Yet another weak-sauce attempt at justifying the need for assault weapons comes from Katie Pavlich, News Editor at TownHall.com:
While the use of pistols in the home are helpful, they’re not the best weapons to use when it comes to protecting property. This is why people need a semi-automatic rifle which yes, can come in the form of an AR-15.Ms. Gated-Community Resident has an ominous warning for us:
While everyday life in America compared to the rest of the world is pretty darn easy and relatively safe, the reality is things can change overnight, regardless of whether you live in a decent neighborhood.She must be talking about kids getting gunned-down at school, right?
A far more immediate threat exists than that:
Take for example the Los Angeles riots in 1992, when business owners were forced to defend their property from angry mobs causing severe chaos: $1 billion in property damage, 50 dead, 4,000 injured, 3,000 fires set and 1,100 buildings damaged. In this case, a handheld pistol was in no way sufficient, but semi-automatic rifles were.Her conclusion:
Business owners in LA’s Koreatown knew what was coming their way, so they armed themselves with shotguns and semi-automatic rifles in order to defend their property. They stood on their rooftops as they watched black smoke pour down the street. The cops weren't there to help them.
“Assault weapons” saved Koreatown and it’s fair to say the people holding them saved the lives of many that day.What Ms. Pavlich conveniently fails to elaborate on is exactly how these assault weapons saved the day.
Did these business owners defending their property actually use their assault weapons to mow-down this hoard of rioting barbarians, or was a less-lethal option chosen instead?
Closer examination of the interview she links to in her article, conducted by NPR with one of the business owners, Kee Whan Ha, reveals the answer:
MARTIN: Did you have to fire your weapon?Maybe I'm naive about the fearlessness of rioters, but I'm having difficulty seeing the advantage of an assault rifle over a handgun if all you're doing is shooting it into the air. Does it just sound more threatening than an average gunshot does? Is it the rate of fire that provides that extra dose of terror? Perhaps the less frequent reloading they afford?
HA: Yes. Actually, we are not shooting people. We are shooting the - in the air, so make afraid that these people coming to us. You're not actually targeting people, so... [sic]
MARTIN: Sure. You were trying to create a - sort of a protective barrier, and you did succeed in saving your store.
I wonder if Ms. Pavlich has some statistics on how many rioters were deterred by the assault rifle warning shots as opposed to the shotgun and handguns shots that were also fired during this incident — like an exit poll or something.
As an admittedly inexperienced rioter, I'd probably choose one of two options, after the obligatory change of underwear: 1) Scatter, or 2) Hit the dirt.
Ms. Pavlich is probably assuming the attacking rioters were similarly armed with assault weapons and were, of course, wearing battle armor. She'd probably even defend them if that were the case, seeing how they were just responsibly exercising their right to defend themselves against the defenders they were offending.
And if this riot example didn't win you over, her next and final example surely will:
Then of course, there was the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. New Orleans became a place of complete anarchy in a matter of hours. In addition to property owners being forced to stave off mobs of people roaming for food, water and shelter to survive as the government failed to provide emergency services, they had to protect themselves against dangerous looters. But not only were New Orleans residents forced to defend themselves against immediate threats to their person and property, residents also had to protect themselves from the government.Incidentally, she seems to have forgotten one little detail regarding the emphasized text above:
Heckuva job, Brownie.After blathering on about the behavior of rogue police officers, guns being confiscated from citizens and tyranny, all of which struck me as impertinent to the assault weapon issue, she rests her case:
When politicians and gun grabbers tell us we “don’t need” semi-automatic, "assault," or "military style" weapons, they don’t know what they’re talking about.So there you have it. Assault weapons are necessary because there might someday be a riot or a natural disaster causing mobs of displaced people to destroy the social order and attack property owners.
The far more likely possibility, or rather, reality — of further mass murders being perpetrated with the help of these weapons, doesn't even enter the picture for Ms. Pavlich and the audience to which she panders.
And yet somehow, we're the ones who "don't know what we're talking about."
(My emphasis in quotes)