Apparently, My Fire Extinguisher Doesn’t Count

I carry a fire extinguisher, a first aid kit, recovery gear, and a trauma kit in my Jeep. So far, I have only needed the recovery gear once—to help a neighbor stuck in the snow at the end of our street.

I would rather have those supplies and not need them than need them and not have them.

That came to mind while reading Virginia’s brief supporting the firearm bans challenged in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins. Virginia argues that owning an AR-15 for protection does not establish common defensive use. It points instead to how rarely these rifles appear in recorded defensive incidents. [1, pp. 12–13]

First, we should note that not every defensive incident becomes a police report or news story. Counts based on those sources can miss incidents. Surveys try to capture a broader picture, but their estimates vary widely. The CDC cites estimates ranging from 500,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year across all firearm types. That does not tell us how often AR-15s are used, but it shows why a documented incident count should not automatically be treated as the full total.

Being prepared still counts

Apply that reasoning to a fire extinguisher:

“You say you own it for fire protection. How many fires have you actually put out?”

I’m not a firefighter. I’ve never put out a fire with my extinguisher. Does that make owning it pointless?

Of course not. I keep it ready because a fire could happen. I hope I never need it.

The same goes for my trauma kit. Never needing it would be a good outcome—not proof that carrying it was a waste.

Firearms and fire extinguishers have different risks. This comparison does not settle the gun debate. It makes one simple point: rarely needing something does not erase its protective purpose.

Protection is not the only purpose

People also own firearms for target shooting, plinking, competition, hunting, and collecting. Sometimes my targets are pumpkins. Call it seasonal arts and crafts.

One firearm can serve several of those purposes. It does not have to fit into a single category.

I have never fired my grandfather’s Springfield from 1886. I treasure it for its history and family connection. A count of defensive incidents would tell you nothing about why I own it.

And peaceful enjoyment is a reason, too. This is America—the land of the free and the home of the brave. Part of what I value about this country is the freedom to enjoy lawful activities that others may not share.

“Why do you need it?” is not a substitute for explaining why the government should be allowed to restrict it.

But someone could modify it

Virginia also argues that possible modifications make ordinary AR-15s similar enough to machineguns to justify excluding them from constitutional protection. [1, pp. 6–10]

Try that argument with a car:

“Your street-legal car could be modified into something illegal to drive on public roads. Therefore, we should ban it—even though you haven’t made those modifications.”

That skips an important step. Modifying a car may make it illegal to drive on public roads but that does not make it illegal to own. I can still trailer it to a track and use it there. So why would the possibility of modification justify banning the ordinary, street-legal car?

The possibility of misuse is not enough to justify a ban. If I own it and use it lawfully, someone else’s illegal use should not make mine a crime.

In Staples v. United States, the Supreme Court recognized the difference between a semiautomatic AR-15 and a select-fire M16, even while discussing possible conversion. That case concerned criminal liability, not the constitutionality of a rifle ban. Still, it shows that shared parts and possible alterations do not erase the distinction. [2, pp. 603–604]

I’ll keep being prepared

Virginia is asking the Court to treat these rifles as outside the Second Amendment’s protection. [1, pp. 4–6] That deserves a stronger argument than pointing to rare defensive incidents or what someone might modify a rifle to do.

Ownership alone does not answer every legal question. But neither does counting emergencies.

I hope my fire extinguisher stays in its mount and my trauma kit stays unopened. I will keep carrying them anyway.

Being prepared counts before the emergency. And lawful enjoyment counts even when there is no emergency at all.

Sources

1. Virginia’s amicus brief, Viramontes / Grant. References use printed page numbers.
2. Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994).