VA shooting

[Jhony5]

I'd like to hear someone tell me why we need to have assault riffles on our streets?

 

My only issue with them is that they set a bad precedence for those of us that just want to own guns for personal protection.

 

I can't put a bayonet om my mini 14 or it becomes an assault rifle.

Ya I hear ya, thats dumb to allow someone to own a gun that can have such a high capacity large caliber round, with such fervent firing repetition, then make it illegal to put a knife on it, a knife that would otherwise be legal. Makes no sense.

 

don't remember hearing anything about assault weapons used in the mass killings.

The case in Australia that spurred the movement for an all-out gun ban, was indeed a mass shooting involving an assault rifle. This is my fear with assault riffles. One of these days some fucking douche is gonna go ape shit with an AK and murder 100 people in a few minutes. Then the all out gun banishment in America will have speed and cause.

 

The worst shootout in American history, between police and a gunman, was in Los Angeles after a bank robbery. The cops were so caught off guard by the use of armor piercing rounds being fired at hundreds of rounds per minute, that they were powerless to stop it. The rounds went through cars, even the engine blocks.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9702/28/shootout.update/

[hugo]

The fact is the assault at Va Tech has produced no outcry for gun control (besides from the usual gun control nuts), much less banning of weapons. I suspect a similar assault with an assault rifle would at most provoke another ban on assault weapons.

 

In politics things usually follow a slippery slope. The proponents of gun control don't want just a ban on assault weapons. You let them ban assault weapons they will go on to the next item in their agenda. Don't give them an inch.

[cybacaT]

hugo

 

It's already a balancing act - there are some weapons allowed...others not.

 

So we have to look at each item on it's merits, and the question remains - for what reason do regular American citizens need assault rifles?

 

Paranoia about the banning of all guns isn't a valid answer. The justification used to ban assault rifles does not necessarily apply to many other weapons.

[hugo]

hugo

 

It's already a balancing act - there are some weapons allowed...others not.

 

So we have to look at each item on it's merits, and the question remains - for what reason do regular American citizens need assault rifles?

 

Paranoia about the banning of all guns isn't a valid answer. The justification used to ban assault rifles does not necessarily apply to many other weapons.

 

I look at it like it like a football game (American football) and giving the proponents of gun control an assault weapon ban is akin to giving them a first down.

 

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

 

-U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," February 5, 1995, speaking about her authorship of the 1994 "assault weapons" ban

 

Washington Post editorial (September 15, 1994)

No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.

[cybacaT]

hugo

 

The US is a democracy last time I checked. Let the people decide.

 

I believe the majority WOULD want a ban on assault rifles, and don't see any justification for regular citizens needing assault rifles...any more than regular citizens need RPGs.

 

So they should be banned.

 

When it comes to a blanket ban, there's no denying that many people (including myself) see that as a positive step for public safety. But there are plenty of shooting, hunting etc groups that would be impacted. Once again - let the people decide.

 

I can only speculate, but I don't think there would be the numbers for an outright ban in the US.

 

So...there's no justification for NOT banning assault rifles merely because you fear a total ban might be put to the vote. Unless of course you fear democracy, and fear that the majority of Americans might want a total ban...?

[hugo]

We have a constitutional republic. Our founding fathers put in many obstacles to rule by a temporary majority. The founders, rightfully, feared pure democracy. Of course, you kept mentioning 30K gun deaths earlier, despite the fact assault weapons account for a small percentage of that number.