can't find something that doesn't exist. Since you keep citing it, YOU find it and tell the rest of where it is so we can view it. As I stated, one person claimed to have found it only to have his line read "Page Not Found". The reason it doesn't exist, Congress got wind of it and found that the CDC was playing politics and stopped them before the CDC had a chance to publish their "Report".

It, as you know, is quite detailed and in book form. Here you can order one for $38.00.

Unless it is one I've used for a long time, you'll never find a "Page Not Found" on any of the links I provide. It's too much fun watching Progressives squirm!

CDC Gun Study 2013 (Pro-gun Quick facts), Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence : progun

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence
(2013)
Consensus Study Report

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/p...reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence

I don't see it saying anywhere that the CDC was involved.
The listed contributers were:

{...
Contributors
National Research Council; Institute of Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Executive Office, Institute of Medicine; Committee on Priorities for a Public Health Research Agenda to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence; Committee on Law and Justice; Alan I. Leshner, Bruce M. Altevogt, Arlene F. Lee, Margaret A. McCoy, and Patrick W. Kelley, Editors
... }

I posted the source and link. There are TWO sources and links. Here, I'll help you a bit more. Whew!

CDC Gun Study 2013 (Pro-gun Quick facts), Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18319

In January 2013, President Barack Obama issued 23 executive orders directing federal agencies to improve knowledge of the causes of firearm violence, what might help prevent it, and how to minimize its burden on public health. One of these orders directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to, along with other federal agencies, immediately begin identifying the most pressing problems in firearm violence research.

Quotes from the study:

Defensive:

• Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million
  
  
• defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies
  
  
• Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence
  
  
• If gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive.
  
  
• research by Kellermann et al. (1992, 1993, 1995) describes higher rates of suicide, homicide, and the use of weapons involved in home invasion in the homes of gun owners. However, other studies conclude that gun ownership protects against serious injury when guns are used defensively (Kleck and Gertz, 1995; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Additional research is needed to weigh the competing risks and protective benefits that may accompany gun ownership in different communities.
  
  
• The 2005 NRC study found no persuasive evidence from available studies that right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime.
  

CDC Gun Study 2013 (Pro-gun Quick facts), Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence : progun

 

[Rigby5]

Then you would be wrong. One can't find something that doesn't exist. Since you keep citing it, YOU find it and tell the rest of where it is so we can view it. As I stated, one person claimed to have found it only to have his line read "Page Not Found". The reason it doesn't exist, Congress got wind of it and found that the CDC was playing politics and stopped them before the CDC had a chance to publish their "Report".

It, as you know, is quite detailed and in book form. Here you can order one for $38.00.

Unless it is one I've used for a long time, you'll never find a "Page Not Found" on any of the links I provide. It's too much fun watching Progressives squirm!

CDC Gun Study 2013 (Pro-gun Quick facts), Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence : progun

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence
(2013)
Consensus Study Report

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/p...reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence

I don't see it saying anywhere that the CDC was involved.
The listed contributers were:

{...
Contributors
National Research Council; Institute of Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Executive Office, Institute of Medicine; Committee on Priorities for a Public Health Research Agenda to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence; Committee on Law and Justice; Alan I. Leshner, Bruce M. Altevogt, Arlene F. Lee, Margaret A. McCoy, and Patrick W. Kelley, Editors
... }

I posted the source and link. There are TWO sources and links. Here, I'll help you a bit more. Whew!

CDC Gun Study 2013 (Pro-gun Quick facts), Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18319

In January 2013, President Barack Obama issued 23 executive orders directing federal agencies to improve knowledge of the causes of firearm violence, what might help prevent it, and how to minimize its burden on public health. One of these orders directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to, along with other federal agencies, immediately begin identifying the most pressing problems in firearm violence research.

Quotes from the study:

Defensive:

• Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million
  
  
• defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies
  
  
• Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence
  
  
• If gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive.
  
  
• research by Kellermann et al. (1992, 1993, 1995) describes higher rates of suicide, homicide, and the use of weapons involved in home invasion in the homes of gun owners. However, other studies conclude that gun ownership protects against serious injury when guns are used defensively (Kleck and Gertz, 1995; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Additional research is needed to weigh the competing risks and protective benefits that may accompany gun ownership in different communities.
  
  
• The 2005 NRC study found no persuasive evidence from available studies that right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime.

CDC Gun Study 2013 (Pro-gun Quick facts), Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence : progun

I do not disagree with your conclusions, but the study said:

{...
This project was supported by awards between the National Academy of Sciences and both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (#200-2011-38807) and the CDC Foundation with the Foundation’s support originating from The Annie E. Casey Foundation, The California Endowment, The California Wellness Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, Kaiser Permanente, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and one anonymous donor.
...}

So it sounds like the CDC was involved in funding it, but I am not sure I would categorize it as a CDC study?

 

[Markle]

Gun haters are really most amusing.

Here we've seen them demanding that supporters of our Constitution PROVE something that never happened and how many times it happened.

If a crime is prevented by someone having a weapon, where is that incident reported? Simple, it is not.

I have been a Realtor for over 40 years. One of the most dangerous professions. Since the beginning, I will carry on occasion. Only once did I feel threatened and I had a 38 snub nose revolver. I had to view a house in a rough area toward dusk so I carried my pistol inside. I'd walked around the house and did not see any signs of a break-in. The house was vacant. I entered the front door and walked quickly through the living area and back the hall to the bedrooms. In one bedroom there three guys, sitting on the floor apparently doing some sort of drugs. I held up my hands, told them "no problem, I'm carrying, I'm going to back out the front door, and call the police. I did just as I said and by the time police arrived, a few minutes, the guys were gone.

Where should that have been reported?

 

[Rigby5]

Gun haters are really most amusing.
c
Here we've seen them demanding that supporters of our Constitution PROVE something that never happened and how many times it happened.

If a crime is prevented by someone having a weapon, where is that incident reported? Simple, it is not.

I have been a Realtor for over 40 years. One of the most dangerous professions. Since the beginning, I will carry on occasion. Only once did I feel threatened and I had a 38 snub nose revolver. I had to view a house in a rough area toward dusk so I carried my pistol inside. I'd walked around the house and did not see any signs of a break-in. The house was vacant. I entered the front door and walked quickly through the living area and back the hall to the bedrooms. In one bedroom there three guys, sitting on the floor apparently doing some sort of drugs. I held up my hands, told them "no problem, I'm carrying, I'm going to back out the front door, and call the police. I did just as I said and by the time police arrived, a few minutes, the guys were gone.

Where should that have been reported?

Exactly. I have found people trying to break into my house, car, garage, etc., so I yell at them and they run away. But I would not have been willing to risk doing that if I did not have a firearm concealed on my person.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Then you would be wrong. One can't find something that doesn't exist. Since you keep citing it, YOU find it and tell the rest of where it is so we can view it. As I stated, one person claimed to have found it only to have his line read "Page Not Found". The reason it doesn't exist, Congress got wind of it and found that the CDC was playing politics and stopped them before the CDC had a chance to publish their "Report".

It, as you know, is quite detailed and in book form. Here you can order one for $38.00.

Unless it is one I've used for a long time, you'll never find a "Page Not Found" on any of the links I provide. It's too much fun watching Progressives squirm!

CDC Gun Study 2013 (Pro-gun Quick facts), Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence : progun

Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence
(2013)
Consensus Study Report

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/p...reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence

I don't see it saying anywhere that the CDC was involved.
The listed contributers were:

{...
Contributors
National Research Council; Institute of Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Executive Office, Institute of Medicine; Committee on Priorities for a Public Health Research Agenda to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence; Committee on Law and Justice; Alan I. Leshner, Bruce M. Altevogt, Arlene F. Lee, Margaret A. McCoy, and Patrick W. Kelley, Editors
... }

I posted the source and link. There are TWO sources and links. Here, I'll help you a bit more. Whew!

CDC Gun Study 2013 (Pro-gun Quick facts), Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18319

In January 2013, President Barack Obama issued 23 executive orders directing federal agencies to improve knowledge of the causes of firearm violence, what might help prevent it, and how to minimize its burden on public health. One of these orders directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to, along with other federal agencies, immediately begin identifying the most pressing problems in firearm violence research.

Quotes from the study:

Defensive:

• Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million
  
  
• defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies
  
  
• Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence
  
  
• If gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive.
  
  
• research by Kellermann et al. (1992, 1993, 1995) describes higher rates of suicide, homicide, and the use of weapons involved in home invasion in the homes of gun owners. However, other studies conclude that gun ownership protects against serious injury when guns are used defensively (Kleck and Gertz, 1995; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Additional research is needed to weigh the competing risks and protective benefits that may accompany gun ownership in different communities.
  
  
• The 2005 NRC study found no persuasive evidence from available studies that right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime.

CDC Gun Study 2013 (Pro-gun Quick facts), Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence : progun

I do not disagree with your conclusions, but the study said:

{...
This project was supported by awards between the National Academy of Sciences and both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (#200-2011-38807) and the CDC Foundation with the Foundation’s support originating from The Annie E. Casey Foundation, The California Endowment, The California Wellness Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, Kaiser Permanente, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and one anonymous donor.
...}

So it sounds like the CDC was involved in funding it, but I am not sure I would categorize it as a CDC study?

It wasn't. CDC was found to be playing politics and was stopped before the final product could be released. There were way too many partisan holes in it. What these other sites do is try and say they have credibility by saying they got their information from a non existent report from CDC. CDC had to get out of that line or work before the information could be released. And it all had to be destroyed. There IS no CDC report.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Gun haters are really most amusing.

Here we've seen them demanding that supporters of our Constitution PROVE something that never happened and how many times it happened.

If a crime is prevented by someone having a weapon, where is that incident reported? Simple, it is not.

I have been a Realtor for over 40 years. One of the most dangerous professions. Since the beginning, I will carry on occasion. Only once did I feel threatened and I had a 38 snub nose revolver. I had to view a house in a rough area toward dusk so I carried my pistol inside. I'd walked around the house and did not see any signs of a break-in. The house was vacant. I entered the front door and walked quickly through the living area and back the hall to the bedrooms. In one bedroom there three guys, sitting on the floor apparently doing some sort of drugs. I held up my hands, told them "no problem, I'm carrying, I'm going to back out the front door, and call the police. I did just as I said and by the time police arrived, a few minutes, the guys were gone.

Where should that have been reported?

Since you were obviously not carrying any drugs or trying to steal their drugs, you could have just announced that you are backing out the door and then calling the police and got the same results. There is NO information that categorically states that you are any more safer with a gun than without a gun. And please don't toss more of the "Studies" tainted by Lott and company.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.

{...
Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
...}

That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.

The Federals have no say in that. And you are right, the 2nd amendment does deny the Federals from denying you the right to those weapons. But under the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendment, the state does have that right as long as they do it by being specific. For instance, banning the AR-15 by describing the weapon in a general description has been found to be unconstitutional because it also grabs so many other guns. But if you use the phrase "AR-15 and it's various clones" that stands up in court and does become a constitutional law.

It can stand up in court for not being arbitrary as to the definition of what is banned, but not why it need to be banned.
There are about 30,000 shooting deaths a year, and only a couple hundred are with all rifles, much less ARs.
Almost all the deaths are pistol related.
And clearly an AR is a much better and safer home defense weapon, as there are going to be less accidental shoots from a 2 handed over a 1 handed weapon.

Small side point, but remember states do not have rights.
They only have delegated authority that comes from their defense of the rights of individuals.
But I understood that is likely what you meant.

Nonsense.

An AR is a dreadful HD weapon – particularly in heavily populated areas.

You’ll not only end up killing the intruder, you’ll also end up killing your neighbor in the apartment next door – that’s not the case with a shotgun or handgun.

You’re trying – and failing – to contrive an ‘argument’ that because the ubiquitous AR is so commonplace, it should be afforded the same protections as the possession of handguns.

That’s a losing tactic.

The successful tactic will address the level of judicial review, preferably strict scrutiny – where subject to that standard, most firearm regulatory measures would be invalidated, including the regulation of ARs and similar carbines and rifles.

Actually, an AR is MUCH safer as a home defense weapon than a pistol, and a pistol is not very good.
It appears to me you are suggesting that an AR is too powerful and will pass through walls too easily, and that is not the case.
The AR bullet is the .223, which is a very tiny and light bullet, which is only barely spin stabilized by the rifling in the barrel. Once the bullet hits anything at all, and slows down in the least, it immediately tumbles and loses all penetration capability.
The risk of danger to those beyond the walls of the home is probably much lower with an AR than with most pistol bullets.

Lets compare the AR .223/5.56 with the common .357 pistol?

5.56 with a 55 grain bullet has a velocity of 2600fps, for about 1500-1700lbs of energy
.357 with 158 grain bullet has a velocity of 2153fps, for about 1626lbs of energy.

But it is even worse than that for .223 penetration because drywall tests show that it immediately starts to tumble and that prevents any significant penetration of common housing wall.

The main thrust of home safety is that pistols are far more likely to shoot someone by accident since they are one handed and can quickly be accidentally aimed at one of your own family members. A two handed weapon is much more steady in aiming only where you intentionally want it to be aimed, and it is harder to drop, etc.

Although I would agree that a shotgun is even better, in that it is even easier to aim and has even less wall penetration.

Your figures are way off on the 357 mag using Federal ammo that most will use.
357 Magnum Ballistics Chart | Ballistics 101
Picking the most likely round that would be used in the Federal Ammo

357 Magnum JHP
Bullet weight 125
Muzzle Energy 575
Foot Per Second at Muzzle. 1440

Now for that hotrod round you partially used (it appears you mixed info from a few rounds) from Magsafe. Notice the bullet weight goes way down as well as the muzzle energy to get that 2300 fps speed.

357 Magnum Swat
Bullet weight 37
Muzzle Energy 436
Foot Per Second at Muzzle 2300

Now for a chart on the 223 and not the 556 Nato which most AR-15s should never fire.

And this is not a particularly powerful 223 round either. It starts out at
Nossler 55 grain bullet
Muzzle velocity of 3200 fps
Energy at the Muzzle 1200 lbs

And that is a very common 223 round. The figures for the 556 Nato is higher but unless you are chambered for the 556 Nato, I wouldn't suggest you shoot too many through a chamber for a 223.

The 223 may be on the lower scale on the Rifle scale but it's way above anything that you can ever get out of a 357 and expect to keep seeing out of both eyes and keep your fingers intact.

 

[Rigby5]

Seems to me DC vs Heller is pretty clear.

{...
Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
...}

That would seem to apply to a shotgun or AR as well as a pistol.
Pistols are less common for home defense than a rifle or shotgun.

The Federals have no say in that. And you are right, the 2nd amendment does deny the Federals from denying you the right to those weapons. But under the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendment, the state does have that right as long as they do it by being specific. For instance, banning the AR-15 by describing the weapon in a general description has been found to be unconstitutional because it also grabs so many other guns. But if you use the phrase "AR-15 and it's various clones" that stands up in court and does become a constitutional law.

It can stand up in court for not being arbitrary as to the definition of what is banned, but not why it need to be banned.
There are about 30,000 shooting deaths a year, and only a couple hundred are with all rifles, much less ARs.
Almost all the deaths are pistol related.
And clearly an AR is a much better and safer home defense weapon, as there are going to be less accidental shoots from a 2 handed over a 1 handed weapon.

Small side point, but remember states do not have rights.
They only have delegated authority that comes from their defense of the rights of individuals.
But I understood that is likely what you meant.

Nonsense.

An AR is a dreadful HD weapon – particularly in heavily populated areas.

You’ll not only end up killing the intruder, you’ll also end up killing your neighbor in the apartment next door – that’s not the case with a shotgun or handgun.

You’re trying – and failing – to contrive an ‘argument’ that because the ubiquitous AR is so commonplace, it should be afforded the same protections as the possession of handguns.

That’s a losing tactic.

The successful tactic will address the level of judicial review, preferably strict scrutiny – where subject to that standard, most firearm regulatory measures would be invalidated, including the regulation of ARs and similar carbines and rifles.

Actually, an AR is MUCH safer as a home defense weapon than a pistol, and a pistol is not very good.
It appears to me you are suggesting that an AR is too powerful and will pass through walls too easily, and that is not the case.
The AR bullet is the .223, which is a very tiny and light bullet, which is only barely spin stabilized by the rifling in the barrel. Once the bullet hits anything at all, and slows down in the least, it immediately tumbles and loses all penetration capability.
The risk of danger to those beyond the walls of the home is probably much lower with an AR than with most pistol bullets.

Lets compare the AR .223/5.56 with the common .357 pistol?

5.56 with a 55 grain bullet has a velocity of 2600fps, for about 1500-1700lbs of energy
.357 with 158 grain bullet has a velocity of 2153fps, for about 1626lbs of energy.

But it is even worse than that for .223 penetration because drywall tests show that it immediately starts to tumble and that prevents any significant penetration of common housing wall.

The main thrust of home safety is that pistols are far more likely to shoot someone by accident since they are one handed and can quickly be accidentally aimed at one of your own family members. A two handed weapon is much more steady in aiming only where you intentionally want it to be aimed, and it is harder to drop, etc.

Although I would agree that a shotgun is even better, in that it is even easier to aim and has even less wall penetration.

Your figures are way off on the 357 mag using Federal ammo that most will use.
357 Magnum Ballistics Chart | Ballistics 101
Picking the most likely round that would be used in the Federal Ammo

357 Magnum JHP
Bullet weight 125
Muzzle Energy 575
Foot Per Second at Muzzle. 1440

Now for that hotrod round you partially used (it appears you mixed info from a few rounds) from Magsafe. Notice the bullet weight goes way down as well as the muzzle energy to get that 2300 fps speed.

357 Magnum Swat
Bullet weight 37
Muzzle Energy 436
Foot Per Second at Muzzle 2300

Now for a chart on the 223 and not the 556 Nato which most AR-15s should never fire.

And this is not a particularly powerful 223 round either. It starts out at
Nossler 55 grain bullet
Muzzle velocity of 3200 fps
Energy at the Muzzle 1200 lbs

And that is a very common 223 round. The figures for the 556 Nato is higher but unless you are chambered for the 556 Nato, I wouldn't suggest you shoot too many through a chamber for a 223.

The 223 may be on the lower scale on the Rifle scale but it's way above anything that you can ever get out of a 357 and expect to keep seeing out of both eyes and keep your fingers intact.

I did not bother checking a second site and just assumed their figures were likely accurate.
But I think yours are more correct.
However, the AR is still not a dangerous home defense weapons because of the mild barrel twist, resulting in the bullet being very unstable and prone to tumbling, thus not penetrating walls well because it will be going sideways after the first contact.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Federals have no say in that. And you are right, the 2nd amendment does deny the Federals from denying you the right to those weapons. But under the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendment, the state does have that right as long as they do it by being specific. For instance, banning the AR-15 by describing the weapon in a general description has been found to be unconstitutional because it also grabs so many other guns. But if you use the phrase "AR-15 and it's various clones" that stands up in court and does become a constitutional law.

It can stand up in court for not being arbitrary as to the definition of what is banned, but not why it need to be banned.
There are about 30,000 shooting deaths a year, and only a couple hundred are with all rifles, much less ARs.
Almost all the deaths are pistol related.
And clearly an AR is a much better and safer home defense weapon, as there are going to be less accidental shoots from a 2 handed over a 1 handed weapon.

Small side point, but remember states do not have rights.
They only have delegated authority that comes from their defense of the rights of individuals.
But I understood that is likely what you meant.

Nonsense.

An AR is a dreadful HD weapon – particularly in heavily populated areas.

You’ll not only end up killing the intruder, you’ll also end up killing your neighbor in the apartment next door – that’s not the case with a shotgun or handgun.

You’re trying – and failing – to contrive an ‘argument’ that because the ubiquitous AR is so commonplace, it should be afforded the same protections as the possession of handguns.

That’s a losing tactic.

The successful tactic will address the level of judicial review, preferably strict scrutiny – where subject to that standard, most firearm regulatory measures would be invalidated, including the regulation of ARs and similar carbines and rifles.

Actually, an AR is MUCH safer as a home defense weapon than a pistol, and a pistol is not very good.
It appears to me you are suggesting that an AR is too powerful and will pass through walls too easily, and that is not the case.
The AR bullet is the .223, which is a very tiny and light bullet, which is only barely spin stabilized by the rifling in the barrel. Once the bullet hits anything at all, and slows down in the least, it immediately tumbles and loses all penetration capability.
The risk of danger to those beyond the walls of the home is probably much lower with an AR than with most pistol bullets.

Lets compare the AR .223/5.56 with the common .357 pistol?

5.56 with a 55 grain bullet has a velocity of 2600fps, for about 1500-1700lbs of energy
.357 with 158 grain bullet has a velocity of 2153fps, for about 1626lbs of energy.

But it is even worse than that for .223 penetration because drywall tests show that it immediately starts to tumble and that prevents any significant penetration of common housing wall.

The main thrust of home safety is that pistols are far more likely to shoot someone by accident since they are one handed and can quickly be accidentally aimed at one of your own family members. A two handed weapon is much more steady in aiming only where you intentionally want it to be aimed, and it is harder to drop, etc.

Although I would agree that a shotgun is even better, in that it is even easier to aim and has even less wall penetration.

Your figures are way off on the 357 mag using Federal ammo that most will use.
357 Magnum Ballistics Chart | Ballistics 101
Picking the most likely round that would be used in the Federal Ammo

357 Magnum JHP
Bullet weight 125
Muzzle Energy 575
Foot Per Second at Muzzle. 1440

Now for that hotrod round you partially used (it appears you mixed info from a few rounds) from Magsafe. Notice the bullet weight goes way down as well as the muzzle energy to get that 2300 fps speed.

357 Magnum Swat
Bullet weight 37
Muzzle Energy 436
Foot Per Second at Muzzle 2300

Now for a chart on the 223 and not the 556 Nato which most AR-15s should never fire.

And this is not a particularly powerful 223 round either. It starts out at
Nossler 55 grain bullet
Muzzle velocity of 3200 fps
Energy at the Muzzle 1200 lbs

And that is a very common 223 round. The figures for the 556 Nato is higher but unless you are chambered for the 556 Nato, I wouldn't suggest you shoot too many through a chamber for a 223.

The 223 may be on the lower scale on the Rifle scale but it's way above anything that you can ever get out of a 357 and expect to keep seeing out of both eyes and keep your fingers intact.

I did not bother checking a second site and just assumed their figures were likely accurate.
But I think yours are more correct.
However, the AR is still not a dangerous home defense weapons because of the mild barrel twist, resulting in the bullet being very unstable and prone to tumbling, thus not penetrating walls well because it will be going sideways after the first contact.

Actually, if I own (and I do) a 357 mag (Model 19) I would use the 38 special over the 357 mag for home defense. The problem both of them have is, most of their energy is spent on the backdrop. The 357 has a lot of penetration and the bullet hold together well. Meaning, through normal construction walls, it's going to go through a couple or three walls. The 38 special will only go through one or two. If hit with either, the wall behind the person will receive most of the impact. But the 38 special will be a bit slower and actually spend more time in the body making it a better defense round. Plus, it might penetrate one wall after that, maybe. The 357 will penetrate the body of a person, the wall behind the person and possibly go through another wall. Making the 9mm or the 380 the better two choices for home defense because if they hit the body, they won't penetrate completely through the backdrop wall. And both the 380 and the 9mm have about the same knockdown, not on paper, but in reality.

Meanwhile, the 223 is a smaller diameter round with a lesser grain moving at almost twice the speed. The
AR has enough twists to put enough turns on the 223 to make it very stable out to about 400 yds. If you look at the ballistic charts, the 223 has about the same ballistics at 400 yds as the 357 has at the muzzle. If the 357 can go through a body and 2 walls, the 223 can penetrate a lot further. This is one of the reasons that the AR or 223 is the weapon of choice for the best dressed modern mass shooter. You can hit or kill at least 3 people per round with it if the people are compacted together. It's a full powered rifle and should be treated as such.

If you are a lousy shot, a shotgun is the best choice. It won't penetrate that much but close does count. And I don't know about you, but the action jacking of a Model 870 would scare the living hell out me. If I were a bad guy, only two things would come to my mind, hit the floor spread eagle or get the hell out of there. Neither the 357 wheel gun, 9mm semi auto, 45 semi auto or AR has that much affect. If you are just there to kill something, go see a shrink and sell all your guns. If you are there to defend your home, choose the Model 870 shotgun.

 

[danielpalos]

No reason to ban the People from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

BUT, you do believe in banning people from defending themselves. Why?

defense of self and property is a natural right.

don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them Well!

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution unto itself;

it amends this: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Well regulated militia of the whole People are Necessary and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Wouldn't it be easier to simply post the actual text of the Second Amendment, along with punctuation?

What part of that is not clear to you. And, without your interpretation too!

The part where our Second Article of Amendment is not a Constitution, unto itself.


Only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[sealybobo]

I am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed. It's just a matter of time...

If Ironman can fly around in that war machine why can’t someone else drive around in a loaded tank? Why does Ironman get to?

One time a bunch of droids had him surrounded so he started spinning with a laser and cut them all in half.

Do republicans think they should have Ironman suits if our military started wearing them?

Yes.
If the government starts building Ironman suits, it would essential for all responsible adults to also have them.
It is basic to a democratic republic, where the government is only supposed to exist at the pleasure of the people.
That means government is never supposed to ever be able to have more power than the people, or be able to intimidate or force them.
And in fact, the 14th amendment requires that if government has something, that then all people must have the same equal access and treatment under the law.

Government must always be OF the people and never OVER the people.
That is basic to any democratic republic, and is why the founders wanted NO standing military, and instead only gave the federal government the ability to call up a militia of citizen soldiers.
It was wrong to change that basic safety.

But they have tanks and you can’t have one.

So you are wrong

 

[Pilot1]

But they have tanks and you can’t have one.

So you are wrong

Yes I can. I have friends that own tanks, artillery pieces, war planes. Expensive? Yes. Perfectly legal to own and fire them. However, the Afghanis never had tanks and they kicked out the Russians, and soon the U.S. who both had every military asset, and technology available.

 

[sealybobo]

But they have tanks and you can’t have one.

So you are wrong

Yes I can. I have friends that own tanks, artillery pieces, war planes. Expensive? Yes. Perfectly legal to own and fire them. However, the Afghanis never had tanks and they kicked out the Russians, and soon the U.S. who both had every military asset, and technology available.

You can’t own a loaded tank

 

[Pilot1]

You can’t own a loaded tank

Yes you can. I know many collectors that do just that, and fire them. Artillery pieces also. What law states you can not with the proper licensing, background check, etc?

 

[sealybobo]

You can’t own a loaded tank

Yes you can. I know many collectors that do just that, and fire them. Artillery pieces also. What law states you can not with the proper licensing, background check, etc?

Very heavily regulated. They have a mistake pointing at your tank.

Depends on the state city county

 

[Flash]

No reason to ban the People from keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

BUT, you do believe in banning people from defending themselves. Why?

defense of self and property is a natural right.

don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them Well!

Of course we need to use the definition of "well regulated" that was in common usage when the Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights and was reinforced in the Heller case. To mean well provisioned like having a good supply of guns, ammo and magazines.

 

[Blues Man]

Here's 8

Thank you---
I asked, you provided. Again thanks for your reply -

Still I must add, 98% of your examples were for home defense, not in the public arena. Still you point was made, thanks again

Defense is defense it matters not where it occurs

There has been NO evidence that you are more or less safer armed. That's another Kleck/Lott BS finding using really fuzzy math that has been debunked. But I do agree what not knowing if a home is armed or not does make a difference. I like the sign, "Screw the Dog, beware of the owner" and "This Property controlled by Smith and Wesson". Either one will get a chuckle out of the bad guy and he will probably move on to the next home.

I never said I was safer because I carry. I also never said I was less safe for carrying.

Safety is an illusion as all life is risk. Some people choose to ignore all risk and place their safety in the hands of others I choose not to place my safety in the hands of others because other people most likely won't be around if I am ever in danger.

If a gun neither makes me more safe or less safe then why do you have a problem with anyone who is legally eligible owning and carrying?

Of course carrying a gun makes you safer.
It gives you more control and options.
If carrying a gun did not make you safer, then police would not be carrying them.

I've been carrying for decades now and I have yet to have need of my firearm so I can say I am neither more not less safe

And Control is an illusion just like safety