No rational family should be without the best gun to defend its home
By Byran Aleksich
May 20, 2003 11:15 p.m.
In September 1994, Congress made it "unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon." - 18 USC Section 922 (v) 91.

The statute also limited magazine capacities to 10 rounds. Thereafter, market forces eviscerated the law, as weapon manufacturers modified gun design to thwart the statute's intent. And 30-round clips are still readily available. The statute expires in September 2004, and the fight for making the statute permanent or allowing it to expire has already begun.

Guns are inherently dangerous and handguns are the most dangerous, even in experienced hands. Because of their short barrel length, handguns are difficult to shoot accurately without constant practice. Under panic situations, even seasoned law enforcement officers shoot with less accuracy and at times wildly.

Nearly all handguns are designed for self-defense, or to put it plainly - to kill people. Although actually firing a gun in self-defense is rare, the presence of a lethal weapon in a home has become increasingly necessary in a world fraught with peril.

The human predator plunders indiscriminately, and invariably only the display of a deadly weapon conveying to the attacker the imminence of death will deter his assault. Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, gun purchases have increased, bought mostly by women. A mother's instinct supposes that should a bio suitcase bomb explode in the heart of a city, in the chaos that follows she will need something more than a knitting needle to protect her home and children from marauders.

Gun ownership is perhaps the decisive expression of personal freedom. In the area of protection of life and property, liberals lean toward government over individual decision-making. Yet police forces deter crime merely in the general sense and only infrequently are able to prevent specific acts of violence.

Dialing 911 does not drive back an immediate threat, especially during a period of widespread anarchy. But the simple display of a gun, by even a diminutive grandmother, will send intruders fleeing.

Thus, no rational family should be without a weapon, with every member over the age of perhaps 12 trained in its use and care.

Training must include takedown, cleaning, reassembly, periodic live-firing and thorough understanding of its lethality. The weapon should be secure in the home yet readily available.

The question comes down to which weapon. Probably the optimum gun for the defense of a home is the civilian version of the military M-l6 (e.g. Colt AR 15 Sporter, ArmaLite AR-10, others). Of course, this is the last weapon gun-control activists want in the possession of the average citizen.

This newspaper falls into line with that mindset, stating in an editorial on Dec. 10, 2002, "Some gun regulations are necessary, such as curbs on assault weapons, designed for military use. There is no need for a hunter or person interested in self-defense to be lugging an M-16 around."

Such a priori judgments are typical of the liberal mindset - it asserts without analysis or reason. For when you think it through, you find that defending your home is indistinguishable from repelling the enemy on a battlefield. Your battlefield is smaller, but the circumstance is the same; hence, you should seek out the most reasonable personal weapon within the limits of affordability that will provide you the best chance for survival. Examine the civilian versions of the M-16, and you'll find they have the following combination of attributes that no other personal weapon can match: Unlike a handgun, which is difficult to shoot accurately, or long guns with substantial recoil, a shooter can easily sight an AR-15 (and its cousins) and be certain if one has to fire, one will strike one's target more readily than with any other weapon generally available to the public. The rifle fires semi-automatically and accommodates a 30- round magazine. Its recoil is slight. The civilian M-16 costs about the same as a quality handgun, less than some. Its .223 ammunition is relatively cheap. It possesses a menacing appearance. (Liberals irrationally use this asset as a reason for rejecting the weapon.) In a disciplined family familiar in the use of weapons, the civilian version of the M-16 is safer and vastly superior to any other rifle, shotgun or handgun. Think about each weapon class. As you go through your available choices, what is your best bet for survival against an enemy bent on plunder, rape or indiscriminate killing? You need a weapon that is affordable, light, nimble to handle, easy to sight, polite in its recoil, semiautomatic with ample ammunition capacity and a killer appearance. Only one weapon fills all these needs.

Bryan Aleksich is a retired lawyer. He lives in Horse Shoe.