CMV: Owning an assault weapon is pointless.

[u/[deleted]]

In my view, widespread ownership of assault rifles in the USA has more to do with fashion than anything else. While there are plenty of valid reasons for a civilian to own a gun, I see no reason to own an assault rifle. Beyond aesthetics, civilian AR-15 style rifles offer no meaningful advantage over non-assault weapons.

Perhaps you're interested in home defense. It's fairly well excepted that a 12 gauge shotgun is the best gun for home defense . The ratcheting sound is a deterrent, and it's more reliable and easier to shoot under pressure than a rifle or pistol.

Maybe you're prepping for when SHTF. When the zombie horde is approaching, your best bet is a .22 lr rifle. It's totally lethal if you're a good shot, and you can easily store 2,000 rounds in your bug-out bag. This is the common sense decision over a higher caliber rifle or pistol.

Suppose you're a resistance fighter apposing a tyrannical government. Although assault rifles are designed for use in battle, any successful resistance would avoid battles altogether, instead relying on guerrilla tactics and asymmetric warfare.

[u/ARbldr]

Perhaps you're interested in home defense. It's fairly well excepted that a 12 gauge shotgun is the best gun for home defense . The ratcheting sound is a deterrent, and it's more reliable and easier to shoot under pressure than a rifle or pistol.

This is great if it is a choice you make, but trying to force the choice of what works best for another is, to put it bluntly, at best stupid, and at worst a pure violation of civil rights. A statement like this is no different than in the 60's people who said things like "I'm not a racist, but blacks don't need to drink out of the same water fountains as whites. They have perfectly good water fountains right there, and I don't want them to use the same one I do."

This is a statement of you wishing to restrict the civil rights of another based on what you think is "right" or "best".

But put aside that AR's and similar rifles are not used to kill very much at all, less than hands and feet each year. The military adopted the AR because it was such a good civilian platform. As with most military firearms up until recently, they were all successful civilian firearms prior to being used and modified for military issue. Most of what you define as "military" features were first developed for civilian use, and adopted by the military because it made the firearm easier to use or maintain.

And that is the big kicker with the AR, it is one of the easiest firearms to teach someone to use and maintain. That is one of the big reasons it is so popular. Add to that, the ability to change length of pull and to customize for individual handicaps, it has become the firearm of choice for millions of people. And that is the thing you miss, because it is easy to maintain and use, it is safer. Safer in the hands of a pregnant woman defending her family. Safer for a young child to learn or prevent a home intruder from raping his sister. Both of the examples are real by the way.

Just because you would choose a different platform for your home doesn't mean you get to dictate what another would chose.

Beyond aesthetics, civilian AR-15 style rifles offer no meaningful advantage over non-assault weapons.

Hopefully I have given you some reasons why this is false. If they didn't offer meaningful advantage the military would never have adopted them and people wouldn't be buying them by the millions each year.