Security guard uses AR-15 to protect business
- Thread starter AMonger
- Start date
Humble2drive
Expert Expediter
This brings up a few questions regarding the effectiveness of using this video in the context of a national debate centered on assault rifles.
1) Was this a private security guard vs a LEO?
2) If so, isn't he most likely using an un modified semi-automatic AR-15?
3) Were his 2 single shots in rapid fire?
4) Based on the answers to those questions. Wouldn't a Remington 870 12 gauge have been just as effective. The classic "chuck-chuck" sound of the pump may have sent these clowns a running with a urine trail behind them.
6) If so, the Biden followers could easily use this as an example of why the AR-15 was not necessary and a shotgun would suffice.
Last but not least. Is an unmodified AR-15 even being considered as an assault rifle this time around? I don't think it was last time but then I have not kept up with the changing laws so what me know??
IMHO- A rifle of any type would be hard to maneuver in such a small cluttered office.
The classic "Chuck chuck" of a shotgun being racked gives away your position and could get you shot. It also means that your weapon was not loaded. Neither is good in a combat situation. An AR15 is very easy to handle in close quarters since that is what the original rifle was designed for. Both need to be aimed in very close quarters since the pattern of a shotgun at 20-50 is not much bigger than the wad.
A shotgun is good, so is a rifle. What it boils down to is what the person who is using it is comfortable with. As long as the job gets down and no innocent people harmed, all is well.
My concern which is why I would prefer to use a shotgun in the house is the possibility of a rifle round passing through a wall and maybe hitting an unintended person. I use home defense shells that are designed not to pass through a wall. Same with my hand gun rounds.
A shotgun is good, so is a rifle. What it boils down to is what the person who is using it is comfortable with. As long as the job gets down and no innocent people harmed, all is well.
My concern which is why I would prefer to use a shotgun in the house is the possibility of a rifle round passing through a wall and maybe hitting an unintended person. I use home defense shells that are designed not to pass through a wall. Same with my hand gun rounds.
1. What difference does it make? The inanimate object is no different no matter who is using it.
2-3. It was being fired in semi-auto mode and not rapid fire, the shots being seconds apart.
4. Not necessarily. Racking a shotgun telegraphs exactly what you have to the bad guys and in some cases causes them to come in shooting rather than just with guns waving. Also, it's possible errant pellets could strike some of the other occupants rather than the intruders.
Last, an AR-15 should never be considered an assault rifle as it is not and never will be. You are correct that a long gun is not maneuverable compared to a handgun. The best choice is whatever someone is most familiar and comfortable with.
Humble2drive
Expert Expediter
The difference was that a "rent a cop" most likely does not have an auto option. This would make the "inanimate object" different from what LEO is allowed to carry.
Yes. Making this inanimate object much like many other inanimate objects.
Agreed
Agreed. This is why I questioned the decision by Fox to use this as an example.
In that case, I am most familiar and comfortable with the M 16 as that is what I trained with in the USAF. It was my rifle, there were many others like it but that one was mine.
"This would make the "inanimate object" different from what LEO is allowed to carry."
Leos should NEVER be allowed to carry something different than those they work for. They are NOT special, they are our servants. WE are the power, not they. The Government is subordinate to the People.
Leos should NEVER be allowed to carry something different than those they work for. They are NOT special, they are our servants. WE are the power, not they. The Government is subordinate to the People.
If it were different it wouldn't be an AR-15. That is part of the point, correctly identifying and describing objects. An AR-15 is and only ever will be a semi-automatic rifle. The problem is focusing on looks alone to further a devious agenda. It's sort of like going from the first photo to the second photo. They're identical except for how they're made up.
