Bartholomew Roberts

I have to agree with this post. The ban ojn assault weapons didn't do anything. In fact, it was during Clinto's administration that the famous shootout in California happened. Two bank robbers had assault rifles and full body armor, and they were hurting police officers right and left because the police figured they wouldn't need to fight assault weapons because they were banned.

Gun bans do nothing because banning them will only open up a black market where they are easier to get that if they are left to the open market with minimal government regulation. We saw this during the prohibition of Alcohol in the 1920s, we have seen this with illegal drugs during our "War on Drugs", and we have seen it with junkfood sales in schools.

__________________
Proud Libertarian. www.lp.org
Bob Barr for President 2008!
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." ~P.J. O'Rourke
“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.”
-Plato

discoman

"The future will be controled by those who weild the barell of the Gun"

Keno

As a cop I have to totally agree with you. While the North Hollywood shootout was a very bad thing. It did teach some people something that most already knew. Criminals do not obey the law.

My job would be much easier if every law abiding citizen had a CCW and the willingness to use it.

AzTeK

There's nothing to say against every law abiding citizen having a CCW because the benefits in terms of self defense are obvious. However, I still don't understand wth anyone would need an assault rifle for self defense.

That the police in that shooting didn't bring any heavy weapons was their own misjudgement. I don't see why supposedly having no assault weapons on the streets should be a reason for police not to carry them to their missions - it's always better to be over equipped than under equipped. That was a clear misjudgement by the police force or whoever was in charge at that time and, frankly, pretty dumb.

__________________

Ummwhat

For home defense there is no weapon better than a M-4 type weapon and someone who has trained to use it. I am not saying that select fire is needed, but the weapon platform itself is a great thing to have in the home.

I do not want to answer for him. But I would assume that it has to do with the idiotic fear about these weapons, and the fact that it was believed by some in the government that SWAT can always be there.

__________________
"America is not at war. The U.S. military is at war. America is at the
mall."

AzTeK

Your expertise regarding weapons is surely vastly superior to mine, I would appreciate if you could explain to me why you come to that conclusion.

My reasoning goes that any case that involves a rightful act of self-defense will play itself out in more or less close quarters, and I fail to see how a M4 should accomplish the job of stopping a criminal better than a "simple" handgun at that range. An M4 is not really big or bulky, but compared to a handgun still arguably a bit more clumsy, specially for untrained people, and the assumption that not all M4 owners would have specilised training is surely a valid one.

__________________

Ummwhat

Not a problem. I am always willing to educate a willing student.

I do believe that all firearms owners should seek training to become proficient with their weapon of choice.

In very simple terms. As the sights are closer together on the pistol there is less room for error when sighting in on your target. Because the sights are farther apart on the rifle there is more room for error meaning it is easier to hit the target. As you can expect your accuracy to drop between 40% 60% when stressed (yes even the most trained individual will loose accuracy when stressed). The rifle gives you the highest probability for a center mass hit. And while it is heavier and larger than a pistol. It is still far superior in a closed in environment because of not only the above, but what comes next.

The terminal effects on target are far superior for the 5.56 round vice even a .50 AE

Pistol rounds are more likely to over penetrate and cause other injuries than the 5.56.

I know that this sounds counterintuitive. But believe me it is the truth.

A spitzer type projectile (any projectile that is longer than it is wide) will yaw inside the body.

Because the 5.56 is such a high velocity round, and so light, during its first yaw, the stresses placed on the projectile when it hits 90 degrees in its rotation cause it to separate and or disintegrate. Inside 250 meters you can expect core seperation, and core disintegration inside 100 meters from a 16 inch barrel. Meaning there is a much larger wound channel than a .45 (even if the .45 is a good hollow point).

This also means that the 5.56 is less likely to over penetrate causing collateral damage.

Some of the larger caliber rifles do not achieve the same muzzle velocity so normal ball rounds will not separate or disintegrate. But you can purchase ammunition that will. Even the best hollow point pistol round will not cause the same damage to the bad guy.

For example.
5.56x45mm M855 (which has a steel penitrator, if you are using M193 you can expect even more separation and less penetration)


Note the depth of penetration.
.45 JHP


Note depth of penetration.

12 gauge limited recoil slug



12gauge #4 buck. (00 Buck will penitrate even more)



Now what we see here. While the shotgun will produce a much larger wound channel, you also have a much higher probability of over penetration, which is bad when it comes to home defense.

Yes, it does say that even after separation, it will penetrate further. But as the mass of the projectile is so light, it will not retain a lethal velocity as the slug, shot, or .45 will. 9mm 10mm and .40 S&W will penetrate even more than the .45 will.

#4 buck may not retain a lethal velocity. But even a center mass hit does not mean instant death. So additional hits may be necessary if the bad guy is on PCP or some other drug. Follow on shots are more difficult with a shotgun.

You want a balance. Not too much, not too little.

The 5.56 (not .223, the .223 win is loaded to much lower pressures and as such the terminal effects will not be as good, and the projectile will not come apart, thus it may over penitrate). Gives us the perfect balance.

Now if you do miss your target. The .45 and 12 gauge will penetrate drywall better than the 5.56 because the 5.56 will yaw upon hitting a hard surface and will loose stability and velocity very fast because it is a very light bullet.

I am sure that you are now thinking that these weapons need to be banned because they are so good at killing.

Bans have already been proven stupid. If a bad guy wants it he will get it.

I am also sure that you are thinking that while the criminal is not likely to carry this weapon outside, he may use it to keep cops out of his home.

Yes this weapon will penetrate Level IIIA body armor. But most state, and all federal LEOs have Level IV body armor when executing high risk warrants. So this is not so much a worry.

__________________
"America is not at war. The U.S. military is at war. America is at the
mall."

AzTeK

My head hurts from all those numbers

Thanks for the explanation eventhough reading through it the first time, I didn't get much of it. But I'll give it another try later

From what I see the 5.56 clearly has a more devastating effect on the victim than a .45 - but I guess that really is of no concern in your explanation. In essence you are saying that it really doesn't matter how badly you damage the criminal - what should be prevented is the possible effects of an over-penetrating shot that goes through the guy or misses the target alltogether, is that correct?

__________________

Ummwhat

You want a balance. You want to end the attack as easily as possible. Without putting others at risk.

The 5.56 allows you to do more damage (than a normal pistol round) to the bad guy while keeping others safe from collateral damage.

This does not mean that a pistol is not good for home defense. Use what you are most comfortable with. If you are more comfortable and better trained with a pistol, then use a pistol. I am most comfortable with a rifle. But I can get the job done with a pistol if I have to. Also, it is easier to store my pistol safely while still being able to access it quickly.

My philosophy is this. My dog will get me to my pistol.. My pistol will get me to my rifle.

__________________
"America is not at war. The U.S. military is at war. America is at the
mall."

Bartholomew Roberts

Just on the subject of preference, I'll take my .22 Mossberg over a pistol any day. I have become very proficient with rifles, pistols, and shotguns, but I prefer the rifle just because it is more accurate, and easier to load in a hurry.

As for assault rifles, I have never used one. The biggest thing I have ever shot was an M-1 that one of my instructors let my shoot. However, I know that Switzerland is a perfect example of how assault rifles will prevent crime. In Switzerland, they have mandatory military service for two years, and after those two years are up, everyone is enlisted in the Militia. The Militia get to keep their military issue semi-automatic assault Rifles, and thus they keep them in their homes.

Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates among developed nations.

__________________
Proud Libertarian. www.lp.org
Bob Barr for President 2008!
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." ~P.J. O'Rourke
“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.”
-Plato