The firepower one may or may not need varies with the threat faced. A simple .22 automatic handgun is perfectly suitable to defend against small animals while a more robust round such as .40 S&W or .45 ACP is useful to defend against an individual at close range. Rifles exist to provide the ability to fire on targets anywhere from 50 to hundreds of meters away and there exist scenarios where that capacity to project fire would be useful.Henkie36 said:
What it comes down to is simply this: the amount of gun one thinks they need is based entirely upon the threat they believe they face. The common argument for assault weapons and the like isn't that they are necessary to defend against criminals. Most self-defense shootings happen at ranges of less than 7 meters after all. It is to defend against an organized force of people. The exact nature of that organized group varies of course but it tends to run the gamut from desperate citizens (The classic and oft cited "The Shit hits the fan social breakdown scenario), to law enforcement (there are, after all, laws that people strongly disagree with), to professional military forces (either their own government or a foreign power).
To say that there is no reason to own such a weapon is to ignore the reason that such weapons exist. While you might not think any particular scenario likely, you have to consider just how the nation in question was founded. Beyond that, while people are often afraid of assault rifles and the like, that fear is generally unfounded. The use of such weapons in violent crime is incredibly rare and while recent events have seemingly demonstrated the destructive power of the rifle, one must consider that the weapon could easily have been replaced with any of a variety of handguns for similar effect. It is at this point that most of the argument about gun control in the US revolves. People throw out nonsense statistics to support one side or another but at the heart of the matter is simply that while the right to possess weapons is protected, there is no mention of what sort of weapons might be included.
Actually, when it comes right down to it, the thing that actually bugs me about the gun control debate isn't the fact that every argument that can be made has already been made but rather that people advocate one change or another without any real understanding of what effect it might have. For example, banning high capacity rifle magazines - presumably people think that somehow, forcing someone to have smaller magazine size would somehow mitigate the damage a psychopath might inflict. While that is a noble enough goal, they ignore the fact that most rifles of the sort can be easily reloaded in the space of a second or so in the hands of someone with a bit of practice. The total decrease in the rate of aimed fire from such a move is limited unless magazine size is cut dramatically. Others advocate requiring the use of some sort of tool to remove a magazine (In California, all rifles must have such a feature) but, sadly, given that the vast majority of rifles ever made were designed to facilitate such common actions as magazine replacement, any current mechanism would be relatively trivial to bypass if one were so inclined. And in that same vein, the discussion of control of various "assault weapons" or the even more laughable restrictions on anti-material rifles (very large caliber rifles designed to destroy "things" rather than people or animals) ignores that what is essentially advocated is that more controls be placed on a whole category of weapons who's use in violent crime is incredibly rare. The difficulty of concealment, the high cost even when obtained illegally, and a host of other factors simply mean that for the most part there is a better gun for villainy.
Honestly, it seems like the debate always ignores the fact that it isn't magazine size or particular bullet configuration or caliber or fearsome looks or range or presumed stopping power or any of the countless other things people have lobbied for one restriction or another would only rarely have any significant effect. Given that the guns most often used for violence are those that meet the simple criteria of being easily concealed and cheaply obtainable, it seems strange that the debate routinely ignores this class of firearm. Sure, a 200 dollar .22 pistol might not look scary nor does it have the capacity to leave wounds you could throw a cat through but that doesn't stop such a weapon of being one of the most common firearms involved in shootings.
