I think the better question is which gun I'd rather be shot at with by some shithead who got called a homo one too many times on WoW. A hunting rifle requires more skill hit your target and prevents one from spraying dozens of bullets in a brief period of time (or at least makes it damn hard, especially for people who don't know how to operate it).
But in this case it backfired because the moron jammed his gun. I hear what you're saying though. 30 rounds gives you a lot of opportunity. The thing is, banning assault rifles at this point would solve nothing. There are enough high-cap magazines in the populace to make it relatively easy for anyone to get ahold of what they want. The ban only covers selling new AR15s or 30 round mags. Anything sold before the ban is grandfathered in.
Theoretically, if you ban these guns or ban the modifications or magazines or what have you that make this kind of thing easy, then the number of these will shrink as police start getting them from arrested gang members and whoever else would be using them. Also theoretically, wouldn't these shit stain teenage/early 20s guys be priced out of getting one since the gangsters and gun aficionados would be driving the price up for them? Maybe as years turn into decades we'd look back and remember a time when every 6 months to a year some fuck head would start shooting random people in public with high powered assault weapons. Obviously a big part of the reason these things happen is culture and psychology/sociology type of stuff. But what is the harm in banning assault weapons? Hunters can still use hunting weapons, people can still have their home defense weapons. No one needs an assault rifle.
This. Is everyone okay, btw? Anyone here know people who were there/affected? I have a friend who is a 911 operator. Busy busy day for her.
You can now print guns with a 3D printer. How are we going to ban these things? Bottom line, if you want one, you can get one.
Banning them doesn't get rid of them. It just prevents the further sale of new ones. The assault rifles and high cap mags that were sold before the "ban" are grandfathered in. This was the case with the previous assault rifle ban. Similarly, it is illegal to sell machine guns to anyone not associated with law enforcement, but you can buy an old machine gun that was grand fathered in. There was an article today about a woman turning in a 1944 German machine gun that she'd had in her possession since her father passed away. He had brought it back after WWII. These guns are out there, despite them being banned. Hell, if I want to own a silencer I can legally buy one, but I have to go through a licensing process with the ATF. So essentially, banning assault rifles only stops the production and sale of new ones. It doesn't get the hundreds of thousands out of circulation that would still be perfectly legal.
Read a friggin' history book. Granted, you've obviously led a very sheltered and pampered life in a period where this country's government has not experienced martial law or a violent coup attempt. What you need to realize is that the only deterrent to that happening has been an armed populace. This is exactly why we have the 2nd Amendment, to protect the sanctity of our country's government and the safety of American citizens. Killers will try to kill, as they always have since time began. Disarming the populace only guarantees they will succeed at a higher rate.
That's simply not true. There are many countries around the world, most of them much smaller, where gun fatalities eclipse the relatively few we have in America.
America is a fairly peaceful place compared to most of the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
In my mind, the entire point of the second amendment (as MARIS61 has stated) is to ensure that the populace is sufficiently armed to protect itself against the threat of tyrannical government. If the populace is relegated to pea shooters and air rifles, it seems that it would defeat that primary purpose. On the other hand, I might suggest that the "government"--and the country itself--are too sprawling and fractious to facilitate a legitimate tyranny, so perhaps it's possible that the 2nd has outlived it's usefulness. I would submit, however, that if weakening/recision of the 2nd leads/contributes to a tyrannical government, that would do more damage to the country and its people than 100 years of assault rifle ownership would.
I'm not sure that the general population should have access to, or a legal right to own, the same types of guns that the military has.
That's a valid point. I was wondering as I typed my prior post what those who advocate exclusively in favor of gun rights (eg, Lars Larson) believe is the necessary availability level for private armaments. Does anyone believe that people should own tanks or fighter jets? Where is the line, and who draws it?
The military uses bolt action rifles... a Remington 700.... you can go out and buy it. The military uses M14 rifles, which look more like a hunting rifle than an assault rifle. What would you categorize as a "military type gun"? Something that resembles the design of a military weapon? An AR15 is not the same type of gun that the military has. It resembles the same design as an M4 assault rifle, and it can use a 30 round magazine, but can it go full auto? No. Can it go three-round burst? No. It's like comparing an actual race car to the street model. It's not even close to the same thing.
Just to jump in late. As far as I am concerned, the public should have access to nothing faster than a bolt action rifle and hold nothing more than 12 bullets in a clip. Nothing semi-automatic.
So you would get rid of: Revolvers Semi-auto handguns Shotguns of all kinds Semi-auto hunting rifles that hold no more than five rounds And what makes you think that someone can't rack a bolt and shoot more accurately than some bozo that just squeezes the trigger as fast as he can with an AR? Listen, I'm not trying to be an ass. I'm just trying to point out that the bias against certain types of guns is misplaced. A gun is a gun, unless you want to go to black powder rifles that would be impossible to shoot more than once without going through a long reloading process. A shotgun doesn't necessarily have to be semi-auto, but could do just as much (if not more) damage as an AR 15. Also, I'd like to point out that the argument about needing an armed populace to guard against a tyrannical government, is fairly ludicrous at this point. I just don't see how any militia could fight our military. We have drones, we have guided missiles, we have satellites. A handful of people could wage a significant war against the populace of this country.
