Mr. Anderson on Assault Weapons...

Ken Anderson
4:33 PM (edited)

Is this woman supposed to be taken seriously?  This woman is completely uninformed.  "They are very scary.  They intimate me."  Of course they do.  They are meant to.  If you are not intimidated by someone with an AR-15 in your presence, well, you must be in the military.  Further, she states (whines, actually), in defense of assault rifles, "but it doesn't function that much different [sic] from a haaaandgun!"  They are only different in "cosmetic features" she condescends.  Are you kidding me?  She declines to mention the huge, overwhelming difference: that assault rifles shoot high-velocity bullets and produce high-velocity wounds, whereas handguns shoot bullets at low-velocity, and create low velocity wounds.  As opposed to a bullet hole from a handgun (which will stop anybody in their tracks), assault rifles can remove an arm, and blow out tire-sized chunks of flesh from a person's body.  Real useful in everyday society.  It's like saying "an armored tank functions pretty much the same way a slingshot does" as a defense for citizens having tanks.  And Holy Hanna is she not funny.  Oh, and "This is America" in slo-mo is an extremely insightful argument in support of citizens armed with assault rifles.  Really gets to the core of Piers' question "Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle."  Score one for logic.
Collapse this comment

Blog Author
6:01 PM
Edit
If so-called assault rifles are not necessary or good for self defense then why do the police and military use them? These are the best weapons for defense of self, family, and country.

A statist such as yourself will never accept that the citizenry has access to weapons. What you object to in the private ownership of weapons is the idea that certain humans can resist a totalizing state.

"assault rifles shoot high-velocity bullets and produce high-velocity wounds" This is classic!

"assault rifles can remove an arm, and blow out tire-sized chunks of flesh from a person's body." This sort of reasoning is amusing for its histrionic fervor. Tired-sized chunks?

Mr. Anderson your ignorance of firearms and ballistics is very much on display with this comment. I find it highly informative and amusing. It is by now obvious that you have no knowledge of firearms, and I doubt very much whether you have ever even fired a gun.

You are incorrect insofar as the crux of your argument seems to focus on the "damage" that types of firearms inflict. Modern light infantry weapons have since the end of WWII transitioned to lower energy cartridges. That's a simple fact.

But look at the absurdity of your position. You are charging that a human who is killed with a 15 lb hammer is somehow worse than a human killed with a 9 lb hammer. The end result is the same. So we may conclude that your reasoning is not based on logic, but emotion.

To shut down your fallacious line of reasoning completely, however, I reference the energy of the 5.56 Nato cartridge which is used in the AR15 series vs the .30-06 the latter common for hunting deer, small game, etc.

5.56 Nato 1,767 J (1,303 ft·lbf)
.30-06       3,820 J (2,820 ft·lbf)

Source: wikipedia but remington also supplies ballistics for these calibers on their website.