The following debate originally took place on the Facebook wall of family…
Zayvier B.: This isn’t meant to spark any sort of mass argument, but only to expand a field of view. You cannot deny the use of the AR-15 as the primary weapon of more than half of our nation’s mass showings. With that being said, I want someone to tell me a use that only can come from an AR-15 that would demand it be kept in the homes of citizenry, and is a use ONLY the AR can fulfill
Rayn: Returning fire at one of these mass shooters you mention? As you said yourself, “[y]ou cannot deny the use of an AR-15 as the primary weapon in more than half of” these types of attacks.
Zayvier B.: Wrong, an AR isn’t the sole item that could be used to deter or defeat a shooter.
Rayn: I said “returning fire,” not “deter,” nor “defeat,” and I meant it in the most literal sense, imaginable…
Zayvier B.: I understand that, but my point was to state what makes the AR something so important and gives it a quality only it has. Any firearm could be used to return fire at any kind of assailant
Rayn: Then, my question is this: as an innocent human being (also, never charged with domestic violence, nor any felony) that would be engaging in peaceful activity (meaning that there is no actual victim) if I seek to obtain the firearm of my choice, what gives anyone else, but me, jurisdiction over my actions? Why am I to be restricted, so as not to have the exact weapon to defend myself that the criminal easily has at his disposal? Truly, “what makes the AR something so important” that I can’t use one to defend against one?
