DevsAdvocate

I'd do the same. However, be wary of knife users: bringing a gun to a knife fight isn't always a guaranteed win. If he has his knife out, he can close distance and hurt you before you will have a chance to get your gun out of the holster. Obviously this is dependent on how close the threat is, but it's something to take note of.

Agreed and understood. What I'm trying to figure out is why it's wrong to shoot someone in the back after they committed a harm against you. Why is it ok to shoot them when they're facing you, but not when they're running away?

Probably not well at all given the current legal climate. I'm not a fool to think such an act would be vindicated by the legal system (at least in NJ). What I'm trying to figure out here is: why? Why is it wrong to shoot someone who committed a crime? Why is a robber, a rapist, or a burglar protected the second they turn their back against you to run away? I get that the legal system has it's flawed rules, but I'm trying to get down to the baser issues at hand.

I don't have a desire to shoot anyone, just those who wish to cause me and others harm. What I don't get is the willingness to let someone go after they threatened you. What's the deterrent to stop it from happening again? And again? I get that society has established certain legal restrictions on hurting criminals, and have brainwashed folks into thinking that their hard earned property is "not worth another persons life", or that the criminal committing it is merely "down on his luck" and really isn't to blame. But that's a flawed thinking which ultimately empowers those who mean to prey on the weak, while hamstringing those who have the power to stop them.

If I select a compound bow, will I have to go get it fitted?

Why? This guy just threatened to kill me for my money, so why should I let him go to possibly hurt or kill someone else (or come after me again with better knowledge)? Sure... I can call 911, or I can just shoot him. The only difference here is timing. If I shoot him fast enough, it's okay. Right? There is also a bit of evolution of the criminal element here... these guys don't last long on the street if they don't learn their lessons. If I let him run, he may decide to just kill the next person outright in case they have a gun. Or maybe he'll just wait for me again, with reinforcements... Best not give him a chance.

That's a fault of our supposed 'Justice System', not me. We've become a civilization which coddles and rewards criminals, and ultimately punishes those who are acting righteously.

It doesn't. Cops investigate crimes, make arrests, collect evidence, and basically enforce laws that are on the books. They have certain legal powers that allow them to do those things. If someone robs me, and turns his back on me, and I can stop him (with a gun), then by all means, why shouldn't I do it? 1. I get my stuff back 2. This twerp is either gonna be dead, or he's gonna learn a lesson about messing with people

Really? What's the point of CCW if not to help make an impact on crime, by allowing one to take matters into their own hands? Our civilization, with it's great advances in science, medicine, and knowledge seems to have the thinnest skin when dealing with the criminal elements who prey on the weak. In any other period of time in history, a robber or a thief who was caught would at the very least lose a hand, and at the very worst get killed, while the rest of society would applaud the act. I understand this kind of thinking is borderline vigilantism, but you gotta be kidding me if you think it's fine and dandy to let someone rob you and run away if you have the power in your hands to stop them safely with causing undue harm to yourself or others.

This is not murder, it's simply doing the right thing. The robber was a criminal, he knowingly violated his contract with civilized society and suffered the consequences. Give the CCW holder a medal, not a pair of shackles.

Oh yeah, I saw that. If I were going to Thumb Drive, I would simply dump my SERPAs... No sense keeping both if I settle on one I like better.

I have some bow experience from when I was younger, but that was almost a decade ago. I'm fairly fit, but I also have had back and shoulder issues, lol. But if I had to choose which is more tender, it would be my back. My shoulder ain't too bad.

Looking to buy one this week to practice with prior to my NJ Hunters training class. Thoughts on which I should go with? And why?

Agreed. The only reason I haven't gotten one yet is that I the cost investment into my AR platform. Overall, my rifles are a hair above 34" long... how long is a CX4?

Ahh man... Imagine having a shorty IMI Tavor? Throw a suppressor on that bullpup and you'd be set. *drools*

I've been thinking of ditching my SERPA for a 5.11 thumb drive. I've read a lot of good reviews on those. For IWB... crossbreed. I'm waiting on one for my G19 right now.

http://www.lohud.com/article/20110830/NEWS02/110830004/Dispute-sends-scores-police-Playland-park-reportedly-closed More zombie-like behavior from living people.

Blegh. Do Saigas come with Tapco G2s?

Same here. Realistically, it's a Glock 21SF... but I'd love to have a KRISS, MP7, etc... suppressed. If I had to choose an all-around gun, it would be my 14.5" BCM middy on an M4 burst-fire lower receiver and collapsible stock. That with a light and RDS would be a sick all-around gun.

So was it ever revealed where this range is gonna be?

So... back to the topic at hand: what's the point of these shields/decals in the windshield, if not to confer the owner added privileges of being related to/married to a police officer? Why not just ban them altogether?

Apologies for insulting your experience GRIZ, I am thankful for your service to our nation and your experiences and I was completely out of line to call them "tacticool". Okay we can move on from there. Also: I tend to learn a lot more about stuff via disagreement than by simply taking things at face value. But your experiences aside, I had some major gripes with your reasoning here. I'll give you some free advice. If you said above a lot of questions instead of gripes it makes you more inquisitive than argumentative. You can get a lot further by asking questions rather than disagreeing with people. If you keep arguing you give people the impression you cannot comprehend what they are saying, they will become frustrated and walk away without you learning much. If you are inquisitive and ask questions instead of arguing or disagreeing with what they say you will learn a lot more. Most of us have learned what we have by listening not disagreeing. If you want to disagree you need to have some basis for your position on a topic. All the other respondents in this thread state their choice, maybe mention why they made this choice, and maybe state why they didn't choose something else. You said: I don't see how any of the other options beats this... semi-auto handgun: hard to aim, limited firepower revolver: capacity blows chunks shotgun: pretty awesome, limited capacity (typically 5 or 6 unless you really rice it up) carbine/rifle: getting there... You can kill an intruder in your living room without waking the kids or neighbors, That last remark seems rather blase about killing someone and may haunt you later. Possibly. But that just goes to show how quiet a firearm can be. You also have to stop insulting people by telling them they are all wrong you are right and saying things like: I hardly consider my suggestion a "video game" one. But if you lack the imagination to truly envision a great home defense weapon, than do tell: what would you consider the best? And why? some folks here (who have never shot full-auto) have some Hollywood notions on the matter and sound just like the Brady Bunch folks who want to further diminish our rights. Frankly, the lack of imagination is just an extension of the typical Anti-Gun thinking... you really can't imagine a subgun for HD? What next? Can't imagine a possible need for an AR-15? Or a semi-auto shotgun? Or more than 10 rounds in a magazine? But we as a nation, and by an even greater extent as subjects in the Socialist State of New Jersey are brainwashed into thinking that semi-autos = ok, but full-auto = bad. If we want to win the fight for our rights, we need to dispense with this mindset, and assume all things are fair game for use for whatever we desire. See what I mean? You keep saying I'm right the rest of you are wrong. I can honestly say you are trying to pin things on the wrong crowd. You also have to read or listen to them. You're not doing that you have only been wanting to argue. I'm simply pointing out fallacies in others' arguments and statements, and rightfully so in many instances. Apparently for some folks here, when something has select-fire and a suppressor, it goes from being a valid defensive firearm to some sort of death machine. One even commented that they would rather not have someone be their neighbor if they owned an select-fire weapon and used it in the defense of their life. I've seen many similar arguments echoed in the past in regards to handguns, shotguns, and even EBRs. What makes the ballistics of a full-auto 5.56 or 9mm any different than the ballistics of semi-auto 5.56 or 9mm? If you're talking about they same barrel length, none. Subguns have 9-12" barrels where they can gain more velocity. A 5.56 will penetrate less than a 9mm coming out of a subgun (read previous comment talking about FBI tests). The overpenetration issue is if you miss, which you still can do even if you know how to control it, you have 2,3, or more rounds overpentrating instead of one. What makes retention of a FN P90 or an MP5 different from a CX-4 carbine or a pump-action shotgun, or any other 2-handed long-gun? A MP5 is shorter than than any 16"+ pistol caliber carbine, M4, or any standard long gun. The longer barrel give your opponent the leverage advantage making it easier to take away from you. Simple physics, the lever being everything in front of your trigger hand and your trigger hand the fulcrum. Other than that the MP5 has no distinct retention advantage over any other subgun configured similarly. If you add a surpressor to the MP5 you get its length near that of a shotgun or carbine so retention The P90 beats out all the subguns in rentention because of its bullpup configuration and short barrel. The length is only about 20". If your opponent tries to grab it he only has a couple of inches at the muzzle to grab it. All the leverage is to your advantage here. Shane also said: I think it would be easier to take a pistol or non bullpup rifle from me compared to the P90. Your basically holding on to a pair of circles at the FRONT of the rifle. Thats a metric ton of control I'd tend to agree with him. What makes a P90 and MP5 better for fire control is they fire from a closed bolt. The P90 is a blowback firing from a closed bolt and a MP5 is a delayed roller locking bolt. You don't have a big heavy bolt slamming that bolt forward and firing the round as you do with most subguns like the MAC, Carl Gustaf, M1 Thompson. STEN, MP40, and others. Throw a suppressor on a P90 and you run into the same issues as throwing on onto an MP5. Also, one should not discount advances in the field of subguns as well. KRISS SMGs, MP7s, etc. Imagine what other advances would be made if subguns can be tailored to HD or a market suddenly existed for them. Aside from a pistol, what else on this list is going to be more compact than a SBR subgun? It seems to me that the same reasoning that is used to bash full-auto suppressed subguns can simply boil down to an argument of long guns vs. hand guns, correct? You need to get terminology straight first. There is no such thing as a SBR subgun. A SBR is a short barrel rifle firing a rifle round. Subguns fire pistol rounds. The advantages of a 5.56 rifle is tremendous stopping power with limited penetration in building materials compared to subgun. A shotgun also has tremendous stopping power but limited penetration due to the ballistic inefficiency of the round ball. 00 buck penetrates about the same as a 9mm or 45 ACP from a pistol. You can see what penetrates what here: http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/theboxotruth.htm Unfortunately there are no subguns used there. Great, thanks. That was already quite apparent in my earlier posts. Basically a select-fire weapon isn't going to magically enhance the penetration abilities of the rounds they fire. I mean, I get it: suppressed subguns have drawbacks, just like every other weapons system listed. But in comparison to other long(er) guns, the biggest difference is that they have can have a suppressor (which adds length/bulk to a firearm at the expense of protecting your vision/hearing), and that they have an extra spot on the FCG that let's you shoot multiple bullets with one trigger pull. Surpressors are made for everything except revolvers and make any gun less compact. You are not going to go instantly deaf and in a handgun or shotgun you can experiment and find lower flash ammo (9mm WW Silvertip only emits a tiny blue flame from a 4" barrel). But why risk the hearing loss if you don't have to? Especially if you're going to be using a suppressor on a rifle platform for HD? Seems to me it would be common sense to have one on any long-weapon regardless of it's cartridge sizing (shotguns excluded). As for adding bulk, it wouldn't necessarily be the case with certain weapons platforms as you mentioned earlier (P90 for example). The multiple bullets with one trigger pull is the issue! You don't seem to get it. Accounting for every round you fire. You don't seem to think you would ever miss even if you are well trained with the subgun. If you can't use a proper stance with a subgun (stock in your chest between your shoulder and centerline, elbows tucked in, and shoulders hunched over the gun yours, mione or anyone's accuracy and control with that subgun is down the toilet. I do think I will miss. Semi-auto or even full-auto, you will probably need multiple shots to take down an opponent. Rarely does a guy simply go down with one shot, nor does that shot automatically hit the target. As for proper stance and grip, that's merely a training/equipment issue and is applicable to any other firearms platform. This being an important point that applies to all firearms. Even if I owned a full-auto weapon, does that mean I can only use it in full-auto? Nope. It's select-fire for a reason, and you can switch firing modes to fit whichever situation you're in. "Imagine" the scenario of you're right handed and trying to locate the intruder and he comes up on your left side, slightly behind you with your Louisville Slugger. No time to turn that subgun or long gun. Handguns win that. One issue that hasn't been addressed is using one handed if you have lost use of one arm. Say he swings that bat, you dodge it but get hit in the shoulder. You fall between the coffee table and the sofa. Handguns win again. If you have room you can get that shotgun or rifle on target. Use your subgun one handed and if you connect with your first round there are those others that will miss. Switch to semi you say? You really think that's going to be on your mind when someone is trying to kill or seriously injure you in your living room? Baseball bat scenario, nice... How does the handgun instantly win in either of those? What's stopping you from dropping your handgun, or getting hit in your other shoulder? What about using your "long-gun" to defend yourself against the bat? If the only option is to dodge, then blocking may be an alternative. Though then, you may actually have damage to your weapon and it may not even function. How about holding up at the top of your staircase/doorway with a suppressed sub-machine gun with a light/red-dot on it and let the intruder try to get through your own personal death funnel? Taking on someone who is waiting in ambush is already a bad deal regardless of what you carry. As for which firing mode that it would be in, does it really matter if your on the ground being beaten? Nope. But in other scenarios, it may make the difference. But that's the nice thing about hypothetical situations... you can do whatever you want with them to prove a point. I guess that is what really irks me about this thread... why are folks bashing a firearm because it has one or two additional features than the ones they traditionally own? You didn't read what I said before: law enforcement agencies really have little practical use for full auto or burst fire weapons. That doesn't mean I think the police or regular people shouldn't own them. The uses for full or burst fire weapons are: 1. Surpressive fire thsi includes spraying the interior of a room to clear it 2. Getting rounds into a fleeting target (shooting at an airplane or other vehicle) 3. Multiple rounds in a target at greater than shotgun ranges Only the military does 1. The police may have use for 2 say at a roadblock. That leaves 3. How big is your house? Is your living room 100' long? I'm sorry, but 3 doesn't really pan out. Why is full-auto only limited to ranges beyond that of a shotgun? What's limiting you from using it at ranges you would normally use a shotgun? In that sense, it confers similar advantages to a shotgun, without the disadvantages at long range. And what about 2? What about a charging opponent instead of a fleeing one? Wouldn't you want to put as many rounds into them as fast as possible? As for the last tidbit, I agree some reasonable restrictions should exist to the 2A... but seeing as it's one of these fancy Constitutional Amendments, such restrictions should only exist in the form of additional Amendments to either repeal or modify the definition of what arms we're allowed to keep an bear. The Constitution is an entire package like I said. You don't write Amendments to interpret amendments. Any interpretation is left to the Supreme Court of the United States. Sometimes their decision opens up a whole bunch of other questions like what is reasonable but that's the way it is. Disagree. The amendment process exists to either repeal existing amendments, add new rights to be protected, or to modify existing rights. The right to vote, for example, was expanded upon via Constitutional Amendment. Not via SCOTUS. If you want to ban all guns, fine. Repeal the 2nd Amendment. If you want to ban machine guns, nuclear, and biological weapons, repeal the 2nd and replace it, with one which narrows the definition of arms, or add an amendment which reserves the right to own a certain subset of arms while excluding others. Leaving it to a bunch of un-elected judges is dangerous for our personal liberties, as their interpretation of the Constitution is dependent on the makeup of the court and who put them in power. As good as the courts have been to the 2A, they can easily be just as bad and set things back quite a bit. What I don't get is why the reasons that an FA Subgun is a bad choice for HD, don't apply to other firearms? Like a shotgun? Or a rifle? Or even a pistol/revolver? I think all your questions are answered. If you have more go ahead. I don't think they've been answered quite clearly at all, and in many instances just boil down to a long gun vs. hand gun debate. 1. Excessive force can be applied to any scenario where the DA can argue it.... every bullet you shoot in self-defense has a lawyer attached to it... Which is why a FA is not a good idea, too bullets to account for. Again, it really depends on the DA and how much of a bone he has to pick with you. Apparently, lighting a guy up with 9 shot burst is a war crime, but a well placed head shot is not. As they say: "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" 2. Over-penetrations is dependent on the caliber, not the firing mode. This is a valid argument when comparing the pros/cons of a rifle round, pistol round, or shotgun shell. It has nothing to do with FA. It also depends on the velocity generated by the longer barrel of the subgun. As I've said a 9mm out of a subgun penetrates more than a handgun (9mm or 45), buckshot, or 5.56 in building materials. A pistol caliber carbine has the same penetration issues but only one round per pull. Yep, that point has been made quite clear. 3. This has to due with the perception of full-auto. Most people don't even know they're legal in the USA (local laws apply though). But the same can be said if you used a mean looking tactical AR-15 or a pump-shotty with 100 shells and a bayonet strapped to it. You aren't going to change that by bitching you change that by education and reasoning and people can still think what they want, we have no "Thought Police" like in "1984". No, you change it by telling people it's a legal and viable means of defense. If the jury is properly instructed, it shouldn't matter if you used a Stoeger over-under to kill someone breaking in, or if you used an M-4 Carbine. A good read on the matter is this article by Massad Ayoob: "F you and your high powered rifle" This article really answers a lot of the arguments you put up for FA. If anything, it goes to show the amount of grief a prosecutor with a political agenda can put someone through regardless of the weapon. As for using the FA, it seems to have done the job quite well when killing the one assailant. It's not the weapon that was the problem, but the legal system and the dopes who work it who made all the trouble for the FA user. A kinder judge and a more rational prosecutor would've ensured such a case would have never reached a Grand Jury.

What are they being replaced with usually? UMP-9s/45s? Or a short barreled M4 platform?

Power restored to my neighborhood in Morristown last night.

No damage, just lost power at about 6am Sunday and have yet to get it back. JCP&L called all of us to let us know that power for hanging wire customers will be restored by nightfall. The rest of us using underground power are s.o.l.