Even if everyone is armed, who would have the bravery to shoot someone with an AK-47?

[AZ Progressive]

Last edited Sat Nov 28, 2015, 07:37 PM - Edit history (1)

If everyone was armed, they'd most likely have a simple handgun. Who would go up against this? (AK-47)



or this? (AR-15)



What utter bullshit propaganda from an organization where the Grim Reaper is on its board of directors.

[onecaliberal]

1. All the good guys with guns, of course.

[exboyfil]

2. And the open carry advocates see

no issue with dozens of these folks around a place of worship or by extension a stadium, school, mall etc just so long as they stay off the property nothing can be done. Heck you can stroll through the Atlanta airport all the way up to the security gate.

[Travis_0004]

3. Probably somebody with no other options

The element of surprise is quite powerful. Somebody with a small pistol has gone up against somebody with an AK or AR before. Its not ideal, but better than being unarmed if there is no other choice.

Even with a CCW, I am not the police. My job is to get me and my family out of danger as quickly as possible. With a handgun I am not going to run towards somebody with any gun, if the exit is availalbe. We pay police to do that.

If somebody does have an AK and is shooting at me, then I guess I'll do my best, and see what happens. Not ideal, but being unarmed is much worse.

[darkangel218]

14. +1

[Lizzie Poppet]

4. The more powerful weapon doesn't always win.

A handgun would be an enormous, probably fatal disadvantage at range (anything much beyond about 50-75 yards, in fact). Only an idiot (or someone caught out with no cover to run to) would try and shoot it out with a rifle at range.

Indoors? Not so much. Hitting the other guy first is what matters, assuming you have a reasonably powerful handgun.

[Lizzie Poppet]

12. Outdoors, sure.

Indoors, not necessarily. As I said, it depends on who hits first. Both weapons (that is, an AR or a handgun in a "proper" defensive caliber) have enough power to drop a human, so relative power of the cartridge isn't very relevant. At range, the rifle's flatter-shooting round and better sights rule. Across a room, neither of those advantages matter. It becomes a matter of who can get one or two rounds on target first. Pistols are very good at that. So are ARs. How good the shooter is (and how well they can control the tendency to freak the fuck out and spray shots anywhere but on-target) looms a lot larger than their choice of weapon at that point.

But yeah...surprise, if you can get it, is everything. Of course, if you had complete surprise...why not use it to get the hell out of there, if possible? I sure would, situation permitting.

[aikoaiko]

5. Its not like AKs and ARs are shields and can stop handgun bullets.

In close quarters and some good cover from a cinder block wall someone with a handgun could take out a shooter with a rifle if they hit their target well.

But you are correct that someone with handgun is at a distinct disadvantage to a shooter with a rifle like an AR or AK especially when there is no cover or concealment and more distance between the two.

[climber3986]

8. You have been watching too many movies / video games

rifles are designed to pick off targets at long range. Most mass shoots takes place between 10-200 feet. While an AR-15 and AK-47 certainly look scary, they don't really make a difference at close range. What matters more is aiming, training, and keeping your cool.

This traffic cop armed with only a pistol stopped 2 guys wielding AK-47s and body armor. His training and shot placement mattered. The type of gun did not.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/us/texas-police-shooting-hero/

[krispos42]

9. Somebody backed into a corner.

Somebody scared and desperate. Somebody to protect loved ones.

And probably somebody who isn't having the rifle aimed right at them at that particular moment. That is, off to the side, behind or under cover, etc. Having that gun barrel swing towards you tends to make you either freeze or dive for cover, neither of which is an ideal situation to be trying to return fire.

People sighting over a gun tend to have tunnel vision, and of course it would be chaotic and deafening and the adrenaline would be pumping and whatever emotion motivates the shooter (probably hate) would be conflicting with fear, worry, and alarm. So, barring a well-trained tactical shooter (which, with a dedicated terrorist organization is entirely possible) it might not be as far-fetched as it might seem. A few sessions at the range a year is not comparable to real tactical training. It gets you to know the mechanics of shooting and gun handling; it's not tactical training. IPSC, IDPA, and 3-Gun competitions are public and popular shooting sports with varying degrees of tactical training associated with it. Cowboy Action Shooting is the same thing, but with late-19th Century technology and a dress code.


Regardless, given the situation you describe the best thing a person carrying a concealed pistol could do is GET AWAY. You carry to protect yourself and your loved ones, not to try to be a John McClain or a Martin Riggs.


And the top gun is an AK-74; you can tell by the plastic magazine.

[RichGirl]

10. Unfortunately...

The guys who pay a lot of money for these guns aren't looking for courage....they are looking for an opportunity to use it!

[Waldorf]

16. Yes, I look forward for the opportunity to shoot mine all the time.........at the range.

[Bigmack]

11. What kind of person with a handgun would go up against somebody with a semi-auto rifle...?

Someone who has watched the "Die Hard" movies and thinks they are documentaries.

[951-Riverside]

13. Me.

This is in response to your question:

Even if everyone is armed, who would have the courage to shoot someone with an AK-47?

...but that all depends on the circumstances

If Mr. RW Terrorist was gunning down people and the only thing I had was an AK-47, I would have no problems dropping him like a sack of lard without thinking twice.

Of course I don't own guns, I never want to own one, I don't like being around people who do and I don't want to be put in that position of taking out a deranged gunman.

[AZ Progressive]

15. Some of you here are talking like you are positively sure that you or others wouldn't be scared of..

shooters with military machine guns storming in and shooting everyone. I bet you that most people's reactions would more likely be to run rather than taking out their handguns and shooting back.

[Waldorf]

17. Except neither of those rifles in your OP are military machine guns. They don't sell those in the

US. (ATF closed the book on new manufactured ones in 1986). Those are semi-automatic rifles.

[AZ Progressive]

19. The AR-15 can be modified to be virtually automatic. I read about this awhile ago.

[hack89]

20. It is against Federal law to sell rifles that are easily modified to full auto.

there is a lot of Internet myths floating around about this topic yet no one can ever post a story about any crime committed by a modified rifle.

[Waldorf]

26. Virtually automatic? It's either automatic or not. Yes, if you have the tools and can work with

metal you can make an automatic sear. Have you read about the biker gangs in Australia that the authorities are having problems with? They are running around with automatic weapons made in garages.

[Duckhunter935]

28. Not since 1986

The receiver has been adjusted to have extra material removed. To put in the full auto parts you need to add material back. And if you did manage to get the parts that are classified as NFA items and installed them, it is against federal law. Not to mention timing of the firearm for full automatic mode is critical or you have malfunctions in the weapon. But you saw it on the internet so it must be true, right?

[climber3986]

22. this post is silly.

If someone busted down my door with a mask and ANY gun I would be scared. The type of gun does not make a difference

[AZ Progressive]

18. Oh, and what about if the shooter has body armor? Everyone has a gun and then the criminals...

take it up a notch. Assault rifles + body armor = virtually impossible for everyone else to defend themselves.


The shooter in the Aurora movie theater shooting had body armor:

James Holmes, the alleged perpetrator of Friday’s movie-theater massacre in Aurora, Col., was well-armed. He had an assault rifle with a 100-round magazine. He had a 12-gauge shotgun and two semiautomatic pistols. He had gas canisters to confuse the moviegoers, and an apartment full of explosives to kill police.

Holmes’ outfit blew these jokers away. He wore a ballistic helmet, a ballistic vest, ballistic leggings, a throat protector, a groin protector, and tactical gloves. He was so well equipped that if anyone in that theater had tried what the National Rifle Association recommends—drawing a firearm to stop the carnage—that person would have been dead meat. Holmes didn’t just kill a dozen people. He killed the NRA’s answer to gun violence.

But really bad guys—guys capable of planning a serious rampage—aren’t stupid. If you want to take your time murdering a theater full of people, the prospect of some would-be hero drawing a weapon is no problem. Just go to the U.S. Justice Department’s body armor standards page, where you’ll find a list of 69 companies that sell government-certified bullet-stopping gear. The list includes phone numbers, addresses, and URLs.

source: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/07/the_aurora_shooting_bulletproof_vests_swat_gear_and_body_armor_refute_the_nra_.html

[climber3986]

24. Assault rifles + body armor = virtually impossible for everyone else to defend themselves - wrong

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/us/texas-police-shooting-hero/

This traffic cop killed 2 gunmen with AK-47s AND body armor.

Rifles are designed for long range combat. At close range where most mass shootings take place, the difference between a pistol and handgun are irrelevant. Shot placement and keeping your cool are all that matter.

Now, If I got teleported to one side of a football field with a pistol and a terrorist got teleported to the other side with a rifle, then YES, I would be screwed.

This isn't a video game where rifle bullets do 34 damage and pistols do 15 damage so if you have a pistol you will always lose.

[AZ Progressive]

31. A cop, someone with a load of experience of drawing a gun and shooting it

And even then, I bet this cop was lucky. For one, did the shooters draw the gun on him first? The element of surprise is powerful.

I'm talking about ordinary people, not professional law enforcement. I doubt anyway that police officers would decide shoot at people with AK-47s by choice using a handgun, no they would choose to call in SWAT.

[climber3986]

36. a citizen could do just the same

"I bet the cop was lucky"- speculation

Body armor and the element of surprise are big advantages, but an AK-47 does not give someone an advantage at 10-50 feet. An ordinary person who has plenty of experience drawing a gun and shooting it would be able to produce the same results.

PS - Please don't interpret this as the typical "we need to arm everyone" stupidity that you hear from NRA talking points. It isn't, just trying to dispel the notion that having an ak-47 or ar-15 at close range gives you a massive advantage.

[Duckhunter935]

41. One of the reasons the M-4 is now standard issue

The M-16 with the long barrel sucks in close quarter interior fighting.

[Duckhunter935]

30. Ballistic body armor

Can be defeated by almost any rifle round unless it has the heavy ceramic plates.

[AZ Progressive]

32. So civilians would have to be carrying rifles? Really?

[Duckhunter935]

40. You would just have to shoot

At a no protected area. Of course that is an absolute last resort. First option is always to evacuate and let the law enforcement officers do there job. Civilians with rifles helped stop the Texas tower shooter back in the day.

[ScreamingMeemie]

21. Someone with no other recourse. Try to kill or be killed, basically.

That said, I'd never be in a situation where I'd have either a handgun or an AK-47/AR-15 on my person.

[Rex]

23. Also how do you know which folks are the bad guys if everyone is shooting at everyone else?

Such a stupid idea that everyone walk around with guns...a tragedy waiting to happen imo.

[ManiacJoe]

38. If you are late to the party, then you don't know.

This is the exact problem most cops have when arriving on the scene.
People who are present when the shooting starts usually don't have this problem.

If you don't know who the Bad Guys are, then you are not supposed to be shooting, legally or morally.

[hack89]

25. Ordinary people do extraordinary things every day

Not everyone believes like you that the proper thing to do is die without a fight.

[sarisataka]

27. Bravery...

or necessity?

Are the only options fight or beg for mercy?

[gwheezie]

29. It would really be unusual

If the average gun owner could pull it off. I think most of us don't have the experience of being shot at, seeing multiple people killed or even participated in mock drills of active shooters.
I'm not saying its impossible but I think the people who are convinced they would try to take down a shooter are delusional.

[AZ Progressive]

33. Looks like quite a bunch of people here live in a fantasy...

Well hey, the truth is brutal and reality sucks...

[sarisataka]

39. You seem upset that

given the choice between dying on their knees or fighting many would choose to go out on their feet.

In an active shooter situation the options are run, hide or fight. Without extreme extenuating circumstances those will be the order I will do them. Once run and hide are out of the picture however, I will fight regardless of the disparity of force. A pistol vs rifle is a great mismatch but a small chance of survival is better then no chance.

[PeteSelman]

34. Having an AK doesn't mean you can't be shot with a derringer.

This is a silly argument.

[hack89]

35. What if they had no choice?

you might decide to curl up in a fetal position until you are killed but that doesn't mean everyone else is like you.

[Snobblevitch]

37. If I were in a situation

as described by you, and my family was with me. I would co whatever I had to do to keep my family safe. If that included barricading us in a closet, that's what I would do. If there was no place to go, and I were armed, I would attempt to shoot the gunman, if I saw him shooting people. I do not have a CCW, so I doubt that I will ever be placed in this situation. I do have considerable time at the shooting range, with both handguns and rifles.

[onehandle]

42. You call that a gun?

This is a gun.

[img][/img]

I laugh when gun nuts talk of overthrowing Obama's gubberment.