@UnparalleledMonster: the 2nd Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms. It's not limited to militia. Read the SCOTUS opinion in Heller v. DC (2008) Or even USA v. Miller (1939).
Of course, there are many restrictions on the types of arms. Beware...the SCOTUS opinion in USA v. Miller challenges some gun control premises. In that case, it was determined that short barrel shotguns were not protected under the 2A because they had no practical military use. Based on USA v. Miller, I can argue that civilians should not be restricted from owning M-16s. Rest assured, I am not suggesting that. ☺
OK, I understand you may not know a lot about firearms. I think that is where gun rights advocates differ greatly from gun control activists. Take a look at these two rifles in the picture below:
Many gun control advocates assume rifle #2 is more dangerous than rifle #1. However, they are virtually the same. #1 is the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle. #2 is the Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rifle. They look different, but are functionally identical. They use the same magazine, and could easily be interchanged.
If you consider the laws banning the assault weapons, #1 is legal, but #2 is banned. Yet they are equally lethal. #2 simply looks more frightening due to it's para-military features.
There is a very significant difference between semi-automatic and select fire capabilities (full auto and multi-round bursts). The US military has never issued AR-15s. Regardless of semi-auto only v. select fire, most AR-15s do not meet military specifications regardless.
Oddly too...there are a number of handguns, shotguns and bolt action rifles that are used currently by the US military, which are legal for civilian ownership. No one is suggesting a ban of those firearms.
So...why the AR-15?
You've mentioned above. There is a notion that an AR-15 is a killing machine, a weapon of war, and is designed only to kill lots of people. These are really gun control marketing tag lines.
What is it about the AR-15 or an AK-47 that makes them deadlier than say a semi-automatic pistol or shotgun? This is the question I've not seen effectively answered.
The vast majority of firearm homicides, including mass shootings, are actually committed with handguns. Concealabilty is the feature making a handgun attractive in the commission of a crime.
I'm not ignoring those instances in which a para-military rifle has been used.
But in those cases where a rifle such as an AR-15 was used...did using an AR-15 make the situation worse than if the shooter uses a different type of firearm?
The very thought of this question turns my stomach, but I think we need to discuss it. Remember the Virginia Tech mass murder? The shooter used a Glock 19, 9mm handgun. He fire 170 rounds, emptying 17, ten round magazines, killing over 30 people, and then killed himself. One of the Columbine shooters used a Hi Point 995 rifle with 10 round magazines...firing 96 rounds before shooting himself.
The issue with mass shootings isn't magazine capacity. It literally takes 2 to 3 seconds to change magazines on a semi-automatic rifle (even less with a handgun). The shooter simply brings more magazines with him and there simply is no time to effective respond to the pause as magazines are exchanged. I know that doesn't provide much comfort, but these are logistical facts.
The issue is that the mass shooter does not stop until someone else stops them. That's why they go to crowded venues where it's unlikely that someone else is armed. It means they have several minutes to shoot until police arrive. And there have been a few cases in which a possible mass shooting was thwarted by a civilian carrying a gun. But these instances did not escalate.
You might even be thinking that there simply is no good reason for a civilian to own an AR-15. Actually, there are.
They are excellent for home defense. Please hear me out...
They are light weight, relatively simple to use, and the lack heavy recoil makes a follow up shot easier (as opposed to a shotgun for example). People are generally much more accurate with a shoulder fired firearm than with a handgun.
The .223 caliber round less likely to over penetrate than almost any other caliber. At velocities in excess of 2500 feet per second, the .223 will tumble and break apart once it has struck something. A .223 is unlikely to penetrate more than 3 layers of sheet rock. And if you use what are known as "home defense" rounds...designed specifically to prevent over penetration...the likelihood of hitting something unintended is reduced even further.
But here is the thing about home defense many people don't consider. Home invasions happen on a daily basis and are far more common than mass shootings. The average home invasion involves 3 perpetrators. They may be armed.
The best reason for owning an AR-15 is that it is excellent against multiple assailants, i.e., the home invasion scenario.
If you think about mass shooters...their victims are almost always unarmed. The reality is that they reload and continue shooting regardless of the type of firearm or capacity limitations of the magazine. The AR-15 does not make the shooter more lethal.
I could go on, but I've probably provided too much to digest.
