Another article I wrote:
(http://i61.tinypic.com/eainbk.jpg)
QuoteKalashnikov pattern rifles are a boat load of fun to shoot and they are solid choices for zombie, NORK, or ISIS invasions but everybody knows that an AK is a bad choice for home defense, right? They have terrible ergonomics, few optic mounting options, and their ammunition penetrates far too deeply. Well, not exactly. As counter-intuitive as it might seem, Kalashnikov pattern rifles can be a very reasonable choice for home defense.
The rest is here if you're interested. (http://www.homedefensegun.net/kalashnikov/)
Please provide criticism if you have any. Thank you.
Good article, though, I have to be honest with you, with all the ads, it took 3 tries to load the page to be able to read on my ipad.
Would you happen to have 5 brass boxer primed 7.62x39 rounds I could buy from you? Wildcat experiment :P
PM me your address. I'll try to remember to send some. I still need to send some ammo to Shadow and keep forgetting.
Yeah, the ads are annoying on mobile devices. Not my site.
Quote from: Raggedyman on November 07 2014 10:09:49 AM MST
Another article I wrote:
QuoteKalashnikov pattern rifles are a boat load of fun to shoot and they are solid choices for zombie, NORK, or ISIS invasions but everybody knows that an AK is a bad choice for home defense, right? They have terrible ergonomics, few optic mounting options, and their ammunition penetrates far too deeply. Well, not exactly. As counter-intuitive as it might seem, Kalashnikov pattern rifles can be a very reasonable choice for home defense.
The rest is here if you're interested. (http://www.homedefensegun.net/kalashnikov/)
Please provide criticism if you have any. Thank you.
The 7.62x39 cartridge may be a good choice, and so may be the small size of the AK, but in California an AK type rifle is a bad choice for home defense. There have been numerous mass killings in California with an AK-47. If you have to defend yourself in court for using a weapon, you really don't want the prosecutor/plaintiff holding up an AK in front of a jury.
A gun shop in California got sued for several million dollars because a gun that was legally sold to one person was used by another person to kill someone. The gun store not only lost the suit, they also lost their gun license. The person who did the shooting was a gang-banger, so all he got was a few years in state prison.
Defense attorneys dress their criminal clients in a suit and tie because appearance can make a difference in court.
.
So glad I don't live in California
Quote from: my_old_glock on November 07 2014 02:20:42 PM MST
Quote from: Raggedyman on November 07 2014 10:09:49 AM MST
Another article I wrote:
QuoteKalashnikov pattern rifles are a boat load of fun to shoot and they are solid choices for zombie, NORK, or ISIS invasions but everybody knows that an AK is a bad choice for home defense, right? They have terrible ergonomics, few optic mounting options, and their ammunition penetrates far too deeply. Well, not exactly. As counter-intuitive as it might seem, Kalashnikov pattern rifles can be a very reasonable choice for home defense.
The rest is here if you're interested. (http://www.homedefensegun.net/kalashnikov/)
Please provide criticism if you have any. Thank you.
The 7.62x39 cartridge may be a good choice, and so may be the small size of the AK, but in California an AK type rifle is a bad choice for home defense. There have been numerous mass killings in California with an AK-47. If you have to defend yourself in court for using a weapon, you really don't want the prosecutor/plaintiff holding up an AK in front of a jury.
A gun shop in California got sued for several million dollars because a gun that was legally sold to one person was used by another person to kill someone. The gun store not only lost the suit, they also lost their gun license. The person who did the shooting was a gang-banger, so all he got was a few years in state prison.
Defense attorneys dress their criminal clients in a suit and tie because appearance can make a difference in court.
BTW, this is not just a situation in CA. I have first hand knowledge of a similar case in Oklahoma. The Oklahoma case was thrown out because Prosecution could not show sufficient evidence that the firearm was actually purchased for the individual who committed the crime.
The Gun Store lost because it was proven the store had knowledge that the person purchasing the gun was buying it for the kid who used it. By Law both State and Federal, You can not purchase a firearm for another individual. It is not legal to buy a gun to give as a gift to your wife, even if she is a legal gun owner, unless she is the person who fills out the background check. This particular issue of the law has come into play several times across the country, including Sandy Hook, where it was shown the Mother of the gunman had purchased one of the Glocks used as a gift. By her testimony, the Gun Shop was released when she stated she had told the shop she was buying it for self defense.
This type of claim and suit, where a 3rd party is being held liable for the actions of other parties is paid attention to by the Insurance Industry. I got to see the briefs that came from our legal counsel to the Underwriting department with regards to not only Gun Shops, but Sporting Goods stores that only sold ammunition, shooting ranges, and businesses that offer classes for firearms. In some cases, like the one above where it was shown the shop had knowledge at the time of the sale, it is the same as a bar serving an intoxicated patron. You then take on the liability of that person's actions. A father buys his son his first .22 rifle, and brags to the counter staff as he is filling out the paperwork. "By Law" the shop is supposed to stop the transaction right there and advise the Father they can not sell it to him. Now here is the rub, aside from losing the father's business, but say the father realises what exposure he created for the shop. So he apologizes and comes back a week later and swears up and down it is to replace the .22 that he broke the stock on. Even if he is telling the truth, the shop is still supposed to deny the sale, because of prior interaction with regards to the .22. Here is the muddy part, what if dad comes back after agreeing he made a mistake admitting the .22 rifle is for his son, decides that brand new 10mm Sig that came in would look great as his new carry gun, should the gun shop sell it to him? That is the muddy rub, even if it becomes dad's EDC, if the son uses it to commit a crime later, it brings the gun shop under scrutiny for selling a firearm to someone who openly admitted to wanting to buy a gun as a gift for his son.
Haters are going to Hate, and they are going to use every single little shred of suspicion to throw at every single party they can involve in a gun related crime. BTW, there has been some wording added to some recent "Gun Bills" that failed that wanted to extend background checks to include every member of your household due to "Access" of the firearm. By "HOusehold" the definition used is "Any Person Living at the Same Address, related or not." So a college kid wants to buy an EDC, and happens to live at an off campus Frat/Sorority House with 20 other people. The background check would have to include all 20 other people, and must be completed by those 20 other people as well.