FOX News Story - Why I Own an Assault Rifle

[Lugiahua]

Assault rifle?

According to Encyclopedia Britannia

assault rifle, assault rifle [Credit: National War College] military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire.

unless it's a full-auto centerfire weapon, it's not an assault rifle.

[Wherryj]

Wait, how did he get a select-fire "assault rifle"?

[2nd Shot]

It's unfortunate that whenever a tragedy occurs, where the criminal uses a gun to do his bidding, that the news has to go dig up some random passerby, who's closest experience to crime was that Hollywood movie they once saw. Eventually they'll find somebody that'll ramble on about how "nobody needs assault rifles because they have banana/drum clips and they like *blink* kill people and stuff like the movies", and it'll end up on the front page as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Talk about never letting a good (?) tragedy go to waste.

One thing that irritates me though is all this defeatist/helpless talk about how a lawfully concealed weapon couldn't possibly be used to stop a crime like this. It's illogical. Even if a LTC holder (or 20 of them, for that matter) stood by and did nothing when they should have done something, there is no consequence that wouldn't have already happened. It is true that this whack-job obviously brought the element of surprise, but has the disadvantage (as do all criminals) of not being able to pick out LTC holders from the unarmed - the primary advantage of concealed carry. Furthermore, (s)he announces not only his location but intentions as well the moment they start shooting, leaving little room for debate on where they stand and needs to happen.

Yes, there's an NBC (or one of those) "documentary" where they select some random college kids, give them a Simunition training gun and various levels of training, then send them off to class where they later a team of police (SWAT?) breaks in and surprises them, clearly demonstrating knowledge of who they were after, why, and where to find them before coming through the door. Despite weak attempts to portray this as reality, this is certainly never going to be the case unless you have indeed somehow pissed off the SWAT team or the local judge.

[tenpercentfirearms]

This article was garbage. Anyone armed in the theater is better than no one armed in the theater. Even if you end up dead in the shoot out, you might save dozens of lives and countless casualties.

This guy is an idiot.

[707electrician]

This article was garbage. Anyone armed in the theater is better than no one armed in the theater. Even if you end up dead in the shoot out, you might save dozens of lives and countless casualties.

This guy is an idiot.

Some people dont get it. In the anti's heads, its better to to be dead than at least have a chance of saving yourself or others

[Ubermcoupe]

I dont agree:

Police and military practice regularly for their jobs. You do it irregularly for fun.

I know many guys who train every weekend, or every other weekend, and shoot thousands of rounds, including from concealment (IDPA) or other shooting competitions. I also know a few cops and armed personnel who couldn’t tell you the difference between glock caliber options - it’s just “a glock” - and barely qualify with their issue.

There are LE/MIL who are not gun people and there are civilians who are gun nuts, plain and simple. Proficiency comes down to the person, not necessarily the profession.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...#ixzz21nKs3S3o

[southernsnowshoe]

This article was garbage. Anyone armed in the theater is better than no one armed in the theater. Even if you end up dead in the shoot out, you might save dozens of lives and countless casualties.

This guy is an idiot.

This was exactly what I was going to write. Obviously he is an anti trying to get his point across, while acting like a gun owner.

How could anyone, anti or otherwise, argue that it is somehow more acceptable to get shot and killed as a unarmed, defenseless victim, than it would be to get shot while in the process of shooting back and at least trying to stop this type of madness.

[SkyMag68]

This article is bunch of bull..

[Nyanman]

When I hear this I automatically tell pepole to watch the compelling testimony of Suzanna Gratia Hupp after she survived the Luby's massacre in 1991 which took the life of 23 people, including her parents. this is really must see video for anyone throwing out any opinions (regardless of which side you are on):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

also found a good arguement from a LEO on the icnn something page:

The following is a quote from BanditLEO on the iCNN page. BanditLEO is a law enforcement officer:


Does anyone know what the one common denominator is in every massacre that has happened lately? Colorado, Sweden, Columbine, etc... The bad guys had guns and no one else did. The reason why 70 people were injured is because that city had an ordinance stating that it is a crime to carry a concealed weapon inside a business that has posted signs barring firearms. Did that stop the gunman? No it did not and thus left a room full of victims with no means to protect themselves and their loved ones. Does anyone know that in april of this last year there was another shooting in Aurora Co? No because it did not reach massacre status because an off-duty officer shot and killed the individual after he had killed his first victim. Had that off-duty officer not been there it would have been another massacre, yet one law abiding citizen with a firearm was able to end the threat quickly and with minimal lives lost.

+1
I didn't know about the other shooting. Thanks for sharing that information.

[Deadbolt]

I didn't like the way it ended... He never explained why he owned a semi-automatic rifle yet called it an asault weapon. Anti crap written to sound like it came from a gun owner.

this entirely. Well said Adampolo13.

[flyingcaveman]

What a terrible attitude. Doing nothing isn't an option when your life is in danger, especially when you're already in a confined space so you can't even effectively run away. Sure, military or police training would help but it's no guarantee either. We could all sit here and ask "what if?...." until the cows come home. He tries to state his opinion as if they are facts. In doing so, he is trying to foster an attitude of helplessness among the population, and I totally disagree with it.

[Lugiahua]

I dont agree:

I know many guys who train every weekend, or every other weekend, and shoot thousands of rounds, including from concealment (IDPA) or other shooting competitions. I also know a few cops and armed personnel who couldn’t tell you the difference between glock caliber options - it’s just “a glock” - and barely qualify with their issue.

People often use an argument
"police has XYZ privilege because they trained more"

IMO, it's a really bad argument, not only because some police are not well trained as you mentioned.
but if this argument is true, then following same logic, a civilian should be grant same or even more privilege if he/she outperform police...

if we use this logic, then I should be able to open or conceal carry at will, exempt from roster, able to own factory AR ,even full-atuo if I could outperform my local PD in a shooting competition.

[Jason_2111]

People often use an argument
"police has XYZ privilege because they trained more"

IMO, it's a really bad argument, not only because some police are not well trained as you mentioned.
but if this argument is true, then following same logic, a civilian should be grant same or even more privilege if he/she outperform police...

if we use this logic, then I should be able to open or conceal carry at will, exempt from roster, able to own factory AR ,even full-atuo if I could outperform my local PD in a shooting competition.

The "more" training police get has very little to do with firearms, and a lot to do with legalities and liability.
Most cops aren't that great of shots... but they know dang well the full impact and consequences of discharging a firearm at another human being.

Knowing when to shoot, when not to shoot, being able to keep a cool head and make that decision in a split second... there's a lot more to it than just having good sight alignment and trigger control. Heck, I train way more than your above-average LEO, and yeah... it is completely lame that CCW's are pretty much unicorn's in my county, but that's how it is. It doesn't make it logical or right, but that's just the way the laws and such are structured at the moment.
HOPEFULLY, that'll change some day, or I'll just move to Oregon once I can convince my wife to do so.

Perhaps it just comes down to what is the real difference between a citizen and a LEO. Not much. Training, an oath, and a contract. You can get the training (even better training), take as fancy and earnest oath as you like, but without the contract with the City/State/Fed.... you're still only a citizen in the eyes of the law.

[Decoligny]

Interesting...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/26/why-own-assault-rifle/#ixzz21kMfGXYI

A.W.D.

"Police and military practice regularly for their jobs. You do it irregularly for fun."

This author doesn't know much about the real world, does he?

I spent 20 years in the military.

I qualified on M-16 in basic training after one day in the classroom and half a day at the firing range.

I qualified again 6 years later in order to get stationed overseas. This time it was 2 hours in classroom and about the same time on the range.

I qualifed again 7 years later in order to get stationed overseas again.

In 20 years I received a total of about 2 days training on how to operate the M-16.

Most of the Military are not Special Forces or Navy Seals. Most do not get to practice with an issued weapon unless they are about to deploy, and then it is just to qualify.

Police are required to qualify approximately once a year. The majority of them do not spend hours upon hours practicing at the firing range. They do their jobs and go home. They may spend a couple days at the range in preperation for their annual qualification, but that is about it.

Most of the Police are not members of SWAT. Most do not practice taking down an active shooter. Look at Virginia Tech for a good example. The police hunkered down to wait for SWAT, and more people died while they waited.

For my "fun" I go out and shoot a couple hundred rounds at a time, a couple times a month. I practice drawing from concealment. I practice multiple targets at time to aid in target acquisition skills. I practice shooting while moving. I practice shooting and then moving position and reacquiring the target.

I think the majority of CCW holders practice a whole lot more than most LEOs or most Military members.

[Decoligny]

• The article had nothing to do with "Why I own an Assault Rifle".
• The theater bans weapons on its property, and Colorado law doesn't override that (to my knowledge).

And Aurora has a law on the books that make ignoring a "no guns allowed" sign a crime.