Is an AR-15 relatively useless for home defense

[tuc22]

You asked:"Is an AR-15 relatively useless for home defense?" Relative to what?, a sharp stick?
All joking aside, if I happen to access my AR because of a need to defend myself you can be sure I mean business. In a home defense scenario I employ "kill zone" tactics and have the element of surprise( BG knows he's just walked into a point of no return) I am behind cover or at least concealment and am aware of fields of fire. Ammo will be PSP's and not FMJ and the rounds will be going into tissue and not walls.

BTW, if I can escape out to street with loved ones I will. And I'm not the least bit concerned about my ears (gun discharging) at that moment. Any one who has fired a gun in anger almost certainly did it without hearing protection.

[This message has been edited by tuc22 (edited May 24, 2000).]

 

[WalterGAII]

Choosing a weapon for self-defense in one's home is quite different from choosing a weapon as a SWAT team member. The differences are so obvious that I won't enumerate them.

If you choose a shotgun for use inside your home, and are concerned about penetration, use birdshot, not buckshot. Buckshot will penetrate your wall and kill your neigbor seventy-five yards or more away. The likelihood of a home invader's walking away from a facefull of #8 birdshot within ten to twenty yards is negligible.

I personally feel confident that any intruder who gets by Pepper, the Democrat-Biting Dog, will be adequately dealt with by me and either of my .45ACP Glocks. (My house has no drywall, only tongue-and-groove real wood, inside and out, so penetration isn't so much of a problem for me.

To the duck and goose hunter: There's no nexus between shooting a long-barrel shotgun outdoors and firing an AR indoors.

 

[M1911]

El Rojo said: "I am sorry everyone, but this whole hearing damage indoors during a self defense situation makes me want to vomit. Anyone ever been hunting large game or ducks and geese?"

Rifle shots indoors are significantly louder than rifle shot outdoors. But even if you are outdoors, if you are exposed to enough shots without hearing protection, you will experience hearing damage. You might not notice it unless you have an audiogram, but you will have some hearing damage.

If you wish to reduce the hearing damage, use ear protection.

I have heard rifle shots indoors. I was at an indoor range at S&W Academy. We all had double hearing protection (required by S&W) -- plugs in the ears and muffs on top. Even with that, the report from a Mini-30 was really loud. The report from an AR15 was not as loud as the Mini-30.

I'm not saying that the noise of the report would in any way incapacitate you or make you unable to continue the fight if you were not wearing hearing protection. But it would cause some damage to your hearing. Whether or not that is a risk you want to take is your decision. Personally, I keep a pistol handy for home defense and do not have hearing protection near it.

Jared

 

[Forseti]

It looks like if you are going to use an AR-15 for the home, you better have electronic muffs. Any suggestions on the best place to get some inexpensively?

Also, to those that posted the AR-15 would be better at longer distances, it would be *very* tough to have an extraordinary situation where you could engage at long range from your house and not get charged with a crime. Almost always the situation would need to be where someone has gained entry to your home...THEN you shoot them.

Can anyone think of some *reasonable* situation where you could actually fire on someone who is outside?

My thinking is this...even if someone was walking around your property with a weapon, you *still* can't take preemptive action against them...you can call the cops, you can hide in your house, but you run a grave legal risk shooting UNTIL they SUCESSFULLY gain entry. You can be in big trouble if they break a window as a PRECURSOR to climbing in...the line between you shooting someone who *just* vandalized your house with a broken window, and an assailant who broke a window to gain entry in your house.

So, if you think you got someone trying to break in....WAIT until they are in BEFORE you shoot them. Very important.

Hmmm, I just thought of something...I can see the court case now...
BAD GUY's DEFENSE ATTORNEY: "So, Mr. Homeowner, you had time to put on EARMUFFs before you calmly proceeded to execute my client with an ASSAULT RIFLE!?!

MR HOMEOWNER: "But he broke into my house..."

BAD GUY's DEFENSE ATTORNEY: "So why didn't you call for the police BEFORE putting on your ear protection, unlocking your gun case, getting your evil ASSAULT RIFLE (raised voice for the words assault rife) and murdering my client, who was merely confused about which house he was supposed to visit that night. And lets look at this ASSAULT RIFLE (holds up AR-15, 16" flattop with holosight and tactical flashlight...very politically incorrect looking, though postban legal)...You're some kind of murdering GUN NUT aren't you! Endangering all your neighbors as well!"

I wonder how the average jury would react to that...could it be that even though legally justified, in a "gun-unfriendly" climate they could seek to prosecute you based on the appearance of overkill an AR-15 would present to 12 "average" people? Especially an AR-15 "optimized" for "home defense"? Most uninformed people would certainly believe a .223 round would cut through MANY houses if someone lied to them about it...and then there is all the preparation required before actually shooting someone...getting rifle (which is probably locked up...right?), donning ear protection, going out to sweep your house...that's a lot of time consumed. You had better call the police somewhere in that chain of events....

 

[WalterGAII]

Self-defense statutes vary from State-to-State. In jurisdictions run by effete, pusillanimous Democrats (pretty redundant, ain't it?), you have fewer rights of self- defense than in other States.

In GA and many other States, one is not required to retreat, before one exercises one's right of self-defense; one only has to reasonably fear that one's life or the life of another is being threatened by a perp.

If someone were of obvious bad intentions, were in my yard and were armed, I damn sure wouldn't wait until they had gained entrance to my house before I took action. The old myth of having to wait until somebody's inside the house, ergo, the bad advice of "pulling the body inside", just isn't true in my State, at least. One does not have to wait until a perp fires in order to exert one's right of self-defense.

In my part of the world, I'm more likely to get a parade around the town square, as opposed to being arrested, should I take the life of another in an act of obvious self-defense.

I have known a couple of people who've killed in self-defense. There were no hearings; there were no charges; there were no weapons confiscated.

On the other hand, I did have a friend who shot through his apartment door and killed a guy who was banging on the door, screaming death threats. The Shootee thought that the Shooter was adulterously involved AT THE MOMENT in the apartment with the Shootee's wife. Turns out that the wife was not in the apartment and the Shootee lost his life for his trouble. In this case, there was a trial, but the Shooter was found innocent.

I talking about this very subject with my new-CCW law-student daughter last night. I asked her if she knew what to say to an investigating officer, should she have to use her new Glock 26 in self-defense. Before she could give me a law student answer, I told her to say, "Officer, I sincerely regret that I could only kill the s.o.b. once." She knew, of course, that I wasn't serious about that advice. That's proably what I'd say, however. I have no tolerance and little fear of litigation, when it comes to dealing with defending myself and my family from attacks by uncivilized, savage Democrats.

[This message has been edited by WalterGAII (edited May 24, 2000).]

 

[rbbrew]

An instance of "reasonable" scenario for legally shooting a perp outside the home:

A friend of mine who lived out in the sticks had his home broken into. Too bad for the bad guys--he's ex-CIA, El Salvador operative, etc. Anyway, a gunfight started in the house, bad guys shooting first. He popped one of them in the yard with a laser-sight AR-15 as they retreated to their car. Then he mortally wounded the driver, who managed to go some distance in the car before expiring. When the final (and sole surviving) perp mentioned sueing him as he was being arrested, the local LE guys just laughed him off.

Three factors here:
1. Bad guys fired first, kept firing from the yard as they retreated.
2. Who you are helps--obviously my friend (an ER doc popular with the locals) had some pull here.
3. Attitude of local LE people can determine your fate.

 

[M1911]

Forseti: electronic muffs aren't cheap. Figure ~$150 or so. Dillons has them, as do other places.

Regarding the possible impact of using an AR15 on the aftermath, if the DA and/or the scumbag (or his estate) go after you, they may well try to make hay about you using an "evil assualt rifle." A pump action shotgun is perhaps less likely to draw such a reaction. You'll have to think about the community that you live in. If you are in West Texas, I doubt the jury would give a hoot. Here in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, on the other hand...

Jared

 

[tuc22]

Quote: "Regarding the possible impact of using an AR15 on the aftermath, if the DA and/or the scumbag (or his estate) go after you, they may well try to make hay about you using an "evil assualt rifle." A pump action shotgun is perhaps less likely to draw such a reaction."
Here I'll beg to differ only because I have faith in a jury of peers who, when faced with the facts that one indeed did shoot a perpetrator who invaded ones' home, will support any means of defense. The idea that it could have happened to these jurors will influence their decision.

 

[Gary H]

In my view, faith in a "jury of your peers" is foolish. You NEVER know what is going to happen when you enter a court of law. If logic prevailed, liberals would not exist. Never trust your fate to the law. It isn't about right and wrong. It is quite fickle.

I have an all black Carbon 15 with a tactical light and red dot sight. It scares me to look at it. It is easy to shoot and very easy to pick up a target. I think it is a great home defense gun. In Northern California, the liberal attitude would prefer me to die rather than use this gun in self-defense. The jury would not be made up of my peers. My neighbors are to the left of Hillary and I do not consider them to be my peers, but they would sit in judgement.

 

[tuc22]

foolish, fickle and cynical. If I were you I'd move. Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six, as they say. A man's home is his castle is another aphorism that comes to mind. And get the best lawyer money can buy!

 

[M1911]

tuc22: I don't know where you live. I live in Massachusetts. The jury will not be a jury of my peers. Most likely, most of them will know essentially nothing about guns, except what they've "learned" from Hollywood. What they've "learned" is that my AR15 is actually a machine gun that sprays bullets, never needs to be reloaded, and if a bullet from it hits someone, they get thrown across the room.

On the other hand, if I use the pump action shotgun that I go hunting with, I think their view may be significantly different. They've seen shotguns in police cars. But only military and SWAT teams use "machine guns" in their eyes.

Where I am, the jury won't be bunch of my buddies from the gun club.

Jared

 

[Spectre]

Besides having my Peltor Tac-7's besides my bed, I have also installed a "flash hider" on my M1 Carbine. These were actually made for the M3, and consist of a cone that surrounds the end of the muzzle, and opens up. It seems reasonable that this will carry a significant amount of the sound impulse away from the shooter, though I have not had the chance to do comparative shooting.

 

[po boy]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Forseti
looks like the question was pretty well covered so all I can add is for defence a sharp stick in the eye will work wonders if you know how to use it GRASSHOPER... Originally posted by Forseti:
I've considered purchasing some variant of an AR-15 carbine, or building my own, but now I am begining to think it would only be useful to get a full sized 20" target model for competition...considering:

If you HAVE to fire it indoors without hearing protection, you're deaf, or at least suffering from permanent hearing loss. Or worse, constant ringing in the ears.

If you fire it indoors WITH hearing protection, good for you, but your peripheral hearing is muffled, so you can't hear anything in the house...and thats bad if you're scanning for bad guys.

Despite the articles on the .223 round not being as overpenetrating as previously thought, that sucker is going to rip right through sheet rock with no problem. I wouldn't want to endanger anyone in the house other than bad guys, and the neighbors are certainly at risk.

You can't shoot at anyone outside the house (even bad guys) without running afoul of the law under almost any circumstances.

So it looks like the marginal utility of the AR-15 for home is very low. Shotgun or pistol only seems to be it. Wish it were otherwise.[/quote]

 

[tuc22]

Excuse me for saying so but, "Peltors by the bed"??? This is getting silly.
Now what we need to give this debate some legitimacy is decibel readings of a shotgun, an AR, and a pistol as fired indoors. Then if indeed the shotgun is a teensy bit quieter we go with it. The Glow-in-the-Dark ear muffs are now less important for preserving our precious hearing when some whacko is in the house intent on murder. I guess when seconds count I'm not too worried that when I'm older I'll have to wear hearing aids. I'd shoot an AR in the house to save my life, or a shotgun, and even a
pistol and so would you. If pure speed in deployment is the rule then the edge goes to the pistol due to it's short length and manuverability. If a secure position can be acquired and defended from behind cover a shotgun is my choice and if there were no shotgun and/or limited rounds for it then an AR with a 20-30 round mag would be the primary defensive arm before any handgun. I'm sorry but I can't rule the AR for home defense.