During her 2016 run for president, Hilary Clinton offered the same. "Why do you need a weapon of war to hunt or defend yourself? Why do you need 30 rounds in one magazine?"

This question is offered with exasperated indignation, as if it were a mic drop, or as if they are making a self-evident argument, as if it were obvious that there were never a situation or circumstance where a law-abiding citizen acting rationally would ever need more than a handful of bullets during an act of self-defense.

Of course, few would make a similar argument about any other good or service. “Why do you need that much milk for your kids?” asked no one ever. “Why do you need that big of a gas tank?” … Okay, some on the left might ask that one. But there too we can see the obvious point. Different people live under different circumstances which manifest different needs. Just because you can’t envision a need, that doesn’t mean it isn’t real for others. And your lack of shared value does not create a right to deny others theirs.

Why might one need a magazine that holds 100 rounds? Well, what if they were simultaneously assaulted by 20 people?

Here’s an example of precisely that happening. A video timestamped from June 12 shows 20 or so assailants committing a coordinated “smash and grab” at a retail location with at least one innocent victim inside. The video shows the group rushing the glass doors, which were apparently locked, and bashing them apart with chairs and other objects. They then rush into the premises, rob the victim, and proceed to loot the location. The entire clip is only 41 seconds long.

20 person smash and grab. We are a third world nation.pic.twitter.com/ejdR60MDvx

— 9mmSMG (@9mm_smg) June 16, 2024

In 41 seconds, a man goes from an ordinary day to becoming the victim of an extraordinary criminal assault perpetrated by a mob.

There may be no clearer practical example of why Americans need their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. This is not a situation where law enforcement would be able to effectively respond. The crime is obviously designed to overwhelm both the victim and any capacity of law enforcement. The number of participants in the assault, their disguised identities, and the speed with which they are in and out are all calculated to minimize personal and legal risk to the assailants.

The only way to tip that balance back in the favor of the innocent is to enable untethered self-defense. While it may not be currently legal in many states, morally, a person should be able to open fire on such a mob, and any resulting fatalities should be considered self-defense killings.

Am I saying that you should be able to mow down a mob of people just because they are bashing in your windows?
 
Yes. I am.
 
The alternative to allowing that under the law is allowing what you see above, total disregard for the law, total disregard for individual rights, and the total chaos that results for law-abiding citizens. This was once widely understood and accepted in the West. If someone is willing to violate your property, you must assume that they are willing to violate your person. “Who goes there?” is the classic challenge a property owner makes along those lines.

As with all things, context matters. You may not, as Homer Simpson once tried, invite over the next-door neighbor, then ambush him under the premise of self-defense. You may not answer the doorbell with a discharged round. But when you’re confronted with a clear and present threat, which the above situation clearly represents, you should be free to deploy lethal force in self-defense. And when you do, you’re going to need more than a handful of bullets.