10 Best Semi Automatic Rifle For Hunting

Best Semi Automatic Rifle For Hunting in 2023

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

The Myth of the "Military Style" Assault Rifle

When celebrities weigh in on issues, they often garner a lot of attention, but is it justified? In this piece, I take a look at the flaws in Jason Alexander's pro gun control argument.

While guns in general are under no risk of being taken away from American's, certain varieties of firearms have been specifically targeted by anti-gun advocates as being inherently more dangerous. Namely, assault rifles.

In a comically misinformed and inaccurate Twitter rant, Jason Alexander, of Seinfeld fame, illustrated with remarkable clarity the flaws in the gun control argument. His many inaccuracies ranged from inflating the yearly death toll from gun violence by nearly ten times to a number that even the Brady Campaign would consider absurd, to completely misunderstanding the meaning and purpose of a militia in its most basic form. According to the Brady campaign website, only 12,179 are murdered each year. The 100,000 figure is a number representing all shootings, including justified shootings like self defense, police action, and simple accidents. Suicide and attempted suicide is also included.

The most obvious flaw in his argument is that the AR-15 he specifically mentions is not actually an assault rifle. An assault rifle is, by definition, a medium caliber rifle capable of firing more than one round when the trigger is pulled. Usually this is either in a multiple shot burst or fully automatic. The AR-15 is neither of those. Chambered most commonly in .223, the round fired from an AR-15 is dramatically less powerful than common hunting calibers (Pictured here), and even less powerful than a number of common handgun cartridges. The range of a common assault rifle is dramatically shorter than most hunting rifles, due to the smaller caliber and often shorter barrel. One truth of the AR-15 (and similar semi-automatic rifles) is that they serve surprisingly well when hunting dangerous game.The AR-15, for instance, has begun seeing much more frequent use in the practice of boar hunting, where having a few extra bullets coming down the pipe after the first shot may well save your life. Amusingly, the .223 round commonly used in these "ultra lethal assault weapons" is usually regarded as best suited to varmint hunting, such as coyotes, and considered not powerful enough for larger game.

Even disregarding the sporting and hunting uses of a firearm like the AR-15, semi-automatic rifles fulfill a necessary function as defined in the second amendment, that being of a civilian-owned rifle capable of serving in a military capacity if pressed to service. While not comparable with fully automatic, larger caliber guns used by the standing army, semi-automatic rifles provide the civil authority a fighting chance, all the same.

Commonly, this is where the argument "Well regulated militia means the army" comes in to play, or it is asked whether any gun owners have actually joined a militia. This is, at best, deceptive argumentation. The very nature of a militia is built on the prospect of nonmilitary persons taking up military activities in times of conflict. To claim one is not capable of serving in a militia because one is not already in the army is counter intuitive to the very function of a militia. It is comparable to claiming that the militia that fought in the American revolution were ineligible because they had not joined the British army beforehand. The militia is simply not formed until needed. Even the definition that Alexander so coyly cites includes the line:

"The whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service."

I wonder, then, where these militiamen will find weapons if they are not permitted to possess them until the fighting begins. In truth, we already have a well regulated militia. This is why we cannot, as Alexander points out, own SCUD missiles (though tanks and grenade launchers are actually legal). Alexander even deigns to quote Alexander Hamilton, a man who, himself, was among America's first fighting revolutionaries as part of an unregulated militia band named the 'Hearts of Oak,' comprised primarily of college students.

Since Alexander quoted a founding father, I feel responsible to provide some quotes of my own:

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."- George Washington

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."- Noah Webster

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." - Richard Henry Lee

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." -- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts

The outrage over assault rifles is, at best, ignorance, and at worst willful deceit. A pistol grip does not make a gun more deadly. Its bullets will not kill people 'deader.' Having a bayonet lug on the bore will not make the weapon a larger caliber, and a retractable stock will not ensure the gun kills two with every bullet instead of one.

Alexander claims these weapons are "military weapons." They are not. If they were, I suspect the military would use them. But they don't. Even criminals do not use them. Assault weapons are used in only one fifth of one percent of all gun crime. 0.2%. Rifles in general, do not seem particularly popular in crimes, mostly due to the difficulty of hiding a larger gun. The assault weapon ban was allowed to sunset not through the machinations of an evil NRA conspiracy, or through the incompetence of government. It was allowed to pass silently into the annals of history because it was a pointless and ineffective policy designed to address a problem that never was. A gun 'looking scary' makes it no more deadly in the hands of a law abiding man than any other. To pretend it does is to surrender oneself to childish fear and irrationality. Painting a gun black makes it no more deadly than painting a car red actually makes it go faster.

Those who call for a responsible gun debate while simultaneously advocating the restriction or outright removal of scary guns are intentionally misleading the public. None of the evidence points to assault rifles being any more dangerous than any other gun. Inn truth, the evidence makes them seem less dangerous. Were they so devastating, I suspect massacres with them would be more than rare, isolated events. The fervor over assault rifles is little more than fear mongering built on ignorance, no matter what George Costanza has to say on the subject.