What's the argument for allowing assault rifles?

I'm sure the Swedish media has never put the idea of individuals owning modern firearms in a positive light. No wonder you view more modern weapons with such a negative view. Modern repeating weapons have made old and slow, single shot muzzel-loaders obsolete [even these are outlawed in many countries]. You seem fine with the idea that a slow, bolt action rifle is fine for hunting and that common servants of the crown should be satisfied to only with these older technologies---even to defend themselves with. Perhaps you even think an old 6-shooter cowboy type revolver would be fine. However, in the hands of an expert, they are even more fast and deadly than semiauto handguns---although they only shoot 6 rounds normally. The world's fastest draw uses a revolver (the same technolgy from the 1870's) to draw an hit two seperate targets with in a few tenths of a second. Using all their fingers, experts can fan the trigger and shoot all 6 rounds faster than anyone can with a modern semi-auto handgun.

The fact is that any real expert with an old six shooter, lever action rifle or shotgun will easily kill off any punk off the street armed with the latest high capacity rifle or handgun in a typical encounter. But you and the vast majority of people are not experts. A simple gun like a Glock has a safety on the trigger, is almost "idiotproof" and is vastly superior to most older weapons like revolvers for self defense in close quarters combat.

You worry that the wrong people will get these high tech weapons and kill off dozens of people in shooting sprees. The wrong people can easily get these weapons as easily as they can illegal narcotics---which cause far more deaths and medical problems than gun do. Yes, shooting sprees do happen in Western countries, but they are still rare. Most common are the murders that happen in violent urban areas---they do not get much press.

Now in your part of your kingdom you can say to yourself, "I don't need this firepower to stay safe." Well how about those honest, law abiding people who live in dangerous areas of the world, like many in the US, where locals allow gangs to run around unpunished. These debased people are obsessed with their own concept of innocence, and do not feel obligated to follow common wisdom that demands moral behavior. For the moral people who do live in and near these areas, the police are not able to protect them. So---would you deny these people the right to defend themselves with modern weapons? Wouldn't you rather have a rifle or pistol that held more rounds, and was more easy to use in a paniced situation? Or would you feel confident using a slow, bolt action hunting rifle inside a small apartment when attackers come busting in?

 

Fastest Revolver in the World

[video=youtube_share;CsLx5ISBXw4]http://youtu.be/CsLx5ISBXw4[/video]

 

Nope.

Assault rifles are still legal today. However they are very expensive and deemed Class III items. The 1986 NFA closed the machine gun registry. The 1968 Gun Control Act has absolutely nothing to doing with automatic rifles.

"Assault weapons" is a meaningless term.

 

You would be better off if the shooter had a 100rd magazine than five 20rd ones. The 100 rd one has a signifigant chance of jamming while the 20 rd ones are very reliable. Magazines can be easily and rapidly switched. If 100 rd mags offered a real advantage the military would have switched to them long ago.

 

According to the definition, a semi-automatic deer rifle is an "assault rifle." Assault rifles are regular rifles that just look mean... it's all cosmetic. Functionally there is no difference whatsoever between a common hunting rifle and something like an AR-15.

 

Assualt rilfes are not hunting rilfes. Assualt rifles are automatic firearms.

The AR-15 is not an assualt rifle.

 

No, it is not cosmetic.

An Assault Rifle is a specific type of firearm. It is a selective fire rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge.

 

Technically you may be correct, but I think the generally-accepted nomenclature is interchangeable with "assault weapon" as in Bill Clinton's "assault weapons ban" which was a ban on semi-auto rifles that are functionally identical to a deer rifle but cosmetically resemble a military weapon.

 

I wonder how police who support gun-control would feel about not being allowed to carry guns themselves.

A 2011 survey showed that 98% of police Chiefs and Sheriffs surveyed support civilian ownership of firearms by the law-abiding. 74% believe law-abiding armed citizens can be of assistance to professional law enforcement!

 

No may about it, I am correct.

Assault Rifles are military weapons, such as the Stg44, M-16 and AK-47. The AR-15 is not an Assault Rifle. It is a semi automatic rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge.

Many people call magazines, clips, but that doesn't make it right.

 

ok, one more time....
assault rifles are military grade weapons with a select fire that turns them from a semi automatic into a full auto, kind of like a machine gun.
Assault weapons are semi-auto or single shot and do not have a select fire switch. If one where to use that definition of an assault weapon, then a single shot, bolted action could be considered an assault weapon if you use the other end of the firearm to butt-stroke another person.
A baseball bat can be considered to be an assault weapon, or a knife, or piece of pipe, or sword, ax, cross bow, bows in general, throwing stars, hands, feet, head-butts, farting....all of these have been used to damage or kill other folks. Just ask Al Capone. His fav weapon was a baseball bat which he used freqently and with deadly results. Here's the h3ll of it, you don't have to reload a bat.
Maybe because it fits the description of "assault weapon," we should work tirelessly to ban bats too.

 

..A common, juvenile tactic here..that and the need to appear "funny" and play to the grandstand, facts and reality be dam.ned.

 

Bill Clinton's definitions of words can be in doubt. "I did not not have sexual relations with that girl."

The gun control people hate all guns, they will twist words and definitions however they please.

 

True. However I am not in any way referring to "assault weapons", I am referring to assault rifles.

Assault rifles have a definite definition. "Assault weapons" do not.

 

In the eyes of some, there is no difference because they are all guns and you know the definition they use for all guns, "only designed to kill people" which, in their eyes, gives government the right to trample our rights.

 

There isn't but one reason the government wants to be better armed than the civilians.........

 

What's the argument for allowing assault rifles?

I want one. Or does that not count.

 

bump for truth

 

There are all different styles and designs of guns to give an advantage in any given situation. But the one thing they all have in common is that they are designed to shoot and kill deer and put a hole through a tin can. So, at close or medium range, when a tin can or deer tries to break into my home I want to make sure I have the right weapon. If the tin can is moving and at about 1000 yards away, I'll need the appropriate weapon for that. If we limit our choices then freedom loses and the tin cans win.

 

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

 

Wolveriiiiines!

 

American citizens should have the right to bear/carry the typical firearms/weapons our combat soldiers carry in the field.

 

I fail to see why. American citizens are not subject to combat conditions.

 

But at the time of when the Constitution was written we were. We didn't have a Federal tax system so enlisted me had to bring their own weapons. That's Merica.

What would we do if an armada of deer and tin cans ransacked our great city of Baltimore? I'll tell ya...fight back with fully automatic M4 carbines with laser sighting, only then might we be able to protect ourselves from deer and tin cans.