The political left’s latest mantra is that the venerable, 60+ year old AR-15 is a “weapon of war” and as such it has no place in our homes. They claim that because it is a “weapon of war” that somehow means it is not suitable for self-defense or home defense. We should never just accept what someone, especially people who are not remotely subject matter experts, tell us without examining the claim.
Is the AR-15 a “weapon of war?” Technically, no it is not, but it is closely related to the M16 and all of its variants, the actual weapon used by our military. For the sake of the rest of this discussion, lets just pretend I concur and we will (for the sake of this discussion only) agree that an AR-15 is a weapon of war.
The major point of contention then becomes is an AR suitable for self-defense or home defense. Those seeking to ban the AR often claim that the AR “was designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible.” Statements like this betray the lack of any sense of how the military does their job, and makes it seem as if our soldiers are just running around killing everyone in sight, when in fact the opposite is true. US soldiers are tasked with a very tough job in which they are surrounded by enemies who use innocent civilians as cover. Soldiers cannot just blast away haphazardly, but instead must deliver precise, accurate fire, selectively targeting their attackers while sparing the innocent.
When precise, accurate fire is needed, the AR is a very well suited weapon, which is precisely one reason it is indeed an excellent tool for self-defense or home defense. In a self-defense shooting, you cannot just let ‘er rip and start firing unaimed fire. Just because you are being attacked does not absolve you of responsibility for where every bullet you fire ends up. One needs to be able to deliver precise fire, which the AR does exceptionally well.
Politicians seeking to ban America’s most prolific rifle make statements like “No one uses an AR-15 to protect their families from an intruder.” The problem with statements like that is that they are 100% demonstrably false. Many people have in fact used AR-15’s to defend their families from armed intruders, including a pregnant woman in Florida who saved her husband’s life by shooting an armed intruder with her AR. There are many other stories like that, many of which do not receive any sort of media coverage.
The AR is not just useful in self-defense scenarios, but it is also an excellent choice for the lawful defense of another person. There are a few noteworthy incidents in which a totally uninvolved third party intervened, using an AR, and saved lives. A fairly recent event that received a ton of national news coverage was the church shooting in Sutherland Springs, TX in which Stephen Willeford bravely and without hesitation grabbed his AR and engaged the cowardly suspect who was shooting unarmed church goers, causing the suspect to flee and saving many lives.
Ironically, the very same politicians seeking to take AR’s from the civilian population while claiming the rifles are not useful for self-defense and are solely “weapons of war” would never dream of taking those rifles out of the hands of law enforcement. In fact, every law they have passed or attempted to pass includes an exception for law enforcement. Exempting cops is where their argument falls very short, and I say that as a retired cop from a state that makes that exact same exemption and has for nearly 30 years (California). Law enforcement, despite what cop haters will tell you, are not a military force. They are not combatting enemy troops. That is not to say there is not a war being waged on law enforcement (I strongly believe there is), nor am I suggesting that cops should not be prepared to be warriors when the time arises, but the fact is they are not an “army.” Law enforcement’s primary duty is twofold, to enforce the law and keep society safe. Cops carry their firearms for two reasons: 1) self-defense and 2) defense of others.
With that in mind, the very politicians claiming AR’s are not used for self-defense or defense of others are insisting that cops have AR’s for… self-defense and defense of others. It would seem the gun grabbers are defeating their very own argument. Thank you?
The fact that all of the retired cops who both run this site and the others who contribute here all think the AR makes the best home-defense weapon might also be worth noting. I mean, after all we are actual subject matter experts on the topic as opposed to most politicians who know virtually nothing about firearms.
One of the first videos Keith and I made here at 2A Cops was a video talking about different types of firearms that are commonly used for self-defense and home defense. We also spoke about our preferred weapon for that use and we both, without question, choose the AR-15. To find out why, watch the video below.
