This reminds me of a post I made on gun ownership.
>It comes down to a very basic question: Should people have guns to kill other people?
>This is not a question for any individual. It is a question for society. And in America, we have answered that question in a simplest way possible: Yes.
>Yes, it is okay to buy a gun specifically for the purpose of killing human beings. There is more subtlety to that, and many other countries protect gun rights in more limited fashion. But America has essentially given the question a blanket yes, rather than a more nuanced answer defending some types of self defense and not others.
>Some may say "I don't want to kill people, I just want to protect my family or defend against tyranny." But that is done by killing people. By killing home invaders, or policemen, or military members.
>In America, this is the target use-case for weapons. If this is the case, and it is backed by the Constitution then there is very little argument for any gun control. If the purpose of a gun is to kill, then it makes no sense to regulate guns based on how efficient they are at achieving the task. Killing "bad people" is clearly Constitutionally backed, though society may disagree as to who those bad people are.
The point of this user is that a semiautomatic firearm is ideal for killing people. Indeed, this is the case. An AR-15 is a significantly better firearm in a self-defense scenario than a revolver or a pump action shotgun, because it is better at killing. If guns are tools for killing other people, then the best guns are the ones that kill people with the most speed and ease.
The problem is, many people disagree with this use-case. They believe that the same qualities that make a firearm excel at home defense make it a perfect weapon for mass shootings. As far as they are concerned, people *shouldn't* have weapons with the express purpose of killing other people, and that includes semiautomatic weapons.
To these people, guns may be acceptable for other purposes and also okay for inadvertent home defense, which is why they suggest a bolt-action rifle or shotgun. These guns can be used for hunting or for sport, which are acceptable enough reasons for many to consider them as okay.
I find a claymore mine at each access point in my apartment to be most effective. An exploding claymore will deter bad guys and wake me up.
Also, before I go in any room, I like to soften it up by tossing in a grenade.
I'm sorry but I couldn't even read the whole post. I kept coming across all these logical fallacies, or, if you like, assumptions. "In this extremely unlikely situation XYZ, in that extremely unlikely situation ABC, etc".
This isn't 1980's action movie New York we're living in... there aren't gangs of leather and zipper clad, mohawked, multiracial thugs breaking into your home to rape your wife and steal your color TV. Making up worst-case-scenario situations and using that to back up your argument doesn't work. Because the people on the other side can do the same thing!
What if someone breaks into your house and it's a malnourished homeless fellow who can barely stand thanks to the hunger pains and he's just looking for something to eat. You could turn on the lights and yell "Hey!" and he'd collapse. In that situation, the best defense is a hug and a warm meal.
See? I can make up ridiculous home invasion scenarios too!
What kind of insane home invasion threat do you have to imagine in order to justify owning an AR-15?
Edit: Just what I expected. No real, rational answers, just sales pitches and downvotes.
OP: "I keep a semi-auto pistol for home defence"
Title: The AR-15 is ideal for home defence
One of these things does not follow from the other. Yes he talks about using the AR-15 for home defence **but when push comes to shove, he doesn't do it.** That says something, to me.
Has anyone here ever been a victim of a home invasion?