New shooting. Can anyone defend owning assault weapons?

You know my views about guns. I am wondering if anyone here can defend the idea of citizens being about to buy and possess assault rifles in light of the latest in an unending string of tragedies involving firearms?

An 'assault rifle' fires at virtually the same rate of fire of any semi-automatic hand gun. Hand guns can also have 30 round magazines like the shooter from the Gabby Gifford incident. You ban assault rifles, by definition, you have to ban all semi-automatic firearms, too.

Also, an AR-15 round is a glorified .22 caliber round.

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

An 'assault rifle' fires at virtually the same rate of fire of any semi-automatic hand gun. Hand guns can also have 30 round magazines like the shooter from the Gabby Gifford incident. You ban assault rifles, by definition, you have to ban all semi-automatic firearms, too.

Also, an AR-15 round is a glorified .22 caliber round.

That makes sense. Follow that train of thought.

Also, if an assault weapon is virtually no worse that a hand gun, why is the military, SWAT teams etc not just using handguns?

The only advantage something like an AR-15 has on hand guns is accuracy at longer distances. But, most don't have the proper training to fire long distances on the run anyways. Hand guns can be concealed easier, so one could argue they're more dangerous. Connecticut has an assault rifle ban, doesn't seem like it affected the event this past week.

Originally Posted by Constantine

That makes sense. Follow that train of thought.

Also, if an assault weapon is virtually no worse that a hand gun, why is the military, SWAT teams etc not just using handguns?

Police and military (typically) are highly trained with these weapons. They're also typically shooting at subjects at longer distances that are also firing back. They all have hand guns as well, but when they can't get close to their target, they need something more accurate in long distances. Normal citizens buy assault rifles when they do these acts because they're ignorant and just buy the scariest weapon. They don't know a 30 round Glock 23 is just as deadly because they're firing at defenseless targets, thus not needing to fire from long distances for risk of harm.

Originally Posted by Constantine

You know my views about guns. I am wondering if anyone here can defend the idea of citizens being about to buy and possess assault rifles in light of the latest in an unending string of tragedies involving firearms?

Look into why and what America was founded on

This is fuckin stupid. If "citizens" can go buy and own an assault rifle.. Who says they won't be the next gunmen? Now they have an assault rifle and at any time can walk into a building and begin shooting.

Originally Posted by aphhpa

This is ****in stupid. If "citizens" can go buy and own an assault rifle.. Who says they won't be the next gunmen? Now they have an assault rifle and at any time can walk into a building and begin shooting.

This makes absolutely no sense at all

Originally Posted by aphhpa

This is ****in stupid. If "citizens" can go buy and own an assault rifle.. Who says they won't be the next gunmen? Now they have an assault rifle and at any time can walk into a building and begin shooting.

I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and sh1t out a better argument than this.

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and sh1t out a better argument than this.

As mentioned "assault rifles" main advantage is distance, semi-auto rate of fire is similar to normal pistols.

The shootings in Connecticut was done with two small 9mm pistols at close range. Much harder to notice someone with a small handgun in their pocket than a large rifle.

god, this is worse than that cake farts thread.

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and sh1t out a better argument than this.

You're an idiot. It's a simple argument because its a simple answer. No, citizens should not be able to own assault rifles.

Originally Posted by aphhpa

You're an idiot. It's a simple argument because its a simple answer. No, citizens should not be able to own assault rifles.

So you're saying the nation you sworn to protect you don't abide by the principles it was founded on? Cool story non-civilian.


Not really a surprise you don't have a Ph.D or anything.

I would own an assault weapon. If I could.

I would feel safe.

Originally Posted by aphhpa

You're an idiot. It's a simple argument because its a simple answer. No, citizens should not be able to own assault rifles.

How about rifles in general? An "assault rifle" usually has a pistol grip and a removable magazine. You replace either, they are generally not considered an assault rifles.

There is a California ban on "assault rifles". I have an AR-15, which is your classic example of an Assault Rifle. I installed a bullet button, which locks the magazine in place, and cannot be removed without using the tip of a bullet to engage the release. It's legal. Or if I decided to install a rifle grip, it would also be legal.

My point is that this "Assault Rifle" is basically no different than a classic rifle, just some minor details.

Waiting for Jonjon or m3incline to post.. ..

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

Also, an AR-15 round is a glorified .22 caliber round.

So I'm not making an argument either way here, but this is simplifying things wayyy too much. Yea, as far as projectile diameter they are almost the same but thats where it ends. A round out of an AR Has a muzzle vel of around 3000fps. Also the variations available on the core materials available for the 5.56 play a large role in its terminal ballistics. My state is unfriendly to guns so I'm not sure of anything but lead core rounds are even available but I'm just sayin...

Originally Posted by aphhpa

You're an idiot. It's a simple argument because its a simple answer. No, citizens should not be able to own assault rifles.

This is still heeeelarious. Our own MILITARY POLICE don't know the history and principals of our nation.


**** it, I'm moving to China. They're doing better anyway.

When I was in Japan about 10 years ago a guy with a knife went into a school and killed 10-17 kids. An instrument or tool is not the problem, but the insane individual that is willing to cause harm to children with whatever he/she can find is. There are other means besides guns that can cause harm.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/...ack/index.html