The incidence of multiple perpetrator homicides has risen dramatically over the past decade as evidenced by FBI crime statistics. A six shooter puts a person at an extreme disadvantage in basically every conceivable self defense scenario.
I would also add that there are countless millions of high capacity magazines in circulation. If a criminal wants one, he will have no problem getting one despite any ban. Law abiding citizens, however, will find it increasingly difficult due to increasing prices and will, therefore, find themselves increasingly at a disadvantage in future self defense situations especially when they can anticipate being confronted by multiple assailants.
To put a finer point on it, given that there are countless millions of high capacity magazines in circulation, do you really think a ban would stop future Jared Loughners or Adam Lanzas from obtaining high capacity magazines once they are committed to acting on their psychotic impulse? No, it wont. Its only affect will be to put law abiding gun owners at a disadvantage in basically every conceivable self defense scenario.
Of the 8,583 firearm homicides committed in 2011, rifles of any kind accounted for only 323 deaths or 3.76% of total homicides. Handguns, by contrast, accounted for 6,220 deaths or 72.46% of all firearm homicides.
If half of those rifles used were assault rifles, we can safely say that assault rifles accounted for less than 2% of all firearms deaths in 2011. The FBI does not specifically keep stats on assault rifles but we can safely assume that not all of the 323 rifles used were assault rifles.
In 2011, FBI statistics show that you were 5 times more likely to be murdered with a knife than with a rifle of any kind. If we assume that half of the rifles were assault rifles, you were 10x more likely to be murdered with a knife than an assault rifle. Shouldnt we be banning knives instead of assault rifles? Thats ludicrous obviously but it illustrates how ineffectual an assault rifle ban would be if we were truly interested in reducing the incidence of murder in America.
If we look at the effect of banning firearms in Australia, we see that the incidence of murder is unchanged and the incidence of virtually all other lesser felonies has dramatically increased. We do see a decrease in the number of people murdered with guns but we see an equal INCREASE in people murdered with knives. Steven King, in typical liberal fashion, fails to mention that when he discusses the decrease in gun murders.
The incidence of rape has increased by approximately 4% every year following the Australian gun ban. The incidence of assault has increased 5% every year following the ban. What was the point of banning guns? To put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage apparently. That was certainly the only effect.
Assault rifles killed maybe 150 people in America in 2011. By contrast, leftist governments killed approximately 170 million unarmed civilians in the 20th century which was really not that long ago. I think we ought be more concerned with banning left wing governments than banning assault rifles.
Situations where I might require an assault rifle:
o A prolonged natural disaster
o Any event marked by prolonged looting
o A riot as seen in LA in 1992-remember Reginald Denny and Fidel Lopez?
o A mass prison break
o A gang attack on my home or business
o Multiple intruders attempting to break into my home
o A pack of wild dogs threatening my livestock.
o A pack of feral hogs which are notoriously dangerous.
o The collapse of western civilization
o The establishment of a tyranny in America
While were on the subject of ineffectual legislation, lets look at Chicago. Cook County has had a ban on high capacity magazines since 2006 yet over 500 people were murdered in Chicago last year. Their murder rate is going up! How is that possible? High capacity magazines are illegal in Chicago. Assault rifles are also banned in Chicago. Hows that working out?
Why would you allow anyone else to decide what you "need"? What does "need" have to do with the subject at hand. We don't have a Bill of Needs. We have a bill of "Rights" not "Needs". Please do not confuse the two.
If I chose to answer that very same question, my answer would be along the line of, "To protect myself, family and country from people and politicians who think such a question is appropriate".