So what makes you the authority that you can tell other people what gun they should buy for home defense?
What do you care? An AR 15 is just a semiautomatic rifle just like any other semiautomatic rifle that has been available to civilians for over 100 years now.
If you want to discuss whether any rifle is suitable for home defense then start that debate and it still comes down to personal preference and even economics for people.
Maybe a person can't afford multiple firearms and wants just one that can be used for several purposes.
When it comes down to brass tacks the single best firearm for home defense is the one you have not the one people like you say you should have.
What is so damn hard about working on the calculus that I presented? Show me that the advantages of the legal ownership of assault weapons outweigh the cost to society that legal status presents. It ain't that damn hard. Or it is really damn hard, you can't make the argument, and therefore you attempt to spin and turn and counter with nothing but bullshit and lies.
What makes me an authority? I am informed. I mean who the hell are you to tell me that I can't have a flame thrower as my weapon of self defense? Or hell, maybe I want a flare gun firing a 26.5mm projectile, why can't I have one?
But no, an AR-15 is not "just another semi-automatic weapon". The muzzle velocity can reach 3,000 fps. An SKS might get to 1,154 fps. Do you even know the definition of force? Have you ever even been in a Physics class?
And no, I don't want to debate on rather an assault rifle is suitable for self-defense. I personally think it is a stupid ass choice. And for hunting, well for the love of God, if someone is in the woods hunting with an assault rifle please let me know, so I can stay the hell out of those woods. But the argument is not germane to the question at hand.
Again, it is really damn simple. Those that support the legal status of assault rifles need to step up and demonstrate that the legal status affords more benefits to society than costs. The fact that no one even attempts to make that argument tells me all I need to know. I am here to ask you, if it is your grandkids sitting in that classroom when the deranged shooter shows up would you rather that shooter have a standard semi-automatic weapon or an AR-15? If it is an AR-15 then survivability drops by half. Choose carefully.
And back to the op. Funny, we only see Amy Swearer's opening statements. We don't see any of the questions from the committee. Did you know she was charged with perjury? I mean you can sense a problem when you look at the deranged look in her eyes. Why is it that you gun nuts, and especially you Trumptards, can't read non-verbal clues?
The whole fight to keep assault weapons legal is nothing more than protecting the profits of the gun manufacturers. The assault rifle is their profit maker. Needle dick suckers pay big bucks for a cheap ass gun that looks bad ass. And at the first sign of legislation against those pea-shooters, well it is Katy bar the door, they horde up on the damn things. SUCKERS. Seriously, suckers.
The NRA used to be a legit organization, but that was way back in the day when they sponsored my rifle team, had me teach gun safety at schools throughout the state, and actually supported strict gun control. Now they are a totally corrupt organization that is little more than a lobbying arm for the gun manufacturers, who couldn't give two shits about the deaths from mass shootings and are more concerned about profits. Thousands of people, from my own father to George Bush Jr., have canceled their memberships because of this change.
I mean here is the deal, short and sweet. Address the question at hand, does the legal status of assault rifles provide a greater benefit to society than the cost it in entails, or STFU.
