Lightweight, high-velocity rounds like the 5.56 tend to present less of an overpenetration risk than heavier, slower ones like the 9mm or 45ACP, even hollowpoints. Things like birdshot or Glasser frangible ammo can’t be counted on to reliably stop a threat so those aren’t a great solution either. Overpenetration is a serious concern with any firearm that is viable for self-defense, there’s no getting around it. Any time you pull the trigger you run the risk of killing an innocent person downrange of your intended target.

5.56, typical rounds for ARs, aren’t high caliber. In many states it’s illegal to hunt deer with that caliber because it’s under powered. Who told you it’s high powered?

People absolutely use “high capacity” mags when these laws say more than 10 is too high. Take something like a Glock handgun typical capacity there is 15 to 17. For a modern rifle capacities of 20 to 40 is extremely common. For ARs the standard capacity is 30. Certainly any rifle anyone would consider for self defense is going to have mags larger than 10.

Overpenetration is a concern for any round a person would use for self defense. That includes 9mm and buckshot. Using 5.56 or 300 blk isn’t actually that much more dangerous when just about anything is going through a bunch of wall if someone misses. And 5.56 might actually stop sooner than a slower moving handgun round because ballistics do weird things.

Any caliber reasonable for self defense will overpenetrate through all walls of your home at lethal velocities. .380, 9mm, .45, 5.56, 12 ga buckshot, if you miss your target it will overpenetrate. Drywall has about as much bullet resistance as paper. The only way to prevent any over penetration is firing hollow point ammunition at your target and not missing.

Well it doesn’t matter what lame opinions you have, because this case is going to get dunked right down the shitter so hard by the Supreme Court, that it will come out the other side in Australia.

But the fact remains that “assault weapons” are commonly purchased and used for self defense in America. You can argue about the merits of that all you want, but it is a fact that it is common in our current reality, and the judge was wrong. Personally I don’t own an AR, because they are impractical for everything I use a gun for.

1. Absolutely everyone with an interest in a self-defense firearm would prefer a “high capacity” one. The only guns that aren’t high capacity are single-shot and revolvers, both useless for self-defense in general.
2. High caliber is not relevant here; we are discussing all weapons Connecticut has defined as “assault”, including low-caliber ones, not specifically e.g. .50s. For example, some AR platform rifles fire 22 caliber rounds, very famously a low caliber by anyone’s definition. 2A) If it were relevant, you would be wrong, as low-caliber weapons are completely useless against bears and other large wildlife, as well as anyone in body armor. People don’t buy self-defense firearms knowing what threat they will need to stop.
3. Same again for Rifle; the statutes in question label many non-Rifles as “assault”. 3A) Rifles are significantly more accurate than handguns and hence are significantly more credible for home defense than handguns, whose only benefit is portability for self-defense on the go. Given the choice between a handgun or a rifle for home defense, only a fool would choose a handgun. Because home defense can include close-quarters combat and is never going to include very long distances, a relatively short-barreled rifle is your best bet - only a fool would choose a long rifle optimized for hunting long-distance targets.

Your typical 5.56 on a miss (and with 30 shots, you’re going to miss)

What do you think it’s on full auto? It sounds like bump stocks are more your issue than high capacity.