DHS places and order for 7k select-fire rifles for personal defense

[pr_capone]

On 7 June 2012, the Department of Homeland security drew up a proposal to purchase 7k select-fire rifles in a 5.56x45mm caliber. In that proposal, the rifles are described as follows:

"DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required." (Section C(PDW)ver 7.pdf - available in the below link)

Suitable for personal defense in close quarters or maximum concealment, eh? Sounds like a kind of situation one might encounter in their own home and faced with an intruder.

It seems as if in the eyes of the government these are select-fire personal defense tools in the hands of one of their agents. In the hands of a good law abiding citizens they are semi-automatic assault rifle mass killing machines.

Link:

https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d791b6aa0fd9d3d8833b2efa08300033&tab=core&_cview=0

[Cave Johnson]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Cave Johnson thinks criminals stand still for you to shoot them therefore no need for an "automatic" weapon

Show me where I said shooting stationary paper targets is analogous to a moving home intruder?

Btw, I'd be willing to bet a semi-auto shotty with an 8-10 shell mag is the gold standard of home defense.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Bullshit,. Your argument is so full of fail, lacks so much in fact, logic and reality that you are resorting to trying to compare a handgun to a grenade launcher.

Do us all a favor an dstick licking Obama's ass.

Seems reasonable.

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The odds are basically ****ing zero that I will ever need a semiauto's firepower to pretect myself.

Exactly where is this extra “firepower” coming from? A bullet doesn’t care whether it’s leaving the barrel of a semi-auto or not, it’ll arrive with the same impact regardless.

[Cave Johnson]

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

Sounds like fun, I'll have to find an event and check it out.

It and 3-gun (AR, shotgun, pistol) are a ton of fun.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

WHAT?

But I was told we can't infringe the right to bear arms!



And while I welcome that trend, and pray it continues, that doesn't change the fact that we are embarrassingly awful compared to all of our western neighbors.

Well.... we're embarrassingly awful compared to all of our western neighbors in countless categories.

Heart Disease
Obesity
Vehicle Death
Suicide
Education
Health Care
.
.
.
.

Hell, the US is barely in the top 30 in the list of life expectancy by country. It would be nice if we could fix all of it.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Fish

Well.... we're embarrassingly awful compared to all of our western neighbors in countless categories.

Heart Disease
Obesity
Vehicle Death
Suicide
Education
Health Care
.
.
.
.

Hell, the US is barely in the top 30 in the list of life expectancy by country. It would be nice if we could fix all of it.

I advocate action on all those fronts, rather than resigning to mediocrity.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Cave Johnson

Show me where I said shooting stationary paper targets is analogous to a moving home intruder?

Btw, I'd be willing to bet a semi-auto shotty with an 8-10 shell mag is the gold standard of home defense.

I'd bet it would be a pump action as opposed to semi-auto

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I advocate action on all those fronts, rather than resigning to mediocrity.

Good. Then your next goal should be some type of prioritization, according to the amount of damage done by each category. Because currently your priorities don't make much sense.

[pr_capone]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

WHAT?

And while I welcome that trend, and pray it continues, that doesn't change the fact that we are embarrassingly awful compared to all of our western neighbors.

Are semi automatic rifles the reason why it is bad compared to our western neighbors?

Seeing as there were a grand total of 323 murders attributed to these guns while blunt instruments accounted for more than double that number... I don't see how one can argue that banning them will accomplish much, if anything, towards the goal of reducing homicides and crime. Especially when the '94 ban did little to nothing on that same front.

If semi auto rifles are not the reason why we are embarrassingly awful... then it stands to reason that there is no need to ban them at all. Especially not when the Department of Homeland security says they are suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.

The bolded part... would you not agree that a person's home would constitute personal defense in close quarters & maximum concealment being needed? This is their definition... not mine.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Fish

Good. Then your next goal should be some type of prioritization, according to the amount of damage done by each category. Because currently your priorities don't make much sense.

I prioritize them by which one is being discussed.

This one is up for discussion. So here I am.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Fish

Did you really have to type that?

Probably not.

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Right -- my point is that if we are to pile semiautos into our homes in the off, off, off chance that they are the only thing that could save us, I don't see why a grenade launcher could not also be subject to the same logic.

Well you stated if you need semi-auto gun by your bedside that should extend to grenade launchers. That is silly

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by pr_capone

Are semi automatic rifles the reason why it is bad compared to our western neighbors?

Seeing as there were a grand total of 323 murders attributed to these guns while blunt instruments accounted for more than double that number... I don't see how one can argue that banning them will accomplish much, if anything, towards the goal of reducing homicides and crime. Especially when the '94 ban did little to nothing on that same front.

If semi auto rifles are not the reason why we are embarrassingly awful... then it stands to reason that there is no need to ban them at all. Especially not when the Department of Homeland security says they are suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.

The bolded part... would you not agree that a person's home would constitute personal defense in close quarters & maximum concealment being needed? This is their definition... not mine.

This is a good post.

I advocate lots of different measures of gun control -- many of which were instituted by the President. My personal preferences against semiautos would be to reduce mass shootings.

As for your question... I would say that if we are going to permit semiautos at all (which, of course, we are), then home defense is obviously a defensible type of use for them.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Well you stated if you need semi-auto gun by your bedside that should extend to grenade launchers. That is silly

I'll admit it's an attempt to slippery-slope the conversation the other way, as these conversations so frequently attempt to boil any sort of gun control to "they want our guns."

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

This is a good post.

I advocate lots of different measures of gun control -- many of which were instituted by the President. My personal preferences against semiautos would be to reduce mass shootings.

As for your question... I would say that if we are going to permit semiautos at all (which, of course, we are), then home defense is obviously a defensible type of use for them.

The loss from mass shootings, while being a very passionate and saddening event, is not an often enough occurrence to justify a complete banning. It's nowhere close. If that's the main reasoning for banning all semiautos, then it falls horribly short.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I'll admit it's an attempt to slippery-slope the conversation the other way, as these conversations so frequently attempt to boil any sort of gun control to "they want our guns."

You know, I have thought long and hard about what is irritating me about this whole thing. It is not the "we want to take your guns" but this consistant insulting of the American people that somehow this has something to do with hunting and even personal self-defense. The Anti-Gun crowd loves to bring up hunting, "you don't need 10 bullets to kill a deer" and personal self-defense from common criminals and ignor the actual reason we have the 2nd.

In which case, given what the 2nd was truly for, which is to have well regulated militia to protect the state then yes, semi-automatics are indeed not only acceptabe but well sutited moreso than the shotgun crap we keep hearing from this Admin.