This guy is garbage, nothing will ever come from him that has an ounce of intelligents. He has no arguments, just the will to pick a petty squabble, your better off just going to his profile and ignoring him, he hasn't the ability to bring anything to this debate worth while.
An assault weapon is whatever we decide it is. And we want to ban them because you have to start somewhere.
I said in my opinion a shotgun would be better at close range. Please explain to me how an opinion can be wrong. An opinion is just that... an opinion. Not everyone will have the same one. If in your opinion an AR15 is better, then by golly get one. But for me I will trust my Mossberg thank you very much.
Start somewhere? Start what? Do you mean start on the way to disarming all law abiding citizens? If you get your way and they are banned will you be satisfied, or will you want to go further and ban more guns?
Read the words. It says "start somewhere" which implies they have further to go. Banning an "assault weapon" is just the beginning.
The reason it is wrong is because, in this situation of a riot, people blitzing a store could easily overwhelm someone wielding a shotgun. Shotgun, Aquire target, shoot, pump, aquire target, shoot pump. AR doesn't require action between shots, and there is far less fealt recoil, making the sights set right back on the target. So instead of the action from the shotgun, you now get Shoot shoot shoot shoot. In any stationary position defense, the AR through testing far outshines a shotgun. If it was more about which pistol would be better, that would be opinion. Shotgun vs AR has been tested and concluded.
So what good does banning them do? It hasn't worked anywhere else it was applied. It only brings down gun homicides, but the overall homicides do not drop. Why is banning them so important to you?
Standing in front of your store with 150 thugs coming at you? Nope, a shotgun would result in your certain death!
I want one. Tell me why I shouldn't have it! Because they have been proven to cause more damage in criminal shooting sprees? NOPE. Next. This is the same as saying why do you need 20 salt shakers to a salt shaker collector. If you cannot show that salt shakers have been directly tied to a serious and widespread public safety hazard, then why do you have the right to tell the guy how many salt shakers he can have?
Why a semi-automatic rifle a good choice for home defense Here is a list of valid reasons, in no particular order. 1.You can mount a light, red dot sight and/or a laser to the rifle to make it easy to used and aim during the day or night. 2.They have a reasonable recoil, making the gun - for many users easier to shoot as compared to a defense-caliber shotgun or pistol. 3.They can be customized to fit a variety of body types and shooting styles. They can be configured and adjusted for different shooting distances (less than 5 yards to more than 200 yards). 4.The .223/5.56 self-defense round is appropriate for use within a home, even in an urban environment. Ballistic experts have found rounds from these calibers dump energy quickly and break apart or begin to tumble after penetrating the first barrier. Will rifle rounds go through walls? You bet. Will pistol calibers like 9mm, .40 and .45 go through walls? You bet. Will shotgun rounds go through walls? You bet. That said, there is significant evidence the .223/5.56 self-defense rounds penetrate no more than, and often less than traditional handgun calibers and many shotgun rounds. 5.A rifle is much more capable of stopping a threat as compared to a pistol. 6.Semi-automatic rifles are more accurate than a pistol or shotgun. 7.Ammunition is (normally) readily available and (normally) priced within reason. Present time excluded. 8.You can buy high-capacity magazines for many semi-automatic rifles. In a self-defense situation, you want to avoid manipulating the weapon at all except for pulling the trigger straight back. Law enforcement and civilians do not favor high-capacity magazines so they can shoot more rounds, they favor them so they can manipulate their weapon less. If reloading is needed, it is possible but lets be completely honest, in many self defense situations, ten rounds may not be enough. http://radioviceonline.com/departme...rt-rifle-ar-15-suitable-for-personal-defense/
*** Gun-rights advocates argue that characteristics of assault-style firearms that are largely cosmetic — and make them look menacing but not any more lethal — have been used in making a case for banning the class of weapons. Vincent J.M. DiMaio, a world-renowned forensic pathologist and firearms expert who wrote a standard forensic textbook on firearm injuries — used by the Medical Examiner’s Office in defining an assault rifle — said in his book that the term has been “corrupted by the media and some politicians” to include most self-loading weapons. “One of the common fallacies about assault rifles is that the wounds they produce are more severe than those due to ordinary centerfire rifles,” DiMaio wrote. “In fact, the wounds are less severe than those produced by virtually all hunting rifles.” Tim Orrock, a firearms expert who delivered a presentation on assault weapons at a recent Times-Dispatch Public Square forum on guns, said many politicians who have proposed banning certain firearms know virtually nothing about them and are attempting to legislate something they don’t fully understand. “People who are not into firearms have no idea what they’re talking about with this,” said Orrock, who noted the rifle that Morrissey held up would have been legal under the 1994 assault weapons ban. “And that’s probably one of the most frustrating things — those people looking to ban have no understanding of the lawful, legal use of firearms — and don’t care to.” Full Article http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/l...cle_95a46f9d-47de-51b6-98af-bcfe43cb2721.html
