In our latest Liberty Update piece “Inconvenient Truths Undermine Gun-Controllers’ Myths,” we systematically dismantle the untruths offered by 2nd Amendment rights opponents, including their exaggerated claims regarding U.S. murder and mass shooting rates.
In addition to rightfully exposing the misconceptions and outright lies perpetuated by those seeking to deprive law-abiding Americans of their rights, however, it helps to highlight the affirmative benefits of Second Amendment rights, i.e., the value of what we’re protecting.
In that regard, National Review’s David French offers a brilliant piece entitled “Dear Anti-Gun Liberals, Don’t Tell Me Which Gun I ‘Need’ for Self-Defense.” French first explains why a law-abiding American would prefer something like an AR-15 for self-defense:
Any person who breaks into my house or who threatens my family on my property will very soon find themselves staring at the business end of an AR-15… It’s light, maneuverable, accurate, and highly reliable. While self-defense experts can and do disagree on the optimal weapon for home defense, large numbers choose AR-style rifles for exactly the reasons I do. It provides more firepower – with greater accuracy – than the alternatives.
But now I’m told – largely by people who don’t know the first thing about firearms – that no American ‘needs’ an AR-style rifle. But when your life is on the line, what do you want? More accuracy or less? More firepower or less? More recoil or less? More reliability or less? It’s always interesting to take a relatively inexperienced shooter to a range, let them shoot a handgun (where bullets generally scatter all over the target), and then hand them an AR. Even rookies will shoot far more accurately with far less recoil. It’s just easier to use.”
Importantly, French then contrasts why an AR-style rifle is not an optimal weapon of choice for a burglar or violent criminal:
But not – in general – for criminals. For the average criminal, concealment is the key. So they use handguns. Moreover, the average criminal isn’t spending $1,000 (or sometimes more) on their weapon. Rarely (very rarely), extraordinary criminals will use AR-type rifles, but most mass shootings are committed with handguns.”
“Which weapon do I ‘need’ for self-defense?,” French asks in conclusion. ”Why don’t you let me make that choice.”
As we concluded in our Liberty Update piece, anyone seeking to restrict others’ Constitutional rights bears the burden of proof to justify their desire. In this debate, as illustrated by French, they don’t come anywhere close to satisfying that burden.