The Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex loves to denigrate semi-auto rifles as useless for personal defense. They shriek that no one needs that kind of firepower or capacity. A recent defensive gun use in Mississippi, though, drives a stake through the heart of that argument. Let’s talk about what happened and then get to what this should (but likely won’t) teach the civilian disarmament crowd.
Angry Ex Shows Up At 4:00 AM With A Pistol
According to Fox and various other media outlets, a man in Soso, Mississippi recently decided to show up at his ex-wife’s place in the middle of the night, despite the fact that visiting was a violation of a protection order the woman had.
The ex-wife’s brother lived in the house next door and heard some commotion. According to court documents, the ex-husband had previously threatened him with a gun, so he came out prepared, wielding an AR-15.
Instead of doing the smart thing and leaving, the angry ex-husband reportedly reached for the 9mm handgun. Predictably, the brother’s 5.56mm rounds hit the mark, while the ex’s wayward 9mm rounds demonstrated the “little bullet, big world” theory. Now the woman he was trying to take the kids away from has sole undisputed sole custody, if you know what I mean.
Police say it’s a pretty clear-cut case of self defense, but they’re obligated to perform an investigation.
The Right Tool For The Job
It’s not practical or widely socially accepted to carry a rifle everywhere you go, so most people who want to carry a weapon usually choose a concealed handgun. But almost no one goes into a situation they think is likely to result in a gunfight with only a pistol.
This was one of those cases. The angry ex-husband wasn’t only prohibited from being there due to past threats against his ex-spouse, but’d also threatened the brother with a gun. So the brother chose the best tool for the job of confronting someone he knew to be dangerous and armed. A pistol wouldn’t have given him nearly as favorable odds, and a shotgun has less capacity.
The often regurgitated idea that people don’t need an AR-15 or another semi-auto rifle is utter garbage. It’s the go-to defensive tool for a wide rage of defensive situations, particularly at home, and can be used effectively by almost anyone, even smaller women and older children.
The Second Amendment Isn’t About Hunting
It’s also important to note that we don’t need to prove the utility of any type of gun for defending against criminals or hunting. While those are certainly very good and reasons for owning a firearm, the Second Amendment wasn’t written to make sure Americans could deal with lone criminal attackers and ducks could go down.
If anything, the key reason the right to keep and bear arms is protected is that we might have to fight off tyranny. The general attitude at the time of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution was that all arms were protected. Nobody questioned the need for a defensive firearm or hunting gun at all. But, having access to the best available firearm was the primary purpose, and all through the nineteenth century, the right to the best fighting rifle available was never questioned, even as the technology improved.
So, if we’re going to play the game of picking and choosing what guns are “protected” and what aren’t, the AR-15 has the strongest argument in its favor, even more than a CCW pistol or a duck gun. They’re one of the best tools on the planet for deterring tyranny. The side benefit that they’re also effective at fighting off criminals is just a bonus.