Sorry Dan and Piers, There's a Need for an AR-15 Rifle

The scary-looking "military style" AR-15 has been the target of the hyper-emotional left in the media ever since the Newtown shooting.  Most notably, Piers Morgan tried to take conservative commentator and CNN contributor Dana Loesch to task for owing one.  Last night, Dan Rather said on Morgan's show that,"there is no need to have these high-powered assault weapons."

But as it turns out, an AR-15 is an eminently sensible firearm for home defense, particularly for young women as Celia Bigelow and Aubrey Blankenship of American Majority Action explain in a January 23 piece at National Review Online:

Our goal when defending against a home invader is simple: to hit where we aim. One shouldn’t underestimate the value of target practice, but using an accurate weapon is the key to hitting a target with ease and confidence.

The AR-15 is lightweight and practical. As light as five pounds, it produces low levels of recoil, and it’s easy to shoot. It also looks intimidating, which is what you want when facing an assailant or intruder. But don’t let its appearance intimidate you. Assault rifles such as the AR-15 aren’t more “dangerous,” as liberals claim. They don’t fire faster than other rifles, and don’t normally contain more powerful ammunition.


What's more, while “AR-15s are the most popular rifle in the U.S." as "more than 3 million Americans own one," it accounts for just "0.6 percent of murders every year," Bigelow and Blankenship noted, adding that "the semi-automatic AR-15 is the gun of choice for many hunters, target shooters, and home defenders."

“Yes, 0.6% is an insanely high percentage, which warrants federal action,” said by no one ever, except perhaps rabid pro-gun control activist "journalists" like CNN's Piers Morgan.

By the way, I'm not holding my breath for Piers to bring on Bigelow and Blankenship to talk about their NRO piece, even though it would give his viewers an interesting contrary perspective and be scintillating television.