Defensive Use of AR-15, Man Kills Two, Wounds One Attacker

By Dean Weingarten

Defensive Use of AR-15, Man Kills Two, Wounds One Attacker
Dean Weingarten
Dean Weingarten

Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- 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.

From radioviceonline.com:

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.

All of the things that make an AR-15 useful to the Department of Homeland Security make them exceptionally useful for home defense. The AR-15 rifles that are available to ordinary citizens are not select fire. They have most of the same valuable qualities desired by the DHS.

Here are a few:

  • Easy to control, easy to aim, easy to hit with.
  • A sufficient magazine capacity, extremely important for multiple assailants.
  • Sufficient power to disable assailants.
  • Significant deterrence capability.
  • Ease of use, even if disabled.

The first three factors, except were demonstrated in the Houston defensive shooting.  From click2houston.com:

According to officers, the Nissan drove by the man's yard and the men started to shoot at the man.

Authorities said the man standing in his yard, who has a concealed handgun license, shot back at the car hit all three men in the vehicle.

Houston police said the Nissan crashed into another vehicle. Police said three of the men got out the Nissan and continued to exchange gunfire with the homeowner. Police said the homeowner struck all three men.

It would be harder to do if the defender had to manually operate the action, change magazines multiple times, and/or be limited to a handgun.

Fortunately, the defender was not hit, so he did not serve as an example for the last point. The attack happened from a moving vehicle, at night, so there was little chance for deterrence to work in the Houston case.

AR-15 and other military weapons were designed for defensive use. Half of warfare is defense. They are superbly suited to the defensive role.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Link to Gun Watch

 

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30-year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

  • 51 thoughts on “Defensive Use of AR-15, Man Kills Two, Wounds One Attacker

    1. He was expecting them. Sounds like a deal went wrong somewhere prior. Maybe gang or mob related considering a separate perp tried to burn his house down. All four of these people are bad guys. The one who made it out alive is lucky he stayed at his home. Had that of been anywhere in a public place they’d all be to blame and all be going to jail. And I’m sure the fact that he’s not black certainly helped his case. They are all bad guys and you idiots just support him because you need any example of someone finally actually needing to use a weapon of this caliber. Bad guys don’t show up out of nowhere to randomly drive by your house trying to kill ya. This isn’t a third world country. That shit only happens in the hood

      And all factors excluded, it’s pretty cool he was able to defend himself- going to the range pays off lol.

      1. DJ – I am about as impressed as a man can be! You have managed to pack so many ignorant comments into a such a short paragraph! Incredible feat there!!!

    2. @VE Veteran-old man’s club, your comment was dead on. At the end of the night, or the gun fight, that’s what matters. Let the nitpickers nitpick. They will be the first ones to give up their right of self defense, along with a list of names of their armed neighbors.

    3. The criminals are not in charge of when I am hanging out on MY property with MY MSR. They are just in charge of when they put themselves in danger of getting killed when they invade MY Space!

    4. People who claim that AR-15 type rifles have no home defense applications , in simple terminology, do not know what they are talking about.

    5. Why shouldn’t a person sit their front porch at any hour they want. I work at night and am routinely up at all hours on my nights off. And 99% of the time I have a suppressed 10.5″ ar close by sporting a red Dot and 600 lumen light. Trouble comes when it wants, not when you want it.

      1. I have an AR 15 and love it. I also have an AR 47 (AR 15 in 7.62×39 for those not knowing). I own both because the AR 15 is much more accurate at longer distances, The AR 47 has more stopping power. As both are built in the AR platform the ease of switching between them in great!
        I will never be without both and as the climate changes in this country, I will have ammo for each forever!

    6. After he hit them, they were sill able to react and to attack him again, obliging him to shoot again.
      This leaves with serious doubts about the capability of the .223 to k. o. a man.
      Sylvester

      1. Some states actually prohibit the use of AR15s for deer hunting, specifically because the round is not sufficiently powerful to reliably bring down big game… which certainly and fully negates anti-gunners’ – and fake media’s – description of the AR15 as a “high-powered” rifle! Perfect example of journalistic stupidity.

        1. In the early years of the AR-15, it was known as the mouse gun. Some complaints from our soldiers in Vietnam and the sand box said it did not have enough stopping power. This is true, but its all about bullet placement. One round in the brain box does wonders, plop dead.

          1. We were told in boot camp that the purpose of an M-16 was to injure, not to kill. Because it would take two men to help the injured man, while they would leave behind the dead man, thus giving you the opportunity to take more enemy out of the fight.

            1. That design (to injure, rather than to kill) presumes that the enemy has the exact same valuation of human life – the need to save injured soldiers, at all – that America has. Very poor assumption.

      2. A flesh wound is usually not enough to disable a person. Brain, spinal cord, center of mass, leg bone, pelvis or gun hand/arm/shoulder hits usually do.

      3. There is no one shot show stopper anyway. This has been proven over and over again for the last 70+ years. Shot placement, projectile and penetration are the three most critical factors when talking “stopping power”. The 5.56×45 does just fine. And just a FYI the story doesn’t specify the caliber it just says a “AR15 type” rifle, so as far as we know it could have been one of many different calibers. And who cares why he was sitting on his porch at 2am with a rifle. I do it. Just sitting there, no reason, not looking for trouble, just sitting there. Sometimes it’s a shotgun sometimes a pistol, I’ll carry what I feel like carrying. Period.

      4. Doesn’t say where initial hits were to the perp’s bodies or with what firearm initial shots were made . The only sure one shot kills are to the brain stem, or made with artillery!

      5. Sylvester,

        Where did the defender hit the bad guys ? In the lower arm ? Grazing a shoulder ? If he had hit each one of them in the pumpkin and they continued their attack, then your argument may be sound.

        I don’t recall the book describing one WW2 Marine’s nearly emptying his .30 cal., M1 Carbine’s magazine into the mid-section of a charging, Japanese attacker on Okinawa. The Jap kept charging. Raising his point of aim to hit the man’s head, he finally stopped the attack.

        Point is, the argument that 5.56mm is not a sufficient man killer is simply cow dung. There are gun fight examples of 45 ACP, 230 grain hardball, failing to put down a bad guy. Perhaps, the shooter would have had more put-down success if he could have engaged the bad guy with a bazooka !

      6. The story reads that he returned fire with his handgun, hitting the drive-by shooters. The car crashed.
        He did a NY reload by getting his AR that was close at hand.
        At least that is how I interpreted the story.

    7. Houston is still recovering from the devastating flooding from Hurricane Harvey and I would imagine the home owner was keeping watch on his property to protect it from looters.

      1. May 6th…I’m pretty sure that was well before Harvey. A little questionable as to why someone would be sitting on their front porch at 2:15 a.m. Could have been an advanced warning…but about what & why? A little sketchy without some fill in information.
        Does prove an AR is an excellent defensive weapon though, if there’s a bright side.

        1. The comments in the Houston paper says somebody attempted to arson/burn his house the night before. He was waiting for well-know troublemakers.

            1. Why does it matter? It was his neighbohood. Entitled to defend one property regardless of race. Why is this card being played. Does nothing but stir up trouble.

            2. Clark,

              What does the racial composition of the neighborhood have to do with anything ? Besides, how dare the homeowner sit on his own property with his own personal property in hand ? Right Clarkie ,

        2. I dont understand how people like you think the way you do. Its a little sket hy that he was sitting on HIS front porch at 2:30am? Really? Fo people like you want to control everything everyone foes? Do you?
          I dont know how old you are or where and when you grew up but in America people can sit on their property whenever they freakin want! I just dont understand this shit. How can you be concerned about what other people do? Its none of your damned business!
          You need more details you say. Details about what? What he was doung on his porch is none of your business mister. Do you understand that?
          People like you make me sick.

          1. I am not sure from the position of your reply if your comments were directed at me or one of the other posters, but let me say that my comment was simply to ascertain the type of neighborhood where the shooting took place. I don’t have to sit on my front porch @ 2 a.m. with a firearm to protect my home form a home invasion or an arson attempt. Sadly, a lot of Black majority neighborhoods are not at all like that. My comment wasn’t meant to be racist, I was just looking for information.

            1. P Clark,

              If all the smart commenters would harken back to 2d grade English class and use a salutation, one would not have to wonder if a remark was a response to oneself. Then again, if attending a .gov school there is a good probability tney never had a 2d grade English class. Regardless, almost every comment I read here and elsewhere fails to use good communication skill and simply common courtesy.

              Amerikans in general, are basically dumb as a box of rocks.

            2. Clark,

              ….I was just looking for information.” Why ? You writing book ? Or are you looking to justify a mentality that firearms are not to be displayed by their owners unless they meet your liberal mentality.

              In your 62 years did you ever believe in “….the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to Keep & Bear Arms, Shall Not Be Infringed.” ? Like all the scum who have compromised the Constitution, they have done and continue to do so, because of Amerikans like you.

              “….shall not be infringed.”

              How hard is that for you and your fellow gun grabbers to comprehend that ?

          2. @P Clark, you can’t ask anything straight up anymore. You have to come at everything from and angle. There are lots of people that are just looking to insult someone. They would never dare insult someone on the street because they would get the $hit kicked out of them. But on line they know that they can get away with it.
            So now you are a little more sophisticated. Welcome to the site.

            1. @Wild Bill…I think he was talking about my comment, which I guess I’m not entitled to, according to him.

              @Bill…I’m 62, to answer your question & where & when I grew up was where & when we may ask ourselves, “I wonder why he’s sitting on his front porch at 2:15 a.m. (not 2:30…get it right) with a rifle?”. I see nothing in that thought that implies wanting to control what he’s doing, much less on his property. It’s a damn question! But since you brought it up, you’re dang skippy it’s my business! Anytime I see something out of the norm, especially when it involves a firearm, I make it my business. Do you understand THAT? That doesn’t mean I want to tell them what to do or where to be but I don’t walk around blindly…not in these times. So, if “people like me” make you sick, you’re probably going to get sick a lot because there’s more people like me…paying attention to what’s going on around them…than you’ll be able to stomach.
              Learn to spell if you’re going to try to insult someone or mind YOU’RE OWN business.

            2. @Wayne Clark, The more people that are situationally aware, the better that I feel. If I were sitting on that porch, all by myself, I’d be glad if some neighbor was paying attention to my plight. That neighbor may lend a had or be an honest witness when the cops eventually showed up. I’m feeling better, already!

            3. @Wild Bill…exactly!
              I’ve made my point & see no need to further justify my comments. I’m not here to argue. I’m glad you get it…unlike some.

        3. I am retired. I take a nap at 2 PM if that suits me, I do home repairs at 2 AM if I’m in the mood. Retirement is a whole different place from the daily grind.

        4. There is nothing questionable about it. the man was on his own property. It is his right to be there, he does not need a reason.

    8. Uh, 0215 hours? Unprovoked attack? Just happened to be sitting on his porch with an AR-15? Seems there’s a bit more to the story that this article leaves out!
      I agree that an AR is a fine weapon with which to defend one’s self, but something about this is hinky.

      1. Maybe he had advanced warning they were coming – maybe it was the luck of the Irish, maybe … maybe … maybe. The important part is he’s alive and the bad guys are dead = case closed.

        1. Strangelove,

          Ehat is “fishy” here is your cow dung remark supporting the innuendo that the homeowner didn’t have the God-given right to do whatever he wants and/or possess any piece of personal property he cares to own, on his own property That, and he can access it, if nothing more than to fondle his AR-malite, 24/7….contrary to your horse crap mentality.

      2. @rustyh..hinky, the real thing I see as hinky is the fact that you, @Farmer, and a couple of other legal minds don’t understand the rights of property ownership, and the privilege that goes with it. And yet, you skulk around a 2cd amendment believing, conservative internet magazine site.
        Two conclusions about this seem to make you hinky to me. Your trolls, or not too bright. I really don’t believe your a troll @rusth……

        Always in Liberty

        1. Rok,

          Whatever tne commenters are that you addressed, they are a threat to whatever Freedom remains in this country. It is a proven fact that conservative and/or firearms blogs are being attacked by Trojan Horse scoundrels in tne employ of Soros or Bloomberg.

          You sir, are spot on regarding the referenced commenters.

      3. Rustyh,

        I sit on my back porch with an AR-malite or an AK almost every time I relax there. Sometimes both. Usually have a set of binos too.

        Nevertheless, what law did the homeowner violate by sitting in or on his property with any sort of firearm or weapon ? Yet, here you go insinuating the homeowner had ulterior motives. Instead of cheering his exercise of self-defense you attempt to denigrate him with innuendo. Your remark smacks of anti-gun, anti-Freedom rhetoric as practiced by the communist left ensconsed within tne fJSA.

        How long before your next Soros’ payday ?

      1. Wayne Clark: The people you are up set with who question your motives concerning the homeowners rights where correct and completely justified . First you questioned his right to set on his own porch on his property at two am with
        his own legally owned firearms. I say legally owned the police did not seem to question his rights to them or to his use of them in the situation. Then you rejected Joe Martin’s offer of maybe because of hurricane looters which according to your dating maybe can be justified. But then you outright reject the very good one which brought you the justified condemnation of your motives. The one that Cal gave you from the Huston paper which clearly offered a an logical answer to his actions though according to our laws none was needed . This one:” The comments in the Houston paper says somebody attempted to arson/burn his house the night before. He was waiting for well-know troublemakers.:
        ” This was your lame reply:” P Clark says:
        September 16, 2017 at 4:15 PM
        Was this a Black neighborhood? What was/were the race(s) of those involved>”Where you intended it or not it is a clear non acceptance of any facts involved this incident that might justify the homeowners actions to your dangerous to freedom way of thinking. The fact that you refuse to admit that your reply has no racialist tones and you try to justify without apology shows that your opinions are bias .If you read and still it is not tinged with racist innuendos you are either, not truthful, illiterate or brainwashed.
        You also dis regarded the fact that the police officers at the scene seem satisfied with his actions. also not all white people live in the type of neighborhood you do some of them or poor have the same problems that the minorities have. The only point you have made to honest people, is that your opinion is not.

    Leave a Comment 51 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *