Would anyone agree with "Here's Why Someone Would Need To Own An 'Assault' Rifle"?

Question

Guns: The left keeps asking why anyone needs an "assault" rifle. Here's one reason — in 2010, a Texas teen used a rifle similar to the one used in Newtown to defend his younger sister and himself from home invaders.
The left quite often exposes its raging elitism through its odious habit of asking why anyone would need the things that it doesn't like, from guns to big homes to monster trucks.
The implication is that if the elitists don't want whatever it is, then no one should be allowed to have it — except, of course, it's fine for the elitists themselves to live in energy-sucking mansions, hire armed bodyguards and drive around in gas-guzzling limousines and SUVs.
When the left asks these questions it also reveals its blinding ignorance. Is there a single Democrat, dense celebrity or condescending journalist who is aware that "assault" rifles don't just define their owners as red necks but also serve as practical protection?
Actually the total amount of what they don't know about firearms and crime is enough to crush them.
Consider that, according to FBI data, in 2007, there were 453 homicides by rifle in the U.S. Yes, that's too many. But compare that number to a few other methods of homicide employed that year.
In 2007, there were 1,817 homicides committed with "knives or cutting instruments"; "blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)" killed 674; while "personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)" were the choices in 869 homicides.
The number of rifle homicides has fallen steadily since then to 323 last year, as have the other three weapon classes, though each still remains a more common choice than the rifle.
In fact, when added together, knives, blunt instruments and the human body were responsible for more than nine times as many homicides as rifles in 2011.
Yet no one is asking why anyone would want to own a set of steak knives, place a heavy candelabra on their mantle or have a hammer in their garage.
The weapon used effectively as protection by the Texas teen was neither a club nor a fist but reportedly an AR-15, a rifle on which the .223-caliber Bushmaster used in the tragic Sandy Hook shootings was modeled.
Though tagged "assault" weapons, both are merely semi-automatics, just as are many hunting rifles, and all but a handful are used legally and peacefully.
But elitists on the left don't hunt — they let someone else do their killing — so how could they know?
None of this is intended to minimize the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary or any other mass shooting.
It's simply an attempt to point out that a screaming obsession over one particular weapon used less frequently to kill than knives is driven by ignorance, arrogance and a nonexistent sense of proportion.

Zack · Accepted Answer

I think this question would be better placed in Politics...

Dana H · Answer

Thanks.  I love stats.  The one you forgot to add for perspective is 7,398 homocides from handguns.

Your argument would be better if you don't try to lump all Democrats into the same pool.  I happen to vote Dem and own an AK (actually an MAK) which I would use for home defense.
I've made the argument before that an AWB is merely the easiest (dumbest and least effective) way for politicians to look like they are doing 'something' to deal with the fact that the insane are going on regular shooting rampages.  Reducing the ease with which the insane can obtain weapons would be far more difficult than an AWB.

BTW - the more suspicious recesses of my mind make me wonder whether law enforcement is a major motivating force  behind this whole thing to reduce their own risk during times of major social unrest.

This is a pretty good article going over various legal precedents, etc that argue against another AWB.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/rational.html

MJ · Answer

I think the pro-gun should have never played the "what do you need an assault rifle/assault weapon for" game.

The meaning of the Second Amendment is clear, it has been linguistically clarified by the US Justice Department, and Supreme Court rulings uphold the individual right.

Argue with that, anti-gunners. The real question is why the anti-gun representatives in Washington are ignoring US law.

vangion · Answer

Just for the sake if argument

Couldn't the teen have just used a revolver or shotgun to defend his sister? Were there 20 or 30 assailants that he had to defend against? Were the criminals using body armor?
In short was it necessary to have a so called assault weapon to defend with or could he have accomplished the same thing with a more politically correct firearm?

You are not going to get these questins here because quite frankly we don't care, but you will have to defend these questions from the anti  and Fudd crowd

Russ in NOVA · Answer

My policy for engaging anyone that uses the term "assault rifle" or "assault weapon' in regards to gun ownership is to attack the terms "assault" and "weapon" and not to validate their question by actually attempting to give an answer (that they will ignore), especially by giving an obscure, uncredited, 2-yr old anecdote.  Additionally, I point out the many things that Americans own in which "need" is not a requirement.  By answering the question yall  fall into their and are validating the use of the terms "assault rifle" or "assault weapon", suggesting that a specific need is necessary to own a gun (which constitutionally, it is not).

Jake · Answer

Yeah you really are preaching to the choir here.

Chicago banned handguns in 1982.  In 2005, 96% of gun related murders in Chicago were committed with handguns.  Yet people still think gun control works...

dca2003311@yahoo.com · Answer

* Thanks so much for that valuable information.* It's really all about Life, Freedom, and Liberty.* No one should have the Power or Authority to say that you cannot own something, or that you need their permission, or approval before being able to purchase it.*.. " Only a Criminal, Tyrant, or a Tyrannical Federal, State, County or Local Government is afraid of the Armed American Citizenry.".." Keep Freedom and Liberty Alive; Resist Tyranny."...

eferrell01 · Answer

"The left keeps asking why anyone needs an "assault" rifle. "
It is not about 'need'. It is about my Second Amendment right to own such a weapon.

? · Answer

Belongs in 'politics'.

But it isn't a 'left or right' issue. It's a fascist as opposed to a self-governed issue.

Turned Zombie · Answer

Yes

Sombody · Answer

As stated this is better in politics but I do agree.

Trending News

Would anyone agree with "Here's Why Someone Would Need To Own An 'Assault' Rifle"?

15 Answers