What's the argument for allowing assault rifles?

12 killed and 48 wounded. With knives? No, with a weapon designed to shoot rapidly without reloading. you see, it's not the appearance of the weapon, it's the intended design used maliciously.

What is the virtue of a weapon that can shoot rapidly multiple rounds without reloading? Shooting multiple groundhogs? Shooting multiple deer?

I submit the design is to shoot multiple people.

 

Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass and learn the facts before pretending to be some kind of expert. His big nasty looking gun jammed rather quickly. He did most of the damage with a shotgun and hand gun.

The more important question one should ask is if assault weapons were banned, would it have stopped the Aurora shooting? The answer is probably not. His tactics might have changed though. If he were looking to kill as many people as possible and didn't have an assault rifle, he probably would have turned to explosives. His apartment was booby trapped with numerous explosives, so it isn't like he didn't know how.

That has already been explained. Your inability to grasp such simple concepts isn't our problem. It is yours.

CAN it be used for that? Yes. Can handguns? Yes. Can hunting rifles? Yes. Can knives? Yes.

Now, the big question is can you see the stupidity in your claims?

 

Oh! For hunting! You need that 'follow up shot'. And I suppose you might even need thirty "follow up shots" when hunting too!

If you can't hit your prey with two or three, perhaps you need a new hobby. Might I suggest model railroading.

and you are telling me that knives are designed to shoot multiple people. yeah. right. I can't grasp simple concepts.

 

Maybe your sarcasm is getting in the way of your common sense and logic. Apparently the answer to my last question is not a chance in hell.

So got any good reasons assault weapons should be banned other than your rather retarded claim that assault weapons are only designed to shoot multiple people? After all, assault weapons are used for legal and legitimate uses tens of thousands of times a day without mishap. Cars kill far more people than guns, yet nobody sane is talking about outlawing cars or claiming SUVs are only designed to run over multiple people.

 

Well, a couple of things.

First, killing someone is already illegal.

Second, there is no current definition for an "assault weapon" since the ban expired where it was initially defined.

Semi-automatic rifles have been around a long time. They are used for sport and hunting. If they are used for killing, see above.

You can buy 30 round magazines for a Glock 9mm handgun.

Assault rifles, by definition are select fire and can fire more than one round with the pull of a trigger. They are the only rifle that is required to be registered with the Federal Government but you can still own one.

 

Ever been Hog hunting? How about bear hunting?

 

Oh! cars kill more people than guns. and i suppose the intended design use for cars is to kill people. Weak argument and frankly not your best work.

Phosgene gas can be one heck of a good insecticide. But the public is banned from obtaining phosgene. Why? Because there are plenty of user friendly insecticides that are effective. And phosgene gas is quite deadly.

There are plenty of legitimate uses for guns. target shooting, hunting and self defense. But why have the gun equivalent of phosgene? Need to kill the termites as well as the neighborhood?


If you can make an assumption like the reason gun control advocates fear assault weapons it the appearance of the weapons, let me assume the only reason gun nuts like assault weapons is they LOVE the appearance of the weapons. Makes 'em feel like Rambo when they get together and play Army.

 

Sorry, but the AR-15 is a great platform for different uppers so it is very versatile and the floating barrel makes it pretty accurate. The AK is rugged and reliable. You do realize, don't you, that there are other popular semi-auto rifles that are not AR's or AK's like the Ruger?

BTW: You can assume anything you what but you know what they say about "assume".

 

The purpose of the second amendment is not about hunting, its about self defense from criminals and the govt.

GEORGE WASHINGTON (First President)
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)​

Here are more quotes from those that wrote and understood teh Constitution http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/2ndQuotes.php

It might sound ridiculous to say people might need firearms to stop the govt, but that is not a reason to give up firearms. Nobody knows what tomorrow will bring.

----------------------------------

"Assault weapons" are basically machine guns. The AR-15 & AK-47 style rifles you see in civilian hands are not assault weapons, you pull the trigger and they shoot one bullet, thats it. Same as any semiautomatic hunting rifle.

The AR-15 style is the most popular rifle today. And yes people use it for hunting.

----------------------------------

With a little practice, you can reload very quickly. Watch this guy:

[video=youtube;Ls4Uq1aCiTA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ls4Uq1aCiTA[/video]

You can reload a shotgun (pump and semiauto) very quickly as well, shoot-load one-shoot-load one- etc. Doesnt matter how many shells the shotgun will hold. Shoot 1 shell in less than 1 second, put a dump bag with 30+ shells on your belt and shoot until the bag is empty.

All its takes is practice.

Its not the gun, its the skills that matter.

-----------------------------

Millions of people own firearms. A tiny bit above 0% go on a shooting spree.

The problem is not firearm ownership.

The problem is not the 99.999% of law abiding firearm owners.

The problem is the inability of society to do something about mentally troubled people. The Tucson shooter & the Colorado shooter gave clear signals that they were disturbed, people around them knew they were dangerous, the Colorado shooter even told his psychiatrist what he was going to do. Nobody stopped the shooters. Thats the failure.

 

How many (for the purposes of this discussion, agree on the definition as semi or fully automatic with the capacity to carry a large magazine) assault weapons were manufactured and sold in america last year? Do you expect anyone to actually believe they were sold to hunt bears and hogs?

 

Sure, why not?

 

Yet that is the same argument you use. We've already gone over numerous other uses that assault rifles are used for overwhelmingly. Have cars been used to kill people? Absolutely. Another lame comeback by you down the drain.

Nope. That is just the typical grossly exaggerated lies of those who neither understand the issue nor wish to learn the issue. Handguns have killed orders of magnitude more people than assault rifles, which means assault rifles are not the "gun equivalent of phosgene gas".

BTW, the public has NEVER been able to use phosgene gas as a pesticide. You would think you could at least come up with a good example.

And here you show a complete and total ignorance of the subject. Reading your posts makes me wonder how gun control advocates even get out of grade school. I showed you a prime example of gun control advocates focusing on the looks of guns because they're too (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid to know the difference. Can you do the same? Maybe you shouldn't ASSume anything anymore. From reading your posts, you are not very good at it.

 

Given the FACT only a very small fraction of a percentage of assault weapons purchased were used to kill people, it is a good bet more bears and hogs have lost their lives to assault weapons than people. Another claim of yours down in flames.

 

Now I know why you are so skeered.

At least 2.5+ million have been sold in the US since 86. You must think that they are all sold just to kill people. Wonder why we don't have 2.5+ million in multiples dead from them then?

 

What would be the justification for restricting or banning assault weapons? Lack of need is never justification to restrict things in the US. There has to be a legitimate impact for the public benefit and a legitimate risk to the citizenry to justify such actions.

The danger posed by a kind of weapon that is used in less than 2% of gun crimes and less than 0.2% of all violent crimes has to be minimal. Shouldn't we reduce other factors first?

 

Using the Pareto Principle, you tackle the top 20% of factors that cause 80% of the problem. Drugs is the number one factor in gun deaths. They are already illegal and have not made a dent in the problem so the politicians have to feel like they are doing something positive by oppressing law abiding citizens.

 

I agree.

Here is the one thing gun control advocates avoid like the plague; they are only addressing a symptom, and the problem isn't going to go away just because they try to fix a symptom that does nothing to address the core problem.

The problem isn't the guns. Guns are a means to an end. People like Page and Holmes aren't going to stop just because you remove one tool from their toolbox. The problem is people like Page and Holmes. The problem is gang bangers that are in an untenable social situation they feel necessitates gangs and by extension gang banging. The problems are social in nature and need to be addressed from that angle, not from what tools they use. Like I said, gun control advocates are only looking from a symptom perspective, not a core problem perspective.

 

More people die of fists every year than all the rifle deaths combined.

Evil will always find a way.

Guns are out there and you can't get them back anymore than you can put toothpaste back into the tube.

If the evil bastards get to have guns, I want 'em too. I don't wanna bring a peashooter and wit to a gunfight.

 

This.

I've been trying to ponder the reason why gun abolitionists think the way they do. It must be something to do with a comfy coziness with government supplied safety and stability. And they have a hard time understanding why we would want our guns, if banning them would save even JUST one individual.

It is sad that so many have forgotten that we are a nation based on UNALIENABLE rights, naturally given rights. Not rights bestowed upon us by a King, queen or CONGRESS even.

I don't want to be like Europe where people are sheep and depend on "the government" for my safety and my rights.

Ok, so where does it stop? Should we be able to buy bazookas, Tanks, F-14 tomcats, F-117 stealth fighters?!!!! The answer is well, yeah. We The People promote tranquility. Not "we the government". The government is NOT the people. They are our proxies to "help" us make a stable society.

Even after saying all that, Bazooka's maybe too much and grenades too much as they can kill multiple people in one pull. And here is where it becomes "sticky".

And we must remember that we should ALWAYS side on the side of keeping MORE freedoms than taking them away in grey areas. Yes, always.

Btw, congrats to me, I just bought my first AK-47!! Woo-hoo! Before these gun abolitionists sway our liberties away from us.

 

Heh. I never hankered for an AK. I did just agree to trade a gun for a guitar though. Picking it up tomorrow, the guitar that is.

 

Because the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

I don't need freedom of speech, either.

Nor do I need to be secure from unwarranted searches and seizures.

 

Please refer to this thread before telling me what I can and cannot have while having absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...58325-so-homes-used-assualt-rifle-really.html

 

Nice! I traded my old glock and a S&W .22 for an RC helicopter back in the day!

 

No offense Wolverine, but sod off. In the post of mine you quoted I said that I was for gun rights and that I was just wondering. That I want to hear the arguments for and against something before I decide what to think about it. The arguments given thus far leads me to the conclusion that what I vaguely termed assault weapons should be allowed.