I'm pretty much in favour of gun rights but I'm just wondering, what's the rationale for allowing assault weapons? big rifles you know, military stuff that can kill lot's of people in a few seconds. All that I can think of right now is simply to let law obiding people counter the lawless that have assault weapons. Just genuinely wondering, thank you.
Okay. You know those big weapons, that can shoot many bullets really really fast with big clips/magazines. compared to hand guns. carbines, machine guns.. I don't have a gun so I don't know these things very well though.
Assault weapons are used for sport/recreational shooting as well as home defense. Assault weapons (AK-47s, AR-15s) are not "big rifles". Your standard deer rifle like a .30-06 will do a lot more damage than what is commonly referred to as an assault weapon. As an example, the energy in your average .223 Remington round (AR-15) has somewhere north of 1,200 foot pounds of energy while a .30-06 has north of 2,800 foot pounds. Others, like the .375 H&H Magnum, generate over 4,400 foot pounds of energy.
this is still vague. what do you consider to be an assualt weapon, if you're ok with carbines and machine guns?
but hunting rifles can't shoot as fast can they? and if they can is there really a need for it? And is this the reason why these weapons are allowed, for hunting?
Assault weapons shoot no faster than other semi-automatic weapons. Some hunting rifles are semi automatic. You can even get shotguns in semi automatic. Is there a need for it when hunting? Sure. There are times when a follow up shot is needed and with a semi automatic weapon, all you need to do is pull the trigger again.
to be honest I only used 'assault' because I thought it was sort of synonimous to 'weapon-that-can-do-a-lot-of-damage-fast-as-%¤#&' which is what I actually mean. So what's the rationale for allowing really potentially damaging weapons (because an ak-47 can do more damage then a handgun right?)? and why not allow say bazookas? where is the line drawn and why.
a handgun in trained hands can do more damage than an AK-47 in untrained hands. Bazookas are explosive ordinances, so that's an apples to oranges analogy.
IOW, I didn't and still don't know a thing about what I'm talking about, but I know that I want government to come in and take things from people. Cool story bro.
Contrary to liberal assertions, semi-automatic rifles are useful for self-defense. Korean merchants used them to defend themselves against black rioters during the 1992 Los Angeles riots.
A bazooka has no sporting purpose at all including recreational shooting. "Assault rifles" are used recreationally by the tens of thousands on a daily basis without anyone getting killed or wounded. Outside the military, it is a very safe bet to say handguns have killed and wounded FAR more people than "assault rifles".
No, read the first post were I write that I'm in favour of guns rights (!!) I just don't know what the rationale for allowing the more dangerous weapons are and I'd like to know.
All weapons are dangerous. Knives can kill just as easily as a bazooka. Uninformed people consider assault weapons more dangerous because they "look" scary. That was pretty much the entire basis for the now expired assault weapons ban. You couldn't buy a weapon with too many accessories because it made the gun look scarier. From wikipedia: Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Bayonet mount Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally). Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm. Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds Detachable magazine. How silly is that? Does an "assault rifle" with a folding stock AND a forward grip somehow become more deadly than an assault rifle with a forward grip but a non-folding stock? No. Does a handgun weighing more than 50 ounces somehow become more deadly? Maybe if you threw it at someone....
They are also good for home defense and hunting. Out on the plains here, they also use them for "varminting". You can't say the same about a bazooka, although it will kill animals and varmints.
OK, so we've seen plenty of legitimate uses for assault rifles. What would be anyone's reason for banning them?