Why do you need an assault rifle?

[Baba Louie]

Freedom

Why do you need an AK (or any other "assault rifle")?

Because I'm a free man living in a free state I need the proper tool(s) to maintain that state... Freedom.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

you don't need. you want.

no one can argue with want.

Sure they can.

 

[LAK]

The same reason every free man in this country needs a .50 BMG, or a submachinegun. Or both.

Tench Coxe said it best, and it is no less applicable today than it was 200 years ago...

"Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth right of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe - as published the Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788

--------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Sleeping Dog]

Why do I need an "assault rifle"?

Why does someone need a McMansion? An SUV? More than two pairs of pants? Imported beer? An MP3 player? ...

Wait just a dang minute ... leave the imported beer out of your argument.

They will have to pry this Molson from my cold, dead hands.

 

[FPrice]

I was asked why I wanted/needed an assualt rifle. The only response I could really come up with was 'because I can', and 'target shooting'. Noone really thought that was a good answer...


So who do we need 'assualt rifles'?

It's not that you need an "assault rifle", it's that you have the right to own one if you so choose!

Need is a very subjective thing. Rights are a little more tangible.

Remember here in the People's Commonwealth the mayor of that town that had the strip club shooting is pressing to deny you the right to own such a rifle because one person violated the laws and killed other people. So the mayor thinks that you will do the same thing.

 

[ctdonath]

Read this.

You are male, able-bodied, aged 17-45.
That makes you a member of the militia, by Congressional decree.

You are signed up with the Selective Service. (Right?)
That makes you subject to being called up for military service.

You are not a member of the National Guard, with the pro-active training & equipping that entails.
You are, nonetheless, a member of the US militia.

If and when you are called up for military service, it will most likely be under dire circumstances where the equipment and training you receive, if any, will be minimal at best - but you will still be expected to engage in mortal combat.

Per the 2nd Amendment, you have the right - nay, the duty - to equip and train yourself appropriately, pro-actively, and promptly.

What do modern Western soldiers mostly fight with? M16s. Assault rifles.
Thus, you have a duty to get one.
Or at least the closest facsimile thereof: an AR15, the quintessential assault weapon.

The question then becomes: why do your classmates NOT have assault rifles? why do they neglect their inherent duty as citizens?

 

[benEzra]

I think this is reinforced by some of the high-profile shootings, Columbine (.22's with high cap mags), DC sniper (.223 isn't a sniper rifle), and the bank robbers with AK's shooting it out in CA. All the things we like about "assult rifles" ie pistol grips, hi-cap mags, collapsable stock make the weapon eaier to shoot, carry more ammunition, or easier to hide/use. Some may scoff, but these are some legit points (not enough to ban them IMHO). Now how do you address these points besides claiming self-defense, fun, or by banning them you only hurt the good guys. When we say we need assult rifles because they're fun, or it's our responsibility, anti's and most of the general population dismiss us as gun nuts and crazies. How do you address thier points? Hopefully the answer isn't we'll never change thier minds but I have a sneaking suspicion this is probably the case.

I've actually met a lot of people on DU who changed their minds about the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch when I explained what it's about, what it's NOT about, and how rarely rifles are misused to start with.

My approach, in a nutshell:

(1) most gun owners (4 out of 5) aren't hunters, so hunting guns are mostly irrelevant to the gun issue;
(2) the "assault weapon" meme is a bait-and-switch; actual military AK-47's and Uzi's are tightly controlled by existing law, and have nothing to do with bans on "assault weapons"; the issue is actually about NON-automatic civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out;
(3) non-automatic civilian rifles aren't a crime problem whatsoever (all rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of homicides annually, per the FBI;
(4) modern-looking small-caliber rifles are much more popular than the Bradyites would have you believe;
(5) threatening to ban people's guns is a really, really dumb idea politically; and
(6) banning rifle handgrips that stick out is really not as important as the REAL issues facing the country.


OK, in detail. First of all, address the deliberate confusion over what the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch actually covers. Military AK-47's, actual Uzi's, and such are VERY tightly controlled by Federal law, the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and possession of one without Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4) is a 10-year Federal felony. The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch isn't about military weapons; it's about CIVILIAN rifles with handgrips that stick out, civilian rifles and pistols that hold more than 6 or 10 rounds, and civilian shotguns that hold more than 3 or 5 shells.

Visual aid:

Old-fashioned straight stock; Friendly Bradyite-Approved Carbine; legal everywhere in the United States, AFAIK

More modern-style stock with ergonomic handgrip; Evil Assault Weapon With No Other Purpose Than Mass Murder

Look closely, and you'll see that the rifle in both pictures is the same gun; the photos were taken a minute or so apart.




OK, about how rifles are almost never misused. The prohibitionists talk the most about the "dangers" of modern-looking rifles, but all rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of homicides annually, per the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2005, Table 20, Murder, By Type of Weapon. Many states report ZERO rifle homicides in any given year. In Massachusetts (OP's state), there were 171 murders in 2005; all rifles COMBINED accounted for one of them. 46 times as many people were killed with knives, fists, and feet as with all rifles COMBINED.

The same holds true for every state. Illinois (where the prohibitionists are peddling a lot of scaremongering about modern looking rifles): 448 homicides, only 4 of them by rifle. Maryland--551 homicides, 4 of them by rifle. Civilian rifles, even modern-looking ones, are not a crime problem and never have been.

Fighting to ban rifle handgrips that stick out, when rifles are almost never misused, is a quixotic pursuit, and most intelligent people can see that if you show them the facts.




Some satire on the topic:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=234635&highlight=honda+civic



FWIW, the primary weapons of the Columbine killers were sawed-off 12-gauge hunting shotguns (a pump and a side-by-side), not "assault weapons." One of the killers also carried a low-capacity 9mm carbine (Hi Point), and the other one had a nontraditional looking 9mm pistol (Intratec DC9, 9mm with a forward mounted magazine), but IIRC most of the victims who died were killed with the shotguns.

 

[Sistema1927]

Two points, one post.

1) Sometimes we need to turn the questions back on the questioners. One of the reasons why the questions get asked is due to the fact that the nature of the question tends to stop discussion. For example, I believe that it is Clint Smith who responds to the question "Doesn't violence beget more violence?" in this way: "I CERTAINLY HOPE SO! I hope that when violent men attack the innocent that other men give them more violence than they can handle." (My apologies to Clint if I have not quoted this properly, or to the real author if it is not Clint.)

2) Re. the comments about Maslow's heirarchy of needs: Even though an EBR might be seen by many of us as the fulfillment of "Self-Actualization" or "Esteem", it might very well prove essential in protecting "Love/Belonging", "Safety", and the "Physiological". As a result, Maslow actually argues that we "need" them.

 

[BobTheTomato]

Hmmmm.....I think its a good way to keep your house from being looted or burned down in a riot. What else are you suppoed to use, harsh language?

 

[up_onus]

My main reasons - SHTF - Governmental Protection, deterent.
Although people seem to think "That can never happen here!", why take the chance? I would rather be prepared in that case than regret not being prepared....

 

[Essex County]

So I can leave my AR leaning next to the backdoor when some of my wife's liberal, politicaly correct co-workers stop by. BTW I'm a Charles Bronson Wannabe........Essex

 

[ramis]

For example, I believe that it is Clint Smith who responds to the question "Doesn't violence beget more violence?" in this way: "I CERTAINLY HOPE SO! I hope that when violent men attack the innocent that other men give them more violence than they can handle." (My apologies to Clint if I have not quoted this properly, or to the real author if it is not Clint.)

I believe it was Col. Jeff Cooper who said,


"One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that 'violence begets violence.' I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure--and in some cases I have--that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy."

ramis

 

[Frog48]

So who do we need 'assault rifles'?

My response would be, "Why the hell not?"

The 2nd Amendment isnt conditional, despite what politicians would like you to believe. Why should someone have to pass a background check to own a firearm? Why should certain types of firearms be off limits? It just doesnt make any sense.

Imagine if the other guarantees of the Bill of Rights were conditional: You can only exercise freedom of speech or religion, or legal counsel, or protection from unreasonable search/seizure, etc if you submit to a background check, obtain the appropriate permits, are are deemed worthy by the government... Scary thought, huh?

 

[SSN Vet]

the same reason .....

that they need an x-box, nintendo, gamestation, whatever.....

because you think their cool and you like to go to the range and play with them, and your a law obiding citizen who knows how to handle firearms responsibly and safely.

 

[shield20]

Generally,
1) I need legal-to-own military-style rifles for the same reason I need all the other guns I own - in case I need to shoot something. Luckily so far that has been limited to things I wanted to shoot - like targets, clay birds and a few old cans.

2) I want legal to own military-style rifles for the same reasons I want all the guns I own (and a few others I don't...yet) - because they typically are among the best designed, they typically have alot of history associated with them, or mostly because they typically have specific features I prefer, so they typically fill a specific NEED the best.
[For what "need" that might be, see #1.]


RIGHT NOW though, I NEED legal-to-own miliatry style rifles because there is a real good chance in the near future my newly elected state and federal governments will tell me I can't have them.

 

[crunker]

To protect myself from paranoid ****ers who don't trust me with complex machinery.

 

[Dirk Pitt]

Becasue I want one.......... need has got nothing to do with it.

 

[Texas9]

Because I can't find a cheap Howitzer anymore

I can't for the life of me find it, but one of the brilliant minds here at THR said it best: It's NOT a matter of need. You don't tell them whether you need it or not. That's mainly because the anti's, as a general rule, believe in the power to regulate need, as if it should be up to the gov't what you can/can't have based on need. You tell them whatever you feel in your heart (I like it; I want it; that's what's comfortable for me to shoot; Oleg's answer; etc.) and that's that. You no more have to justify yourself wanting an AR than any of these silver-spoon fed 19-year-old college freshmen wanting a Porsche. You start getting into a discussion of need, and you will nearly always lose. I can hear it now: "You don't NEED an assault rifle. You don't NEED 17-rd mags for your pistol. You don't NEED anything larger than .22 Short. You don't NEED....." The list is eternal, and they will whittle you down from a tree to a toothpick.

Personally, I've actually used the (insert favorite sports car here) retort before with surprising results. It's particularly effective on someone who actually owns said car

Oh, and the whole thing about semi/full auto thing is important. Perhaps most important, actually. They need to know that an AR does not fit the definition of "assault rifle."

 

[Lonestar.45]

Because shooting one on the Play Station is pretty lame after you've shot the real thing.

 

[marcodelat]

because...

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Why Do I Need?

I've made a conscious effort to NOT post in this thread. The "assault" rifle/weapon threads can get all emotional and stuff.

Must . . . not . . . respond . . . must . . . not . . .

And then I read #81 (ctdonath) and #82 (benEzra). Suffering from actual rationality here.

Curse the lot of you!

Okay, fine, be that way; you can HAVE my post.

I don't have this conversation often, as I tend to avoid the whole conflict/confrontation thing, but it does happen.

The following is a synthesis, cobbled together from memory, of a few such conversations. The form is essntially the same, the details vary, but this is the essence:

(By the time we get this far, we're past the "evil" and "kill people" stuff, and usually the definition of "assault RIFLE" stuff. If that hasn't resolved, this part of the conversation never happens.)

Him: Why does anyone need "one of those?"
Me: Why do you ask? Is the question rhetorical, or are you wanting an actual answer?
Him: Well, I'd like to know why people think they need one. I mean, aren't they just asking for trouble?
Me: There are plenty of reasons, how about we work on just one?
Him: Fine.
Me: Would an analogy be acceptable?
Him: Try me.
Me: Fire extinguisher. Spare Tire. Seat belts. First Aid kit. You have any of those?
Him: Yeah, all of them.
Me: Planning on having a fire? Flat tire? Accident?
Him: No, but those are commonplace, and you just never know.
Me: Do you need your seat belt every day? You've been driving for years. How often do you need it?
Him: Well, you never know. Anything can happen on the roads.
Me: You're old enough, remember the LA riots in '92? After the Rodney King verdict?
Him: Yeah, there was looting and burning and stuff.
Me: Ever notice which stores were left alone?
Him: No, which ones?
Me: The ones who had rifles in their storerooms and offices. The ones who got up on their roofs and kept the looters away with those rifles.
Him: Yeah, but that was a riot. We don't have riots here.
Me: Don't have, or can't have?
Him: Well, it's not likely.
Me: So, if you had a store, you would bet your whole livelihood and fortune and the welfare of your family on that?
Him: We have police.
Me: So does LA, and they have more than we do. They followed orders, and stayed back away from the rioters and looters. The shopkeepers in Koreatown were on their own.
Him: Well, okay, why would you need one at home?
Me: You're not serious. Home invasions happen WAY more than riots.
Him: Not where I live.
Me: I'll bet car accidents don't happen on your street, either. Do you wait until you're on the highway to put on your seat belt?
Him: No, but that's not the point. Home invasions aren't like accidents.
Me: That's true, and if you believe that it can't happen to you, you're free to remain unarmed. That's a risk I wouldn't take with my home and family, though.
Him: Well, I'm not gonna keep something like that around.
Me: Your choice. Me, I think I'd rather be prepared and never need it. Needing it and not having it would suck.
Him: I depend on the police to keep the neighborhood safe.
Me: The courts have made it clear it's not their job to protect an individual, so I would have to believe that's my job.
Him: Yeah, but an assault rifle?
Me: We covered that. It's just a rifle. We went over the ergonomics thing.
Him: Yeah, but why would you need that many bullets.
Me: For the same reason your fire extinguisher will put out a fire the size of your whole kitchen. If you know in advance that only one person will break into your house, then just load the magazine with two or three rounds. Simple!
Him: But you can't know that in advance!
Me: True. Guess I'll just have to load the mag to capacity then.
Him: I think you're over-prepared.
Me: And that would be my choice. My fire extinguisher is probably bigger than yours, too. I can live with that.
Him: What about criminals? Don't they use them?
Me: FBI stats say rifles of any kind are not a significant factor in crime. I'll take their word for it.
Him: Well, it's like, y'know, you're getting ready for war.
Me: Well, look, we were just doing a single reason, right? The fact that the population of able-bodied men is the militia and is supposed to be armed in case they're needed by the government, that's a different issue. Let's try to stay with the reason we're discussing.
Him: Militia? That's the National Guard.
Me: Dude, you need to read more. The Guard was created more than a hundred years after the Constitution. Look, I understand that you're not comfortable with rifles that look just like the military stuff, even though they don't work the same. I know that you've been told over and over that the cops will keep you safe, and you sort of believe that, even though you know it's not true.
There are things that bother me, too. I'm not good with power tools. Chain saws scare me, and I've never used one. If I got the chance, and someone would teach me, I'd probably be okay with them. I was that way with guns, too. I got lucky and someone took the time to help me with that.
When you're ready, I'll be happy to spend some time with you at the range. You can get your hands dirty and get some experience with rifles. Pistols, too, if you want.
Him: Well, I don't know.
Me: There is one thing, though. Safety is a big thing with shooters, and you're gonna have to learn safe gun handling before anyone puts a rifle or pistol in your hands. If you can deal with that, I'd be happy to teach you.
Him: Well, if you teach safety, I guess that might be okay.
Me: Let me know when you're ready.
​

These conversations almost never result in the guy going "Okay! I'm sold! Sign me up!" Sometimes the conversation doesn't get past "the police will keep us safe."

In two cases, however, we got to the range. In one case, the guy bought a revolver.

I'll take the win wherever I can get it.

 

[Srigs]

Easy one... Because it is my right too!

 

[dtalley]

I like; because I am a member of Homeland Security.

 

[Sharps-shooter]

Civic duty

Earlier in this thread I gave a list of funny responses. But the real reason is civic duty. I believe that an adult in a society ought to do certain things in order to be a good citizen, in order to contribute to the society as a whole being better. This is why I keep abreast of current events. This is why i hold the door for someone. This is why I work a job, when I could just live off of other people. And this is why I stand ready to defend myself, my family, and my community. Because a successful society depends on people behaving responsibly, rather than hoping that someone, somewhere, will take up the slack for them.

 

[Sistema1927]

ramis:

I believe it was Col. Jeff Cooper...

You are correct sir. My apologies to the memory of Colonel Cooper.

What is funny is the fact that while I was double checking your quote I ran across a site that quoted Clint Smith as saying "A handgun is what you use to fight back to your rifle". Now, I would have sworn that it was Jeff Cooper who had said that. I wonder if I am starting to show the symptoms of "old timers" disease.