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.

? · Accepted Answer

I don't think this is an "elitist" issue as you appear to belief.  This is just the misguided belief that gun violence is caused by guns.  Everyone considers himself/herself to be normal.  Therefore, people that don't own guns find it easy to blame guns since, if everyone were like them (not owning guns), the gun violence would not occur.  They also conclude that people that own guns are abnormal in some way.  This isn't elitist, it is just inability to see another perspective.

You appear to be suffering from the same perspective problem.  Guns are useful and dangerous.  You focus on the utility of guns and other focus on the danger of guns.   The issue is how to balance these concerns.  Rather than call liberals "elitist", you should acknowledge their concerns and try to address them.  You are arguing about the utility of guns to people that don't consider guns useful enough to own one.  Arguing that assault rifles are only slightly more dangerous than other rifles, if at all, is likely to be more persuasive. 

As for your headline question, the obvious response is, was an assault rifle necessary in those circumstances?  Would a different type of rifle have worked just as well?  Since this is a hypothetical scenario, these questions can't be definitively answered.

Chet · Answer

What many anti gun people do not understand is an "assault weapon" is just a made up term. It is just based on looks. 

I ask them, is this weapon an assault weapon:
http://www.americanrifleman.org/home-carousel/images/mini_14_inset.jpg

Is this:
http://www.rogco.biz/images/650_mini14_04aug07a_T_C.jpg

I am sure they will say the first one is not, and the bottom is. The above weapons are the SAME. The bottom is just dressed up. The functionality is the same. They are both Ruger Mini-14s. 

I actually believe that they think they are fully automatic. They spend no time to educate themselves on what they are talking about. 90% of people say clip rather than magazine, they are not the same. 

As far as "high capacity magazines (not clips)", with a little practice a person with 2 10 round mags can fire 20 rounds just a little slower than a man with one 20 round mag. Look at what this man can do with a revolver:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw

I couldn't shoot that fast and hit a target with a 20 round mag and an "assault rifle".

As you can see, there are not many anti-gun answers. When they can not manipulate the data they disappear..

Anonymous · 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.

Anonymous · Answer

I often state it this way .

I have the .38 in the night stand and the sawed off under the bed for home protection, I have the big guns to protect my right to have the .38 and the sawed off.

Personally , I'd prefer not to fire the .30 carbine in the house anyway . Even if you get the perp you'll have holes in your TV and refrigerator in the next room .

Twainy Bob · Answer

This could not have been accomplished with a Handgun or a shotgun? 
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Assault rifles will go away: they need clip-restrictions and thorough background checks. For things like praire-dog hunting or wild hog population control they should be allowed to have higher clip capacity rifles; however, the licensing should be a graduated system like they have for pyrotechnicians: you need to be this certified and have these qualifications in order to play with dynomite...etc.

? · Answer

I don't support gun control, but it is true that contractors were building too many huge homes, which are now practically worthless since the bankers were selling $400K 6-bedroom mansions, mostly made out of substandard plywood to ppl on welfare.

I didn't read the rest of your book however.

bmovies60 · Answer

I don't need a need. I don't have to explain to anybody what I need and why. It's my constitutional right and its nobodys business but my own why I want or need one. Dont like criminals getting their hands on them? Neither do I. So instead of trying to get those guns off the street, try getting criminals off the street and keeping them off.

John · Answer

the right to bear arms was made to defend yourself against a corrupt government.

TalktoJimmie · Answer

YOU ARE PREACHING TO THE CHOIR BROTHER. I AGREE 100%. WHERE IS THE CIGARETTE OUTRAGE OR THE DROWSY DRIVING LEGISLATION?

POLICEMAN HAVE THE HIGHEST SELF INFLICTED GUN WOUNDS IN NATION, ANY RESTRICTIONS?

Trending News

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

9 Answers