Reader's view: Assault-type rifles not needed for self-defense
Debunked researcher John Lott was trotted out to defend the idea that more guns will make us safer. Lott's article in the News Tribune about AR-15s (Point/Counterpoint: "Ban on semiautomatics will make us less safe," June 26) set up a false argum...
Debunked researcher John Lott was trotted out to defend the idea that more guns will make us safer. Lott’s article in the News Tribune about AR-15s (Point/Counterpoint: “Ban on semiautomatics will make us less safe,” June 26) set up a false argument about the use of them for self-defense. He falsely claimed single-shot rifles are the only alternative to semiautomatic assault-style rifles for self defense.
According to my hunter friends, other guns - such as bolt, lever or pump-action guns - can get off many shots fairly rapidly if someone needed to use one for self-defense. Isn’t it ridiculous to assume Americans need assault-style rifles for self-defense? The idea that Americans need and would carry assault-style rifles into public places in their everyday lives to protect themselves against one or multiple attackers is simply nuts.
Lott’s research has been widely debunked by many, including at armedwithreason.com.
Also, his claim that murder
rates have fallen since the assault-weapons ban expired in 2005 is false. Gun homicide rates dropped before 2005 after the Brady Law was passed and have remained stagnant since then, according to Politifact.
There are no rational reasons for civilians to carry assault-type rifles for self-protection. The majority of us want to stop people who shouldn’t have these (or any gun for that matter) from getting them. As long as terrorists, domestic abusers, felons and others can easily obtain rifles like the AR-15, we are not safer. The facts indicate otherwise.
The writer is a member of the Northland Brady/Protect Minnesota chapter.