If you think no civilian ever needs an AR-15
4 armed thugs against one disabled man. Tell me again why no one ever needs an AR-15 type weapon for defense that has rapid semi-automatic fire capability?
Oh yes, and a Democrat being exposed to facts.
If no one had any guns there would be far fewer deaths.
RixPix wrote:
If no one had any guns there would be far fewer deaths.
But people do have them and that's something you can't change
boberic
Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander
RixPix wrote:
If no one had any guns there would be far fewer deaths.
If nobody had any cars there would not be 40,00 deaths per year.If nobody had any alchol 88,000 fewer pople would die
Huey Driver wrote:
But people do have them and that's something you can't change
How would he have been worse off with a shotgun?
I'm not sure why a taser wouldn't have worked, but he seemed to have come out OK without using an AR.
Few if any are trying to disarm cops, and if I were in a situation where it was a knife against a car, I would want the car, the guy with the knife might damage my plastic bumper, but I think I'd be OK. I've never actually hit an aggressor with my car, but I've sent a couple running.
thom w wrote:
I'm not sure why a taser wouldn't have worked, but he seemed to have come out OK without using an AR.
She said if no one had *any* guns. Not if no one had an AR.
You only get one chance with a taser and if there’s more than one attacker you’re out of luck.
Rose42 wrote:
She said if no one had *any* guns. Not if no one had an AR.
You only get one chance with a taser and if there’s more than one attacker you’re out of luck.
They have their limitations, but your example only had one attacker.
I'd have hit him with the car. If he ran away, that would be OK too.
thom w wrote:
They have their limitations, but your example only had one attacker.
I'd have hit him with the car. If he ran away, that would be OK too.
You wouldn’t have had the chance to hit him with the car. And he showed no sign of stopping.
sb
Loc: Florida's East Coast
I would worry that any rounds from my AR fired in my house would potentially penetrate my house and my neighbor's house, possibly injuring or k*****g them. A shotgun or a semi-auto pistol loaded with hollow-points would be much safer for my neighbors and probably just as effective.
RixPix wrote:
If no one had any guns there would be far fewer deaths.
Absolutely!
Now, tell us how to disarm the criminals.
thom w wrote:
How would he have been worse off with a shotgun?
Most shotguns have a heavy recoil compared to an AR. The man in the article may not have been able to handle that heavy recoil?
Huey Driver wrote:
If you think no civilian ever needs an AR-15
4 armed thugs against one disabled man. Tell me again why no one ever needs an AR-15 type weapon for defense that has rapid semi-automatic fire capability?
Oh yes, and a Democrat being exposed to facts.
A shotgun with #9 buckshot is a much better home defense weapon
Huey Driver wrote:
If you think no civilian ever needs an AR-15
4 armed thugs against one disabled man. Tell me again why no one ever needs an AR-15 type weapon for defense that has rapid semi-automatic fire capability?
Oh yes, and a Democrat being exposed to facts.
Well, here we go with politicization and then on to ad hominem attacks.....
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.