Such a smug, dumbass comment. How much more effective is an assault rifle in the murdering of 15 people at one time over some sort of knife? Enlighten us.
and what is the point of owning an assault rifle? It obviously is not for personal defense. Why the hell would I need to effectively shoot a point target at 550 meters away and have 30 rounds in a magazine to defend myself? You are obviously not defending yourself if you shoot someone 500 meters away. Thus the only logical reason one would own an assault rifle is either it is for their recreation(gun ranges etc) or for malicious intent.
Try homemade explosives and chemical attacks. Try driving a pickup truck into a crowd of people. There are a multitude of different ways to kill as many or more people without a gun. Banning guns will not cause things like this to stop.
Talk about false choices LOL. Give me a break. You were given an example of someone not using assault rifles and killed more people. In a zombie shooting gallery, you better use what you can carry the most ammo for. That ain't rifle ammo. Why? Why do people need to go to the quick-e-mart at 2am? Why do people NEED to go to a movie at 1am? I could have saved EVERY life. Your dismissal of this curfew is proof, you view the right to freedom higher than right to self defense and thus our fundamental disagreement. So, you didn't even try. Not surprised. 20 models with the exact same action. yet you did zero research. rate of fire of semi auto rifle = rate of fire of Glock used in vtech range is negligible as both 9mm and 5.56 will kill you But this is all changing the goal posts. You want to ban semi auto rifles. The page I linked and the picture I posted is a semi auto rifle. Why u want to ban it? thnx
no but it will alleviate the likely hood of these sort of attacks... There is no legitimate point for a civilian to have high capacity mags or assault rifles.
I don't care what the USMC told you, 5.56 is not an effective round for 500 yards. Sorry. Did you ever clear rooms in the USMC? My guess is you used a rifle correct?
Range does matter. Maybe not in the movie theater incident but in a place like Vtech it does matter. There is no legitimate reason for a civilian to own a high capacity rifle that is accurate 500+ meters away.
An assault rifle (or the civilian semi-auto version) is not capable at 500 yards. Accuracy or terminal ballistics. I know you shot at targets that far, but that was all BS. Sorry.
I meant yards but anyways that's besides the point. At 500 meters away 5.56 will still penetrate skin. Again give me a reason why a person needs to accurately shoot someone from 300+ yards away.
the fact that you are harping on the fact that i say "500" is trivial to the point I am making. An assault rifle has much greater range and capacity than a handgun. Plus rapid rate of fire with greater accuracy is easier with an assault rifle than a handgun.
? If your argument is against the capability of longer range shooting, you are barking up the wrong tree with small caliber semi-autos. They are the worst action for accuracy. Mil-grade rifles and ammo are good for about 2-3 MOA at best. A good bolt action will do .5 MOA every day. And when they get there will actually have the terminal ballistics to do something. Ah so you want to ban all rifle ammo and rifles?
cool story bro. Now go to a Marine Corps rifle range and stand on top of the target pits when they are shooting at the 500 yard line
I know you shoot at long ranges, the accuracy and terminal ballistics are against you. Sorry. 500 yards is a pipe dream.
The AR-15 unless modded was likely semi-automatic. How is the argument moot if we are talking about restrictions on guns to limit the scope of such tragedies? Not disputing that; in fact, I've acknowledged it as supporting the need for gun control. Realistically no amount of restrictions would keep these guys from killing some people. So all we can do is try to limit the carnage they will create. On of the tools to limit the damage they can do is restrict access to certain types of weaponry. Ultimately, I'd prefer a guy to walk into a theater and start to try knifing people, or if he walked in armed, I'd prefer the guy to be shooting with a smaller magazine with bullets that do less damage, with a gun that has less stopping power rather shooting them and at them with a semi-automatic rifle with a large magazine. The goal is to limit how many people they are going to kill. That's exactly why we have any restrictions at all on weaponry, the goal as always is to make it that must harder for individuals to take the largest amount of life. If you are defending your home in pretty much all home invasion scenarios you are going to want a semi-automatic handgun over a semi-automatic rifle. If you are attacked in public and need to use lethal force, you are going to want to have a handgun. I guess if we ever enter a **** hits the fan scenario where roving bands of looters are overrunning your neighborhood, you'd like to have an AR-15 with a large magazine. Why's that? Because you want to be able to kill as much people as possible before they take you and your family out. The thing is, I don't see that scenario as sufficient self-defense justification for having such easy access to those types of weapons. Again and again in this thread, I've bet met with the response, "but you are taking away freedoms." The thing is, we are constantly restrict freedoms, even those provided in the Bill of Rights, when it serves the public good. We restrict tons of practices that are specifically called for in the old testament, the ability of some individuals to exercise all facets of their religion. We restrict certain types of speech by time, place and manner, we restrict based on content, and we also restrict commercial speech. How is the ability to own a specific type of gun or sale of a specific type of bullet or certain size of magazine any different. It all comes down to how we weigh the relative rights involved. That's why the relative deadliness of weapons and their social utility matters a hell of a lot to the discussion of restrictions on the right to have guns.
That isn't the definition of an assault rifle. What is your response to the fact all magazines over 10 rounds were banned for 5 years prior to the Columbine shootings? Stopped nothing.
no ****... greater the distance the more the accuracy and terminal ballistics will be against you. My whole point is that an assault rifle is unnecessary for a regular person for self defense. It is either used as a hobby or malicious reason in this country.
Guns are designed to kill things. There's a difference between taking something and using it for a purpose that is not intended and using a gun.
You argument is these rifles are effective at long range thus dangerous and not needed. WE both know they are actually CRAP at long ranges and at long ranges a high capacity magazine becomes less meaningful. So knowing this I am unsure of the construction of your argument.
