Posted on 09/16/2017 12:47:40 PM PDT by marktwain
On May 6th, 2017, an armed man was sitting on his front porch in the 400 block of Glenburnie Drive in Houston, Texas. He had a concealed carry permit. His brother says that he goes to the range often. He was on his porch and had another firearm with him. An AR-15 type rifle.
Three men attacked him in a drive-by shooting at about 2:15 a.m. He fired back, hitting all three. They car they were in crashed, and all three left the vehicle to continue the attack.
The homeowner kept up his defense, shooting back and hitting all three men again. Two died, one at the scene, one at the hospital. One of them was in critical condition.
Over 40 shots were fired, but the home defender was not hit. Not once.
Those who wish a disarmed population tell us that AR-15 rifles and other modern sporting rifles are not useful for self-defense. From bustle.com:
The AR-15 has no business being used for home defense purposes. This has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with saving lives.
But the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) disagrees.
In paragraph 3.1 under requirements and testing standards we read…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.
Isn’t that inconvenient for the gun control politicians? In requirement paragraph 3.9.10, they find a need for a 30-round magazine.
The action shall be capable of accepting all standard NATO STANAG 20 and 30 round M16 magazines (NSN 1005-00-921-5004) and Magpul 30 round PMAG (NSN 1005-01-576-5159). The magazine well shall be designed to allow easy insertion of a magazine.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Congratulations to the homeowner. I hope the surviving criminal doesn’t figure out a way to sue him.
Someone tried to burn down the homeowners house the night before the shooting.
http://abc13.com/news/homeowner-shoots-at-drive-by-suspects-killing-2/1960774/
Previous article on freerepublic here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3550823/posts
Why on porch at 2:15 a.m. with AR15. Sounded odd months ago when first in news, still sounds sucpicious.
Glad the guy was able to defend himself; but I am curious - why did three armed men take him on in the first place? The closest thing to an explanation was that the episode was a “drive-by shooting”; around here, drive-bye are almost always gang-related, and the neighborhood in the news report didn’t look like one that would harbor gangs (and I’m not real sure a homeowner with gang connections would be able to get approved for concealed carry).
So I wonder if there’s a back-story here that the incurious news media missed - why were the perps after this guy?
So drive-by shooters “gonna have some fun” roll up on this guy who has a rifle at the ready. Boy did they the pick wrong guy.
Hand gunners are at a disadvantage...
That’s the back story. It would still be interesting to know the back back story. What was going on between these guys?
Those three could have left with their lives. But two threw them away and the other missed the basket.
Changing the mag on an AK copy isn’t nearly as easy as on an M-4gery, but I’ve found just about any combloc metal mag is easier than a plastic mag, Tapco, whatever.
Good for him. They won’t try that again.
“AR-15 type rifles make a fine home defense weapon. If you have concerns of overpenetration, ammunition that limits penetration is easily available. “
Someone posting directly to the Ammoland article mentioned that the .300 Blackout is a good alternative that maintains the capacity of the AR-15 mags.
“Hand gunners are at a disadvantage...”
Judging from some of the photos in the Ammoland article, the perps were armed with handguns. The brass in the street was HG stuff.
To paraphrase another gun owner (General Lany) from years ago, “When someone tries to burn your house down, the best firehose is an AR-15.”
The actual quote was from General Laney of the Motor City Sportsman’s association and goes like this...”When someone tries to burn a cross on your lawn, the best firehose is an AK-47.”
SEE! IT WORKS!
Something here is just not plausible.
There was some real hatred going on there. After cracking up their vehicle, they got out and continued to fire handguns at the homeowner with the rifle.
“The three thugs exited the vehicle and approached on foot continuing the fire fight. The homeowner proved the better marksmen and stopped all three men before they could reach his property.
“One of the men was neutralized immediately, while the others were rushed to the hospital. The second shooter was pronounced dead on arrival and the third is still receiving care in critical condition — before his lengthy stay in prison.”
Looking at the neighborhood on Google maps, what comes to mind is that it is a suburban area, with older houses but large lots. Rifle vs. pistol would not be much of a contest if there was appreciable distance between them.
OK, that answers the question of why he was on the porch in the wee hours with an AR.
The home defender ends up being the one questioned most intensely by the police. Nobody seems to be asking the drive-by shooters just what THEIR motivation was.
And yes, the suit is entirely possible. Intimidation just goes on and on.
...I hope the surviving criminal doesn’t figure out a way to sue him...
Ain’t gonna happen. This is Texas. More like the homeowner sues him for his expended ammunition.
Every Action TV show I see the full auto sprayers always lose to a Glock 9.
From the news report it looked around 50 to 70 yards away from the car crash to the homeowner's home. I guess these guys didn't realize what they were up against. Dumb. The rifle was probably scoped and they probably didn't take much cover and it was night.
We don’t have all the information.
On the other hand, if you think for more than three seconds that this is not plausible then YOU need to go back, live through puberty again, but this time learn about the interactions of men when women are involved.
This could be a lot of things but a conflict over a woman is the easiest answer that doesn’t leave any gaps whatsoever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.