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.
Generally speaking, an assault rifle will have larger magazine capacities, higher rates of fire (assault rifles are capable of automatic fire), as well as better accuracy and overall efficiency. An assault rifle is objectively a more powerful weapon. However, there are situations when a handgun would be better. This is generally the argument against assault weapons (which are not the same as an assault rifle, but the bans call for assault weapons which is a broad legal category that includes assault rifles). In terms of home defense, the likelihood that you would need an assault rifle is virtually non-existant. A handgun is smaller and plenty efficient for home defense. This is why people often say 'you don't need an assault rifle.' From a technical standpoint, this is reasonable true.
Opponents to the assault weapons ban are less concerned with needs, and more concerned with rights. While in most cases, and handgun would be sufficient, possibly better, for home defense, the point of the second amendment is to ensure a right to arms regardless of situation. An argument could be made that a time could come when a handgun simply won't cut it.
I'm a certified firearms instructor. I have to take exception to your reference to Assault rifles. The semi auto rifles that our government and media calls "assault rifles" have been around a long time. They only became referred to as assault rifles when they first wanted to ban them under the Clinton administration. Never before were they called assault rifles. They chose to label them so they could garner public support for banning them in 1994. Until that point, assault rifles were only rifles that had full auto capability. In other words, machine guns.
The so called assault rifles like that have been used in recent terror attacks do not have a higher rate of fire than any other modern firearm. Right now, move your finger as fast as you can. I'm sure you can move it pretty fast. That is the rate of fire for revolvers, handguns, AR15s, AK47s and the like. All these guns will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. No faster.
These rifles that have been used in these recent terror attacks use a .223 or .556 round. In many states this round has been outlawed for Deer hunting because it is inhumane to kill larger animals because it is not powerful enough. It is best suited for small game such as hogs, coyotes and the like.
Government can in no way corral a bunch of snipers.
Seriously? Have you stopped to consider the tools at the government's disposal?
Government can in no way corral a bunch of snipers, only as long as government agrees to play by the snipers' rules. If you will allow me, I'll offer a tip regarding armed conflict: If your plan depends on the enemy cooperating, it's a bad plan.
the difference between them is that FAR more people die in the US from pistols than from rifles.
True. The assault-whatever (not touching the nomenclature debate) legislation is bad law for a lot of reasons, but mostly the one you mention.
People who go nuts with rifles are not the typical case of how Americans shoot each other - crazy loners aren't that common. And rifles are, let's face it, a pain in the rear to schlep around. They scratch everything, knock over stuff when you turn and get stuck in doorways. Handguns are much more likely to be readily at hand when an argument over road rage or infidelity or loud music or the TV remote spins out of control.
What some representatives are trying to do now is to address the means to commit mass shootings, not street crime. That argument is a red herring. Bottom line is, gun nuts don't want there to be any limitation on what they can have, period.
I tend to know more about guns than your average liberal as I had a military dad with guns in the house and liked the A team when I was a pre-teen.
The first move of gun nuts is to go after other peoples lack of encyclopedic knowledge about firearms. There are way, way too many people in this country with an encyclopedic knowledge of firearms, but not a brain in their friggin' heads. I can't really blame some soccer mom who sees 50 people get killed with a gun and doesn't know the difference between 20 different types of semi auto rifles. WTF would she?
One of the reasons for supporting the 2nd Amendment is that it allows the citizenry to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. Thus the importance of a balance in weaponry. So, why would the government want it's citizens to be insufficiently armed ? Why indeed.
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.
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.
