Dear liberals, pay attention. In Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, three people decided to burgle a house on Monday. At around 12:30 p.m., they picked their target house, entered through the back door, and came face to face with the homeowner's nineteen-year-old son. Words were exchanged, and shots were fired. When the Wagoner County sheriff's deputies arrived at the site of the burglary, they were surprised to find three dead bodies upon arrival -- all belonging to the would-be thieves. According to Fox News, two of the suspected burglars died in the kitchen and one in the driveway. The two homeowners were unhurt.
This is a wonderful example of why people need to be prepared to protect their homes, but the weapon the teenager used for home defense is notable: an AR-15 rifle. For years, Democrats have told us that no American “needs” an AR-style rifle (which they commonly call an "assault rifle.") However, National Review points out that this is exactly the type of weapon one might use to protect the house:
... people who don’t know the first thing about firearms [say] that no American “needs” an AR-style rifle. But when your life is on the line, what do you want? More accuracy or less? More firepower or less? More recoil or less? More reliability or less? It’s always interesting to take a relatively inexperienced shooter to a range, let them first shoot a handgun (where the bullets generally scatter all over the target), and then hand them an AR. Even rookies will shoot far more accurately with far less recoil. It’s just easier to use.
After Monday's Oklahoma would-be burglary, this conversation is no longer hypothetical. That family is alive today thanks to selecting a well-made, light, accurate weapon they knew how to use. Maybe Democrats should finally let Americans choose which weapons would be best to protect their own homes.