Investor's Business Daily
Guns: The left keeps asking why anyone needs an "assault"
rifle. Here's one reason — in 2010, a Texas teen used a rifle similar to
the one used in Newtown to defend his younger sister and himself from
home invaders.
The left quite often exposes its raging elitism through its odious
habit of asking why anyone would need the things that it doesn't like,
from guns to big homes to monster trucks.
The implication is that if the elitists don't want whatever it is,
then no one should be allowed to have it — except, of course, it's fine
for the elitists themselves to live in energy-sucking mansions, hire
armed bodyguards and drive around in gas-guzzling limousines and SUVs.
When the left asks these questions it also reveals its blinding
ignorance. Is there a single Democrat, dense celebrity or condescending
journalist who is aware that "assault" rifles don't just define their
owners as red necks but also serve as practical protection?
Actually the total amount of what they don't know about firearms and crime is enough to crush them.
Consider that, according to FBI data, in 2007, there were 453
homicides by rifle in the U.S. Yes, that's too many. But compare that
number to a few other methods of homicide employed that year.
In 2007, there were 1,817 homicides committed with "knives or cutting
instruments"; "blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)" killed 674; while
"personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)" were the choices in 869
homicides.
The number of rifle homicides has fallen steadily since then to 323
last year, as have the other three weapon classes, though each still
remains a more common choice than the rifle.
In fact, when added together, knives, blunt instruments and the human
body were responsible for more than nine times as many homicides as
rifles in 2011.
