Pregnant Florida Woman Uses AR-15 to Kill One Home Invader, Chase Off a Second

ar15 trigger AR-15 safe fire

Dan Z for TTAG

Remember, no one needs an AR-15 rifle. Weapons of war like that have no place in a civil society.

You might have a hard time convincing a Lithia, Florida woman of that, though. Or her husband. Or their young daughter. All three are probably alive today because the family owned America’s post popular rifle the eight months pregnant woman knew how to use it.

Two armed men broke into Jeremy King’s home last week and held him at gunpoint. One of the thugs grabbed his 11-year-old daughter.

According to baynews9.com, when he told them he had nothing of value to give them . . .

King said one of the men started pistol-whipping him while another kicked him repeatedly in the head. His wife, who is eight months pregnant, was in the back bedroom and peeked out to see what was going on.

That’s when one of the men took a shot at her. But she retreated and grabbed an AR-15 rifle. Yes, one of those things.

“When he came toward the back door in her line of sight, she clipped him,” King said. “He made it from my back door to roughly 200 feet out in the front ditch before the AR did its thing.”

In other words, he fell down. Dead. His accomplice ran off into the central Florida night.

As dailymail.co.uk reports, Jeremy King sustained a fractured eye socket, a fractured sinus cavity and a concussion. But if his wife hadn’t been armed, it could have been much, much worse.

‘Them guys came in with two normal pistols and my AR stopped it,” King said.

“[My wife] evened the playing field and kept them from killing me.’

Gun control activists won’t talk much about situations like this. They won’t acknowledge law-abiding gun owners using firearms — tools which they have a constitutional right to own and carry — to defend themselves, their families or their homes. Never mind using something like an AR-15 to do it.

It’s almost as if, instead, they’d rather argue — falsely — that America has a gun violence problem. And that the alleged problem is at epidemic levels. Because pushing that narrative furthers their cause of total civilian disarmament.

As we’ve pointed out time and time again, and as the actual statistics bear out, nothing could be further from the truth.

comments

  1. avatar GeorgiaBob says:

    I saw this story. Only problem is – she missed one!

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Yep, saw this story over on Fox News’ front page before coming to TTAG this morning. Just for fun, I checked CNN and MSNBC, and no mention of this story…only Trump, Trump, Trump and gender bender stories.

        1. avatar Will Drider says:

          Hmmmm? More NEWS BIAS if you read carefully. AR 15 Style rifle is often use BUT:
          If the AR is used in a violent act by bad guy, it’s further defined as an: ASSAULT WEAPON.
          If the AR is used for defense by a good guy; it’s further defined as: a semi-automatic rifle.
          Clearly bad guys Assualt Weapons and good guys use something else But it the SAME “STYLE FIREARM! If you Web search Assault Weapons, do you think this positive story will pop up? Gun grabbers and their henchmen don’t want good apples to detract from the bad narrative: THEY ARE ALL EVIL BLACK MACHINEGUN LIKE ASSAULT WEAPONS OF WAR THAT NEED TO BE FORCIBLY REMOVED FROM THE BLOOD LUSTING HANS OF THEIR OWNERS!

        2. avatar CA ST says:

          No Sir.

          NBC has only half the story as usual.

      1. avatar UpInArms says:

        Shocker– the story is posted on CNN! Must be the token defensive gun use story for this year.

    2. avatar JR Pollock says:

      As the old saying goes, “half a loaf is better than none”. Criminals pulling a job like this generally have a history together, and some good detective work by the Hillsborough Sheriff’s Office will probably yield some results. There are 3 living witnesses.

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        Does anyone want to bet the perps were also meth addicts?

    3. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      How is that a problem? The only goal in such situations is to stop the threat. Did she accomplish that, yes or no?

      The fact is that of the perhaps two million defensive gun uses per year, only a small percentage of them actually entail discharging the firearm. Fewer still of those hit their target.

      Not having to endure the crap storm that comes from killing someone or even just wounding them–even if you’re in the right–while still ending the threat sounds like a win to me. I get your point, though, other attacks may not be ended by return fire alone. Hits on target are sometimes necessary. Still, she and her family are safe today howsoever they achieved that.

      1. avatar Fosty says:

        If they are still breathing they’re still a threat.
        He could come back to murder her for killing his friend?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “If they are still breathing they’re still a threat.
          He could come back to murder her for killing his friend?”

          Potential future action seems outside the “imminent” threat needed to justify DGUs.

        2. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

          There is a man in Oklahoma, a pharmacist who had shot his shop’s armed robbers, who in the aftermath delivered what he himself described as a “good clean finishing shot” to an unarmed, wounded, and incapacitated robber.

          He’s now spending his golden years in an Oklahoma penitentiary for for having been convicted of murder.

          Your glib little “if they’re still breathing” standard will get someone killed and someone else imprisoned for life.

  2. avatar Stateisevil says:

    Rick Scott and the Florida GOP would say she’s better off dead if she wasn’t 21.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Rick Scott and the Florida GOP say that all of us are better off if she is under the age of 21 years old and dead.

  3. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Good job to her, I hope the little one is healthy.

    1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

      Also, the NRA or another gun rights group needs to reach out and get her to tell her story. The grabbers aren’t the only ones that can make emotional appeals.

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        Negotiating Rights Away is a sad excuse for the furtherance of second amendment rights.

        NRA President’s Testimony During Congressional Debate
        of the National Firearms Act of 1934

        MR.CARL T. FREDERICK: … “I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I seldom carry one. … I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses”

        NRA Proudly Negotiating Rights Away since 1934

        http://www.keepandbeararms.com/NRA/NFA.htm

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          his comments aside…they were instrumental in keeping pistols from being placed under the NFA….

        2. avatar Anymouse says:

          Not a penny more for the NRA until Karl T. Frederick (note the correct spelling) is removed as NRA President. It’s weird that he’s still in an organization when he served from ’34 to 35′ and died 56 years ago.

        3. avatar Ing says:

          Dude…it’s not 1934 anymore. All those people are dead and gone. The issue is what the NRA should do — and CAN do — right now.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Andrew, I’d like to know just how much experience she had with her husband’s AR. From my experience over 40+ years, I would estimate that she would need at least 15 minutes of training (by her husband is fine) in order to accomplish this feat of arms. What was needed was TO HAVE THE GUN!!!

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I would estimate that she would need at least 15 minutes of training (by her husband is fine) in order to accomplish this feat of arms.”

          Just spit-balling here.

          Should there be some sort of penalty for an untrained gun owner who successfully stops the threat with a firearm? Should the attacker (if a survivor of the shooting) be given a lesser sentence because the defender had no training?

        2. avatar Southern Cross says:

          How do you define as “trained”. I’ve never been a member of the armed services or police, but since 19 could outshoot all but the most elite of either of them.

        3. avatar Hugh Glass says:

          100%

  4. avatar GS650G says:

    Simple home invasion for theft or something else going on?

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      Simple home invasion of a guy with an arrest history for drug offenses, is what I’ve heard…

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Usually how these things play out, especially when the invaders take hostages instead of running when being found. That said, if I have to choose sides, I’d rather the home invaders lose even if the victims are in the game.

  5. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “Remember, no one needs an AR-15 rifle. Weapons of war like that have no place in a civil society.”

    So much for the Leftard Marxist talking point,just so much Bravo Sierra like everything else they are trying to foist on America.

  6. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “Gun control activists won’t talk much about situations like this. They won’t acknowledge law-abiding gun owners using firearms — tools which they have a constitutional right to own and carry — to defend themselves, their families or their homes.”

    Because it is obvious fake news. Where is the video of the event in progress? Huh? No video, no event. NRA obviously bought off the Lithia police to report this phantom event as a means to scare the public into buying more full semi-automatic, crowd-killing, made for murder, weapons of war.

    No video, no peace.

  7. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    The antis would rather the whole family be murdered by the dirtbags with the handguns so they could point to it and shout, “See! See!”

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Gadsden Flag,

      What you just pointed out is an astronomically huge problem which everyone seems to overlook.

      Politicians have a vested interest to INCREASE violent crime. Why? Because the more violent crime there is, the more that voters will demand that politicians do something to reduce it — which opens the door for politicians to tell voters that the voters will have to give up money and freedom to the politicians in order for the politicians to implement “solutions”.

      The voters being suckers open up their wallets and give up freedoms to the politicians. Of course that never works and the politicians come back again telling us to give up a bit more, that they will succeed this time — which never works either. And politicians just keep repeating the cycle. “Wash, rinse, and repeat” as they say.

      1. avatar LifeSavor says:

        U_C,

        World-class Machiavellian cynicism enhanced by the truth it conveys.

        Nicely done.

  8. avatar MLee says:

    I’m a little confused here and I’m sure someone can help me. So if I have this straight, the AR, AK, H&K and such are weapons of war, but wait just a dog gone second, are they picking and choosing *WHICH* war so they can cherry pick which weapon they don’t like in an attempt to dictate what I can’t have?

    If we look at the Spanish-American War, Winchester Lever Action Rifles were weapons of war as were the Colt Single Action Army Revolver That’s about what my Taylors 4109DE in 45 Colt is. Do I have to give that up if these pathetic brainless red shirt hens were to get their way? What about swords? Those were used in Wars as were knives and we all know that stabbing and clubbing instruments are VERY commonly used
    and kill a lot more people each year than semi-auto rifles do.

    I think it’s time to accept the weapons of war argument. Fine red shirt hen, you have to give up virtually ANY gun you have, all knives, hatches etc because THEY were weapons of war. I mean, it seems fair to me and appears to be common sense.
    Knives kill more than rifles do and were used in war. Red Shirt Brainless Hens have to give up their weapons of war if I have to give up my weapons of war.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “…are they picking and choosing *WHICH* war so they can cherry pick which weapon they don’t like in an attempt to dictate what I can’t have?”

      Well, sorta. They have already defined which weapon of war you can’t have: rifle, black, full semi-auto, thingy that goes up in the back, has a clipazine, accepts a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds, shoots a thousand rounds per minute, and is designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time possible.

      Oh yeah….a rifle that has a modification that allows a rate of fire similar to a machine gun.

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      It’s all misdirection.

      “Weapons of war” is the new stand in for a longer definition they were promoting years back which was that all weapons that were designed for or saw military use should be made illegal as with any of the daughters of those weapons that have a “similar design”.

      What does that mean? Well they want people to think that it’s just ARs/AKs/FALs and the like but if you look at the way they’ve phrased it and poke around for video of some of these people talking/look at their websites what they mean is to use that definition to ban damn near everything.

      For example: almost all bolt actions these days are daughters of the Mauser design. Banned. The Mosin and Carcano were both military rifles, banned. Pump shotguns, well the Winchester Model 1897 was so “brutal” the Germans wanted it illegal to use on a battlefield but it was used on the battlefield, so banned.

      Revolvers all have “substantially similar” actions to old military revolvers like, say, a Colt 1909. Banned. Single action? The SAA. Banned. Many black power guns are “substantially similar” to late 1700’s and early 1800’s designs from the military. Banned.

      With a law using that definition they have the groundwork to ban pretty much everything other than derringers and a few bird guns.

      That’s not an accident.

      1. avatar ",keep yur paws off my dead guy" possum says:

        I think shotgunms with long barrels were used during the civil war, probably most anything thst spit lead was. … How about this, “any gunm made just to kill be banned”. Thats why some of them gunms had coffee grinders on them. ,. ,. Whats that M102 for? Opening car doors, hold my beer and watch

        1. avatar LifeSavor says:

          Possum,

          It is well-known that you critters have very short fingers on your front paws. How do you reach the trigger?

          Or grasp a can of beer?

          😉

  9. avatar Darkman says:

    Thanks for moving this story to it’s own headline. After I posted it to the ghost gun article. As many of these news stories as I send to TTAG. I appreciate that one got used. POTG need as many positive story as possible.

    1. avatar Hugh Glass says:

      This story was everywhere,

  10. avatar former water walker says:

    Well TTAG gang I had my own little AR15 episode Halloween night. Around 5 pm as I was sitting waiting for children to say “trick or treat” (it SNOWED)I heard several VERY loud GUNSHOTS across the street. I looked through the door to see 3 young black males running from the house directly across from me. They then ran toward ME. Then I grabbed my AR and chambered a round & put it on “safe”. My wife & son just pulled in the driveway & heard/ saw it too. I called the worthless local 5-O who took their time to showup. The kid claiming he was a cop(he looked 18) asked me how many “pop pop pops”I heard(5 or 6). I told the kid it wasn’t pops. Booms doofus. We think perhaps Paco who lives in the home SHOT at the punks breaking in. And he has a wife(?)who has 2 little kids who doesn’t speak a word of English. Happy I got my rifle loaded with 62gr Greentip😄I hope the woman in the story is OK. BTW none of this made the “news”. I hate calling the local po-leece! Oh question cognoscenti…do you keep your AR15 loaded on safe or unloaded at ready to chamber a round?!? I get conflicting info from YouTube,FakeBook and gunshop idiots…

    1. avatar jwm says:

      FWIW. When not in an actually hot area we kept our m16s hammer down on an empty chamber with the selector set to semi. Loaded mag in the mag well. All you had to do was chamber a round and you were ready.

      If I lived in an adults only household I would keep it chambered. Safety on.

    2. avatar Darkman says:

      Main home defense AR. Load with 21 Barnes Precision Match 556×45 85gr. OTM BT. Safety on. Regardless of whether it’s a rifle, shotgun or handgun. If it’s not in the safe. It’s loaded and ready for use. In a life or death situation. One second can be the difference.

    3. avatar MLee says:

      I just looked at my AR pistol .300 blk. Safety off, hammer down, un-chambered, full mag inserted.
      If sh– goes sideways, and I’m headed towards for firepower, it’s the AK or the AR, and probably the AR as it has the Sure Fire weapon light, Aim Point red dot optics and is lighter and shorter than my SAM7R

    4. avatar ",keep yur paws off my dead guy" possum says:

      Wow, that sucked. What a way to start the evening. Dont call the cops they have a habit of claiming the desd guy as theirs.

      1. avatar James Campbell says:

        That, is comedy GOLD Possum.
        Shot coffee out my nose when I read it.

    5. avatar LifeSavor says:

      FWW,

      Great story…adrenal rush…thinking about possibly having to use your firearm with all the little goblins, bumble bees, and princess on the street. Glad it did not come to that!

      Haven’t yet positioned my long gun for such easy access. It is in a closet, upstairs, behind the duct work. Except for occasional business travel, I work from home and my handgun is on my hip from the moment I get dressed to the time I go to bed. Yes, I do remove it when I shower. While I sleep it is holstered and on the night stand.

      The reason my long gun stays in the closet is because I have not had any training with it for home defense. That is on my to-do list.

      1. avatar former water walker says:

        Thanks for the concern. I was more concerned about the wife & son pulling up. We had 4 little kids show up in the snow after the gunshots. My handguns & rifle are always loaded & ready to go-I have no advice with your situation. No minor children & I got my wife on board carrying. A problem here is the multitude of twinks who think there’s no problem in my burb south of Chiraq. They’re on their own in case of riot/civil insurrection or worse. Peace out!

      2. avatar Hugh Glass says:

        How much training do you think the lady in this story had?

    6. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      former water walker,

      There are pros and cons either way with respect to whether or not you keep a round chambered in your rifle.

      The obvious advantage of keeping a round chambered is that your rifle is always ready: just flick off the safety and then fire.

      Now for the cons:
      (1) If your home catches fire, that round in the chamber will most likely cook-off and fire with full muzzle velocity.
      (2) If you came home to a home invader who found your rifle with a round chambered, all he/she would have to do is flick off the safety and shoot at you.
      (3) If a guest unexpectedly finds your rifle with a round chambered, all he/she has to do is flick off the safety to shoot and possibly harm someone.

      Those cons are kind of thin and quite unlikely of course. They are nevertheless within the realm of possibility.

      The alternative is keeping the chamber empty as an added safety measure if an unauthorized person gains access to your rifle. The down-side to keeping your chamber empty is forgetting to charge it in an emergency or screwing up the charging process (as in “short stroking” the action out of excitement or having your hand lose grip on the charging handle). On the plus side, you don’t have to disengage the safety. Just charge it and pull the trigger.

      Personally, I keep two 20 gauge pump-action shotguns ready with an empty chamber. I simply practice pumping those shotguns — and doing it with “authority” (being forceful, not gentle) — to reduce the chances that I forget to charge them in an emergency or that I short-stroke them in an emergency. I also keep two semi-automatic pistol-caliber carbines at the ready with a round in the chamber and the safety on for a family member who doesn’t have the physical ability to reliably charge a rifle or pump a shotgun.

      In your case I believe it is a judgement call. If you and your family members have rock-solid physical ability to reliably charge your rifle — and if you and your family members have rock-solid mental ability to remember to charge your rifle in an emergency — then keep your chamber empty. If you have any concern that you may lack the physical ability or mental wherewithal in an emergency to reliably charge your rifle, then keep a round in the chamber and the safety on.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Take your shotties to a skeet range and shoot a couple rounds of doubles only. I was amazed the first time I ever used a pump, how quickly I picked up the pump between shots, all I’d ever done was with an auto. My son was with me, he had never shot skeet OR a pump, both of us had a ball, cheap and legal practice, don’t hurt nothin’!!
        Oh, wait. I do have to say this was a really laid back range, we got to push our own control buttons, so we shot what we wanted rather than a full round. Still, good to try. With a shottie, I *love* the idea of an empty chamber, the sound of racking a shotgun would make me mess my britches if I were being a bad boy.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Oh, on ARs, the big question I don’t see addressed here is the sights. If your sights interfere with proper gripping of the charging handle, probably charged with safety on is preferable.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          LarryinTX,

          If I am not mistaken, you cannot engage an AR-15 safety unless there is a round in the chamber. If you have an empty chamber and squeeze the trigger, you cannot engage the safety until you charge the rifle.

  11. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Yo, JOE, stick that up your nose! A shotgun could have innocents!!

    1. avatar ",keep yur paws off my dead guy" possum says:

      Slugs,

  12. avatar MIO says:

    Good for her!!

  13. avatar enuf says:

    OUTSTANDING!!! She saved her husband’s life, her daughter, herself and her unborn child!!

    Give that lady a medal!

    No, strike that.

    Give that new mom a year supply of Huggies!!!

    And a Diaper Genie!!!

    Seriously if you have raised a baby hands-on you understand those things are wanted. way more than a medal.

    1. avatar ",keep yur paws off my dead guy" possum says:

      U could use the medal to pin the diapers on.( We tried the cloth diaper thing, keeps u busy at the wash tub)

    2. avatar LifeSavor says:

      Enuf,

      Absolutely!!

      One of a parents worst fears is reaching for a diaper and the cupboard is bare.

      Or realizing too late that you just cannot cramp one more diaper into the Genie.

      1. avatar enuf says:

        Yup, one of the first things a dad learns is not to skimp on buying those supplies the Momma in the house require. That’s what the Sam’s Club card and your pickup truck are for!!!

        We gave a new Diaper Genie as a wedding present once. Not a baby shower thing, it was the wife unit tossing some encouragement at a young couple.

        *Sam’s Club has always been gun friendly while CostCo posts a NO GUNS sign right at the entrance. Otherwise, I wouldn’t care, I’d go to the closer one.

        1. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

          I have shopped at the Costco’s in Billings, Missoula and Kalispell…and have yet to see a sign proclaiming them to be “NO GUN”. Missoula tried some silly anti-gun shit a couple of years ago that the Montana Attorney General and the Montana Supreme Court shut down citing the State Preemption statutes. Once you receive a CWP in Montana you are good to go for any building or business that is not specifically prohibited under State or Federal laws. Fortunately we do not have the confusing and counterproductive 30.06 and 30.07 signage that Texans have to contend with on a daily basis.

        2. avatar enuf says:

          Costco despises you for owning guns, and if you challenge them on it they will offer you a refund on your membership and boot you out.

          If you have not run into this the local management is being lax on corporate policy and could be fired for it if found out.

          I have seen signs in Alabama and Arizona and heard from people who have seen them in other states. The signs are not always large or to the legal requirements of a state, sometimes it is on the “Code of Conduct” sign at the store entrance, which is a lot of words that nobody reads.

          Costco has a long standing policy for all stores that is strongly anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment. Here’s a forum discussion on it and a direct link to Costco:
          https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=224926

          https://customerservice.costco.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/709/~/are-guns-%26-personal-firearms-allowed-in-costco-warehouses%3F

          Quoting from that Costco webpage:
          Are guns & personal firearms allowed in Costco Warehouses?

          Costco Wholesale is a membership-only warehouse club. It isn’t open to the general public. As such, it restricts membership to qualified individuals who agree to our membership conditions. We have the right, and the obligation to our members, to enact and enforce our membership rules.

          By obtaining a Costco membership card, our members agree to comply with the Membership Rules and the Privileges and Conditions of membership. The Member Service Employees at the exit doors are also obliged to follow these rules.

          At Costco, we don’t believe it’s necessary to bring firearms into its warehouses, except in the case of authorized law enforcement officers. For the protection of all our members and employees, we feel this is a reasonable and prudent precaution to ensure a pleasant shopping experience and safe workplace.

          Our policy is meant to protect our members and employees in all warehouses around the world. This isn’t a new policy, and we don’t customize this policy for each city/county/state/country where we do business.

          Our primary goal at Costco Wholesale is to keep our members happy. If you believe that our policy restricting members from bringing firearms into our warehouses is unfair or excessively burdensome, or you cannot agree to abide by this policy, Costco will promptly refund your annual membership fee in full upon request. Thank you for your understanding.

          Also, it is on this page:
          https://www.costco.com/member-privileges-conditions.html

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Pretty sure there are no signs in Austin, TX, not completely certain because I don’t look for them or pay any attention to them.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Oh, and I forgot to mention, I’ve been carrying into Costco regularly for 15 years, both at home and in several other states, mostly with SneakyPete as my sidekick, and if you can’t recognize that a plainly visible SneakyPete means a person is carrying a gun, you are not trying. That level of “prohibition” does not concern me.

  14. avatar Fully Involved says:

    Unfortunately there’s a chance that her baby suffered hearing loss in this situation. The fetal ear is generally developed by week 24 in utero and is more sensitive to acoustic damage (especially from low frequencies). The mother protected the child’s life but at the expense of the child’s ability to hear.

    We need to reintroduce the Hearing Protection Act.

    1. avatar Reason says:

      For the children. For the unborn children’s hearing. If saves the hearing of just one child isn’t it worth it?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “For the children. For the unborn children’s hearing. If saves the hearing of just one child isn’t it worth it?”

        Given the current capability to perform surgery on a baby still in the womb, shouldn’t there be a requirement that pregnant gun owners must have teeniey weenie earplugs inserted once the baby’s ears are formed? Wouldn’t that be a good way for government to protect the weak?

        1. avatar LifeSavor says:

          Sam I Am,

          The Fetal Hearing Protection Act! As cynical as it gets! The Feds and State governments can spend years and millions of dollars writing those laws and figuring out how to enforce them. Invent new beauracracies and expand those that exist! Raise taxes to protect the children!

          Wait…with so many leftist states promoting abortion, even after the baby is born, maybe we had better keep the scalpels at a safe distance.

          Just saying…

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…maybe we had better keep the scalpels at a safe distance.
          Just saying…”

          Point taken. Will have to rethink this.

    2. avatar enuf says:

      Seems to me you are staring at a massive profit potential and not recognizing it. Pregnant tummy sized hearing protection, big ear muff cup sized up to fit that special lady in your life. Obviously cup sizes will vary but that’s nothing uncommon for the ladies to deal with, so no worries there.

      Yup, you’ve a money maker right there, you lucky so and so, better get to work on it before somebody steals that idea from you!!!

  15. avatar Darkman says:

    Even though I support the HPA. In what way would have it benefited the unborn baby? Your comment while informative. Is a bit disjointed.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Agreed. Based upon conjecture.

    2. avatar Fully Involved says:

      @Darkman:
      Making access to suppressors easier (via legislation such as the Hearing Protection Act) will allow more gun owners to purchase one and use it (particularly in home defense). ARs are extremely loud, especially indoors (as in a home defense scenario). Suppressors (especially when paired with subsonic ammo like 300 blackout) will minimize the decibel level the mother and her unborn child are exposed to, thereby miminizing the damage to both of their hearing. Fetal and neonatal hearing is sensitive to acoustic damage and the fetus’s environment of amniotic fluid makes them especially succeptible to hearing loss via high-decibel low-frequency sounds (for reference, normal hearing ranges from 20-20000 Hz and rifles are in the 150-2500 Hz range). Unborn children have a lot to gain from the use of suppressors. This is just one of the many reasons that makes the Hearing Protection Act actual “common sense” gun law reform.

      1. avatar Darkman says:

        As I said I fully support HPA. While your argument about doing it for the children seems rational. Doing shit for the children has gotten a lot of bad legislation passed. Never forget the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Things need to be done in the name of Freedom over Restriction and the rest will come out in the wash.

  16. avatar ",keep yur paws off my dead guy" possum says:

    So much for the stopping power of a woodchuck caliber. 200 feet is a long way from DRT.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      A full load of buckshot probably would have worked better, but the results were still in the positive column here. The AR isn’t the best at anything but it doesn’t have the disadvantages, either. Jack of all trades.

  17. avatar Hannibal says:

    The very things that make an AR “scary” are those that make it better for this situation. It’s light so that even someone who doesn’t have a lot of upper body strength can use it (I’m making assumptions, sue me). It has low recoil so that even someone who doesn’t spend a lot of time at the rifle range can operate it effectively (unlike, say, a 12ga that takes a bit more work to master). It has comfortable ergonomics and an adjustable stock allowing for people of different statures to use it.

    These things don’t effect the lethality of the gun yet somehow they make it ‘scary’ enough to try and ban.

    1. avatar Drock says:

      The AR15 was designed as a self-defense weapon. It was to be a gun for non-shooters, truck drivers, tank crew, aircrew, etc., similar to the M1 carbine. The poodle shooter cartridge, straight stock, and disposable magazines were to allow controllable full auto fire to help relatively untrained personnel defend themselves until the real shooters with the real “weapons of war” showed up.
      Given that background, it fits the role of defending the small of stature, the old, the weak, and the relatively untrained, very well.
      The AR10 was Stoners battle rifle.

      1. avatar James Campbell says:

        The AR-10 is the bees knees. Puts so much energy downrange that that it turns many positions of “cover and conseal” against AR-15 fire into just “conceal”.
        Give me an AR-10 in almost any situation other then clearing homes/buildings.
        Yes, the ammo weighs more, but in many situations you’ll need LESS rounds to finish the task at hand.

  18. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    If these are weapons of war, then why does every cop on patrol have an AR-15 in his or her cruiser’s limber? Who are local police waging war on, on a day-to-day basis, that they need weapons of war?

    If these rifles are designed to “kill as many people in as little time as possible”, as they’re often characterized, then I ask again, what law enforcement scenario is so common and so pervasive that evey cruiser need be equipped with these mass death delivery systems?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “…then I ask again, what law enforcement scenario is so common and so pervasive that evey cruiser need be equipped with these mass death delivery systems?”

      Because LE is totally surrounded by criminals, 24/7? Because LE must be able to defend themselves when confronted by a mob of law-abiding people doing not much of anything? Because one never knows when a call to a hostage situation will erupt into thousands of people converging on the scene to ensure LE handles the matter properly?

      1. avatar enuf says:

        I agree and disagree. Police should not be permitted to carry AR-15’s. They should be required to carry AR-10’s with expanding bullets, not full metal jacket. If some dirt bag is holding a weapon on some woman’s throat, I want his head to explode.

        On the other hand an argument can be made for magazines loaded with armor piercing for when you know you need to shoot thru something more substantial than a car door.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I agree and disagree.”

          Your reply was thoughtful. However, my comment was meant to be ridicule.

  19. avatar Ronald West says:

    Great example of how important it is that we the people keep our rights to bare firearms of all types.

    1. avatar UpInArms says:

      Sadly, my firearms are always bare. It’s not that I can’t afford clothes for them. I just can’t seem to get them properly accessorized.

  20. avatar Drock says:

    As an aside, I’d like to make the case that Clinton’s AWB is largely responsible for the ARs popularity today. When the importation of similar foreign-made firearms was made illegal, it gave birth to a huge demand for domestically manufactured guns. These burgeoning manufacturers, with their own newly educated engineers, took a whole new, fresh look at the platform. A firearm designed in the 50’s, with 50’s metallurgy, and 60’s production manufacturing methods, appeared archaic to them.
    The innovations we’ve enjoyed have come at a rapid fire pace.

    I owned one of the first Colt SPs and didn’t like it very much. Interesting, and historic, it wasn’t accurate enough, nor powerful enough, to keep my attention. Now, add in a better trigger, free float forearms, ambi controls, hydraulic buffers, adjustable stocks, flat tops with red dots sights, muzzle devices, and 77gr Ammo, you’ve got something.
    With a short stock, 16” barrel, and a red dot, I’m faster in close quarters with the carbine than with my handgun. Never would thought that possible.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Agreed and will add one more angle to the massive growth in AR rifle sales:

      Prohibitions Breed Interest!

      I recall before the 1994 AWB all my centerfire rifles were wood stocked bolt and lever actions. My only semiauto rifles were rimfire. My one non-wood stocked long gun was a Garcia Bronco .22 single shot “Bicycle Gun” I bought for $5 as a boy.

      So when the ban came down, I remember hearing similar thoughts to my own from other gun owners, “Why are they banning a gun nobody uses anyway?”

      The ban peaked interest in many gun owners who hadn’t paid any attention to the AR. Pretty quickly it turned into lots more people wanting the thing both out of curiosity and routine American Spirit.

      You tell me I cannot have a thing, I want it more. You tell me reasons that make no goddamned sense to me, I want it ten times more!

      The ban moved people’s attention to the thing and pissed them off at the same time. So they began buying, the manufacturers responded and new entrepreneurs saw the dollar signs and jumped in. A massive new gun making industry sprung up out of nothing due only to the law that intended to prevent it.

      Unintended Consequences. Politicians never stop to consider what will come after enacting some stupid, ill conceived notion they put down into words.

      1. avatar ronnie says:

        I bought my AK in 97 because of all the ban talk. I bought an AR years later because they got cheaper and better, ammo also came down in price and AK ammo went up in price.

        1. avatar James Campbell says:

          All the “ban” talk this year had me buying another AR.
          Grabbed a POF P308 Gen4 EDGE SPR (7.62×51/18.5″ barrel/short stroke piston) in the Robar NP3 finish. Really enjoy how clean and cool it runs (and without lube). Built with the same quality parts as POF full auto ARs. Nothing beats a battle rifle that holds up to Ks of rounds of sustained fire IMHO.

  21. avatar PATRON49IFT says:

    I just love a happy ending like this.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email