Why does a person need an AR15 Anyway?
By Tommy Acosta
(January 25, 2013)
This is the question CNN’s Piers Morgan keeps asking over and over again but no one gives him a satisfactory answer.
The reason for this is the question requires two distinct answers because it’s really two questions in one.
There is the “need” a person has to possess such a weapon; the desire to own one that is.
And there is the question of whether an automatic weapon is “needed” to defend oneself.
Let’s consider question number one.
Why does a person need an AR15 anyway?
Aside from hunters, the military, law enforcement, collectors, people who just love to pull triggers, tear up targets and feel the kick of a boom, Second Amendment patriots that believe it is their duty and right as Americans to be armed and of course criminals, for most others who buy or have guns, fear is the motivating factor — the fear of someone out there, especially a bad guy, having a bigger gun than you.
Seeing gun killings on TV or in movies, whether in the news or just entertainment, those that consider the possibility of such profound acts of violence happening to them in real life feel less threatened having weapons of equal or superior firepower to what they see is out there.
Whether the need is based on reality is not at issue. What matters is they believe in their hearts an AR15 will make them safer and therefore they need it.
There are numerous types of survival-based scenarios flaming the need for superior firepower .
Some believe a cataclysm, like a collapse of the internet due to an anonymous cyber attack would create total chaos that would turn ordinary, law-abiding people into criminals.
People caught off guard with no stocked provisions will form mobs and ransack homes. Lawlessness will rule. An AR15 is a better defense against a mob than a handgun.
There’s the fear an X Scale solar flare will erupt when the giant-sun spot lines itself up with the earth sometime this year that will knock out everything that is moved by electricity, plunging the planet into a darkness that may take decades to end.
Then there are those that believe China will invade us to collect the money we owe them if we default and still others believe a criminal element has taken over the governments of the world, including our own, and are planning to completely subjugate the human species once and for all by disarming them and ruling with an iron fist.
So these are a few real or imaginary reasons people feel they “need” to have an AR15 rifle.
Let’s consider the second question. Why does a person need an AR15 anyway?
Or, does a person need more than a handgun to protect themselves and family.
The number of assailants, the amount and type of arms they carry, the amount of bullets in the clips, the skill of the shooters, the cleanliness of the weapon, who-has-the-drop-on who, how near one is to their weapon, whether the weapons are loaded, marksmanship and ability to stay cool and aim properly under stress all come into play in answering that question.
In the realm of physics, considering all of the aforementioned factors, it boils down to a matter of how many bullets one has at their disposal and how fast they can fire them in fire-fight.
Let’s proceed with some visualization to better understand the dynamics of the answer
Imagine we live in a perfect gun-controlled world.
The government has gotten so efficient every single semi-automatic weapon has been taken away. Not even the criminals on the streets have them anymore.
Three bad guys decide to rob a house in a nice middle-class neighborhood where unbeknownst to them the owner happens to have a hand gun with a standard seven-round magazine, as limited by law.
Each of the bad guys has a gun. Same clip capacity and fully loaded.
They break in, only to come face to face with the man shakily aiming his gun at them.
They weigh the odds and whip out their own guns.
One of the thieves pulls the trigger missing the man.
The man fires off a couple of shots, hitting one thief and grazing another.
A wild fire fight ensues. The thieves discharge 20 rounds and the homeowner fires five more.
The smoke clears
The homeowner, who is wounded, is crawling towards the kitchen where he keeps his extra clips hidden.
Seeing the man’s gun is empty, with one last round in his own gun, the leader of the thieves calmly walks over to him.
He grabs the homeowner by the shoulder and flips him on his back
“I got one bullet left in this puppy,” he sneers, “and I saved it for you.”
He pulls the trigger and takes the man out with one last bang.
Upstairs, they hear the crying of the man’s wife and daughter.
They hesitate, consider their options but luckily for the dead man’s family, they grab their wounded accomplice and run out before the police arrive.
Now, let’s assume the man protecting his home just happened to have a fully-loaded AK47 handy that the government missed in their sweeps.
Let’s replay the scene.
The bad guys scope the house and break in. They come face-to-face with the homeowner who happens to be hefting the fearsome, battle-hardened semi-automatic, casually pointing it at their mid-sections.
The thieves gawk at AK47 with the big fat banana clip.
They know they are outgunned.
They smile sheepishly. They slowly put their hands up and walk backwards out of the house figuring the homeowner won’t fire unless totally necessary to avoid hassles with the cops.
They split, never to come back.
In such a scenario, clearly, having a semi-automatic rifle is better than not having one.
So there it is.
People “need” to possess AR15’s for various personal reasons and desires, based on facts or fiction.
AR15’s are “needed” to repel attacks by armed-multiple assailants.
This is an advertisement
19 Comments
Tommy:
First: The AR-15 is a SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifle that fires relatively small bullets (.223), about the size of a .22, but with more power. The AK-47 is a fully-automatic rifle that fires a larger bullet.
The reason for an American to have an AR-15 is to defend himself and his family against his own governments, as was intended and is stated in the 2nd amendment to our Constitution. History shows that every despotic government collected all of the private guns before the wholesale killings began. Our founders knew that could happen here and provided a remedy in advance.
See and hear you soon!
– Cole
Hi Ernie:
First off,I intentially defined the problem.
And further, the thieves in scenario one entered without having to break in because someone in the family forgot to lock the front door. The homeowner just happened to have finished cleaning his Golck just as they entered. A fortunate circumstance for his family.
In scenario two, the homeowner had a silent alarm system which the thieves tripped, alerting him to the breech, giving him time to fetch his trusty AK47. Because he has an illegal weapon he too is a criminal and it behooved him not to have an alarm that alerts the authorities. The thieves realized this as well and that is why they chose retreat.
The victorious homeowner opted wisely to confront the enemy on his own terms and persuade them to leave peacefully or in pieces, thanks to his little friend.
Homeowner number one wasn’t so lucky. But at least he had a gun and was able to hit one of them before dying. Because he had a gun, he essentially saved his wife and daughter from being raped and killed by the armed mauraders by giving up his life for them in a gunfight, an honorable way to go. Things might have turned out different had he had a few extra bullets.
And if you like statistics, fetch the ones showing the percentagen rise of gun and ammunition sales since obama took office. Also, note the disparity in cash spent on ammo over guns.
Once the sheer profitability of this business sinks in, then we understand why banning AR15s won’t happen without a Democrat majority in the House
Also, remember people are daily programmed to fear violance by movies,news media and violent video games.
It’s not so much that this programming inspires people to go out and kill but that it inspires people to go out and buy guns for protection.
This world of programmed fear is real for most everyone save those who can see the Wizard behind the curtain.
And don’t discount the patriots. They are the heart of America and champion the concepts of freedom, democracy and liberty. They may be the only ones seeing this issue clearly.
And thanks for the “OK Corrall” correlation.
I like what you said about the 2nd amendment Cole but don’t be an idiot about the AK-47 I’ve owned tons of these and none are fully auto as you suggest they are.
Here we go again. The big issue is that now we have a standing military and when the militia was important was when we did not have a standing army. Obviously many feel that government is/could be the problem, but in that case I guess you also need grenade launchers and nuclear weapons too – just in case. Tiresome.
No matter what – we need full disclosure (registration) for all guns and gun sales; a requirement that guns be locked up when not in use (especially in homes where others can get hold of them);and a requirement for gun insurance for the mayhem guns cause. In that case all gun owners would be paying for damages of their collective ownership. Also don’t forget the fact that insurance companies are far better at risk analysis than any psychiatrist.
Marlene, from your comments, you apparently don’t feel the need to have a gun in your house to protect you and your family from an intruder. Your naivete’ is frightening. Any nefarious individual with criminal intent could look your name up in the phone book to see where you live and would know that he would not be facing a bullet if he broke in. We don’t expect anything like this to happen here but the residents in Newtown, CT didn’t think that anything bad would happen in their sleepy little town either.
There was a recent incident where a mother with two young children had to retreat into the crawlspace in the attic to get away from an intruder who broke into her home. If she had not had a gun to protect herself and her children, the news story might have been about the brutal rape and murder of a mother and her two babies. Try convincing her that a gun is an evil thing to have.
My oh my isn’t it interesting Marlene that the study and understanding of history is so lacking in our education system today. Especially with adults. Grenade launchers? Nuclear weapons? Wow. The military will always have heavier weapons than the populous. The British did. However the legally armed citizens in the state of Texas outnumber our combined military personal, just so you have a little balance in your thought process. If you have never heard of “The shot that was heard around the world”, read up on it. It is part of our history and one of the core principals of our freedom.
Our founding fathers understood that the right to bear arms was the only way to protect the freedom of the citizenry from a tyrannical government, of which they FLED. They had a tad of experience in the matter. Yes, there were only muskets at that time, so the Freedom fighter had muskets. The Brits had muskets, and so the escalation occurs and the balance fortunately is with 100 million legally armed citizens today.
Anarchy is bad – Tyranny is bad. It is on a scale, and when you look at the scale, where the country was when we were the most prosperous, and building wealth for everyone as compared to today, where we are becoming a society that wants cradle to grave coverage, the bar is sliding more towards tyranny. We of course are not there…yet.
What is “tiresome” is that liberals don’t get the meaning nor comprehend the core reason for the second amendment, and that it was not for hunting deer. A locked up gun when not in use is not a big help when someone is kicking in the door, unless you have a quick access fingerprint security box. They are available. But now you are telling what someone can do with their private property. What’s next? The examples of government overreach are endless, and we already are starting see them. If you are REALLY concerned about people losing their lives due to “things” and reckless behavior, there are a lot more serious things to talk bout other than legal guns owned by law abiding citizens that kill many more people.
Insurance? Who pays for the damage done by criminals who destroy property and lives? Are they carrying insurance? Why is it that liberals always want to blame law abiding citizens. Bad guys can always get firearms. The same way they get drugs, and other illegal substances. That’s why they’re called criminals.
A recent article by Walter Williams talked about his school years, where the boys brought rifles to school so they could compete in target practice after school. And now a little girl gets into big trouble for cutting out a piece of paper that looks like a door stop that a school “official” said it was representation of a gun?
Maybe it is time to start taking some person responsibility again and look in the mirror to find the problem.
We hear the police chief in a small town in NY telling us how his officers can respond to a call in one to two minutes. That’s great. Unless the guy has already kicked the door in, but let’s give him that. Then we here the Sheriff in Minnesota making the flat statement in the last 24 hours that he cannot respond quick enough to protect you in your home OR if you are accosted with a gun on the street, and tells people it is a good idea if they feel comfortable to protect THEMSELVES with a firearm. In most cases, the cops arrive in time to clean up the mess, not to prevent anything.
I was at a meeting last week with the Sheriff of Yavapai County, unless you have city police, like Sedona, where response can still be over 5 minutes, the Sheriff can only say that response time in the county can be 20 to 30 MINUTES. Who protects you then if not you? Are YOU willing Marlene to take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for all these people? Times are tough, economy is in the toilet, people get desperate and bad things happen. If you do not want to own a firearm, that is your right. It is NOT your right to prevent others from protecting themselves or their families.
Background checks – I think we can all deal with that. KEEPING the information in a national data base? I don‘t think so. That has been done before, and then the people in charge pass a law and outlaw all your firearms and they know where to come and get them. Very bad idea.
If you do not remember anything else, know this: More human beings in the 20th century were slaughtered by their own governments than all the wars combined, by a long shot. And the first thing they do is lull people into complacency, “BIG BROGHTER” will take care of you, then they after they disarm you they are telling you to “board the train”.
The Second Amendment is two fold, to protect our freedom and guarantee the right to protect ourselves. And by the way, a semi automatic shotgun can make far bigger holes than a little 223 from an AR15. But again, doesn’t look as “scary” but being duped by the press is all part of the deal for an ignorant population.
Marlene. Really? I think you might be in the wrong country. In THIS country we will NEVER register our guns. In this country, we will NEVER abide by such a stupid suggestion as to insure them as well. And for your information, responsible gun owners DO lock up their guns in a safe place not accessible by intruders and/or children. You wanna make some suggestions about changing something that’s broken? Start researching how many people are MURDERED every year from drunk driving, hospital infections, civilians murdered by US Military in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
Thanks, Tommy,
Wow! Those were some very creative scenarios – do I sense movie or video game plots? I do believe your answers to the “why” question represent a certain (hopefully tiny) component of society. Whether intended or not, you have essentially defined the problem.
Responding to question #1…such imaginary fears verge on a paranoid personality, exactly the class of folks who shouldn’t possess AR 15’s. Let me agree that such persons exist, however by extension, that person would require (“have a need for”) a much greater arsenal of weaponry to stave off each imagined scenario. Of the thousands of people I know, I can’t think of any that hold such views, so unless I live in a particularly warped universe, the percentages of such persons should be thankfully rather low. Should society accommodate all perceived needs, regardless of the probability factor involved by paranoic minds? A much scarier world for the balance of us not contemplating such “going out in a blaze of glory” movie plots.
Re: Question #2…I attempted unsuccessfully (because they do not exist) to find statistics related to the the percentage of robberies (thefts with victims present) that occur as “home invasions” . However, all robberies (convenience stores and other “hold-ups”, purse snatchings, car hijacking, etc.) may occur to less than .1% of us. Factor down to home invasions with occupants present. Then factor down to the % involving firearms (that statistic for all robberies is stated at 41%). Then factor down to occupied invasions involving multiple perpetrators (another small percentage) and you begin to approach the chances of being struck by lightening. Even so, does one ignore a threat? No, but one does not run into a concrete bunker at every thunderstorm either. Locking doors and windows and installing a home alarm system is way more efficient (cost-wise and preventative) than purchasing an AR15, getting properly trained, purchasing and consuming the ammunition to stay proficient, obtaining and installing a secure locked gun cabinet, etc. But hell, it ain’t nearly as much fun. You forgot the fun factor, Tommy.
I got a charge out of your “gunfight at the OK Corrall” scenario, but then developed a slightly more feasible situation. Multiple armed assailants breaking into an assumed occupied home, will not likely break down a door or break a window with a crowbar, giving the occupant the opportunity to find and load his own potential weapon. From their viewpoint in planning (multiple parties require some coordinated plan), surprise is a most essential factor in success. Chances are you will not have the opportunity to get to and unlock your gun cabinet before your assailants are upon you (I therefore suggest that all AR15 owners sleep on their back with their weapon across their chest).
Tommy, this fantasy world of threats lurking behind every door (if you were a military veteran they’d call it PTSD) is a place many of us would not like to live in. When, or if, a majority of us were to hold these fears and the resultant reaction thereto, our society, whether capitalist, socialist, communist or fascist is finished, and the end of rationally progressing evolutionary process is at hand.
Unfortunately, the link at the end of the article below does not appear to be active but my point is that the scenario that you say is not likely to happen, did happen just last Tuesday (Jan 22, 2013) to two young college students. Long story short, when the armed intruder opened the bedroom door, he looked down the barrel of an AR-15 and immediately ran out of the building with his accomplice. The AR-15 that the student was holding was unloaded but it was enough of a deterrent that just the sight of it pointed at the chest of the intruder may have saved the lives of these two young men.
Home Intruders Flee After Seeing ‘Victim’ Holding An AR-15
No shots were fired. That’s an important fact. On Tuesday, two home intruders, one holding a handgun, broke into a New York apartment and waited at the bottom of the stairs for a potential “victim” to come down. After hearing some noise coming from the basement, Christopher Boise, a student at Rochester Institute of Technology, went to check it out. After seeing the intruders, he retreated back to his bedroom.
Get the rest of the story HERE.
Nice try Ernie – tell it to the wife that was hiding in the attic with her revolver in Georgia, after unloading all her rounds on the guy who was after her and her kids, he was still moving. Just a couple weeks ago.
Or tell that to the crowd at the movie theater in San Antonio, TWO DAYS after the massacre in New Town, December 16, 2012. A guy walked into a diner in San Antonio to kill his ex-girlfriend, then people scatted into the movie theatre next door, where the crazed guy followed and was about to do another Aurora, CO. He started shooting and people scattered.
And why didn’t the main stream media report this? Only TWO days after New Town? You would think it would be “Big News” to all the gun haters wouldn’t you? There was an off duty county deputy in the theater and SHE pulled out her gun and shot the guy 4 times. No national coverage???
So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened. Maybe you need to look outside the lame media.
Another thing you might do is pick up a copy of Rifleman, the NRA publication, where you will find each MONTH just a few of the documented police reports of people defending themselves in their homes from break-ins WHILE THEY ARE HOME every single month.
It is easy to miss data when you want to ignore it.
The gun control controversy is only the latest of many issues to be debated almost solely in terms of fixed preconceptions, with little or no examination of hard facts.
The central question as to whether gun control laws save lives or cost lives has generated many factual studies over the years. But these studies have been like the proverbial tree that falls in an empty forest, and has been heard by no one — certainly not by zealots who have made up their minds and don’t want to be confused by the facts.
Most factual studies show no reduction in gun crimes, including murder, under gun control laws. A significant number of studies show higher rates of murder and other gun crimes under gun control laws.
In fact, murder by firearms according to the FBI have dropped dramatically across the US even though gun ownership has increased, especially since 2008.
How can this be? It seems obvious to some gun control zealots that, if no one had guns, there would be fewer armed robberies and fewer people shot to death.
But nothing is easier than to disarm peaceful, law-abiding people. And nothing is harder than to disarm people who are neither — especially in a country with hundreds of millions of guns already out there, that are not going to rust away for centuries.
When it was legal to buy a shotgun in London in the middle of the 20th century, there were very few armed robberies there. But, after British gun control zealots managed over the years to disarm virtually the entire law-abiding population, armed robberies became literally a hundred times more common. And murder rates rose.
One can cherry-pick the factual studies, or cite some studies that have subsequently been discredited, but the great bulk of the studies show that gun control laws do not in fact control guns. On net balance, they do not save lives but cost lives.
Gun control laws allow some people to vent their emotions, politicians to grandstand and self-righteous people to “make a statement” — but all at the cost of other people’s lives.
An AK-47 can be fired in semi-or fully automatic mode. If one believes their government protects them, they don’t need weapons. If they don’t, they do.
Correct – but it must be modified for full auto at which time it is illegal unless you have a special permit.
“Of the thousands of people I know, I can’t think of any that hold such views”. Oops! I apologize, Cole.
Folks,
I am going to propose a radical idea about this assault weapon issue.
I propose one of our great weapon companies, or Engineers at MIT, design a new assault weapon for the market and remove the current one. The new one is fully electronically controlled. It has a trigger which only causes an internal electronic device to fire the weapon. This internal electronic device must not work if the battery is weak,or missing, and it must be sealed in the weapon such that if there is an attempt to alter the weapon it will not fire. Perhaps the electronics is sealed and only a certified gunsmith can open it.
Now the reason for this weapon is that it can be disabled by an electronic signal from a transmitter, such as in a school, a campus, a hospital or wherever desired .Perhaps a policeman or the Swat team could carry a portable disabling transmitter. This weapon would satisfy those who just want to go out and fire it but would protect our schools, colleges and the like.
Bill Eich
Sedona
Good idea – unless you are the bad guy and has acquired one of the 300 million firearms that are already in the market – or get lucky enough to get Erich Holder’s bunch to buy one for you and give it to you untraced like his group did for the cartels in Mexico
The irony of this conversation is that everybody in the nation is focused on an inanimate object. Pure and simple.
A rock is harmless unless it’s moving, and that is either by a gravity assist, or a person picks it up. Millions of people pick up rocks every day – very few do so with malicious intent.
It’s the same with any “weapon” – millions of people handle all types of “weapons” every day, from hammers to cars. It’s not a problem until a PERSON has malicious intent!! Far more people are killed by blunt instruments than guns – but the fear-based media has an agenda of blame that doesn’t include solving the REAL problem.
The REAL problem is people! Pure and simple.
If the same amount of time and effort was placed on malicious intent as gun “control”, then the weapon becomes irrelevant because the weapon is NOT the problem – it is the state of mind of the person using whatever they are holding.
I would love to see this issue get refocused on the REAL PROBLEM…
There is a very simple reply to those of you who believe that Gun Control will make / keep us safe. All dictators/despots in history have first disarmed their citizens, then these very bad men have taken over their countries, waged war on other countries, and caused the murder of hundreds of thousands of their subjects. The Holocaust happened in part because people in Germany and Poland were no longer able to protect themselves from Hitler’s thugs.
Remember: Those who have arms are Citizens – those without are Subjects!
We are American Citizens – we are NOT subjects of a dictatorship. If you want gun control, go to Chicago – they have the highest rate of murder by gun in the country! Or move to another country, where Socialism is accepted as a way of life. But keep your hands off my guns and leave our Constitution alone!
Leigh Shafer,
Sedona
Why does the government purchase (with tax payer money) millions of rounds of ammunition and thousands of assault rifles and, at the same time, try to ban citizen ownership of firearms? Hello? Is anybody out there awake?
Your scenarios are so conveniently set-up for your purpose. However, why don’t you speak about reality? Restrictive gun laws do nothing to prevent crime. That is a fact as seen in Chicago and other cities that have gun restrictions. The 2nd Amendment should never be tampered with. It is our right to have the ability to defend ourselves, not only against the criminal but against a government that is tyrannical. This administration is heading in that direction – constantly regulating every aspect of our lives by limiting our freedoms; freedom in our choices in the free market, healthcare, religion and free speech to name a few. You are being used in that effect. Why don’t you use your pen to good cause by pursuing how the administration let 4 Americans die in Benghazi or how this administration is still not helping all those effected by Hurricane Sandy. You and your liberal brethren, who like to call themselves journalists, have let this president and his administration get away with too much. Why don’t you pursue the President(BHO) and the DOJ in their attempt at gun running using Fast and Furious. Here you continue to do his work in trying to take away a fundamental and very important right.
It is so frustrating to see the hypocrisy in the politicians and others who want to infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights when they put bills in place to take away our rights but exclude themselves, such as Diane Feinstein, Mayor Bloomberg, actors, so-called journalists, activists, etc. Democrats are clamoring for a gun ban. It doesn’t matter that the federal government has no business tracking us or telling us what firearms we can or can’t own, but now liberals like Dianne Feinstein are throwing in a hefty dose of hypocrisy. It turns out that Feinstein’s bill would exempt her from the restrictions placed on everyone else.
A recently unbelievable act by BHO was to send the Muslim Brotherhood, fighter jets, arms and money. They have sworn us as their enemies. So our own president arms our enemies but wants to take away our right to defend ourselves. Total hypocrisy and dare I say, treasonous. He is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. BHO swore to uphold the Constitution and protect the citizens of the United States of America. He has violated that sworn oath with this act and has been charged with that by a recent court ruling on another matter.
The media is using the recent event in Newtown to forward their and the president’s ideology and agenda. They are rallying the sheeple via misinformation, hype and lies.