No true law abiding citizen would want to own an assualt weapon (ethic, 9/11)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
According to Wiki, an assault rifle is defined as follows:
Your definition is absolutely correct, but it is NOT the definition the gun-grabbers are using. Rather, they want to ban guns based upon how they look.
Since nobody seems to want to play along, I'll spill the beans. The difference between an AR-15 and the wood stocked weapon I posted a picture of is... Nothing.
They both fire the exact same rounds downrange at the exact same speed, and reload in a functionally identical manner. But one "looks" like a scary military weapon, and the other doesn't.
I tried very hard, but I can't think of any reason why a law abiding citizen would want to own an assault weapon. If your true motive for owning a gun is to protect yourself, why isn't a normal gun good enough? What's next, your own miniature nuclear bomb under the guise of "Second Amendment rights"? Where does it stop?
There are nationally sanctioned shooting competitions using military pattern weapons.
You didn't answer my question, which was "How is banning these firearms going to stop gun related crimes?"
At Columbine, there were no "assault weapons" used, but the perpetrators still managed to kill 12 people and injure 21 more. All of the weapons used carried less than 30 rounds.
At Virginia Tech, the firearms used were a .22-caliber Walther P22 semi-automatic handgun and a 9 mm semi-automatic Glock 19 handgun. Neither of these has a 30 round magazine, yet the perpetrator managed to kill 31 people and injure 17 others.
At Aurora, CO, the high-capacity magazine for the one and only "assault rifle" that was used jammed after firing less than 30 rounds. The perpetrator then switched to using a handgun. The shotgun that he started shooting with did not carry 30 rounds and would not have fallen under the category of "assault weapon" as defined in the dismal legislative failure that was the 1994 assault weapons ban.
Now that you have a few facts about the crimes that you erroneously used to try to prove an invalid point, please answer my question: "How will banning firearms with a 30 round magazine from the general, law-abiding public stop gun related crimes?"
Your falling back on the federal definition of assault rifles, as far as I'm concerned the Bushmaster used in the killings is an assault rifle, these weapons are used to kill multiple people in a short period of time. Pistols or rifles, 10 round magazine or 30 doesn't make a difference, they can still kill very rapidly. I understand that covers many guns out there today but everything needs to be looked at in terms of regulation.
So what if the shooters gun didn't jam at Columnbine, what would be the outcome, can you think of any good reason why a law abiding citizen should have a semi-automatic with 30 rounds?
There's no reason to own golf clubs either....They are portrayed in movies as a weapon when someone hears a noise at night....what ELSE are they used for?
Fact is, there's no REASON to own MANY items....or multiples of those items.
Did you even read my post? Anyone even moderately familiar with a weapon, with the right equipment, can put 30 rounds downrange in 2 minutes with any weapon. If that is to be the definition of "assault weapon" you've just labeled every firearm an "assault weapon".
Then maybe that should be a consideration for manual load only weapons.
Last edited by KrazeeKrewe; 12-17-2012 at 06:37 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.