Quick note: For the sake of argument, and to be fair, when I say AR-15 I include variant firearms within its class. So basically any semi-automatic rifle capable of firing the same ammunition as the AR-15 at the same rate and with the same magazine capacity.
To answer the question at hand we’ll need to do a little unpacking. First, it should be noted that despite media rhetoric the AR-15 is not an assault rifle, but we’ll unpack that more later since it’s not quite as pertinent right now. Those who contest the AR-15 are much more concerned about its powerful tactical capabilities than they are concerned about its categorization of assault rifle.
So, considering its proven tactical characteristics, is the AR-15 really necessary?
Well, why do we have an amendment for our right to bear arms at all?
To hunt? No.
Sport? No.
Self-Defense? Right on target! (pun most definitely intended)
But the question we’re tackling doesn’t challenge our right to bear arms for defense, but whether we need an AR-15 to do so instead of a less sophisticated firearm such as a handgun, non-tactical rifle, or shotgun. So while we’ve affirmed our right to defend ourselves with firepower, the question still stands as to whether an AR-15 is necessary.
Yes, I argue it is.
Why?
Because defense should always meet or exceed the capacity of its offense.
When police are called to an active shooter situation including a high-powered rifle, do they show up with only handguns? No! They’re equipped and prepared to eliminate the threat swiftly and effectively to preserve as much life as possible.
Yea, but police are trained with the AR-15. Civilians aren’t required to train in order to buy them.
Sure, but the concerns against the AR-15 don’t involve training. They involve evil people who have done terrible things with them. Responsible gun-owners should not be punished for the few criminals who go on mass-shooting sprees just like not all Muslims should be categorized by terrorists and not all men should be categorized by Justin Bieber.
So yes, the AR-15 should be legal so as to afford citizens proper and effective tools of self-defense– the very purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
But the AR-15 is only equal defense to another AR-15, and most criminals use handguns or shotguns. How many are actually using an AR-15?
Apparently enough for liberals to wish legislation against them. But even if it were few, defense should not only meet but exceed its offense. If we ban the AR-15 we will only reduce the good samaritans armed with them, not the criminals.
Oh yea!? Orlando and Sandyhook both involved an AR-15 that was purchased legally!
I know. But if it were illegal, they’d just get something else to do the same thing. Despite progressive ideology, mass murderers don’t change their plans based on what is legal.
Criminals will get firearms either way. In fact, do you know what’s just as easy as legally purchasing an AR-15? Illegally acquiring an AK-47. That’s worse.
Why?
The bullet used in an AR-15 is a 5.56mm, shown on top. The bullet used in an AK-47 is a 7.62mm. Notice how much larger the AK round is? The standard magazine capacity is the same with the AR and AK, 30 rounds. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon, one bullet per trigger squeeze, whereas the AK-47 is an automatic weapon, bullets spray continually as long as the trigger is pulled– the pinnacle description of an assault rifle. Summarized: The AK-47 is easily acquirable on the black market in practically any region, it’s automatic, it holds the same among of bullets, and it has larger bullets.
Deceitful Rhetoric of the Media
The Huffington Post released a deceitful article (no surprise) arguing the ban of the AR-15 due to its similarities with the military variant, the M-16 (recently upgraded to the M4.) The argument was that since the AR-15 is so similar to the M4, which is illegal for civilian use, it should be banned. The article sited the only difference being that the M4 is automatic and the AR-15 is semi-automatic. The problem is, the AR-15 is not the M4 and thus shouldn’t be illegal.
Where do you stop with “close to illegal therefore illegal?”
Also, the M4 is not automatic. The only setting that separates the two is the M4’s “burst” mode which projects three rounds per trigger pull. But the media will lie and twist words to make their argument sound stronger, which says a lot when the strength of your argument relies not on premise, but on deception.
In summary: We should be allowed to bear arms necessary to defend ourselves against the threats against us. A government that creates statutes against the AR-15 only aids the enemy and creates a vulnerable state for their citizens.
