Firearm Recommendations

[bryan]

@Mikeallison, I suppose it's just that a lot of interesting things seem to be in low-rent areas (so sometimes correlates with increased crime?).

I was able to think of another possible road rage hypothetical (other than your example of mistaken identity): riding a bicycle or motorcycle on the road (in a locale where folks aren't used to it). For whatever reason some people mad-hate bikers. Of course, I'm not sure how much good carrying will do in that example (since, if it comes to blows, they will just run you over and drive away).

[Mister Imperceptible]

I think it’s important for me to clarify something I said on the previous page. I wrote that “the AR-15 scares me because of indiscriminate fire.” I have yet to shoot one, but the AR-15, if I am not mistaken, is a precise weapon in the hands of someone trained to use it, much more so than the shotgun.

What I SHOULD have said, is that the AR-15 has the potential to be used by a malevolent actor in an indiscriminate manner. I guess it is hard for me to imagine a scenario in which I would be firing at targets from over 300 yards away in self-defense, other than in an apocalyptic scenario. (And such a scenario is viable, so perhaps too it is unfair for me to dismiss it.) Perhaps I’m just chicken shit, and don’t want the hassle that may come to those who own the AR-15. Or perhaps I’m just sold on the idea that a shotgun is easier to shoot and requires less training.

This is definitely an instance of where I have allowed myself to internalize and regurgitate the negative stigma that’s floating around about the AR-15 right now. That is unfair to what should be an objective analysis here, and anyone reading what I wrote might mistake me for someone who actually knows what he is talking about.

Even if I find the AR-15 fearful, I lean philosophically towards keeping ownership of them legal. That’s my opinion, not expert knowledge.

Perhaps it would be wise to buy a crate of AR-15’s to sell on the black market, when the BLUE WAVE makes them illegal in 2020.

The point of my starting the thread was to ask questions about something in which I have an interest but no experience. Please do not mistake me for someone who knows anything about guns.

I will shut up now and let the smart and experienced people continue the conversation.

[Campitor]

While I agree that the right to self protection is an immutable right - and I prefer more rounds over less rounds - the money spent on buying a brigade's worth of guns and ammo, in a non-apocalyptic scenario, is better spent on steel doors, panic rooms, and bars on windows.

And if the shit truly hits the fan a-la road warrior, no amount of guns will save you if a squad or platoon sized group of determined and armed assailants make your house a target unless your domicile is made of cement, steel, rebar, and the door frames are reinforced. Or if you have a couple of those M134 Miniguns you can sling around like Jesse Ventura in the Predator movie. And even all this protection would mean squat if the bad guys shows up with a truck packed with anfo. He who fights and runs away...

[Mister Imperceptible]

@ffj

I was just perusing the Forum Posting Ethics thread again and I don’t know if I’m being over sensitive to the criticisms lobbed at noobs on the forum. I have a tendency to vacillate between guilty Catholic sufferer and obnoxious interloper. I do not want to be a net negative contributor to the forum.

The AR-15 does not scare me. I don’t want the flak for owning one, is all. But the other part of me wants to buy one precisely because I’m being told I shouldn’t have one. I’m wary of society’s condemnations, but at the same time I have contempt for them.

I am aware of all the talk about guns and suicide. In my cabinet there is a bottle of painkillers I was prescribed that goes completely untouched. I never think about using them, even when in pain. I will not add to the statistics of the opioid crisis, even while people around me are dropping like flies.

I do not imbue inanimate objects with agency.

“The coin don’t have no say. It’s just you.”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D018SqunF1Y

But I’m sidetracking the thread again.

[Mikeallison]

The AR15 is designed for combat, not home defense, although it will work in that role. I don't own mine for home defense, I own them as a deterrent. If you like semi autos, and want to avoid the black rifle stigma, a Ruger mini 14 is a fair alternative. They come with wood furniture as an option which makes them look like an Elmer fudd gun, but they are just as capable as an AR.

Ring up the death tolls in Afghanistan and Iraq for me, then compare those to school shootings in the US. Now consider the fact that some people want to ban semi auto rifle ownership for private citizens, while leaving even more powerful guns in the hands of our government who committed those unjust acts of violence and aggression (And many more).

If we are in the game of restricting rights based off of how many people have been killed, then we should be passing legislation to ban the federal government from owning these rifles, and promoting ownership and training on the individual level instead.

Of course the wolf would prefer it if the sheep were disarmed, I think you would be stupid to agree with him.

[jennypenny]

I'm trying to avoid getting into the gun debate here (again), but I will say that the day I decided I would never forfeit any weapons was the day I found out that the Stepford PD had purchased a fully loaded M-ATV.

[Mikeallison]

I found out that the Stepford PD had purchased a fully loaded M-ATV.

Yep, as I understand it the feds are selling these things to local governments for sometimes as little as $2000, and this is the same hardware they were using in the middle east!

I expect to see meter maids driving around Bradley fighting vehicles at this rate. I mean why not if the Mayberry purchasing department can buy them from the feds cheaper than the golf carts?

[jacob]

It seems inevitable that government enforcers (aka police) will always move to a +1 force level beyond those they are regulating. It's not long ago that British Bobbies (is that the term?) only carried night sticks, this being +1 beyond the [drunken] fists of the people. Now, wherever civilians carry knives and what not, the police carries guns. If civilians carries guns, the police has SWAT teams with submachine guns. And if civilians carry semi-automatic rifles, like in Iraq, like in US, the +1 for the police is to drive around in MRAPs.

And so on and so forth... if all Americans could legally buy bazookas or machine guns, police would start driving around in Strykers.

If I apply my physicist-inspired civics-models, then the A2 says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The underlined part deals exactly with the issue of seeking force parity. However, I don't think I'm exaggerating, if I suppose that for every 100 Americans who will talk about the "keep and bear arms" part, only 1 knows the first half of the sentence.

"Well-regulated" refers to what was understood already in Roman times (I read it in Gibbons (volume one) which was a best-seller right around the time the constitution was written)---but doesn't seem to be acknowledged by those who insist their personal weapons will 'protect' them from the government---was that while one soldier could defeat one peasant and whereas 1000 peasants could overwhelm an outpost with 100 soldiers, an organized army of 10,000 could control millions of civilians because civilians would never organize in sufficient numbers beyond a certain level. Of course the civilians could make life annoying for the occupiers, but they could never win. This is why the US et al military presence in Iraq et al can be far smaller than the population they control.

To wit, the non-regulated American population with small-arms could, in practice, controlled by something the size of the Swedish military

A2 used to come with responsibilities or more accurately the potential to be responsible. However, this [responsibility] has been ignored. The way most people use the A2 seems to be a red herring covering for what is mostly tradition and practical concerns, i.e. "we like guns, we've always had guns" so "pry it from my cold dead hands"(*). I'm fine with the right to bear arms ... but it also comes with the understanding that since those guns are kept around for cultural reasons for private fun rather than as a well-regulated militia (e.g. everybody joining something like the National Guard if not the National Guard), then the outcome is that police will simply respond and arm themselves to stay ahead of the curve.

As a consequence, this is why US police look so militarized compared to countries with less weapons in civilian hands; and this is why Americans enjoy no greater advantage over its government than any other government. The force-balance is just held at a deadlier level.

(*) To which the government will say .. okay, fine, we'll do it that way then [by driving an armored truck through the wall].

[Mikeallison]

@Jacob

Have you had a chance to read the US COIN manual? It is interesting in that Petraeus starts the whole thing off with an apology for why the US, despite having the world's most powerful military, has had such a hard time handling a bunch of dirty bearded guys wielding 1980s era Soviet equipment.

The US lost Vietnam. They are shaping up to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan with little or nothing to show for it. Why? Because our war machine is not built to fight insurgencies. We are not good at asymmetrical warfare. What you cite as a weakness, the inability to organise in large numbers, is actually a strength. It is much harder to fight an enemy that is a ghost and has as many heads as the hydra. Now imagine those wars here at home, where every bomb you drop, every missle you fire, weakens you as well. Imagine the fragility of our power infrastructure, imagine the mega cities that depend on just in time food delivery, vulnerable water and sewage treatment plants, dams.

Imagine how many troops and resources it would take to control just a city the size of LA or New York if things got out of hand, and I'm not talking about riots after a sports event, im talking about hungry, thirsty, desperate people. Imagine the split loyalty of our military...

It would take everything the military has to win that war, and while they were doing it their global rivals would be exploiting every weakness abroad, and likely helping whoever was making trouble. It would likely be the end of US hegemony.

The error here is thinking that any sort of resistance would have to meet the US military on the equal terms, when in reality, modern society is so fragile, it would only require enough people causing trouble in the right places to bring the whole thing down.

So I have to disagree, I believe the weapons are more than just a cultural or recreational thing.

[jacob]

@MA - Saddam Hussein did well for decades controlling a well-armed (AK47 in many households) populace with a Sunni minority of loyalists(*) to control a Shiite majority. That's what I'd worry about. That's what the A2 is about; and that's what everybody seems to ignore.

Pulling out/giving up only pertains to the special case of democratic foreign invaders who are subject to democratic pain tolerance. Resident dictators can hang around for the duration. I presume this is the problem the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the constitution. The British empire(**) had to same problem sustaining long supply lines dealing with American terrorists as the US now has dealing with terrorists in the ME. It's expensive and not all too popular domestically speaking. Dealing with residential (as opposed to ones on the other side of the planet) terrorists is an entirely different matter.

Unorganized resistance is a nuisance sufficient for a democracy to change their mind but not enough for a local authoritarian to give up.---They will just consider it the cost of doing business. They have no election fears. You don't need to win. You just need to stay in control. It's not a short war with winners and losers. It's a long one valued by whether it's worthwhile. The US could stay in Iraq easily if willing to tolerate the cost in dollars and lives (which is small) relative to the local civilian damage. I don't think this calculus is different domestically. This is why I doubt that an unorganized armed populace is anything more than a nuisance.

(*) Which later formed the backbone of ISIS when they were kicked out of the Iraqi army following Desert Storm 2 #unintended consequences.

(**) It's interesting that India solved the invasion problem by nonviolent moral means instead.

[Mikeallison]

@MA - Saddam Hussein did well for decades controlling a well-armed (AK47) populace with a [Sunni] minority of loyalists(*) to control a Shiite majority....

This is why I doubt that an unorganized armed populace is anything more than a nuisance.

Fair points but I would contend that The US is a very different place than Iraq. It's a very different place than Europe for that matter (in the heartland anyway). Are the men in the ranks primarily from red or blue states? Are they liberals? Or conservatives / libertarians? What is the guiding political ideology, what is the cultural one? The state was founded in revolution against what was seen as a tyrannical power. That is going to be the example people in the red States are looking towards, they aren't used to authoritarianism like the poor bastards in the middle east, and they won't put up with it.

Besides I can't see a situation where a single actor would be able to grab hold of the power necessary to control a place as divided, and as large and geographically complicated as the US. Balkanization seems much more likely. New York may get a dictator, but try it in Texas.

A better example than Iraq would be China during the revolution. Mao survived and defeated a much better equipped Chiang Kai Shek with those "nuisance" tactics.

But hey this is getting into some armchair general stuff now, I just hope they leave the guns alone, and we never have to find out.

[Campitor]

@MA - Saddam Hussein did well for decades controlling a well-armed (AK47 in many households) populace with a Sunni minority of loyalists(*) to control a Shiite majority. That's what I'd worry about. That's what the A2 is about; and that's what everybody seems to ignore.

Compared to the USA, Iraq's population is smaller by a significant degree and the country is 22x smaller than the US. A minority controlling the US would be a much steeper climb. After the 2nd Gulf War the script was flipped for the Sunnis. The majority Shia (64% of the population) took control of the government and the minority Sunni began a civil war that tore the country apart; they transmogrified themselves into ISIS. Without US and Russian intervention this minority Iraqi group would have destabilized the entire ME region. The Iraqi Sunnis were able to do this because they had military training, were intelligent, and picked their targets carefully - they fought wherever the enemy force multipliers (tanks, planes, helicopters) were not.

Basically the fight would be against former military personnel, chemists, engineers, machinists, lunatics, and factions of the military who took their oath to defend the Constitution of the USA seriously. There is no use arguing "what ifs" in this type of scenario since we honestly don't know what would happen or who would prevail. Perhaps the country fractures permanently with factions controlling swaths of territory and each side perpetuating a stream of never ending border skirmishes and incursions. Either way, regardless which side wins, US dominance on the world stage and the affluence of its citizens is over.

And this is why every citizen, soldier, and government official swears an oath to the Constitution and not to any office or person. This is why the Constitution should be upheld and amended legally and not overturned by extra-constitutional means. This document is the only thing holding this country together and allowing its importance to diminish is a slide into despotism and civil war. We already had 1 civil war and we barely made it out intact. The 2nd civil war will be a Pyrrhic victory no matter who wins. I think everyone understands this and I believe we are not even close to this happening. Cooler heads will prevail.

[Mister Imperceptible]

Augustus, I agree that my practical concern is the single crazed individual, not deterrence of the government. Just be careful that the robot you designate to protect you doesn’t obtain sentience, fall in love with your wife, and consider itself a suitable replacement of you.

While we are here, I don’t think it’s a total fantasy. We can see identity politics and the cultural wars drawing the battle lines. We have already had a Civil War in America, and as you might expect, the loyalty of the military was split. It just might take a few decades to develop, instead of years. These changes happen so slowly that it isn’t experienced by a whole generation. Only those who are students of history.

If you are an Oswald Spengler we-are-all-doomed type and believe in historical cycles, remember that in Ancient Rome, the Optimates lost. The ruling class killed itself off in civil wars until everyone kowtowed to one Emperor. Very frightening if you couple that scenario with modern technology.

We are already witnessing the consolidation of power in fewer hands by economic means. How soon will it be before digital images are so easily manipulated that you will literally not be able to believe your own eyes? (The ultimate “fake news.”) Can we really discern Democrats from Republicans at this point? Under both, socioeconomic stratification continues.

I don’t have any practical action items to defend against these dystopian “fantasies.” (I hope they don’t happen.)

The Devil succeeds by convincing us he does not exist. Maintain your sovereignty and your skepticism, the best you can.

Now if you don’t mind, I’m going to work on adding to my tin foil hat collection.

[Mister Imperceptible]

I have thought about Italian citizenship as well, thru right of blood also, my blood brother.

I really don’t think going to Italy is a great option if the US falls apart, because at that point, all bets are off and nowhere is safe. Sounds like an option if you are being persecuted individually, however.

Who is “the government?” As I said, loyalties would be split. I doubt we could agree on who the Caesar would be. Multiple sides would lay claim to being “the government.” For every Marc Antony, also, an “Augustus.”

[Mister Imperceptible]

I really don’t think that straight white male Mister Imperceptible is in any kind of danger in the near future here in America. I’m talking about a general collapse of the system. Do you have a gun to safeguard the zucchinis growing in your garden, when the shelves at the store go empty?

That book does look interesting though.

[Campitor]

How did we devolve into the paranoid gun nut revolution fantasy?

Invariably any discussion involving guns and/or the 2nd amendment will devolve into these rhetorical arguments regarding the effectiveness of small arms versus the government. All outcomes are plausible including the government is too powerful to fight or the country will fracture into a catastrophic civil war. I believe in the right to self defense but I'm a defender of the Constitution. If the right to bear arms was curtailed via a Constitutional amendment I would respect that decision. I would vehemently oppose, legally, any extra-constitutional abrogation of rights.

We are light years away from a civil war. It's the media feeding the hysteria that the US is fracturing into extreme partisanship in order to gain advertisement dollars via increased viewership. Most of America, and I would include myself among them, is politically down the middle. This is the silent majority that swings politics back to center when things get out of hand. No one wants a civil war nor is anyone close to launching a civil war.

Back to the original topic. Any gun and any bullet is better than no gun and no bullets in a fubar situation. There is no foretelling what scenario a rolling of the dice will bring and how it may or may not affect your choice of firearm or magazine capacity. I would assume we are all rational people and let facts guide our decisions. From what I've read myself and what's been posted in this topic regarding FBI gunshot statistics, the overwhelming evidence goes to having increased magazine capacity during a small arms private citizen exchange of fire.

I personally don't own a gun but I've shot many guns. My own experience during recreational shooting has been "I wish the gun/magazine/drum could hold more bullets".

But before having to brandish a gun in home defense or spending money to acquire a gun, I"d rather purchase secure doors, windows, iron bars (installed per firecode), and a loud alarm and strobe lights to deter intruders. At least long enough for 911 to arrive. I have friends who are in law enforcement and they all tell me that once you shoot a person justified or not, you're bank account, privacy, time, and reputation will take a hit.

I understand that my situation is different than others. I live in the Northeast in a densely populated city with a police station and fire department within half a mile. Both respond within minutes. The response time in my neighborhood is typically 2 to 3 minutes. I don't live in rural America where response times can be 1 hour or more. Gun ownership is a personal decision and only the owner can determine what type of armed defense is adequate to address his or her situation. Guns are like tools, different guns are best used for specific situations. I wouldn't use an impact hammer to hang a picture frame nor would I used a framing hammer to drive plate nails into reinforced concrete. I imagine 1 guy trying to kick down my steel door would warrant a 911 call and a 9mm S&W at the ready in case the alarm and threat of 911 doesn't drive him off. But I would want to have a AR15 with max magazine capacity if I encountered this: https://youtu.be/Uw-0nfVC2Rk?t=9.

[Mister Imperceptible]

@Campitor

Thanks for bringing us back. I did check out your links on Page 1, and all of the links on this thread. Despite my armchair crackpot hypotheses, I am thinking about this rationally and with a view to safeguarding myself against a home defense situation I hope never arises.