Claim: Americans need free access to AR-15 and other semi-automatic platform rifles that can take large-capacity magazines so that farmers and ranchers use them as “varmint rifles” for to control pests like prairie dogs, raccoons, coyotes, gophers, feral hogs, etc.
This claim is generally used as a distraction tactic by ammosexuals, providing them with an entry point into technical gun-wanking. This kind of pest control is sometimes conflated with sport hunting, even though those are very different activities. Arguments for controling the use of such weapons in these situations with mandatory industrial licenses and/or insurance are rejected on the basis of extremely shaky Second Amendment grounds. The general conclusion from people with actual experience on farms and ranches and target shooting seems to be that these weapons are not great pest control tools; more on that in this topic:
Claim: the Second Amendment protects Americans’ right to keep firearms for household self-defense from burglars and home invaders and other criminals. Or, y’know, to stand your ground at Applebees.
Unless the attackers are always assumed to also be attacking the republic as defined in the Constitution, this is another bogus argument.* It is sometimes used by ammosexuals as a “crocodile tears” argument to show how economically comfortable liberal and progressive gun control proponents are out of touch with minorities and poor people who live in bad neighbourhoods (also tying into their standard argument that “moar gunz” is always the answer to crime).
On a related note, the Second Amendment also does not exist to allow aspiring pulp novel and movie action heroes and people insecure in their masculinity to amass weapons for collecting purposes or as fetish objects.
[* ironically, one often made by the insurrectionists who stormed the U.S. Capitol on 6 Jan., 2020]
See also Jim Jefferies’ piece on Gun Control (Part 1, Part 2), the rebuttal to this argument (“defend my home”) can be summarised:
You’re much more likely to use a gun on yourself than on anyone else.
If your gun is available for use in defensive situations, then it’s available for abuse in other situations, like if when your kid finds it.
If you keep your gun securely locked away separately from the ammunition like you’re supposed to, then it’s no good if someone does come through the window.
And the hypocrisy is summed up as
You have guns because you like guns. That’s why you go to gun conventions, that’s why you read gun magazines. None of you give a shit about home security. None of you go to home security conventions. None of you read Padlock Monthly. None of you have a Facebook picture of you behind a security door going “fuckin’ yeah!”.
Also, there just were not that many different styles of arms in those days, muskets and long rifles for the most part. They were general purpose tools then, and the technological advances since then, like for many other tools, means that you have many more specialized choices. The tradeoff that they’re a lot less useful for the tasks they are not specialized in.
Did we have anything about the guy who blew himself up recently while making bombs? (How many arms he was left with afterwards is, AIUI, not clear in the reporting.)
In any case, it was a perfect example of why the anti-gun control “argument” that if guns were banned, mass murderers would just start using bombs is such bullshit.
Bombs that actually work, and only explode when intended, instead of when the bombmaker is tinkering with them, are not easy to make. Guns are far simpler, more efficient, and most importantly far safer for the shooters to use. Not to mention, in the US they’re all too easily available, while the ingredients for really effective bombs are not so easy to get, especially without raising any alarms.
It seems they also overlook that the guns in question were being used by a trained militia. The future Americans weren’t just shooting at British soldiers randomly, whenever they happened to come across a few marching around.
While arming kindergarten teachers is a transparently specious way to pretend more guns might help, you could for sure say they would have more interest and courage in saving the lives of children than the cops did. Teachers who have died to save their students is already a thing.