There is no rational reason for which an American civilian should want to own an assault weapon.

While I would have liked to discuss the subject of pistol grips, high-capacity semi-auto weapons are really a stronger definition for me to defend. It seems apparent today that firearms are a fact of life in the United States. Between the high availability of firearms among criminal elements and the dauntingly large supply of firearms among the law-abiding civilian population from which such criminal elements may recruit it is apparent that any ban on all firearms would not only be ineffective at promoting the general welfare, but also directly counter to that goal. Respecting the initial definition of “Civilian”, It seems readily apparent that there are four situations in which a firearm might serve: Self defense in the home, self defense on the street, hunting of animals, and violent insurrection against tyrannical government. Self Defense in the Home Few to no rounds need ever be fired to adequately defend. Violent crime is most likely to be committed by a single assailant[1][2]. Very few cases require shooting at an offender, and shooting at them is almost always sufficient to provoke retreat, even when defenders do not hit anything [2]. There is no reason to believe more shots available would be more effective. Large numbers of attackers are rare [2]. The majority of armed offenders generally do not carry firearms [2][3]. A rational person would not engage in reckless ineffective weapon discharges, as shall be detailed in section V(A). As such, no assault weapon is likely to ever be necessary for the purposes of home defense. Self Defense on the Street Few to no rounds need ever be fired to adequately defend in the vast majority of situations. See points above for self defense in the home; they apply here as well, except likely with a slightly higher instance of larger numbers of assailants. Carrying assault weapons in public for civilians terrifies and terrorizes the population and disturbs the peace[4]. Allowing assault weapons in public for civilians prevents the ability to discern an approaching active shooter from a normal civilian, as shall be detailed in section V(B). Civilians are not expected in and should not expect to participate in extended firefights; such situations are exceedingly rare[2]. This is a primary reason why organizations such as the police and military and personnel and property security companies exist in the first place: to provide training, ensure quality of personnel, and to both accept and limit liability. Hunting of Animals Very few rounds are ever needed in any given “short” timespan. If you cannot hit an animal on your first 1-2 shots, it is likely to already be too late for that opportunity; gunshots generally scare away game for a reasonably long period of time, allowing reloading to take place. If attacked by an apex predator such as a bear, puma, etc. , if you can’t put it down with ~4-5 rounds of whatever you’re firing, it’s probably already too late. A lever-action, pump action, or bolt action rifle with fixed maximum capacity can take down a prey animal as effectively as a magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle. Initiating Violent Insurgency Against Tyrannical Government(s) Insurrection is about asymmetrical warfare. It is a situation where “tactical” confrontations are the least desirable outcome. It is not about killing lots of people; it is about killing the right people. If you end up in the sights of the enemy, you’re already doing it wrong. Bolt action, lever action, pump action, or similar hand-worked actions are sufficient to serve the purpose of selective fire, and even actively encourage that goal by forcing the use of carefulness and skill. Asymmetric combat requires AVOIDING regular combat. Assault Weapons stand out particularly, and only serve as a “Please shoot/imprison/torture me, I’m a rebel” sign for one to hang off of their shoulder or on their belt. Home defense points continue to serve here; if you and your rebel friends cannot effect a defensive goal with 3-6 shots, you’re cruising for 2 in the chest and one in the head. An ungainly assault weapon laden with bullets will only be reliable for getting you dead with less opportunity to fight back as your ears ring and bleed from the breaching charge used to open the door, or as your eyes sting with CS gas they deploy into the room. Assuming they didn’t just level your place with a drone strike. Asymmetric conflict is about forcing attrition. Assault weapons encourage the rapid waste of limited ammunition. The other side will have more men, more rounds, more weapons, and more training. The goal is initially to make them hemorrhage those resources and their morale with minimal application of your own. Regular armies are for once you begin to take their weapons and you take their bullets, once the population is on board and after asymmetric fighting has yielded its dividends. It is not rational yet to begin stocking for such conflicts, as per V(C) below. Desires for Assault Weapons are NOT Rational An inability to hit what you are aiming at also implies an inability to guarantee NOT hitting what you are NOT aiming at, when it is also in that general vicinity. This creates an unacceptable level of risk and it is my contention that it is irrational to force such a risk upon others. It is irrational to wish to confound the ability of law enforcement to monitor and take down potential imminent threats to the public welfare. Either the police must waste time and effort confirming all false positives to catch all true positives, or the police must risk allowing true positives. The government is not attempting to take away the class of weapons particularly useful for rebellion, nor is the liberal left attempting to take away the ability of the people to represent their interests nor attempting to take away any thing that could rationally be called liberty. Further, the logic of IV(B) applies right now as well; ownership now reveals a desire or preparedness to participate in rebellion. Anyone can “go off the deep end”. The majority of murders happen as a result of argument rather than felonious intent however the assailant still tends to seek a firearm when available [5]. When a mass murder happens, the assailants use the weapons most easily accessed. It is clearly an irrational course of action for a person to subject others to additional risks when they themselves “go off the deep end”. Conclusions Owning an assault weapon is particularly useless for home defense, Owning an assault weapon is particularly useless for defense on the street, Owning an assault weapon is particularly useless for hunting, Owning an assault weapon right now is particularly useless for the violent overthrow of our government, The desire to own an assault weapon for the above purposes is largely irrational, Therefore there is no rational reason for which a civilian should want to own an assault weapon. Bibliography[1] Stolzenberg, L. , & D'alessio, S. J. (2008). Co-Offending and the Age-Crime Curve. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 45(1), 65-86. Retrieved from . http://jrc.sagepub.com...[2] Kleck, G. , & Gertz, M. (1995). Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern), 86(1), 150. Retrieved from . http://www.saf.org...[3] NCVS Criminal Victimization 2009, table 10 . http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...[4] Youtube video . http://www.youtube.com...[5] . http://www.bjs.gov...Copyright (C) 2012 Andrew Kathan Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation A copy of the license is available at. http://www.gnu.org... *the full text is behind a paywall; limited quotation is available upon request via comments.