Yes, an AR-15 is most definitely an "assault weapon."
And yes, I already know it's not a machine gun.
And yes, I already know the "AR" stands for "Armalite" and not "Assault Rifle".
(The gun enthusiast crowd loves to prematurely point those things out as some sort half-assed attempt to discredit gun control proponents.)
The point still stands, though.
There are really just two legitimate purposes for guns amongst civilians: self-defense and hunting/sporting.
And while I'm not completely sold on either of those reasons, I do recognize those as being legitimate arguments for having a firearm.
I can say, however, that the AR-15 and similar weapons fit neither of these purposes.
I can't see what tactical advantage having an AR-15 gives you if, say, you're defending your home from home invaders. In a tight quarter environment, it's not going to give you any edge over what a handgun would. Lining up a rifle sight would seem superfluous, as would probably having to get off more than a few shots at one time. Most people don't want to riddle their own house with bullets more than they'd have to, so really no need for a gun with a 30 bullet cartridge capacity.
And even in the context of concealed carry (which I honestly think causes more problems than it solves, but that's beside the point), it's useless. You can't conceal an AR-15.
As for hunting (which I don't personally a) do or b) like, but I'll concede that it's been engrained as a way of life for certain people), I think people forget that hunting is supposed to be a sport. And in sports, there are supposed to be winners and losers. Obviously, "winning" entails bagging your game; "losing" is when your game escapes you. I would think you'd have to give your prey a chance to "win". So any rapid fire weapon doesn't make any sense to me in hunting. It's not like the deer is going to start shooting back at you. So if you miss with your pump action shut gun and the deer high tails it out of there, guess what? You lose. Either admit that fact or take up another sport.
From the looks of it, the only purpose of a high capacity, quick firing gun like an AR-15 would be the quick neutralization of a target from afar. Which pretty much means it's going to be used to launch an assault.
Now, trained law enforcement I could see having a use for launching an assault if the target is, say, another mass shooter. For the life of me, I can't see any reason why someone who isn't in either law enforcement or the military would have to launch an assault against another person.
= new reply since forum marked as read
