@EvesHarvest:
Let\'s address your points one at a time.
\"I guess they are good for hunting if you are a lousy shot.\" Are you implying that assault weapons are inherently more accurate than other types of guns used for hunting? Probably not. I\'ll stick my neck out and take an educated guess you are referring to the number of rounds an assault weapon can hold. Classic gun grabber rationale...it stirs up visions of Rambo with an M2, turning poor little Bambi into venison sausage under a hail of machine gun fire. Reality check Eves: assault weapons are semi-automatic, not fully automatic machine guns. LOTS of hunting rifles that would not fall into the assault weapon category are semi-auto, and have magazines capable of carrying multiple rounds. Are you suggesting that ALL semi-automatic weapons should be banned from hunting? BTW - if the shooter fires and misses - it really doesn\'t matter how many rounds are in the magazine. Gunfire is loud. If you miss the target, it tends to become frightened, and it runs away. Your implication that an assault weapon gives the hunter some sort of unfair advantage is ludicrous.
\"If we can prevent someone who\'s gone off the deep end from being able to efficiently slaughter as many people as possible before they shoot themselves or are stopped, why wouldn\'t we?\" Once again, the assault weapon is no more lethal than any other semi-automatic weapon. Remember the horror of Columbine. Eric Harris, was armed with a ban compliant Hi-Point 995. He brought 13 of the ten round magazines and fired 96 rounds before he killed himself. And this event occurred during the Assault Weapon\'s ban between 1994 and 2003. Additionally, Seung-Hui Cho again showed the futility of regulating magazine capacity during the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. He carried nineteen ten- and fifteen-round magazines in his backpack. He used 17 magazines, firing off close to 170 rounds (all ten round compliant) before killing himself. Per Dianne Feinstein\'s own data, since 2004, after the Assault Weapon\'s ban was lifted, a total of 385 people have been murdered. That comes out to less than 50 people per year. 385 people is not insignificant. But it\'s a clear indication that the problem is not with the assault weapon. Again, assault weapons are no more lethal than any other semi-automatic weapon.
Additionally, we had an assault weapon\'s ban in place for 10 years. It did not even begin to reduce gun related homicides. If it didn\'t work previously, why would it work now? Clue: think about Einstein\'s definition of insanity.
\"Most gun owners agree with universal background checks. I imagine a lot of them would be for a ban on assault rifles.\" Really? That\'s pure speculation. But here is an idea. Let\'s put this to a public vote. Let\'s allow the voters of America to cast their ballot either for or against an assault weapon\'s ban. But we don\'t do this. Instead we have politicians running around, beating their chests as Andrew Cuomo did screaming about how you don\'t need 10 rounds to kill a deer. Emotional, yes. Logical? Not even slightly. Second point...you use the term Assault Rifle. Naughty, naughty! We are talking about Assault Weapons, not Assault Rifles. I know it\'s a minor slip - but there is a significant difference. The term Assault Weapon was created in 1989 by anti-gun groups to differentiate between fully automatic, military weapons and the semi-automatic weapons that look similar.
\"They are fun to shoot? What kind of an argument is that? \" It\'s a far better argument in favor of keeping assault weapons legal, than any I\'ve heard for making them illegal. Some people enjoy target shooting. It\'s a legitimate sport. Competition shooters use assault weapons all the time.
\"Some people find it fun to go 100 miles an hour, that doesn\'t men we should compromise everyone\'s safety for them to do so.\" So, by your logic here - are you suggesting we should also ban any car that goes over 100 mph? Ironically, 2nd Amendment supporters often reference the fact that more people die in car crashes than are killed by guns. And it\'s the gun grabbers who always say, \"that\'s a stupid argument.\"
I agree - cars are very dangerous if used irresponsibly. Yet no one is suggesting we ban them. Guns are also extremely dangerous when used irresponsibly. So what is your point?
Since these evil assault weapons are such efficient killers, let me ask you something:
The Ruger company makes a weapon called the Mini-14. It is a .223 caliber carbine rifle (a popular caliber with AR-15 style rifles). There are currently four versions of this rifle. One version is called the Ranch Rifle, which does not fit the definition of an assault weapon (provided it\'s fitted with a magazine with a capacity of 10 rounds or less). There is another version of this same rifle, called the Tactical Rifle which would be classified as an assault weapon because it has a collapsable stock, pistol grip, flash suppressor, and possibly some other features. You could also fit this weapon with the same magazine of 10 rounds or less. Both guns are equally lethal, yet the Tactical Rifle would be banned, while the Ranch Rifle would not. Why is that?
My biggest issue is that the people who want to ban assault weapons are not being honest. The REAL reason you want these weapons banned is because they look scary. They look more like military style weapons, and therefore, they must be more dangerous than standard old hunting rifles, etc. The problem is, you cannot provide a shred of evidence or data to support such a claim.
Waiting patiently for an answer...
